Sitting of 15 May 2000

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

    Pensioners
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the Government's policies towards pensioners. [120936]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have introduced long-term reforms to enable everyone to receive a decent pension after a lifetime of work. For today's pensioners, we are spending £6.5 billion more, with about half that amount going to Britain's 3 million poorest pensioners.
    Mr. Paterson: One of the great successes of the previous Government—[Laughter.] One of the great successes of the previous Government was to encourage the establishment of pension funds, which now exceed those in the rest of Europe put together. The present Government responded with a £5 billion annual raid on pension funds, so the savings ratio is going down and the
    2
    average 30-year-old must put away a further £200 a year to stay level. That policy is wicked and counterproductive. It was not forecast in the Labour manifesto. Will the Government withdraw it?
    Mr. Darling: I have not come across the hon. Gentleman before, but I am glad to note that he has a sense of humour. He will be aware that occupational pensions had been growing for some considerable time before the last Conservative Government. Indeed, it is because of the success of occupational pension funds, which have been growing since the 1950s and 1960s, that so many people now have more income in retirement than they would otherwise have had.
    One of the objects of the Government's reforms has been to ensure that, in future, 5 million more people will also have the option of getting into funded pensions through stakeholder pensions. We believe that the best way of ensuring that people have a decent income on which to retire is to encourage as many as appropriate to get into funded pensions. In addition, the state second pension will benefit 18 million people on lower incomes. Neither of those matters was dealt with by the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Although Labour Members have every right to urge the Government to give the best possible deal to pensioners, and to do even better than they are doing now, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party—which cut the link between earnings and pensions, which did not introduce free television licences, which would abolish the winter fuel allowance and which increased VAT on fuel—has no right even to raise the subject in the Chamber?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is right. It is interesting that despite what the Conservatives have been saying over the past few weeks, the shadow Chancellor repeated on television last week that the Conservatives were also committed to increasing pensions in line with prices, and no higher than that. In addition,

    3
    the Conservatives are against the minimum income guarantee, which means that many pensioners would lose their £14 or £15 a week extra through that help; they would abolish the winter fuel payment, now worth £150; and they were the ones who doubled VAT on fuel, which hammered many of the poorest pensioners.
    It is worth noting that because of this Government, over £6.5 billion more is being spent in support of pensioner incomes, and more than half that sum is going to the poorest 3 million pensioners. I believe that that is the right thing to do to tackle pensioner poverty which, like child poverty, has no place in a civilised, decent society. It is a scandal that the Tories presided over such high levels of pensioner poverty because of their unwillingness to do anything to help those who needed help most.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State said that after a lifetime of hard work, people were entitled to a decent pension. However, he knows that millions of married women retire on, if anything at all, just a pittance—as little as 8p a week in pension—because they opted for the married women's reduced rate. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of them claim that they were never told of the implications of that choice, or were actively misled? Will he join my call and institute an inquiry into the claims of those women, who feel a real sense of injustice?
    Mr. Darling: I noticed in a Sunday newspaper a couple of weeks ago that the hon. Gentleman raised the point and said that he would take it up with me. I am surprised that he has waited for two weeks before doing so. Following that Sunday newspaper article, I decided to check what happened. The law was changed in 1977 because we did not want married women to pay the reduced stamp as they would lose out in later life. I looked at the leaflets that were available, which I may say are infinitely better than the ones produced by the last lot on inherited SERPS, because they explained what happened. If the hon. Gentleman can come up with anyone who has been misled, which he has not done in the past two weeks—perhaps his first port of call should have been me, rather than a journalist—I will certainly look into it.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall how time and again, during the period of the previous Administration, many of us virtually begged for some action to help pensioners during harsh winters, when the only scheme that was in operation meant that the temperature had to be freezing for seven consecutive days before it came into effect? Should we not warn pensioners of what would be likely to happen if there were a change of Government? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there is any truth in the newspaper story that next year the winter fuel allowance will be consolidated into the pension, that would be most welcome? Many of the more elderly pensioners participated in the most crucial war that this country has ever waged, and we should always remember with gratitude the role that they played from 1939 to 1945.
    Mr. Darling: On the last point, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Many people who are retiring, or have retired, are on low incomes because either they did not make enough contributions to receive a pension or they did not have the opportunity to save through an occupational or
    4
    other second pension. When we came into office, 2 million pensioners were living on very low incomes, so we introduced the minimum income guarantee. We are spending some £6.5 billion—£2.5 billion more than it would have cost simply to restore the earnings link—almost half of which goes to the poorest 3 million pensioners who lost out in the Tory years.
    My hon. Friend is also right about the winter fuel payment. The only action that the Tories took on winter fuel bills in the last Parliament was to double VAT on fuel. We have reduced VAT as well as introducing the minimum income guarantee.
    Mr. David Willetts: Does the Secretary of State recall an article in The Times last week headed, "Darling U-turn over Pensions"? It was a report of the Secretary of State's speech at the annual dinner of the Association of British Insurers. I was so keen for the speech to reach a wider audience that I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Secretary of State to place a copy in the Library. He replied:
    My remarks to the annual dinner of the Association of British Insurers were not delivered from a prepared text.—[Official Report, 11 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 478W.]
    I have a document that looks suspiciously like the prepared text of the Secretary of State's remarks to the ABI. He knows his obligations under the ministerial code, so why did he not place the text in the Library? The explanation is clear: there has been a U-turn.
    The Secretary of State used to say that stakeholder pensions were for people on low and moderate earnings; he now claims that they are for people on high earnings. He has changed his mind because he knows that the policy would otherwise fail. He will not tempt low earners with stakeholder pensions; instead, there will be a churning of people out of existing pension schemes into stakeholder pensions. The speech prepared the ground for the policy failure. It is not the speech that is ill prepared; it is the policy that is unprepared.
    Mr. Darling: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in two parts. I take his allegation seriously. He claims that I delivered a speech from a prepared text; I did not—he has a draft that was placed in the Library by mistake. If I had placed it in the Library and said that it was a copy of my text, it would have been misleading because it is not the speech that I delivered to the ABI.
    The hon. Gentleman was especially interested in my comment about stakeholder pensions. He will see from the draft that it is not there.
    Mr. Willetts: It is.
    Mr. Darling: No, it is not—the words I used are not there.
    I saw the article in The Times; it was completely misleading. I said that we had always made it clear that the target audience for stakeholder pensions was moderate and higher earners, as we stated in the Green Paper that we published in December 1998. I contrasted that with the state second pension, which is aimed at lower earners who earn less than £9,500 a year. Our pensions policy is devised to help those on moderate and higher earnings

    5
    through stakeholder pensions, occupational pensions and other methods; the state second pension is devised to help those on lower incomes.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that far too many people who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee do not get it? How will he ensure that pensioners who are most in need receive the money to which they are entitled? If they do not receive it, the system fails.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. We are writing to all pensioners who, according to our records, may be entitled to the minimum income guarantee. On top of that, we shall run a major television advertising campaign, which will start to be shown on television from the end of this month until the autumn. We hope that we can thereby reach as many people as possible who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee because we want them to claim it.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the proportion of average wages represented by the basic state pension has dropped to 16.5 per cent., compared with 23.1 per cent. in the 1980s? Does he not accept that pensioners have a right to benefit from that general increase in incomes—a right towards which they have contributed by virtue of their national insurance contributions, and which they earned during their working lives?
    Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that pensioners' incomes do not consist of only the basic state pension; most people who retire now receive the basic state pension plus a second pension, either through SERPS—or, in future, the state second pension—or through their occupational pension, for which they have always received help through tax relief and so on.
    I should have thought that, coming from where he does, the right hon. Gentleman would have agreed with the main thrust of our policy, which is to ensure that we spend half the amount of money that we spend on pensioners on those who lost out—those who have either retired or who are retiring on very low incomes.
    If we had introduced the earnings link, clearly that would have cost us less than we are spending, but it would not have helped the poorest pensioners. They benefit not only through the minimum income guarantee, but through the winter fuel payment, which is neither taxable nor taken into account for benefit purposes. I make no apology for the fact that the Government's first priority has been to help those poorest pensioners. The next job is to ensure that those with modest occupational pensions and modest savings are helped through the new pensioner credit.

    Housing Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Peter Brooke: If he will make a statement on progress in combating housing benefit fraud. [120937]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Countering housing benefit fraud continues to be a high priority for us.
    6
    The housing Green Paper, published on 4 April, sets out our plans and proposals to improve housing benefit and tackle fraud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently wrote to all council chief executives warning them to remedy weaknesses identified by the benefit fraud inspectorate. He made it plain in that letter that, if the BFI reports a local authority's persistent failings, we will direct the standards to be achieved by that authority with time scales for improvement and enforce them rigorously.
    Mr. Brooke: Does the Minister recognise that those vanguard local authorities that have invested in fraud prevention measures may be unfairly penalised if the weekly benefits savings targets do not accurately reflect the success that they have achieved in prevention?
    Angela Eagle: We changed the way in which the weekly benefits savings subsidy system worked in response to concerns expressed by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, which showed that it was an inaccurate test of the savings achieved. Weekly benefits savings are now much more accurately assessed, but, to recognise the change from the old system to the new, early this year we announced a change in the way in which we would pay subsidy, which included new incentives for local authorities to prosecute fraudsters and incentives for those local authorities that participate in the verification framework.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend extend her examination of benefit fraud to the non-delivery of benefit to legitimate claimants? Is she aware that in Hackney and Islington, the service is provided by a company called IT Net, and that, as a result of its inefficiency and incompetence, thousands of legitimate claimants have been threatened with the loss of their homes—council, housing association or private? Is not it also a fraud against them if their perfectly correct claim for a benefit is not met by the service and they end up being homeless as a result?
    Angela Eagle: We are well aware of the problems being experienced in my hon. Friend's constituency and are keeping a close eye on them. I sympathise very much with the points that he made. It is clearly the case that those who are entitled to housing benefit should receive it in a timely fashion, but I must point out that under the framework of law left to us by the Conservative party, the legal responsibilities for delivering housing benefit lie with the local authority.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the hon. Lady recall press releases being issued early this year, trumpeting the success that the Government claim on housing benefit fraud? When they were released, was she aware that the situation on the ground was exactly the reverse? Is she aware that successful prosecutions for housing benefit fraud are down by 50 per cent. and that 40 per cent. of local authorities have no formal prosecution policy?
    What action will she take to ensure that the Department correctly briefs Ministers on the true facts of housing benefit fraud? Given that the right hon. Member for

    7
    Birkenhead (Mr. Field) described the Government's fraud policy as nothing more than
    the normal roller-towel press release…
    will she undertake to issue fewer press releases about beating housing benefit fraud and to ensure greater application?
    Angela Eagle: An awful lot of nonsense about housing benefit fraud appears in the press. A recent example of that was in The Sunday Times this week, which produced a hotchpotch of misinterpretation, misrepresentation and muddle. One of the figures that it came up with was that
    the proportion of housing benefit fraud cases won…had collapsed from 38 per cent. to 18 per cent. in the space of a year.
    That is wrong. The 18 per cent. figure is an estimate for the first half of this year. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the volume of prosecutions referred to lawyers this year has increased by 47 per cent., which is far better than the rubbish we had when that Conservative lot opposite were in charge.

    Champion for Older People
    Ms Linda Perham: If he will make a statement on his role as the champion for older people. [120939]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are determined that people over the age of 50 should have the same range of opportunities and chances as everyone else. Too many of the over-50s are written off. The cost to society is substantial; the cost to individuals is immense. Life should begin at 50, not end there.
    Ms Perham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and congratulate him on his appointment as the champion for older people. Does he agree that that will give a higher profile to the inter-ministerial group on older people, and impetus to the agenda in the performance and innovation unit report, "Winning the generation game", which is about improving the prospects of older people aged 50 to 65? Does he further agree that age discrimination is a great barrier to many older people at work? If the code of practice on age diversity in employment does not work, will the ministerial group consider legislation on that issue?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In 30 years' time, almost half the population will be over the age of 50, so we need to change the way in which we think and the way in which individuals and the Government prepare for that enormous change in the demography of this country. Moreover, almost a quarter of the population will be over retirement age, which is why it is necessary to make changes now for long-term pension provision.
    My hon. Friend's main point is about the workplace. It is a fact that many people over the age of 50 have retired not because they wanted to, but because they were forced out of employment. Unfortunately, for them discrimination is a fact of life. We have made it clear that if the code of practice that we published last year does not work, we will have to reconsider the matter. I am sure that every one of us would like to think that, if we are
    8
    over the age of 50, we have exactly the same chances and choices as people younger than that. Age discrimination is as unacceptable as any other form of discrimination.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I cannot help but observe that "Champion" was a wonder horse—the Secretary of State may be too young to remember that. It was a wonderful television programme, but it is a terrible description of an important job. In his new role, will the right hon. Gentleman assume responsibility for and take forward the pilot projects in the initiative on better government for older people, which have been extremely valuable? My area was one of the pilot areas. The money to mount these programmes to consult older people is running out. Is it the Government's intention to find the finance to enable them to continue and to be rolled out nationwide?
    Mr. Darling: I am not sure I remember "Champion the Wonder Horse"; my mum and dad were reluctant to get us a television set. It could be that the hon. Gentleman, despite his youthful looks, is much older than I am, and that is why he remembers it.
    One of my jobs is to examine pilot projects to discover whether they work. If they do not work, we will not continue with them. If they do work, and they ensure that older people are more involved in work, leisure activities or education, we want to encourage them. The object of this process is to ensure that Government and individuals focus on the fact that in the not-too-distant future almost half the population will be over the age of 50. That means that there has to be a seismic change in the way in which we all think about how to deal with what I believe is not a problem, but a great opportunity for this country.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: May I urge my right hon. Friend to give particular consideration to the plight of older people living in rural communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, who are somewhat remote from the facilities usually found in urban areas? Will he use his new post to take account of that significant group?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point, especially about transport. As he will know, one of the steps we have taken is the extension of concessionary travel to people who have retired, because we think they should have access to services and facilities. Our object must be to make opportunities for the over-50s as real in the country as they are in cities and towns.
    Mr. David Willetts: I join the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) in congratulating the Secretary of State on his new role as champion for older people. He said in the speech to the ABI that he did not prepare, or did not deliver, or whatever it was, that his job was
    to get people to think seriously about the challenges we face to ensure that everyone has the options and opportunities to make the most of their later lives.
    Given those responsibilities, why does he not begin by meeting the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, who dismissed pensioners as "racist" and "predominantly Conservative"? At least the latter is becoming true, I suppose. How about a meeting with the Secretary of

    9
    State for Northern Ireland, the Labour party's chief political strategist, who said that there was "no mileage" to be had from pensioners?
    Is not the truth that the right hon. Gentleman's target should not be Victor Meldrew, but closer to home? His target should be his colleagues, who abuse pensioners and therefore should not be surprised that pensioners are losing confidence in them.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's opportunism knows no bounds. He was a member of a Government who increased VAT on fuel, which hurt older people more than most. He was a member of a Government who did absolutely nothing to deal with the problems faced by older people who were often thrown out of work through no choice of their own. He is now a member of an Opposition who are against the new deal for the over-50s—he would deny help to people who need it. He is in no position to present himself as somehow being on the side of older people or pensioners.
    We are the party that, because of the economic stability that we are now building, has ensured that more people are in work, and we want more older people to be in work. We are increasing the amount that we spend on pensioners—£6.5 billion more than the Tories would ever have spent. The Tories' position on older people and pensioners is one of sheer opportunism, which the electorate have not forgotten.

    Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: How many claimants receive attendance allowance; and what plans he has to improve the application process for this benefit. [120940]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Just over 1.25 million people currently receive attendance allowance, and the number continues to rise. The Benefits Agency is keen to improve the services that it provides and to reduce the number of unsuccessful attendance allowance claims. It is trialling new ways of taking claims, which will make the process more accurate and sensitive to the needs of claimants. The trials will include home visits to gather the required information, instead of claimants having to complete a lengthy questionnaire.
    Mr. Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Many of my constituents who used to lead independent lives now need care and assistance from family, friends and Government. Will my hon. Friend assure me that those who clearly deserve attendance allowance will no longer have to humiliate themselves during a complicated application process?
    Mr. Bayley: The number of people qualifying for attendance allowance continues to rise. During our first two years in government, the number receiving it rose by some 45,000. We are very conscious that filling in the forms is difficult for some elderly people, especially the elderly confused. That is why we are testing a new way of taking claims, involving a Benefits Agency officer
    10
    visiting the person concerned, sitting down with him or her and orally collecting the information needed for the form to be filled in. We hope that that will help.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: One of the recommendations of the recent report on medical services by the Select Committee on Social Security was that sessional doctors who carry out assessments for attendance allowance should have the proper amount of training from the Sema Group to honour contractual obligations. In response to that, I have received representations from a constituent, who is a doctor, saying that Sema is prepared to provide the training, but not to pay the doctors for it. Has the Minister any leverage over that?
    Mr. Bayley: If the hon. Gentleman has an individual case to bring to my attention, he should do so, but let me tell him what the Government inherited and what we are doing about it. We inherited a training regime for the doctors who work for the Benefits Agency that was entirely ad hoc and that was run by a senior doctor in each boarding centre, but not against a national protocol. That meant that doctors were trained to different standards and to interpret evidence in different ways in different parts of the country. That led to confusion and to different decisions by Benefits Agency decision makers in different parts of the country.
    That was unacceptable, and we are changing that. We have established a national system of training. For the first time, we are using trained trainers—trained postgraduate medical trainers—to deliver that training. We are improving the training available to doctors. We are extremely concerned that Sema did not fulfil its quota of days for training, for which it has been paid, in its first year. We will ensure that it makes up the shortfall in its second year.
    Mr. Andrew George: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), what assessment has the Minister made of the Select Committee's finding that inaccurate assessments by examining medical practitioners are often given greater weight by appeal tribunals than those by consultants or general practitioners, and that examinations by EMPs are far too brief? What action will the Minister take to ensure that those assessments are improved?
    Mr. Bayley: If the hon. Gentleman had read the report in detail, he would have been aware of the many actions that we are taking. First, the Benefits Agency gives equal weight to all evidence, irrespective of the source—whether it be from a general practitioner, an examining medical practitioner engaged by the agency, or a hospital consultant. Secondly, there is no limit on the time that EMPs spend on an assessment. They are under instructions to spend whatever time is necessary to produce a report that will enable the questions that have been asked by the decision maker to be answered.

    New Deal (Lone Parents)
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for lone parents. [120941]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The new deal for lone parents is at the heart of our drive to end child poverty. More than 118,000 lone parents have participated in the new deal national programme and a further 20,000 took part in the earlier phases. One in three participants have obtained jobs—that is more than 46,000 since the new deal for lone parents started.
    As announced in the Budget, from April 2001 we will be asking lone parents with a youngest child of five or over to have a work-focused interview. We want to ensure that all lone parents find out about the choices and support available to help them to move into work.
    Mr. Brady: Was it not bad enough that each job created under the new deal for lone parents cost nearly £20,000—but is the Minister not especially embarrassed that the Government's own evaluation exercise has shown that lone parents living in the control areas were more likely to get back into work than those living in the new deal pilot areas?
    Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has just shown considerable ignorance about the evaluation that has been published. He quotes the figure of £20,000 per job. If he had read the whole evaluation, he would have seen that the estimate was £1,388 per job. It is no good him selectively quoting—and drawing wrong conclusions from—a published estimate but not acknowledging another aspect of it—the £1,388.
    We have been completely surrounded by different estimates from Opposition Members of the cost per job of the new deal for lone parents—there has been a wide range of incorrect estimates. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said in June 1998 that the cost was £30,000. A couple of months later, he said that it was £22,000. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said the next day that it was actually £24,000. Following that, in February 1999, he said that it was £15,000. A couple of days later, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) also said that it was £15,000.
    Then, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that it was £24,000—but, in April 2000, he said that it was £19,000. Actually, the figure is £1,388.
    Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
    Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should just like to give you notice that, after that utterly inadequate answer to my question, I shall seek leave to raise the issue in a debate on the Adjournment.
    Madam Speaker: In that case, I must move on to the next question.

    Pension Increases
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If he will estimate the cost in the next financial year of linking pensions to the rise in average earnings. [120942]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): It is a pity that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) did not realise that he would stop debate on the question—
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend did realise.
    Mr. Rooker: If that was the intention, it is unfortunate.
    The cost of uprating the basic state pension in line with average earnings in 2001–02 would be an additional £400 million, on top of the expected £375 million increase in line with prices. Those figures are based on this autumn's estimates of a price increase of 3.4 per cent. and an earning increase of 4.9 per cent. Continuing to uprate in line with earnings would cost more than £6 billion by 2010, and £28 billion by 2030.
    Mr. Prentice: Those figures are daunting, but may I express the situation in a different way? If pensions were linked to the increase in average earnings, this year, pensioners would be receiving a pension increase of £2.85 per week rather than 75p per week. I should also like to know why we cannot just tax well-off pensioners. The reason for not doing that is just lost on me.
    The minimum income guarantee—[Interruption.] I do not want to raise my voice. The minimum income guarantee, which is going to the poorest pensioners, is linked to the earnings increase. However, for the next 10 years, all other pensioners will be receiving a real-terms increase of about 2 per cent. Over time, will there be a convergence in the treatment of the two groups? Does it worry my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers, as it worries me, that—with the minimum income guarantee and with the new pensioners tax credit—we shall be means-testing an ever-growing number of pensioners?
    Mr. Rooker: These are indeed daunting figures, and that is why we should not play around with them. As my right hon. Friend has made clear, if we had only increased the basic state pension in line with earnings, by this year—within the Government's first three years—we would have saved more than £800 million. However, that money has gone, quite deliberately, in a redistributive way, to the poorest pensioners. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, the £6.5 billion extra that will be spent on the pensioner population is £2.4 billion more than we would have spent if we had only increased the pension in line with earnings, re-establishing the earnings link. As I said, that extra money has gone to the poorest pensioners. I challenge any hon. Member, least of all those behind me, to argue against a redistribution towards the poorest pensioners.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister agree that it is slightly odd that, when a Labour Back Bencher lobs a particularly sycophantic question to the Secretary of State about his being the champion of pensioners, he replies in a purring mode, whereas, when a more independent Labour Back Bencher asks a slightly more penetrating question, the Minister of State answers in a rather petulant mode? Will the Minister please tell me why most of my pensioner constituents believe that, in opposition, Labour Members promised to change the linkage to earnings? How does the Secretary of State have

    13
    the gall to claim the title of the champion of pensioners when, after the measly 75p per week pension increase, most of my pensioner constituents believe that he is not the pensioners' champion, but the pensioners' Scrooge?
    Mr. Rooker: In answer to the first part of the question, I assure the House that my earlier answer would have been the same regardless of who had asked the question. Although I am not prepared to play around with those daunting figures, I will spell out the facts of the situation. It is a fact that, today, the average single pensioner's income is £132. It is also a fact that very few people exist on the basic state pension—which, as every hon. Member knows, is not intended to be the sole source of income. Pensioners should have either the minimum income guarantee or other pension incomes. At the last election, the Conservatives, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats all proposed exactly the same formula for raising the basic state pension.
    Miss Geraldine Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that the Government have helped the poorest group of pensioners, we must turn to the group of pensioners in the middle—those with small occupational or second pension schemes? They rightly feel that they need more help and support, but it would be foolish to restore the link with earnings across the board. That would do nothing to help the group in the middle.
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. Wherever we put a limit, there will be some above and some below. No doubt, delegations from both sides of the House will argue about any change to the limits. After 14 years of the savings limits for pensioners being frozen by the previous Government, we have already announced that, from next April, the £3,000 and £8,000 limits will go to £6,000 and £12,000. That will bring 500,000 more pensioners within the minimum income guarantee. We announced in the Budget that, by November, we shall publish proposals for a pensioner credit that, in some way, will enable us to help those with small occupational pensions. Those with tiny occupational pensions—say between zero and £10 a week—would not be helped if we put £10 a week on the basic state pension. We would not be able to help the poorest pensioners because of the minimum income guarantee. We have to get help to those with small occupational pensions that they have saved and paid for. They rightly feel that the problem is a festering sore that no Government have so far dealt with. We are committed to dealing with it and have said so.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is the right hon. Gentleman happy that today the Secretary of State has said that the stakeholder system is aimed at moderate to high earners, when he himself has mentioned 10 times in Hansard that it is for low and moderate earners—and Ministers collectively have said that 44 times? Does he agree that, to curry favour with pensioners, the Department has spun the idea that they will get £2 from next April—or perhaps it might be £5 if they roll in the winter fuel payment? Perhaps he may care to comment on which of those is correct. Will he also tell us why the Government have spun tax credits for pensioners,
    14
    when they will have to wait until 2002 for them—after the general election? Is not the Government's pension policy all spin and no substance?
    Mr. Rooker: I must disabuse the hon. Lady of one notion: we are talking not about a pensioner tax credit, but a pensioner credit, which is not the same. Only one third of pensioners pay tax. We want to get help to those identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). They will not pay tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the official Government figures, which are correct. Having sat through umpteen hours upstairs with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the hon. Lady knows that we intend to target funded stakeholder pensions on those earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. We have also said that the state second pension, with its low earners boost, is particularly helpful for those earning less than £10,000 a year. They are not excluded from stakeholder pensions; it depends on individual circumstances. Stakeholder pensions are available to people earning more than £20,000 a year and to people not at work, because they are not work related. However, the target group is those earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year who have no second pension. They will retire in abject poverty unless they get a second pension. That means an occupational pension, a personal pension or the friendly stakeholder pension.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Mr. Phil Sawford: How many pensioners in the Kettering constituency are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee; and what steps he is taking to encourage further take-up of this benefit. [120944]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): About 2,400 pensioners in Kettering are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee. To encourage pensioners to take up their entitlement, we have launched a national helpline, which has already received nearly 31,000 calls in the last five weeks. As I said earlier, we are launching a national television advertising campaign on 30 May to ensure that as many pensioners as possible get their entitlement.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I welcome the work that he is doing to help our poorest pensioners and to ensure that pensioners are aware of their entitlements to MIG. Does he agree, however, that many pensioners will lose out on other benefits if they take up MIG, and will he consider the wishes of the many Labour Members who want him to restore the link with earnings?
    Mr. Darling: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has just said, if we restored the earnings link, the very pensioners my hon. Friend is concerned about—the poorest—would be worse off. Because of the way in which the benefit system works, they would lose their benefit pound for pound. That is why we chose a different approach in MIG, which increases the amount of money pensioners on MIG receive by £14 a week for those under 75 and £16 for those over 75. I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree with me that the object of Government policy should be to ensure that the oldest and poorest

    15
    pensioners, who lost out in the 18 years that the Tories were in power, get the most help. Restoring the earnings link would have saved us £2.5 billion. We are spending more than that would have cost, but half the amount that we are spending goes on the poorest 3 million pensioners.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: How do I convince a 50-year-old man in my constituency—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The substantive question is about the Kettering constituency.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the future of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [120945]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): MIG is directly helping 1.6 million of the poorest pensioners. It should help about another 500,000 of the poorest pensioners who do not claim it, for various reasons. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, a major Government-sponsored take-up campaign will commence on 30 May. We will write to 2 million people among whom, we suspect, are the 500,000 who have been missed out. As I have already said, we are examining for the longer term how best MIG can provide help to those pensioners who have provided for themselves, particularly those with occupational and other small pensions and modest savings.
    Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that answer and I welcome the publicity campaign. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that large numbers of pensioners do not understand MIG, and that there is widespread concern, if not hostility, among pensioners because of the complexities of the social security system? In the review of MIG, will he look again at the concept and the way in which it is applied, so that it can become a minimum income guarantee for all pensioners, not just those on income support?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend will know that, as I have said, more than 1.6 million pensioners are already successfully claiming MIG. Other pensioners are claiming council tax benefit and housing benefit and are eligible for MIG but, for some reason, do not claim it. That is a dilemma that we hope to solve through the take-up campaign.
    I do not accept that hostility to MIG exists, although there is hostility to the process because some people do not want to go near a Benefits Agency office. However, they will not need to do so, because, once the campaign starts in May, they can apply over the telephone. All that they will have to do is sign and date a form. There has been hostility to the 40-page form which, among other things, asks whether one is pregnant, but that will not need to be filled in. Only the parts directly relevant will be needed.
    Any remaining hostility will be assuaged by the announcement made in the middle of March that we will dislocate all pensions activity from the Benefits Agency to a totally new pensions service that will be devoted exclusively to pensions and pensioners.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The Minister keeps referring to people on small occupational pensions. Some
    16
    pensioners with occupational pensions look enviously at the minimum income guarantee. Will he say how large a lifetime pension fund they would have to have saved to match the minimum income guarantee?
    Mr. Rooker: Not off the top of my head, as I am not armed with those figures. However, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's argument is not somewhat disreputable, in that he is setting one group of pensioners against another. He talks about people who do not have an occupational pension, a personal pension or a second pension, but many people never had the chance to make such provision, or could not afford it. He implies that somehow they have been feckless in their lives and that they therefore do not deserve the help of the minimum income guarantee.
    Mr. Frank Field: I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a group of people who have been anything but feckless, and about whom I wrote to him after the issue arose at the previous Social Security Question Time. Some people with a small occupational pension are thereby ineligible for MIG. However, if they had been eligible for MIG, they would have received passported benefits, free housing and free council tax. In my letter, I drew attention to a simple reform. At present, eligibility is determined according to MIG income qualifying levels, but a better system would be to calculate the level of income for which people would be eligible if they were on MIG and gained housing benefit and council tax benefit in full.
    I copied my letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wrote back to say that he had passed it on to my right hon. Friend, who was in charge of the review. It is good news, for pensioners and for the House, to have my right hon. Friend in charge of the review. When will he be reporting?
    Mr. Rooker: By "he", my right hon. Friend means my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, as the pensioners' champion, is quite rightly leading the review. The point that my right hon. Friend makes is correct. Pensioners who have an income because they have a small occupational pension above the minimum income guarantee can be worse off under the current benefit provision: because they do not get MIG, they lose the other benefits. Those are the people to whom the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred. They are exactly the target group at whom our review is directed. We will report back to the House by the November statement, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced. By that time, we will have a proposal to deal with that very group of people.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: How do I convince a 50-year-old man in my constituency, on a low income and with no savings, to save for his retirement, given that he would need to save £100,000 so as not to qualify for the minimum income guarantee? Would he not be far better off spending that money on himself over the next 15 years, as he then could enjoy the minimum income guarantee?
    Mr. Rooker: Well, I hope that the hon. Gentleman spelt out the facts of life to his constituent. Anyone of 50 who has not provided for a second pension is leaving

    17
    it a bit late. People on low pay cannot do much in that regard in the last 10 years of their working lives. The tragedy is that, for some years to come, people will come off the conveyor belt of work and enter retirement having not had the opportunity to save and put money by for a decent second pension. They will be dependent on the state, and the state will therefore have a duty to help them.
    We have introduced the minimum income guarantee for those people who did not have the opportunity, during their working lives, to make provision for a second pension. I hope that the hon. Gentleman had the guts and courage to tell his constituent that the Tories would abolish it.

    Disability-related Benefits (Appeals System)
    Ms Julie Morgan: What plans he has to shorten the appeal process for disability-related benefits. [120946]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We have introduced a new system to streamline and modernise the appeals system for all benefits. For disability living allowance and attendance allowance, the right of appeal can now be exercised at an earlier stage. The appeals service has already made significant improvements to clear backlogs and reduce waiting times. We are seeking to improve the service still further.
    Ms Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and I welcome his remarks. However, does he agree that waiting for appeals is stressful for constituents, particularly for those with mental health problems? Will he look into the case of my constituent, Mrs. Jenkins, whose disability living allowance was withdrawn in April 1999? She is still waiting for a tribunal, which is due to be heard in June 2000. This is causing her acute distress and mental anguish, and is confining her to her home.
    Mr. Bayley: I can reassure my hon. Friend that I will certainly look at Mrs. Jenkins's case.
    My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, in her local appeals service office in Cardiff, some 21,500 cases were waiting to be heard one year ago, in February 1999, and more than half of that number—some 11,300 cases—waited for longer than six months. Today the figures have dropped, so that only 9,588 cases are outstanding, and only 2,161 are more than six months old. So we are making progress.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the hon. Gentleman have any plans to allow Motability cars to be retained during the DLA appeals process until it has been completed? Is he aware that a constituent of mine has been forced to hand back the car and make alterations to it, returning it to its original state and removing special hand controls? Would it not be better to have a system whereby the car was retained until the appeals process was completed? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the problem is something to do with the Customs and Excise arrangements on value added tax? Will he please undertake to look into the matter and write to me about it?
    Mr. Bayley: I am aware of the case. The hon. Gentleman has written to me about it and I have replied—
    18
    it may have been one of the letters that I signed at the weekend. The Government have an interest in Motability, in that we pay the higher rate mobility component of DLA that pays for Motability cars. However, Motability is an independent charity and is responsible for its own rules. As the hon. Gentleman recognises, it is not possible for people who are not in receipt of DLA to retain their cars because the scheme receives considerable VAT concessions from the Chancellor and other Government concessions and support. That support can be given only because it goes to people who are in receipt of a benefit. Those who re not in receipt of a benefit unfortunately cannot retain their cars.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister accept that, while any improvement in acceleration in the appeals process is welcome, as long as it is consistent with justice, most claimants are looking not so much for the appeals process as the substance of their claim? Will he also accept from the case of Colin Hughes, and many like him, that there is very little link, if any, between the extra costs of disability and the means of the disabled person? In the light of that, would it not have been better if, instead of their Scrooge-like imposition of means-testing on incapacity benefit, the Government had introduced a more effective medical test for new claimants?
    Mr. Bayley: I am slightly reluctant to discuss an individual case on the Floor of the House. However, the hon. Gentleman has referred to it on two occasions, and I think that I can refer to some details that the claimant, Colin Hughes, has made public.
    I admire Colin Hughes greatly. He is a severely disabled man who has made a successful career within the BBC. The difficulty that he faces with his benefit is that the independent living fund administrators were not aware of his salary at the BBC. Had they been aware of his salary, he would have received no support at all under the old means-testing rules, introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party when it introduced the independent living fund. As a result of the changes that our party has made to relax the means test to provide a greater return from employment for the relatively few people who are supported by the independent living fund and who can work, Colin Hughes would be able to keep a greater proportion of his earnings—which is a good thing—if the question of his savings were resolved. I have discussed with those who manage the independent living funds ways in which the savings that anybody else with perhaps a longer life expectancy might have put into a pension scheme can be put into some form of trust fund so that they can be disregarded in whole or in part.

    Old-age Pension
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What as a percentage of average earnings was the single person's old-age pension in May (a) 2000, (b) 1999, (c) 1998, (d) 1997 and (e) 1996. [120949]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In April 1999, the basic state retirement pension was 16.6 per cent. of average earnings. In April 1998, it was 16.8 per cent., in April 1997 it was 17 per cent. and in April 1996 it was 17.4 per cent. The percentage for April 2000 is not available at present,

    19
    but as the average single person's total pensions income is £132, the percentages that I have given can be doubled because no one is expected to live on the basic state pension alone.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Do not the figures demonstrate that the Labour party's election manifesto was, in essence, fraudulent? It said:
    We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation.
    Is that not particularly so given that the manifesto said something else? It stated:
    The basic state pension will be retained as the foundation of pension provision.
    The foundation is clearly crumbling. The living standards of ordinary state pensioners are declining in comparison with those of people in work, particularly now that they
    20
    do not receive the married couple's tax allowance, dividend tax relief or tax relief on medical insurance premiums. In other words, they are getting a bad deal, as the 600 Labour councillors who lost their seats last week stated in arguing that that was why they lost.
    Mr. Rooker: That is another example of refusal to see the totality of pensioner incomes. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues where they think the millions of pounds for the winter fuel allowance came from. The money did not come from the national insurance fund; it came from the wider tax payout and is a tax-free benefit for the pensioner population which has arisen from the better economic performance of the country. Where do they think the money for the free television licence for the over-75s came from? It is tax free, and it came not from the national insurance fund, but from the wider pot created by the British taxpayer.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a brief business statement. The House is already aware that after the Opposition day business tomorrow, we shall take Northern Ireland business. That business will now be a motion on the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, followed by the motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000.
Sir George Young: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House when the flags order will be tabled? I understand that it is not yet available in the Vote Office. On the substantive point, the Opposition are, of course, prepared to sit, possibly beyond midnight, to deal with important parliamentary business. I am sure that that approach to parliamentary affairs is shared by Government Members.
Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that if the order is not now available in the Vote Office, it will be shortly. I expected it to be tabled about now. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Can my right hon. Friend inform us whether, in the interests of parity between the two communities, the Secretary of State will have power under the flags order to order the flying of the tricolour over Government buildings?
Mrs. Beckett: That is very much a matter for the debate.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the right hon. Lady understand how disappointed I am that, as the business statement precedes a statement on Sierra Leone, she did not tell us that we would have a debate on Sierra Leone? The situation in Sierra Leone is so complicated and difficult—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that this is a short business statement, which
22
was clear and tightly defined. The Leader of the House can be questioned only on the comments that she has made. If he is prepared to keep to that, I shall call him again, but no other business can be discussed with the Leader of the House.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Madam Speaker: Shall I give him a second chance?
Mr. Blunt: Does the Leader of the House understand how disappointed I was that her business statement was about one particular point of business, and not about other issues of more pressing and immediate concern?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Lady fully understands that.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she really means that the information will be available within the next couple of hours? It has been quite difficult to follow the matter from a distance, although I understand the reasons for that. It would help facilitate an effective debate if we could hold consultations today after seeing the order.
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly anticipate that that will be the case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make information and briefing available as fast as possible.
Mr. William Ross: Given that most people in the United Kingdom would consider it a matter of course that the national flag should fly over public and Government buildings, why was that ever denied to the British citizens of Northern Ireland? Furthermore, why have the Government decided to give IRA and other terrorists a further year—over and above the two years that they have had already—before they hand over their illegal weapons?
Mrs. Beckett: None of that is a matter for me.
Madam Speaker: Quite right.

Sierra Leone
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, I would like to make a statement about Sierra Leone.
In his statement last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House about the serious security situation in Sierra Leone and the implications for British citizens and others for whom we have consular responsibility. He said that the British Government had taken the precautionary measure of deploying military assets to the region. British forces were deployed to allow for the safe evacuation of British nationals and other entitled personnel. Essential to that has been the task of securing Lungi airport, which, as the Foreign Secretary said, will be extremely valuable in allowing United Nations forces to build up to their mandated strength over the next month. We have seen evidence of that in the recent arrival of two additional Jordanian companies, numbering some 300 personnel. That remains the clear and unambiguous position on the deployment of British forces. It was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister on 11 May, and it remains our position today.
I am confident that the House would agree that the deployment of UK forces to Sierra Leone has been an outstanding success. Faced with a rapidly deteriorating security situation, UK forces have evacuated almost 450 people. The airport was secured quickly and effectively. Although we have consistently made it clear that UK forces will not be deployed in a combat role as part of UNAMSIL, the presence of UK troops on the ground has helped stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone and we are providing technical advice to the UN as to how matters might be further improved.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the armed forces on the work that they have done so far. It is a remarkable demonstration of their flexibility and speed of deployment, identified as key requirements in the strategic defence review. Both President Kabbah and Kofi Annan have welcomed the contribution that British forces are making.
The situation in Sierra Leone remains volatile and we must all be concerned about that—especially for the detainees. We have received reports that a number of UN personnel have been released, and I understand that the British officer, Major Andrew Harrison, is fit and well and is under the protection of the Indian battalion in the east of Sierra Leone. Although that is welcome news, we continue to work for the safe release of all those currently being detained by the Revolutionary United Front.
Freetown remains calm, but tense. Outside Freetown, clashes between Government troops and the rebels continue. For the moment, the rebels appear to be on the back foot. The Government of Sierra Leone and the UN forces have retaken the initiative. The arrival of Jordanian reinforcements at the weekend has been a significant boost to the UN mission. Reports to me this morning from the Chief of the Defence Staff have been encouraging.
The forces we have deployed are those we consider necessary to carry out their primary task effectively. The 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment is currently shouldering the main burden in Lungi. However, the maritime forces we have deployed—including our
24
amphibious capability—provide vital flexibility for the joint force commander in what remains a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. If attacked, our forces have the rules of engagement and firepower to allow them to respond robustly.
In that context, while our forces remain, we shall do what we can to assist the UN mission. Its success is essential to ensuring long-term peace and stability in Sierra Leone. UN forces had been doing a difficult job in uncertain and dangerous circumstances—disarming large numbers of ex-combatants despite not being up to full strength in numbers of personnel and in equipment. Our presence has helped to ensure confidence, and has contributed to the stabilisation of the situation.
As a result of the presence of our forces, we have been able to give significant assistance. British officers are providing advice to UNAMSIL; they are giving technical military advice to the Government of Sierra Leone and, indeed, to the UN in New York. We have assisted the UN with the transport of vehicles into theatre by air. We have airlifted 230 Jordanians by helicopter from the airport at Lungi to Hastings, where the Jordanian battalion is strengthening its position.
I recognise that there have been questions about the length of our commitment. The UN plans to build up its forces to their authorised level of about 11,000 over the next month. We are in contact with those countries that are contributing troops to the UN force—in particular, with India, Jordan, Bangladesh and Nigeria—and are urging them to bring in troops as soon as possible to reinforce UNAMSIL. We expect that once the UN mission has been reinforced by those troops, our role at the airport will no longer be required. I assure the House that UK forces will stay no longer than is necessary.
However, even when our forces withdraw, we will not end our political or diplomatic support for the UN and for Sierra Leone. When it is safe to do so, we will continue with our programme of assistance to help train and build effective, democratically accountable Sierra Leonean armed forces that we announced in April. We will also continue to contribute military observers to the UN mission, and if required, technical advice to UNAMSIL.
I have made it clear that we are committed to the safe evacuation and protection of our nationals and to supporting the UN in its mission to restore stability in Sierra Leone. The deployment of British forces for a limited period on those tasks is a model of the rapid deployment concept that was at the heart of the strategic defence review. It has been much admired and acknowledged by all concerned. Our armed forces are doing an excellent job, which is acknowledged all around the world. However, there is no question of the UK taking over the UN mission or of being drawn into the civil war.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Let me reiterate our support for the Government in this respect: our thoughts are definitely with the service men and their families at this incredibly difficult time. Conservative Members offer them our full and unstinting support in whatever lies ahead for all of them. The whole House will be suitably proud of how they have operated, and of how we anticipate that they will operate, however long they are in theatre.
We in the House have a duty to give our forces clear objectives as well as support. In that, the Government have, so far, been found wanting. The undertakings given

25
to my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary last week were different from the position in which we now find ourselves, which goes beyond the withdrawal of British nationals. The Government cannot allow that to continue and, to that extent, the statement is long overdue. We believe that it should have been made last week.
As I have pointed out, it now appears that, whatever reservations we have, British troops are in de facto full support of the UN forces and President Kabbah. Regardless of what others have said about us not being part of the UN mission, the reality is that we are in complete support of it and President Kabbah. Reports over the weekend show that British troops are patrolling Freetown and manning road blocks. We hear that special forces are operating in the countryside and that British officers are, to all intents and purposes, running the day-to-day operation of UN forces.
What role does the Secretary of State envisage for the Royal Marines, who are currently on board HMS Ocean? What can they be expected to do given the fact that, if they sit on board ship for four weeks, some of their capacity may deteriorate? Their deployment would widen the operation.
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether British air assets, which are currently on board HMS Invincible and HMS Ocean, will take part in any operations? Are Harrier aircraft, for example, likely to be used for reconnaissance or even close air support roles for the UN?
Regardless of our concerns, the objective now must be to make sure that British troops can operate untrammelled by any political indecision. Major-General Ken Perkins, who wrote to The Times today, said that the political masters must "not impose ridiculous constraints" on the forces.
The Government cannot artificially separate British combat troops from other British activities in theatre. Clearer rules of engagement are needed to allow British forces the flexibility to operate as the circumstances require, and to ensure that they are not locked into an artificial self-defence mandate that risks repeating the mistakes that were made in Bosnia, Srebrenica and even in Sierra Leone itself with the UN. The Secretary of State was not clear on that, so I urge him to clarify the position of our troops, which was too vague in the statement. Will he state what the rules are and how wide they can be stretched?
On the commitment to withdraw our troops within four weeks, last Wednesday, the Prime Minister spoke about deploying them for up to seven days. On Thursday, however, the Foreign Secretary moved that figure to four weeks. That slippage must be explained. Furthermore, it leaves us feeling rather cynical about the Government's capacity for decisiveness in the matter. When the Government said that they will withdraw our forces within four weeks, presumably they had in mind circumstances in which they could be withdrawn. In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the build-up of UN troops. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to listen to questions, and seem to think that they have a God-given right to do what they like with our forces. However, that is not the case.
I have a simple question for the Secretary of State. Will he tell us whether the build-up of UN troops to 11,500 is the factor limiting the time for which we will be out there? Will our troops stay out there to complete that build-up,
26
or do the Government expect to withdraw them if those conditions are not met? The Secretary of State must surely realise that the real worry will be how we appear to be making the UN dependent on British forces in Sierra Leone, with all the risks that that entails.
If nations due to transfer soldiers to the UN are led to believe that the UK will stay longer than four weeks, as seemed to be the case from the statement, is there not a danger that they will feel under less pressure to meet their obligations early on? What categorical statements has the Secretary of State had from nations due, as he said, to produce troops for the operation?
On overstretch, the commitment puts our rapid reaction force into Sierra Leone. What reserve does the Secretary of State have and, should difficulties erupt in places such as Kosovo, Iraq or even Zimbabwe, is he content that it is sufficient not to stretch us beyond our capability to follow those up?
The Foreign Secretary has been less than frank throughout the whole deployment. As a result, he has put our service men in difficulties, with varying statements from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence creating problems. There are serious questions about the Government's role, which remain to be tackled at a later date. Today, however, the Government must stop all the sliding and messing around and give our troops a clear sense of what they must do, making plain that they may operate flexibly within the terms given to them in a way that will allow them to meet their objectives without any more shilly-shallying.
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting our troops' position, but—I too have a "but"—it is regrettable that he has chosen to try to make party political points this afternoon and, indeed, in several newspapers this morning. My statement today was wholly consistent with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is a matter of considerable regret that the hon. Gentleman has talked about our service men and women being in difficulties, as there is simply no evidence of that. He has asserted that to make a rather poor political point which, on reflection, he may well regret.
The hon. Gentleman invited us to set out clearly our objectives. That has been done by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I have repeated those precise objectives, so there really is no difference between them. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues examine what was said last week and study the text carefully, they will discover that what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said is precisely the same as what I have said today. There has been no change in the objectives.
On the specific concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman, he ought to know better than to ask about the deployment of special forces. He has supported the Government in the past. He knows full well that it is well established practice that Governments never comment on the deployment of special forces.
We have made it quite clear that the Royal Marines on HMS Ocean are there as a precautionary measure. They are to give forces on the ground greater flexibility, should they be required. Again, that is a wholly sensible deployment on advice of the chiefs of staff.

27
There is no need to go into greater detail on the rules of engagement. Our forces have been given robust rules of engagement that will allow them to defend themselves and ensure that they can do the job on the ground effectively. That is what the House would expect. I assure the House that those are the rules of engagement that were given—again, in complete agreement with the chiefs of staff and subject to the advice and consent of the commander on the ground.
We have made it clear that the build-up and reinforcement of UN troops will take place over the next month. We have discussed that carefully. The Jordanians already have forces in theatre. We expect further Jordanian forces to arrive very soon. Indian forces are under way and we anticipate contributions from both Bangladesh and Nigeria. That is a substantial programme of reinforcement of both people and equipment. We are confident that that will add significantly to the ability of the UN force to deal with a difficult situation on the ground.
Overstretch has become one of the hon. Gentleman's themes. We have tackled the problems of overstretch faced by the Army during the Kosovo campaign, reducing the Army's commitments from 47 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign to 27 per cent. He knows that that has been done. He should also know that the spearhead battalion is specifically to deal with such emergencies; that is what it is there for. Indeed, we have already allocated a further force to act as the spearhead battalion in the event of that being necessary. He really should know that that has no impact whatever on the alleged overstretch of our armed forces.
I am extremely disappointed that, right across the weekend and continuing today, the hon. Gentleman has sought party political advantage from the situation. It has been a tradition that the Opposition support British forces in the field, and that means supporting those who take the decisions as well.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I add my congratulations to the forces that have been deployed in and around Sierra Leone, and of course the support of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends for those who are in the field? However, is it not clear that a week is a long time in Sierra Leone and that United Kingdom forces are now doing much more than was predicted last Monday, to an extent that an early withdrawal would be deeply destabilising?
Is it not also true that the role of the United Nations is no longer that of keeping the peace? Should we not recognise that the presence of UK troops, whether by accident or design, has become essential to the success and credibility of the United Nations effort in Sierra Leone? In those circumstances, subject to there being no prejudice to our commitments and to obtaining from the UN Security Council a much more robust and effective mandate, should not Her Majesty's Government offer UK troops as part of the UN force in Sierra Leone?
Mr. Hoon: I repeat that the UK forces are doing precisely what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that they would in his statement this time last week. He said that they were present to ensure the evacuation of
28
British nationals by securing the airport, in the process allowing for the reinforcement of the UN contingent in Sierra Leone. That is precisely what they have been engaged in and precisely what has been happening over the past week.
On the contribution that the forces have made to the UN in Sierra Leone, as I said in my statement, the situation on the ground has clearly enormously improved as a result of the presence of British forces, which has, for example, freed other UN forces for other tasks elsewhere in Sierra Leone by undertaking the responsibility of securing the airport. That has been an advantage. Certainly British forces have boosted the morale of the Government forces in Sierra Leone, which have had a good deal more confidence in going about their task in the past week than previously. The presence of our forces has contributed to that. However, we do not anticipate that British forces will become part of the UN force in Sierra Leone.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion that some of those who are asking for clearer objectives are really saying, "Mission accomplished, let us fold our tents. Evacuation is complete, let us depart." If we had done that, the inhabitants of Freetown would have been left to an awful fate, and the UN would have been discredited. As Kofi Annan showed in his warm thanks to the Government and to our forces, had we not been there, the UN would have found it extremely difficult in future to launch such an operation.
What longer-term lessons does my right hon. Friend draw for the relationship of the United Kingdom and our armed forces with the UN in terms of training, communications and in ensuring that the UN is properly strengthened to carry out tasks in Africa and elsewhere?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has asked me questions of a long-term nature that would probably be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, the operation demonstrates the importance of ensuring that the UN has sufficient effective force and equipment in a theatre to enable it to do the job that was contemplated. One of the difficulties that the UN has undoubtedly faced in Sierra Leone is not having the authorised numbers—the numbers planned by the UN—available at the start of the operation. The actions of British forces have been designed to ensure that those numbers can be reached. Securing the airport will allow reinforcements to arrive relatively quickly.
Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is entitled to the support of the House, as are our forces in Sierra Leone and offshore, at this difficult time? However, may I suggest that it does not help if he claims that the operation is a tremendous success for the strategic defence review? He is drawing on the particular capabilities and qualities of especially the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines and associated arms, which have been built up over decades by successive Governments.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly and unsurprisingly gives evidence to the House that the contribution of British forces has helped to support the morale and confidence of President Kabbah's forces. However, one of the real difficulties resulting from any early withdrawal from Sierra Leone is that it will have exactly the opposite

29
effect. I do not expect a detailed reply because it is clear that General Guthrie's report will be critical in this respect, but I hope that when considering what General Guthrie says about the actual military situation, the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Secretary will consider further what can be done to sterilise as far as possible any support going to the RUF from adjoining or other territories.
Mr. Hoon: If I gave the right hon. Gentleman the impression that I was claiming for the SDR the virtues of this rapid deployment, I apologise to him and to the House. However, the reality is that the SDR set out to build on the capabilities previously established. The deployment demonstrates—we have had discussion about the potential availability of both maritime and air assets—the importance of being able to deploy rapidly ground troops and supporting forces of a joint nature. The significant point about the SDR is that the conflicts that we face in future will most likely require rapid deployment.
I spoke to General Guthrie this morning, and I understand that he has had the opportunity of travelling round part of Freetown and seeing the British forces that are deployed there. I accept that his advice will be critical as to how the military campaign is continued. I anticipate that he will speak to representatives of countries that will be likely to deploy further force into Sierra Leone. When he returns to the UK, which will be shortly, we shall take further decisions in the light of what he has to report.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the outpouring of support from the Sierra Leonean community in this country and the pictures and reports from that country, showing how delighted people are at the role that Britain is playing to restore and defend democratic government in Sierra Leone? Would it not be appalling if any politician in Britain, by omission or commission, gave the impression that we were interested only in saving the lives of white Europeans, and that we could not care less about black Africans?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In addition to the Sierra Leonean community in the United Kingdom, President Kabbah spoke personally to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to thank him for the contribution that Britain has been able to make. In the plans for evacuation, I want to make it clear that we had a responsibility not only to British nationals, but to all the countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, that did not have diplomatic representation in Sierra Leone, for which we undertook consular responsibilities. It was never our intention, even as part of the evacuation process, simply to evacuate UK citizens.
Mr. Edward Garnier: What were the characteristics of Mr. Sankoh, the leader of the RUF, that commended him to the Government last year, and how has he changed since?
Mr. Hoon: The United Kingdom did not make a judgment last year about the character of Mr. Sankoh, and would not do so now. He is responsible for breaching the agreement that he entered into last July. It was not a perfect agreement, but it offered the prospect of peace and stability in Sierra Leone. It was not a perfect solution;
30
it was the best on offer. For the purpose of trying to preserve peace and security in Sierra Leone, at least it offered some respite from the appalling civil war.
It is Sankoh who has gone back on that agreement. He and his forces are responsible for the appalling bloodshed that has occurred since, and that is why the international community, through the United Nations, must take the action that it is taking now. We made no judgment about his character last July. It was simply the best offer that was available.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will have read reports in the media that the Sierra Leonean Army and the Revolutionary United Front have been involved in some appalling atrocities, against each other and against the civilian population. Can he assure us that when the training programme finally begins after the immediate conflict is over, the SLA will be fully trained in the need to treat troops and civilians decently?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend touches on a picture in Sierra Leone that is quite different from the one that we are used to when we think about disciplined armed forces. In Sierra Leone, bands of people are loosely attached to particular leaders and can switch from one side of a conflict to another at a moment's notice. It is an extremely uncertain, unstable, volatile situation. That is why it is important that we announce the need for effective training. Part of that training will undoubtedly be to provide the necessary discipline and commitment to the decisions of a democratically elected Government. Those are the kind of contributions that I believe that British trainers can make to the armed forces in Sierra Leone.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In his statement the Secretary of State made much of the role of the strategic defence review, and in an earlier answer said that the operation had had no significant impact on overstretch. Given that the SDR envisaged three parachute battalions, two of them in role, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many soldiers are left in the other two parachute battalions, and how long it would be before one of them could be used in a similar operation? How long would it take to stand them up?
Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the designation of the spearhead battalion is not necessarily and solely a designation given to a parachute battalion. The designation rotates around the armed forces that are in a position to complete the job. That is why, in answer to the question about the impact of overstretch, I made it clear that in the short term there is no impact on overstretch. The short-notice availability of the spearhead battalion is designed to deal precisely with such an emergency situation. That is the purpose of the battalion. The question of how many other members of a parachute battalion are available does not arise in the context in which the hon. Gentleman puts it.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my right hon. Friend share my anxiety that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Conservative spokesperson, appears to express dissent from the idea that United Kingdom forces should be acting in full support—I use the hon. Gentleman's precise words—of the United Nations? Does my right

31
hon. Friend agree that it is not in Britain's interests that the United Nations mission should fail? That would be good neither for the future for Sierra Leone and the region nor for the ability of the United Nations to act elsewhere in the world on our behalf and that of other United Nations member states.
Mr. Hoon: I invited the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks for the Opposition on such matters, to reflect more carefully on his words. I am confident that when he reads what he said about the United Nations, he will have some further thoughts. Clearly, all hon. Members support the United Nations and its efforts to preserve stability around the world. It had and continues to have our support for the difficult decisions that it made and tried to enforce in Sierra Leone.
Mr. Bob Russell: The Secretary of State rightly referred to our armed forces' professionalism, which all hon. Members will endorse. He specifically mentioned the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment. Will he join me in praising the 230 members of the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment from the Colchester garrison who are in Sierra Leone, along with 130 men and women from support units? How much longer will our forces have to act as the policemen of the world? Overstretch and back-to-back tours need to be tackled. I invite the Secretary of State to say that we will call upon other countries to put in their forces.
Mr. Hoon: I commend all British forces that are involved in the operation and, indeed, all British forces wherever they are deployed. They are rightly regarded as the best of their kind in the world and they are in constant demand. I acknowledge that; my job often involves saying that there is a limit to what we can do. We were consequently able to reduce the overstretch that resulted last year from the Kosovo operation. Those decisions have already been made. As I said in my statement, we are encouraging other countries to reinforce their existing contingents in Sierra Leone. We are wholly confident that they will do that.
Mr. David Winnick: It should be a matter of satisfaction that British service personnel are upholding the authority of the United Nations and international law. The Opposition may criticise, but the majority of Labour Members are proud of what is being done. Why should we allow a bunch of outright murderous criminals and torturers to take over Sierra Leone? There is no reason for that to happen, and I hope that it can be avoided at all costs.
Mr. Hoon: I know full well from the reports that I have regularly received from those forces deployed to Sierra Leone that they are determined to do an excellent job both on behalf of the British Government and in terms of what they perceive to be the right action for their service careers. I am confident that one of the reasons for the current success of recruitment to the armed forces is the excellent job that our armed forces do as a force for good around the world.
32
On my hon. Friend's second question, we support the efforts of the United Nations to uphold the charter and the principles that guide this country as well the international community.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Since the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment is based in Aldershot, the Secretary of State will not be surprised if I express my admiration for the professionalism with which the spearhead battalion has undertaken its obligations. It is led by Colonel Paul Gibson, who distinguished himself in Kosovo. However, families obviously want to know when the episode is likely to conclude. Does the Secretary of State have genuine confidence in the United Nations' ability to deliver an effective force to Sierra Leone by the middle of next month? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) asked, what happens when British troops leave? Will the situation go pear-shaped again? In that case, we shall see television pictures that will horrify the British people. That will lead to demands to keep British troops in place, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would like.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the supporting forces based in his constituency. I am also grateful to him for raising the issue of families, because we all tend to emphasise the contribution that the forces make, but perhaps sometimes overlook the fact that they have families at home who, understandably and rightly, worry about the circumstances in which their husbands, generally speaking, are deployed. He is right to mention that and, certainly, much effort has gone into ensuring that the families are properly briefed on the circumstances in Sierra Leone.
On the withdrawal, we anticipate that reinforcement of the UN contingent in Sierra Leone to its authorised level will continue to produce the stability that we have seen very recently. I said, "for the moment" during my statement, because I recognise that the situation in Sierra Leone has been especially volatile, but we anticipate that the level of reinforcement—of both people and equipment—available to the UN will make a significant difference on the ground.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I express a certain unease in the genuine hope that my right hon. Friend will satisfy it? What is the analysis of where the rebels come from and where they get their support? Is not it true that Freetown and the rest of Sierra Leone are two different communities—Freetown very much being made up of the descendants of those who were involved in slavery? There is a rather different community up-country. Are we certain that the rebels—undoubtedly very cruel people—have not got a good deal of support up-country? On the question asked by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), what will happen when we exit? The two communities are very different, so how can we be certain that trouble will not continue?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend raises important questions about the nature of the rebel force. During the past few weeks, I have certainly tried to understand what motivates the rebels, whether ethnic divisions exist and whether there are intellectually definable reasons why the rebels are active at present. The reality is that they appear to be motivated by no more than greed and a lust for power.

33
They do not control large parts of the country; they are extraordinarily unpopular in most areas. They control parts of Sierra Leone, but by no means all of it. It would be a false picture—if my hon. Friend sees it like this—to suggest that the area around Freetown is somehow controlled by the Government and the remainder is controlled by the rebels. The rebels control only parts of Sierra Leone and they have achieved that by ruthlessly intimidating the population, which is why they are so thoroughly detested.
Mr. Michael Howard: In the light of the Secretary of State's previous answer and his earlier response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), and in the context of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy, will he explain the basis of their distinction between Mr. Sankoh, whom they imposed on President Kabbah as Vice-President and Minister of Mineral Resources, and Senator Pinochet, whom they proposed to extradite to Spain?
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very dramatic, but completely erroneous comparison. The reality is that we did not broker last year's agreement, which was the best arrangement that the international community thought acceptable for Sierra Leone. Mr. Sankoh was not imposed on Sierra Leone; an agreement was entered into, but Sankoh has breached that agreement and plunged the country again into a destabilising and savage civil war. It is vital that we are able to secure a situation in which that agreement is upheld.
Jane Griffiths: I fervently hope that the deployment of troops and, ultimately, the UN mission will be successful. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be sure that we can stem the tide of conflict zones not just in Sierra Leone but in many parts of Africa, we must address the politics of the diamond trade, which is fuelling conflict and scarring the heart of Africa?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made that point in his statement last week. I referred a moment ago to what appears to motivate the rebels, and undoubtedly greed and the diamond trade is uppermost in their minds.
Sir Peter Tapsell: How many British subjects are still in Sierra Leone who wish to be evacuated?
Mr. Hoon: None who wish to be evacuated are in Sierra Leone at the present time. We cannot be entirely sure how many remain. An estimate would be in the order of 400. Some will have made their own way out of Sierra Leone, so there may be less than that. As on previous occasions, not only in Sierra Leone but in other crises, our experience is that many people prefer to remain where they perhaps have a home and a business, and tough it out. Although we have strongly advised that British citizens should leave, I realise that a number of them will remain throughout the crisis.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Although British troops went in with a clear mission to extract Commonwealth and European nationals, their objective seems now to have changed to that of a support
34
mechanism for the United Nations. Why cannot British troops be placed under UN command, so that it is clear that they are part of the UN? Is there not a danger that, if they remain separate from the UN, they may be asked by President Kabbah's Government to undertake economic objectives, such as securing the diamond-producing areas for his Government? We need serious clarity on what the British troops are there for in the longer term.
Mr. Hoon: There is clarity, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend believes that, somehow or other, the mission has changed. The mission has not changed. It was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last week that the purpose of deploying British troops to Sierra Leone was to secure the evacuation of Commonwealth and European nationals, and at the same time to secure the airport for the reinforcement of the UN contingent. That remains the position, so nothing has changed. Those British troops have a particular and limited objective, which is precisely why they will not come under the control or command of the United Nations.
Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Secretary of State paying attention to the lessons of other and earlier peacekeeping operations, which are that we either get all the way in or stay all the way out, that there is no third way, and that half measures risk lives unnecessarily? There is a case for a full commitment, but that could involve two fully equipped armoured brigades, which we do not have, or do not have available, after successive defence cuts. Bearing that in mind, is he happy with the situation in which we have a battalion plus of our finest soldiers in an African civil war without a single armoured vehicle?
Mr. Hoon: Although it is important that we learn lessons from earlier conflicts, it is equally important to recognise that no two conflicts are ever the same. It is important that we make judgments in the light of the particular conflict with which we are having to deal. For the moment, I do not anticipate the circumstances in Sierra Leone in which a substantial armoured brigade would be of any great assistance in the limited role that we have set for British forces, which is to protect and secure the airport, and to allow for the evacuation of British and other nationals. That is a precise role, and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view that it is impossible to find a middle way to deal with these issues, provided that we indicate clearly and precisely what we expect of British forces. We have done that, and I am confident that they can complete that mission successfully.
Mr. Jim Murphy: Given the uncertainty that my right hon. Friend has again spoken about this afternoon, may I discourage him from following the Leader of the Opposition and tying himself and our forces, who are doing such a marvellous job, to a specific time scale for withdrawal, but rather to remain committed to the specific tasks? Furthermore, in light of the rapid deployment of our personnel, will my right hon. Friend put more effort into the continuing discussions to establish a Europewide rapid reaction force, so that we can operate in concert with our European neighbours in such crises and civil wars?
Mr. Hoon: I will heed my hon. Friend's warning, and ensure that I do not follow the strictures of the Leader of the Opposition.

35
I think this deployment demonstrates the importance of a concept for which Opposition Members have expressed some support—that of rapid deployment: sending forces quickly to a particular crisis or theatre. The importance of that was recognised at European level in the setting of the Helsinki headline goal. Obviously, the more all the European nations can fulfil that role, the more even will be the distribution of the burden—specifically that between Europe and the United States—and the greater will be the contribution that European nations can make.
Mr. John Maples: The Secretary of State did his best to excuse the Foreign Secretary's misjudgment in the Lomé negotiations, but no Member should doubt that it was the Foreign Secretary who insisted that the unspeakable Mr. Sankoh be released from detention, that his death sentence be lifted and, furthermore, that he become a Minister in President Kabbah's Government.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, although nearly all of us—indeed, probably all of us—wholly support the use of British troops to evacuate British citizens and people for whom we are responsible, and although I would support the giving of financial, technical and logistic assistance to President Kabbah, I do not believe that British troops have any business fighting in a civil war in Africa? They are coming very close to that, and the Secretary of State for Defence will find it a lot more difficult to get them out than the Foreign Secretary found it to get them in.
Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first. This was the final point that I made in my statement. We are not involved in a civil war; we are not taking sides in a civil war. Moreover, the Lomé accord was the result not of a British negotiation, but of a negotiation entered into by the parties. Those parties accepted that it was better, albeit difficult, to involve Sankoh in the process of government as the price that they must pay for peace and stability, rather than the continuation of an appalling civil war. It was a very difficult decision, and no doubt, with the benefit of hindsight, we might say that it possibly was not the most sensible decision; but at the time it was the best offer that was available.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass my congratulations to the forces on their astonishing skill at arms in so quickly making a profound difference to the military situation in Sierra Leone?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also answer two questions? First, does he intend to retain logistic support for the United Nations from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships after the main forces have departed? Secondly, will military advisers left by the Government and the United Nations be United Nations badge troops?
Mr. Hoon: We have already given the United Nations some logistic support, and a number of requests have been made to us. We assisted, for instance, in flying the Jordanian reinforcements from Lungi to Hastings, another airport where the main body of the Jordanian battalion is
36
located. We have engaged in logistic operations of that kind, and will continue to do so. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific answer, because it will depend on all the circumstances as events unfold, and it would not be right for me to give such an undertaking at this stage.
As for the training forces, I do not expect circumstances to arise in which they will necessarily be UN cap badged. I made it clear in my earlier remarks that we would allow such a contingent to go into Sierra Leone only when we judged the circumstances to be safe, and it is plainly not safe at present for it to engage in training when a large number of people are still determinedly engaged in a civil war.
Sir David Madel: A major plank of Government defence policy is close co-operation with France. Have the Government made a request for help from the French Government? If so, what was the response?
Mr. Hoon: We co-operate with a number of countries—with France, and with other countries around the world. In particular, we are currently co-operating with countries that have offered airlift, for example, to get reinforcements into Sierra Leone. We are discussing on a daily basis with countries such as Jordan, India and Bangladesh what kind of forces they will send into the theatre. That is a regular communication.
I know that a number of Opposition Members have become obsessed with the position of France. France is an important partner of the United Kingdom in a number of different organisations, and will continue to be so.
Mr. Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State has outlined the difficulties that the Government face. Having listened carefully not only to his initial statement, but to his replies to my hon. Friends, I find him slightly complacent. It seems to me and, I think, to many hon. Members, that the key to the seriousness of the matter is the fact that we have sent the Chief of the Defence Staff to Sierra Leone for four days. What will he do there? He has obviously not gone there to conduct a drill parade, or to inspect the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes stores. Presumably, he has gone there to evaluate seriously the extent to which we will make a major commitment there. If his advice to the Government is that we must make such a major commitment, what will the Government's action be?
Mr. Hoon: I would be a lot more persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's assertions of complacency if he backed them up. He has just had the opportunity to say why he thinks the Government might be complacent, but he singularly failed to do so. Such rhetorical flourishes assist no one.
The Chief of the Defence Staff was already due to visit Sierra Leone. [Laughter.] I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches appear to believe in the conspiracy theory of politics. It is obviously something that they have been nurturing over their three years in opposition. The reality is—I repeat it for their benefit—that the Chief of the Defence Staff was due to visit Sierra Leone. Before he set off on that visit,

37
we discussed whether it would be sensible for him to go. He was keen to go there to see British forces in action on the ground—and quite right, too.
Mr. John Burnett: The Royal Marines on HMS Ocean have been off the coast of west Africa for three or four days now. The Secretary of State said earlier that that was a precautionary measure. I well remember that, after the Aden withdrawal, I spent some weeks off the coast of Aden cooped up in a commando ship. It is pretty frustrating. What plans does he have to get those troops ashore?
Mr. Hoon: I have to say that those troops have not been there for three or four days, but they are ready and available as a precautionary force, should we require them. However, there are no specific plans at this stage to reinforce the existing forces on the ground. We shall look at the situation as its unfolds, but, if it continues as it is, we might not even need those forces. They are there to provide greater flexibility to the force in Sierra Leone, should we require them.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: When the situation in Sierra Leone is juxtaposed with the Prime Minister's speech in Chicago last year, it is almost a classic case of where intervention, on the Prime Minister's terms, should take place. The RUF is supported by Liberia, which sells the diamonds that the RUF controls in Sierra Leone. Otherwise, they are a bunch of gangsters who hold their position in the country by force of terror. As President Kabbah was democratically elected, there is a classic case for intervention.
Our troops are now on the ground. Unless the Government grasp the nettle of making the decision to get out, having discharged their obligations to the British national interest, surely they must, if they are going to take on a wider national interest, make up their mind to commit fully to a United Nations mandate, with the UK, in effect, leading a UN operation to sort out the source of the problem: the RUF's control of the diamond fields.
Mr. Hoon: I have had tide of the fax which the hon. Gentleman helpfully sent to the Ministry of Defence in urging the Government to commit British forces to a UN contingent. I am afraid that he has had no more success in persuading me than he has in persuading his own Front-Bench team.
We do not judge that it is appropriate to commit British forces to the UN contingent simply because they are contributing successfully to the UN mission by ensuring the security of the airport. That valuable task is providing the UN force with enormous confidence. It is a task that they are deployed to continue and to complete.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Now that British forces have fulfilled their primary role in an exemplary fashion—namely, the evacuation of those British nationals who wish to leave—can the Secretary of State tell us who is paying for the enterprise? Is the money coming out of the sorely pressed defence budget, or is there a special account from which he can draw in the Foreign Office, labelled ethical foreign policy perhaps? Can he say what conceivable British interest, beyond the extrication of our nationals, merits putting British service men at risk over a prolonged period?
Mr. Hoon: We are keeping a close account of the costs—which, for the moment, are additional costs. We should bear in mind that some of those forces were already deployed on other exercises, so that they were already being paid for. Consequential costs are still being identified. We have agreed with both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with the Treasury that we shall continue to monitor those costs, and that we shall decide later their attribution between different Departments.
As for the hon. Gentleman's final comments, the reality is that we are there supporting the United Nations. We are there to ensure the evacuation of British personnel, and to fulfil our responsibilities as part of the international community. Those seem to be objectives that most hon. Members, at any rate, ought to support.

Point of Order
4.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Madam Speaker will be thankful that this is not one of those points of order to which she has to say that she has had no request for a statement from a Minister. It is on a matter that I believe concerns the House of Commons.
Over the weekend, and not least in today's edition of The Times, there has been ample comment on the legal aspects of the Lockerbie case as it pertains to the Crown Office. We all understand that the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence aspects of the case are matters for the House. I am concerned about the Crown Office aspects—which, incidentally, are the matters of the greatest contention. It is now argued that those matters are, of course, for Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament, and that the House of Commons has no locus whatever in discussing matters pertaining to the Crown Office in Edinburgh.
If Lockerbie had happened yesterday, it might have been a clear-cut case. However, as it happened 12 long years ago, and as it has been a matter of continuing comment, particularly in relation to Mr. Boulier and to Mr. Lumpart, his engineer, of Mebo, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reflect—or to ask Madam Speaker to reflect with her advisers—on the issue of whether, if developments go forward as anticipated by serious members of the press, this is purely a matter in which the House of Commons has no say whatever? Some of us might think that, whatever view one takes, the House of Commons definitely has a locus in the issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am sure that I am as grateful as Madam Speaker would be that, in this case, it is not a matter of giving the stock reply to the hon. Gentleman. However, I think that the matter tends to be more a matter for debate. Nevertheless, I shall of course ensure that Madam Speaker notes the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and, if a ruling on the matter can be given by the occupant of the Chair, undoubtedly it will be given. At first sight, however, it does not seem to be such a matter.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.33 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The whole history of fur farming in the United Kingdom has not been a very happy one. Since its introduction, it has been dogged by escapes from fur farms that have resulted in very large public sums being spent on eradication programmes. The coypu eradication programme cost about—in today's figures—£4 million. Attempts to eradicate mink after escapes from mink farms, when they were established in the United Kingdom, cost about £1 million. Therefore, about £5 million has been spent on trying to deal with the consequences of escaped animals from United Kingdom fur farms. With the associated escapes have come environmental damage, damage to indigenous wildlife, damage to stock and feeding birds, and the unquantified cost of trying to deal with them by trapping and control.
A range of welfare concerns, about how animals are reared and kept in fur farms, has been expressed by the Government's own advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and in independent research. There are also complaints from people who live adjacent to fur farms about smells, nuisance and flies.
The history of fur farms is not happy. The Government announced the introduction of the Bill on 22 November to fulfil our pre-election pledge to prohibit fur farming.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I acknowledge the strength of what the Minister has said, particularly in respect of the New Forest. The end to that environmental hazard is welcome, as is the end to a cruel practice. However, will he explain why, to achieve that desirable end, it is considered necessary to introduce into law what many of us feel is an obnoxious principle: that it is acceptable to farm for food, but not for pelt or fur? Could not the desirable objectives have been achieved at a lower cost?
Mr. Morley: No. I am well aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As long as fur farms exist, there is no guarantee that there will not be further escapes and further environmental damage for all sorts of reasons. That is why his local authority strongly supports the Bill and is keen for it to progress. The leader of his local council, who is a Conservative, has written to me in support of the Bill.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Are we to understand that the Government justify their proposals on economic and environmental grounds and that they have abandoned the argument of public morality?
Mr. Morley: The principal reason is public morality. I have been rather generous in taking interventions before I have been able to set out the case and our justification for the ban.
A combination of factors make fur farming a matter of public morality. We believe that it is wrong to keep animals solely or primarily to slaughter for their fur.

41
Fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. Animals should not be destroyed or bred for destruction without a sufficient justification of public benefit. Our detailed consultation and the many representations that we received from the public and other organisations showed that the majority of the public share that view.
Fur farming is distinct from food production. If the primary purpose of keeping animals is the production of food, that provides a sufficient public benefit to justify breeding them for slaughter. That is so even if the production of fur or hide is a secondary purpose to the keeping of the animal. That does not mean that high standards of welfare should not be applied in any rearing system.
Animals are live creatures. It is one thing to breed and kill them for food, because we have to eat to survive. In the balance between respect for the dignity of animal life and our survival, we put our survival first. We do our best to make sure that the animals that we slaughter for food are well treated.
Animals should not be killed for the sake of it or just for the business of stripping their skins off their backs—not in the 21st century. It is not the Government's philosophy. We also share the concern that many have for the welfare of farm mink. That is not our principal motivation for introducing the Bill, but we have sought to ensure the highest possible standards as long as fur farming continues.
Mr. John Bercow: Denmark, Finland, Italy and Spain have made observations and France has volunteered a detailed opinion about the Bill. When do the Government intend publicly to reply to those representations?
In the interim, will the Minister cease to advance the public morality argument, in the evident absence of a credible precedent for its use? Would not it be helpful in informing the debate if the Government published the legal advice they have received that apparently enables the Minister confidently to assert that the Bill conforms to the European convention on human rights?
Mr. Morley: I can certainly repeat that assertion. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that it is a convention that the Government do not publish their legal advice—a convention to which Conservative Governments have adhered in the past. The Government's response to the observations he mentioned is imminent, and we shall ensure that the European Union receives that response. While it is true that France submitted a detailed observation, including objections to the Bill, the hon. Gentleman did not mention that the Netherlands has made a submission that supports our position and backs our arguments. I stress that it is the Government's view that the Bill is compatible with the treaty of Rome and the European convention on human rights.
The Bill will make it a criminal offence, in England and Wales, to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. It will provide a winding-down period extending at least until the end of 2002, and will allow the Minister to make a scheme providing for compensation for certain categories of loss. I understand
42
that the Scottish Executive will introduce legislation to ban fur farming in Scotland. Consultation in Scotland revealed unanimous support for such a measure.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister is responsible for ensuring that a raft of European Union and British law on the welfare of caged animals is properly enforced. How can it be that rabbit A, kept in one cage under those regulations, can be raised and slaughtered for its fur legally, but—if the Bill is passed—the keeping of rabbit B, in an adjacent cage under the same conditions and monitored by the Minister, would attract a £20,000 fine for the person responsible, if he or she were caught? How can that possibly be logical?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman takes a simplistic view of the matter, which is unfortunately not unusual. It is our intention to end the fur farming of all species in this country. Cases in which the animal is not farmed predominantly for their fur, but in which the fur or hide is a by-product, will not be affected by the Bill. If we argue that we are against the breeding of animals for fur on moral grounds, we cannot have exceptions for certain species. The legislation must apply to all species. In the past, some species farmed for fur have clearly been kept in conditions that were not acceptable under any welfare standards in the modern age. Other species could be farmed in the future in this country, unless we have such a prohibition in place. Therefore, there is a sound and logical argument for applying the Bill to all fur farming in the UK.
Mr. James Gray: The Minister will be aware that because of the current state of the sheepmeat market some sheep are kept specifically for the purpose of producing sheepskin. Will that be banned?
Mr. Morley: I am not aware that sheep are skinned in the production of wool. The skins are a by-product of the slaughter industry, and sheep are not kept predominantly for that purpose. Sheep have no bearing on the Bill.
At present, only mink are farmed solely or primarily for their fur in the UK. There are currently 13 licensed mink farms in England and none in Wales. Other animals which can be farmed for their fur include arctic fox, chinchilla, raccoon dog, sable and fisher.
It is not intended to prohibit the keeping of animals where the primary purpose is the production of meat, with fur production as a secondary purpose, as is generally the case, for example, with the farming of rabbits, as I have already stressed. Nor—in response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—will the Bill ban the production of fur or wool which can be clipped or shorn without slaughtering the animal, for example, the fur of angora rabbits or alpacas.
Mr. Gray: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I am sorry that I did not express myself more clearly earlier. I was not referring to sheep that are shorn for their wool, but to the substantial number of sheep that are kept specifically to be slaughtered so that their skin can be used for such things as sheepskin coats. I hope that I have spelt that out sufficiently clearly for the Minister, who obviously did not understand me before. Will that practice be banned by the Bill?
Mr. Morley: I am not aware of any farmer who keeps sheep with the primary or sole purpose of producing

43
fleeces. Sheep predominantly are reared for meat. They are sent to slaughterhouses, and fleeces are a by-product. In that respect, they will not be caught by the Bill.
The import and export of fur products will not be affected by the Bill, as they re outside its scope.
The Bill has seven clauses. Clause 1 creates a primary offence of keeping animals primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur, or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. Moreover, I can tell the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that a sheep farm set up for no other purpose than to produce fleece coats would certainly be prohibited by the Bill.
It is immaterial whether the keeper or another person carries out the slaughter. Clause 1 also creates the secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to keep animals for the prohibited purpose. Both offences can be committed by a company or an individual.
A person who keeps animals partly for slaughter for the value of their fur and partly for another purpose will be guilty of the offence only if slaughter is the primary purpose for keeping the animals. Under no circumstances that I know of does that happen in relation to sheep.
The definition of "value" is the commercial value of the fur. We anticipate that there will be relatively few cases in which a person is guilty of the secondary offence. An example would be where the director of an overseas company might have caused the company to have committed that offence. For both the primary and the secondary offences, the penalty on conviction is a fine not exceeding £20,000.
Clause 2 gives the court power to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction or other disposal of the animals following conviction for either the primary or secondary offence. A person claiming to have an interest in the animals may apply to the court to resist the making of a forfeiture order.
Clause 3 deals with the effect of a forfeiture order. It provides a right of appeal to the Crown court for anyone claiming to have an interest in the animals being forfeited.
Clause 4 gives a power of entry and inspection to enable the evidence of an offence to be gathered, and gives a power to enter premises to carry out a forfeiture order. Intentionally obstructing or delaying any person in the exercise of either power of entry will be an offence. The maximum penalty for such offences will be a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which at present is £1,000.
Clause 5 requires the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a scheme for paying compensation to fur farmers who incur losses as a result of the banning of fur farming. The clause also allows the National Assembly for Wales to make a compensation scheme.
Mr. John Burnett: The Minister will recall that he and I discussed compensation and other matters in relation to the original Bill. Will he elaborate on that point later in his speech?
Mr. Morley: I can deal with that point now. The original Bill was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I pay
44
tribute to the work that she did in bringing the Bill forward and exploring many of the arguments. The original Bill did not provide for compensation for income forgone. When that Bill was being considered in Committee, I gave an undertaking that the Government would consider an amendment that would not rule out the provision of compensation for income forgone. Provision for potential compensation for income forgone has been made available as part of the detail of the Bill.
Mr. Burnett: Given the draconian nature of Bill, surely it is only fair that people should be compensated on an arm's-length basis? That means that they would receive the market price for a business sold as a going concern.
Mr. Morley: The Bill contains provision to set up a compensation scheme. There will, of course, be consultation with interested parties about the nature of the scheme, and about how it should be constructed. There will also be provision for independent arbitration, and a reference to the Lands Tribunal. I think that that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.
We are trying to be as fair as possible about this. That is why the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom has written to the Government saying that although the abolition of fur farming would not of course be its preferred option, it wants the Bill to progress. There has been an element of doubt and uncertainty in relation to their members' businesses, which, it is quite right and proper, should be addressed as speedily as possible by the House.
Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again and to right hon. and hon. Members for their patience. Some of the dwellings on fur farms are covered by planning conditions restricting the use of those dwellings as ancillary to fur farms or agricultural use. Will the Minister confirm that instructions will be given from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to local planning authorities to allow them to overcome the restrictions and be sympathetic to lifting them?
Mr. Morley: This is rather a detailed point which has to do with the structure plans and planning priorities of local planning authorities. They will have their own views on this matter. There are alternative uses for fur farms, which are agricultural. Therefore, the provision for the house would not change in relation to some of those uses.
I want to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not doubt that once we start detailed consultation on the compensation schemes, planning will be discussed. I will be more than willing to consider and discuss that issue to assist existing fur farmers in diversifying into other businesses. I can give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.
Mr. Hunter: I recall that in the Standing Committee considering the private Member's Bill last year, the Minister stated that detailed discussion of compensation was under way. Are we to understand that there has been no advance on that discussion in the light of the failed private Member's Bill last year?
Mr. Morley: No, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not recall saying that detailed discussion was

45
under way. There cannot be detailed discussion on compensation without this Bill, which puts in place the mechanism for compensation. This is an enabling Bill: the compensation scheme will follow, after statutory consultation and the laying of a statutory instrument. We cannot have detailed discussion until then. It is certainly true that we have been giving thought to how it will work, but we cannot finalise the details until we have had a chance to have a proper discussion and consultation with those who are affected.
Such a scheme will provide for compensation to be paid, whether or not the fur farmers are still in business when the ban comes into force. The details of the compensation package are not contained in the Bill, as I said, but will be the subject of secondary legislation once the Bill becomes law. Only licensed fur farming businesses in existence on 2 March 1999 will be eligible to claim compensation. Fur farmers were reminded on 30 November 1999 of that cut-off date, which was originally announced when my hon. Friend the Member for Garston presented her private Member's Bill in the previous Session. No compensation will be payable for expenditure on assets acquired after that date. Existing fur farmers have been notified of that.
It is envisaged that the scheme will be used to pay compensation where assets cease to have a use and the investment cannot be recouped by resale. I will decide whether to compensate for income after the consultation exercise, and the form that compensation will take.
Principal assets of fur farming are the land, buildings and equipment, breeding stock and young-stock for slaughter. No compensation should be required for the land, as it has alternative uses. Compensation may be required for buildings and equipment that do not have alternative uses. Compensation may be required for wastage of some livestock over a winding-down period of two to three years. Disputes over compensation claims would be settled by arbitration or the Lands Tribunal.
Clause 6 provides that the power to authorise a person to exercise the power of entry and the power to make a compensation scheme rests with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and the National Assembly for Wales.
Clause 7 requires the Minister to make a commencement order for the ban to come into force. That may not be done before 1 January 2003. The Bill will thus provide a winding-down period extending at least until the end of 2002.
Mr. Burnett rose—
Mr. Morley: I think that I may be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. The purpose of delayed commencement is to give fur farmers an opportunity to adjust their affairs and wind down their businesses in advance of the ban. In particular, it provides an opportunity to slaughter any existing stocks of animals; to give notice to employees; to make arrangements for future employment and the future use of land on which animals are currently kept; and to avoid incurring new capital expenditure, other than any incurred for the purpose of complying with any statutory obligation.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Would the Minister clear up a point for me? Since neither the eating of meat nor the wearing of fur is essential to human life, what is the moral distinction between the two?
Mr. Morley: Meat is a food source. I recognise that some people do not eat it, but they are in a minority in our society, which depends on meat production as an important food source. There is a clear distinction in that sense.
The power to make a compensation scheme will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The power can be exercised to enable compensation to be paid to fur farmers who close their businesses in advance of the date on which the ban comes into force.
The Government's view is that the Bill is compatible with the treaty of Rome and the European convention on human rights. The Government consider that, although the ban arguably has an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, it is lawful under European Union law, being justified by article 30 of the EU treaty on the ground of public morality. As I have just outlined, there will be a winding-down period before the ban comes into force. Together with the payment of compensation for certain categories of loss, that will ensure, in the Government's view, that the Bill is compatible with the convention.
Many people have pressed the Government to introduce this Bill. I am glad to be able to move its Second Reading. There is considerable support for it in the country, and the fur farmers themselves want an end to a period of uncertainty. They want us to proceed with this measure in order that they may begin detailed discussions on compensation and phase fur farming out in a reasonable and orderly way.
I am convinced that the keeping of animals solely for fur is not justified on moral grounds in today's society. The Ministry has been involved in prosecutions in relation to welfare problems associated with fur farms. I will be happy to make available to any hon. Member who wants them the details of those prosecutions, including video and photographic evidence.
This reasonable measure has long been awaited, and I hope that it commands support from all right hon. and hon. Members.
4.58 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Bill sets a precedent, and an unwelcome one. Never before have a Government proposed an outright ban on a particular form of farming. We do not believe, and our view is endorsed by the National Farmers Union, that any Government should introduce legislation that seeks to criminalise the legitimate farming activities of a section of farmers. The Bill goes far beyond measures taken by successive Governments to regulate and enforce, but not dictate, what farmers can and cannot do in a free society.
The Minister has claimed that the NFU and fur breeders support the Bill. That is not strictly true. Many fur breeders are frankly desperate after years of harassment by animal rights protesters—perhaps a better description is animal rights terrorists. Faced by a Government with a huge majority who are intent on closing them down, those fur breeders are only too happy to throw in the towel, provided—the main point—that there is fair

47
compensation. In no way can their capitulation be described as support. There has been coercion, in tooth and claw.
The Bill does not have the support of the National Farmers Union, either. Most of the farmers affected are NFU members. If there is a legitimate welfare concern, the NFU would support measures to underpin the delivery of high standards of animal welfare through regulation. However, that is not the Government's intention.
Angela Smith: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment that the NFU would support measures to improve the welfare of mink on mink farms. What measures has the NFU supported to date?
Mr. Moss: It is not for the NFU to introduce legislation to control mink farming. The Government could have introduced such restrictions and regulations, but they have not done so—they have proposed a complete ban. However, I shall develop my argument on that point later.
Mr. Gray: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, as he may not have the relevant briefing to hand. The NFU strongly supported, among other provisions, the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, the Mink (Keeping) (Amendment) Regulations 1997, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, and the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, dated 1991. The NFU supported all those measures for the improvement of standards in mink keeping.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those details. The Government have completely ignored the NFU's recommendations.
The Government do not intend to introduce regulations. They hardly bother to justify their actions by reference to the welfare of mink on those farms. They know only too well that conditions are not wholly unacceptable; many farms are operating on lines identical to those of their European competitors. However, if there was an overriding animal welfare case for more stringent regulations and tighter controls, those measures would find acceptance on this side of the House, with the NFU and—I suspect—with fur farmers.
Why do the Government not take that road? One cannot but conclude that they are hung up on some warped ideology and skewered on the peg of political correctness.
The Bill is poorly drafted. Despite warnings during proceedings on the private Member's Bill last year, it is still not clear whether other farmers could inadvertently be caught by its provisions. There is a potential problem for farmers who breed rabbits for both meat and fur; they could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, if—when the value of the fur exceeded that of the rabbit meat—they could be accused under clause 1 of keeping animals
solely or primarily…for slaughter…for the value of their fur.
That problem could be overcome if the measure specified the species of animal to which it applies, rather than introducing a generalised catch-all. One is left feeling puzzled as to why the Government have not tried to rectify that anomaly.
48
Not only is the Bill poorly drafted, it is conceptually and legally flawed. Its conceptual flaw is that no reasoned justification has been given—although the Minister had ample opportunity to give one in his opening remarks. Its legal flaw is that it appears to run counter to European Union legislation.
A most telling contribution to the debate, and to discussion of fur farming in general, lies in an illuminating and interesting memorandum, dated 7 December 1999, from the legal experts of COPA—the Committee of Agriculture Organisations in the European Community—and COGECA—the General Committee for Agricultural Co-operatives in the EU—on the legality of national welfare measures from an EC perspective.
The key legal position is set out in Council directive 98/58/EC, which aims to establish common minimum standards for the protection of animals kept for fur farming. Under the directive, a member state can apply stricter provisions for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes within its own territories, but that opportunity is limited—this is the important point—by articles 28 and 29 of the EC treaty, as well as by the general principles of Community law; for example, the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as defined by the Court of Justice.
Articles 28 and 29 refer to changes in the national production of certain products, including a ban that would influence trade between member states and could thus be construed as having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. As for non-discrimination—one of the fundamental principles of Community law—comparable situations should not be differently treated unless the difference is objectively justified. The Commission's memorandum states:
It is difficult to justify objectively stricter national measures or even a national ban when, at European level, scientific evidence suggests this kind of production.
Perhaps the most telling judgment in the memorandum is that which refers to proportionality. In the view of its authors:
A national ban of a certain type of production would be considered disproportionate if it could be shown to have been "manifestly inappropriate in the aim of animal welfare".
Furthermore, the authors point out:
Stricter national measures or even a ban motivated by ethical or political grounds, not limited to genuine or justified animal welfare, seem to be incompatible with the principle of proportionality.
Those are truly damning indictments. There can have been few, if any, Second Readings of a Bill on which the Minister involved has given such a totally unsatisfactory and poorly reasoned justification for legislation as that given by the Minister today.
Maria Eagle: If I have caught the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks correctly, he seems to be suggesting that the Opposition will oppose the Bill. Will he explain why, in the previous Session when I was the Member in charge of a Bill that was almost exactly similar, the Opposition did not oppose it?
Mr. Moss: The hon. Lady will have to wait until the end of the debate to find out what will happen. In the main, we oppose the Bill, but we shall not vote against its Second Reading; there will be a free vote.
Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend, whose researches have obviously been legion, will recall that, when I was the

49
Opposition spokesman on this subject, I said that the previous Bill's supporters had to answer a number of questions. To the best of my knowledge, those questions have yet to be answered. Is that not the answer to the hon. Lady's point?
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend's point is well made.
Last year, on the Second Reading of the previous Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), the Minister spoke of the Government's determination to end fur farming, primarily on animal welfare grounds. The Government's emphasis now, in justifying this Bill, has been on the grounds of public morality. They have said—the Minister reiterated these points today—that they remain
convinced that no moral justification exists for fur farming in the U.K.
and that
there are over riding moral arguments in favour of a ban and a general public interest in removing this particular source of livelihood.
However, as I have pointed out by quoting from the Commission's memorandum, the public morality line—lifted, it would seem, by a rather desperate Government from article 30 of the EC treaty—would certainly be challenged, and would most likely fail, under the tests of non-discrimination and proportionality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, Finland, Italy, Spain and Denmark have written to the Commission about the Bill and sent in their observations, while France, as the Minister confirmed, has submitted a detailed opinion. Because a detailed opinion has been sent, it is my understanding—perhaps the Minister could confirm this when he winds up—that the Government cannot approve the Bill until June. Meanwhile, they are obliged to respond to that French detailed opinion. The Minister confirmed that the Government have not done that yet, so it may help us to know when the Government propose to ask for the detailed opinion from France.
So that there is no doubt as to what is covered in directive 98/58/EC, I make it clear that its definition relates to all animals
bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes.
However, the memorandum to which I referred earlier points out:
With the adoption of Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, a national ban on certain types of production of animal species which are covered by this Directive and covered by common Organisations of the Markets is no longer possible.
The Minister's own advisers and the other civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must have serious reservations about the Bill. If they are so confident that it conforms to European law, why did they think it necessary to notify the Commission about it? Why was it also deemed necessary to include in the Bill a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his interpretation of the European convention on human rights? That is certain to be tested in court, as the Bill appears to breach a fundamental right guaranteed under protocol 1, article 1, which states:
every legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
50
Of course, in law, possessions include farm animals. The Bill may also breach article 14, on discrimination.
In light of the Minister's failure to address those legal questions, we—along with the National Farmers Union—call on the Government to publish the legal advice from which they concluded that the proposed ban was compatible with EU law.
Given the sheer weight of that legal opinion from the EU, one is horrified and perplexed by the Government's attitude. Why are they blindly pressing ahead with the Bill, which was not a manifesto commitment, although it was mentioned in Labour party dispatches? It will not influence the wearing of fur—which, apparently, is now on the increase—or affect fur farming elsewhere in the EU. The Bill will simply hand an increased market share of fur production and trade to our EU competitors. As I have said, it has already provoked a reaction from other fur-producing countries, which are now committed to taking the Government to the European Court.
If the Bill is passed, compensation to producers—to which I shall return later—will entail a cost to the taxpayer. Sums ranging from £500,000 to £5 million, which could be much better spent on other Government services, will be involved. What are the Government's priorities? What is one to make of a Government who set as a priority for parliamentary time a Bill that will, on the spurious grounds of public morality, rob of their livelihoods 13 innocent farmers who are operating legally—especially as regards EU law?
The issue is no longer one of animal welfare. The living conditions of mink on fur farms are not in question. The Bill demonstrates the Government's fixation with presentation, which they put above substance, and with populism, which they put above the rights of minorities.
Mr. Morley: In my opening remarks, I explained that animal welfare was one of several issues relating to morality. A recent report from Nimon and Broom outlines welfare problems with the keeping of mink, stating:
The high level and pervasiveness of stereotypies among farmed mink and the incidence of fur chewing and even self-mutilation of tail tissue, suggest that farmed mink welfare is not good.
Mr. Moss: That is hardly a public morality issue of the kind that the Government seek to use to justify the Bill. Indeed, it is an animal welfare issue, and, as we have just said, animal welfare is no longer at the forefront of the Bill.
We welcome the fact that improvements to the earlier private Member's Bill have been incorporated in the Bill. It is proper that consultation should take place with fur farmers under clause 5(3), and that disputes should be referred first to arbitration under clause 5(4)(b) or for determination by the Lands Tribunal under clause 5(5). Frankly, that procedure is so painfully drawn out and laborious that the provisions are hardly worth the paper on which they are printed.
The restriction in the private Member's Bill excluding losses of income from any compensation scheme has now been dropped, but there is still no guarantee in the Bill that claims for losses of income will be eligible. It is important for all concerned, and in the interests of natural justice, that the Minister, in his wind-up speech, give an assurance that compensation will cover loss of income.

51
The industry genuinely fears that the Government intend to cheat it. Paragraph 26 of the explanatory notes speaks of compensation costs of £400,000 for assets,
and perhaps four times that amount if income were to be compensated.
That £1.6 million would be totally inadequate, given the size of claim from one producer alone of some £5 million.
Fair compensation—this point has already been raised—should be the value of the fur-farming enterprise at an open market sale price in the context of a willing purchaser under current European legislation. Anything less will be seen as robbery and a reneging on a verbal agreement given by the Government.
A cynic might well conclude that, having failed in their manifesto commitment to ban fox hunting—effectively caving in to a perceived backlash from the countryside—the Government have cast around for some other issue to satisfy the demands of the animal rights lobby—which, lest we forget, gave £1 million to the Labour party before the election. Bingo, there on the shelf was the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston. It was the only animal rights issue on the shelf.
Mr. Gray: I have a small correction. My hon. Friend gave the impression that there was a Labour party manifesto commitment to ban fox hunting. There was of course no such commitment; there was a commitment merely to a free vote on the issue. Equally, however, there was no Labour party manifesto commitment to ban fur farming.
Mr. Moss: I agree with my hon. Friend's second point.
The real reason for the Bill before us is a Labour party commitment to the animal welfare lobby, from which, of course, it received a handsome payment. It is a pay-off to that lobby, despite the fact that it is certain to be challenged in the European court, will incur considerable costs, and sets out to crush the legitimate interests of a tiny minority. This Government are blundering on with specious legislation because of their vindictive political correctness.
5.16 pm
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am delighted that the Government are at last taking action to end one form of animal cruelty and to fulfil a pre-election pledge—not before time. It has taken them three years, but better late than never. I have long hoped that such a Bill would become law. Indeed, I tabled an appropriate early-day motion way back in June 1997, which had considerable support from hon. Members. I am therefore delighted at this Second Reading.
Today's debate allows the House to decide whether the welfare implications concerning farmed animals, and public concern over the breeding and killing of animals for no more than fur, are sufficient grounds to outlaw the legal practice of fur farming. Doing so is a responsibility that I take very seriously. Under the United Kingdom's constitution, we may all do what we like unless there is a law against it. That means that, as law makers, we must carefully consider when overall liberty should be
52
curtailed. Having considered that issue, I reached the conclusion many years ago that fur farming should definitely be banned.
I am sure that my view reflects that of the majority of people in the United Kingdom—even, I understand, representatives of the National Farmers Union, who have not asked hon. Members to vote against the Bill. The NFU has certainly not contacted me, even though when it wants something desperately, it normally ensures that it makes contact.
The Government have justified their support for the Bill on the ground of public morality—we have just heard the argument. My support for the ban is based predominantly on animal welfare grounds—and I make no bones about that. The downright cruelty that fur farming generates must be stopped.
At this time of year, mink in fur factory farms are giving birth. After six months of hell in small cages, their offspring will be killed, ultimately by gassing—in order, frankly, that some pretentious person may end up wearing a mink coat. I find that totally objectionable. In this morning's edition of the Financial Times, an article headed, "Attempt to ban fur farming may go to European Court", was accompanied by a photograph of a fur farmer in Finland, showing the cages in which the animals are kept.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steinberg: In a minute.
The cages are not even big enough for the animals to turn round. That is absolutely disgusting, and it is one reason why I firmly support the ban.
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Gray rose—
Mr. Steinberg: I give way to the hon. Member from—
Mr. Gray: From where?
Mr. Steinberg: From Teignbridge.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman makes his point about the cruelty caused to animals, well knowing that current legislation could deal with that in any event. Will he comment on the Parliamentary Secretary's remark that the moral distinction between eating meat and wearing fur is that only a minority wear fur? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that analysis?
Mr. Steinberg: Yes, absolutely. I make no apologies for saying that I find the practice of farming and producing animals purely for cosmetic value to be distasteful and disgusting. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister, but my view is clear as well.
Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steinberg: No. I shall continue for a little longer and then I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
Mr. Morley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Steinberg: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the hon. Member for Teignbridge

53
(Mr. Nicholls) to misrepresent my remarks. I did not say that the difference between meat and fur was that one was a minority interest and the other was not. Food production is an essential part of our society, but the production of fur in this country is non-essential, because there are many other options.
Mr. Steinberg: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made the point clear for the Hansard record. As I have said, my view is clear as well. If an animal is produced purely for cosmetic value, that is a disgraceful industry that should be stopped.
Fur farming is not a huge industry in this country. We are all well aware that there are about only 13 farms breeding mink. The animal is not indigenous to the UK, and it needs an environment that is difficult to replicate in the caged conditions of a fur farm. Mink were brought here only for the purposes of the fur trade. Poor husbandry led to inevitable escapes into the countryside, and most hon. Members know that mink cause considerable damage and havoc when let loose.
Concern about the poor standards on mink farms led to mink-keeping regulations being passed by Parliament. Those led to an improvement over the years, but by the 1950s and 1960s the United Kingdom had an established population of feral mink. Such was the Ministry's concern that during the 1960s it financed an attempt to obliterate mink from the countryside. However, numbers had grown so large that the campaign had to be abandoned.
In more modern times, mink escapes have been due to inadequate husbandry and to the actions of various animal rights groups. Their concern about the conditions in which animals are kept and about their ultimate fate is undoubtedly well meaning, but the impact of releases has been devastating in the areas upon which they have been inflicted.
Mink may be here to stay in the UK, and the legacy that fur farming will leave in the countryside will need managing for some time. Ironically, some research shows that mink numbers are being reduced in areas where otter numbers are increasing and otters are reclaiming their natural aquatic environment. The irony is that otter numbers have risen in part because of a ban on their being hunted by dogs. That method has also been used to control mink numbers, but in a rather unsatisfactory way, because of the damage caused to sensitive riverbank environments. It is an argument for another day, but it is worth noting that mink have been better controlled by a ban on hunting with dogs than they were by the other legislation.
It is the semi-aquatic environment needed by mink that is so difficult to provide on a mink farm. Indeed, there is no attempt to provide it. We have all had the opportunity to see footage of the conditions in which mink have been kept in this country. They have been inadequately housed and there have been poor welfare standards. There are signs of cage madness in their behaviour, and even cannibalism. It is not a pretty sight, and it is unacceptable.
I expected Conservative Members to ask, "Have you been to a mink farm?" The answer is that I have not. However, no one can deny that the conditions that we have seen on film are wrong. Nor can the fairly recent convictions for cruelty on fur farms be disputed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), who chairs the parliamentary group on animal welfare, is in hospital, but he hopes to come to the
54
House tonight for the vote. He debated the point on Radio 5 with a fur farmer. I remember him asking for the opportunity to visit the farm. He was told by the fur farmer that he could come by all means, but only if adequate prior notice of his visit was given. That tells us much about fur farms in the United Kingdom.
Some hon. Members will undoubtedly argue that if the problem is one of standards, we should pass legislation to deal with it. I cannot agree. I do not believe that adequate standards for creatures such as mink will ever be in place in fur farms.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does not the hon. Gentleman see an inconsistency between admitting that legislation on fur farms is already in place and has led to convictions in some cases, and supporting a Government who allow the free import of meat from many parts of the world, including other parts of Europe, where animal welfare standards are abysmal?
Mr. Steinberg: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I only wish that the Government had the power to prevent such meat from coming into the country. We do not have that power, but we have the power to prevent mink farming. That is within our jurisdiction. If he wants to introduce a private Member's Bill to stop the imports that he describes, I shall support him vigorously.
Mink farmers have had the entire 20th century to meet the standards, and have not done so. That answers the hon. Gentleman's point. Under existing legislation, convictions for cruelty still take place. Clearly, that legislation has not worked.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a tragedy that many people in Britain are cruel to their pet dogs. Plainly, the legislation to prevent cruelty to pet dogs is not working. Would he argue that we should ban the keeping of pet dogs, because some people are cruel to them?
Mr. Steinberg: I would certainly ban some people from keeping pet dogs. Again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to do something about that, I shall support him. I entirely agree that there are many people in this country who are irresponsible and should not be allowed anywhere near a dog, let alone be allowed to keep one.
Every chance has been given to stop cruelty to mink, without success. The end product is by no means a necessity. It is not a by-product of a farm that is producing food or fulfilling any useful need. I cannot support the continuance of what might be described as vanity farming, considering all that the animals go through so that what some people consider a superior item of clothing can be produced.
Over the years, there have been many campaigns on the issue, with many memorable slogans. Perhaps the one that most people remember is that fur coats are worn by beautiful animals and ugly people—a powerful statement, but perhaps a little unfair. It should say ugly, naive and uninformed people, but the general point is strong.
As for compensation, I have heard the argument that there should be none, as fur farmers have exploited the animals for long enough and made enough money out of it not to be compensated. However, I do not accept that. If the ban is successful, there is a legitimate need to

55
compensate those who will lose their livelihood as a result of the legislation. All fur farmers are entitled to compensation, but it will not be automatic. The Bill should make it automatic.
I understand that some kennel owners wanted compensation after the introduction of the passports for pets scheme, but were unsuccessful on the grounds that that was only part of their business. For some fur farmers, that is their entire business. Compensation will help them to get out of the industry or to diversify into some other form of farming or trade.
For many people in this country, fur farming is an awful, unnecessary trade. However, those who undertake it are currently entitled to do so by law. They should therefore be reimbursed accordingly. I understand that even the Fur Breeders Association wants the law sooner rather than later, because the current uncertainty makes life hard for those who are left in the business.
I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill. It is said that the extent to which a country is civilised can by judged by its treatment of animals. In many ways, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Let us consider my part of the country. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently conducted a survey, which found that some people in the north-east of England treated animals disgracefully. I wish that we could stop all cruelty.
Tonight we have a duty to show an example and make it clear that animal cruelty cannot be condoned in any form, regardless of where it takes place. I am confident that hon. Members will support the Bill vigorously, and that it will not be long before we are back again to abolish another obscenity—fox hunting. We are a civilised country; I presume we are a civilised House. Let us prove that by walking through the Lobby together tonight and ending the awful, unnecessary trade of fur farming.
5.31 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the fact that the Government have finally found a slot in their timetable to discuss the Bill. I introduced a measure to outlaw fur farming in the 1997 Session. It was vetoed by the Labour Whips, allegedly because it was badly drafted. However, they made no attempt to improve it.
We are considering an issue that affects few people in this country. Mink were first introduced to the United Kingdom by fur farmers in 1929. Forty years later, there were more than 600 farms. However, several high-profile campaigns and a clear change in the public mood meant that, by 1982, there were only 68 farms. Now there are only 13.
Public disquiet is not felt only by animal welfare "terrorists" as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, rather unwisely and unfortunately called them. The majority of the public—75 per cent. in the most recent MORI poll—believe that fur farming should be banned. We must take that view into account. The Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is the advisory body to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, condemned fur farming and refused to issue guidelines for the welfare of the animals.
56
Our debate is not about the fate of 13 individuals or fur farms. Thirteen is such a small number that the Treasury should be able to find sufficient compensation for those farmers. I hope that the Bill will provide for proper compensation. The farmers are currently undertaking a legal activity, which they will be unable to continue when the Bill is passed. They should therefore be compensated.
The debate is about when it is right to ban a legal activity. Parliament should be careful before taking such a step. We are considering when it should be right to impose such a ban. That gives rise to genuine philosophical divisions, not necessarily on party lines. The Minister made an interesting distinction, which I have not heard him make previously, between animals that are reared for food production and those that are reared for what he described as non-essential production. On that basis, the Government should introduce a Bill to ban fox hunting and other forms of hunting. If that is the Government's basis for outlawing fur farming, we must ask why they are not introducing a measure to ban hunting. If they want to be consistent, they should. They have not done so, but if they do, I imagine that those who run hunt kennels will be compensated. Our approach to such matters should be consistent.
Mr. Hunter: I, too, am fascinated by the Government's argument, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could widen his thoughts. Why should a distinction be drawn between what is essential and non-essential only in farming? For example, I am tempted to say that homosexuality is non-essential, so why do not the Government ban homosexuality?
Mr. Baker: The Bill does not have 28 clauses, so I shall sidestep that intervention, which takes us a long way from fur farming. I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to deal with that point.
The genuine debate is about the extent to which animals have rights. People talk about animal rights or animal welfare, but they are not quite the same. Animals have rights and we, the human race, have to ensure that our behaviour does not remove their basic freedoms. I fully respect the fact that that is not the view of other hon. Members.
Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that rights are always and everywhere the converse of obligations?
Mr. Baker: I think that I would, if I fully understood the legal term that the hon. Gentleman uses, but rights apply to those who are in charge of a situation and to those who are subject to it. Therefore, our role—and subsequently that of the courts—is to balance that. If we accept that animals are not the same as agricultural goods, we have to deal with them differently.
Animals were defined as agricultural goods in the treaty of Rome, but that definition was subsequently changed so that they are now classed as sentient beings. I am very glad about that change, which was the result of pressure from a range of people, including members of my party. Animals should not be regarded in the same way as potatoes, so it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested that animals are possessions. That is out of line with EU definitions.

57
We should recognise that animals can feel and that they suffer if certain basic requirements are not met. They are not the same as inanimate possessions, so we are in different territory, which is why it is right to consider banning activities that are detrimental to animals and why I favour a ban, even though it is not the natural Liberal inclination to ban things. This is a difficult conundrum, but it is clear that such a ban is justified.
I have mentioned public perception. The latest poll shows that, as well as 75 per cent. of British people thinking that fur farming should be banned, only 4 per cent. ever wear fur and 85 per cent. think that the trapping of animals for fur should be banned. We should take account of public opinion, and it is clearly on one side of the argument.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made some interesting points on the legal position and I hope that the Minister will reply to those genuine questions.
Mr. Nicholls: The polls show that between 65 and 80 per cent. of the British public want capital punishment to be reintroduced. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?
Mr. Baker: I agree that Parliament must always give weight to public opinion; it is not the determining factor, but it must be taken into account when decisions are taken in the House.
I understand that Britain is not alone in introducing such legislation. Switzerland effectively ended fur farming in 1978, bar allowing animals such as mink and fox to be kept only under zoo conditions. In 1998, the Netherlands began a 10-year phase-out of fox and chinchilla farming. The last mink farm in Austria closed following a ban in 1998. If that is the case in the Netherlands and Austria, I should be interested to know—I hope that the Minister will tell us—whether the bans in those countries have been challenged by other member states. According to the Conservatives, there is a plethora of objections to the United Kingdom proposal, so it is odd that we have heard nothing about the situation in the Netherlands and Austria, where bans have already been introduced.
There is slight inconsistency in the Conservatives' approach to the EU—there generally is—in that they suggest that other EU countries are clamouring to register objections to the Bill, presumably because they want our fur farms to continue. However, they also said that the Bill will provide a wonderful opportunity to take our business, which is a slightly odd juxtaposition of arguments.
Mr. Gray: It may be worth clarifying the precise position of foreign countries. The hon. Gentleman may not have realised that Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, so it does not come into the argument. No other European country has banned mink farming. The only exception is the Netherlands, which has banned fox fur farming. A number of provinces in Austria and Germany have banned mink farming, but I think that I am right in saying that no country has banned it outright.
Mr. Baker: I have explained the advice that I have been given, and I shall wait for the Minister to give us his version of events. Even if provinces of Austria and Germany have banned mink farming, they are subject to
58
the same EU rules as the country as a whole, so that is a red herring. Fox and chinchilla farming are covered by the Bill, so that is also a red herring. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I mentioned the philosophical dimension to this issue, which is perhaps the most important, but there is also an animal welfare aspect. That is why interest in this matter has built up over the years. It is accepted by both sides that mink are wild animals and should not be kept in cages. No one has defended that, but perhaps someone will do so tonight. They are solitary animals and should not be kept in groups. They defend their territories through patrolling, scent marking and aggression, and unfamiliar adults put in the same cages have exhibited that aggression.
In the wild, mink reside in a large territory and have a larger range in which to hunt: it can be up to 22 acres. The best animal welfare conditions in our mink farms have not provided solitary mink with 22 acres each, or anywhere near that. They have much less territory, so their natural behavioural patterns have been severely curtailed by farming.
Mink are semi-aquatic and need water in which to swim, as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said. Studies show that they spend much of their time in or close to water, and they often hunt and play in water. They have semi-webbed feet, which shows that as they have evolved they have spent a significant amount of time in water. They have no opportunity to swim in fur farms, so that environment is hardly ideal for their welfare.
By all means let hon. Members have the philosophical debate, but the welfare conditions in which mink are kept are clearly out of line with their requirements, and it is difficult to see how even the most conscientious mink farmer in the country could change them to make them satisfactory. That is probably one of the thoughts underlying the legislation.
Other aspects of fur farming must be considered, including the strains of mink. Captive mink can display a wide variety of pelt colours, including rarer colours that reach a premium price. The colours are controlled by a sequence of 18 genes that can be manipulated by selective breeding. It is possible that financial pressure on mink farmers has led them to produce rare colours. Breeding has concentrated on the colour of the coat and not on the other implications, including the health of the animal. The white coat is produced by a line of mink who are congenitally blind.
Killing methods also leave something to be desired. Animals are harvested without spoiling their pelt. The most widely used method of killing them is by gassing. Carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide is supposed to reduce the availability of oxygen to the animals, and lead to unconsciousness followed by death. Carbon dioxide is a colourless gas, but has an acrid smell. It is claimed that 100 per cent. carbon dioxide can kill mink in 19 seconds, but it is also shown that the mink react to its presence and suffer extreme stress by being forced into such an environment. Being semi-aquatic, mink can hold their breath for extended periods, so it is not a particularly quick death. Of the 15 mink farms in the United Kingdom in 1997, 14 used gassing—10 of them with carbon monoxide and four with carbon dioxide—and one used barbiturate injection.

59
When we consider animals, we must bear in mind their five freedoms and consider to what extent existing and proposed future practices conform to those accepted freedoms. They have been proposed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I think that they are generally accepted without dispute. They are freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition, freedom from the need for appropriate comfort and shelter, the prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury, disease or infestation, freedom from fear, and freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour.
Those conditions should be met in any activity that we permit involving animals, and we should measure existing practices against them to see how far they are met. If they are not being met, we should raise standards. If they cannot be met, as I am not sure they can be in mink farming, we should ban mink farming. There is also a debate about whether it is right to use animals at all—or, as some might say, exploit them—if they are not being reared for food purposes. The Minister made that point at the outset.
The Liberal Democrats believe that fur farming and trapping animals for their fur cause unnecessary suffering, and we shall therefore support the Government if there is a vote.
5.46 pm
Maria Eagle: I am particularly pleased to speak. As the Member in charge of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill presented in the last Session, I have more than a passing interest in the fate of this Bill, and am even more determined than usual to ensure that the Government get their business through as soon as possible.
I congratulate the Government on their wisdom and good sense—although I would say that, I suppose—in supporting the arguments put to them by me, and by a number of my Bill's supporters, at the end of the last Session, when it became clear that the Bill would not proceed beyond Report. It would have been easy for the Government then to think of it as a small measure, and to let it drop. I am grateful to them for picking it up and turning it into a Government Bill. Let me say in parenthesis that I am even more grateful that it will not be my job tonight to protect the legislation, and to ensure that enough Members turn up to vote it through.
I appreciate that it is never easy to persuade a Government that an essentially small measure such as this, affecting a limited number of people, merits their full attention and deserves to be included in their legislative programme—especially, I suspect, when it requires public expenditure. I am glad that my small Bill has survived those pitfalls, and I am certain that that is partly due to the eloquence and persistence of my hon. Friend the Minister in arguing against doubters who must have suggested that other measures should have a prior call on both parliamentary time and public spending.
I believe that the fact that the Bill is before us again constitutes a recognition of the essential argument of principle, and of the moral case that can be made that seemingly small Bills can be symbolic, important and worth pursuing. The argument that I think goes to the heart of the Bill is the animal welfare argument, namely
60
that it is unjustifiable, cruel and obnoxious in a civilised society such as we purport to have to allow wild animals to be kept in extremely small cages that prevent them from exhibiting their natural behaviour, to their evident distress, merely to collect the commercial value of their fur, which is something that we can all do without.
I believe that that practice is so obnoxious and repugnant that it should be stopped, and that it is appropriate for the law to be used to stop it. That is why I support this Bill, and why I presented my own Bill. I am sure that the strength of the argument helped my hon. Friend the Minister when, along with the rest of the Government, he claimed that the Bill should constitute a priority.
Mr. Nicholls: On Second Reading of her Bill, the hon. Lady said that she had not had time to visit a fur farm. I think we all accept that that is fair enough, but, given what she has said about animals' inevitably being in deep distress and therefore presumably being incapable of being handled, has she yet had an opportunity to visit a farm?
Maria Eagle: My aim was to visit more than one, but I could not visit more than one, partly because some farmers' advisers at the time were preventing access to the more notorious farms. However, I was able to visit one during the last Session, after Second Reading of my Bill, and found it extremely informative and interesting—although it did not change my basic view that it was not appropriate to keep wild animals in small cages.
It is surely right that one way in which we may judge the extent of our civilisation and the quality of our society is to look at how we treat our fellow sentient creatures. Do we respect them? Do we do our best to avoid treating them with unjustifiable cruelty, or do we view them merely as a commercial opportunity to be exploited for the fullest profit that may be extracted from them, to the exclusion of all but the most extreme considerations of humane treatment?
I, the Bill's supporters and the Government say that it should be the former. The British Fur Trade Association—which purports to represent the fur farmers, but which, in fact, does not—and many members of the Conservative party who oppose the Bill say that it should be the latter. They are willing to put the freedom of people cruelly to exploit wild animals above any obligation to show humanity and avoid excessive suffering, which keeping wild animals in small cages inevitably causes.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) that it is impossible to devise humane standards in intensive farming for the keeping of mink. In fact, the Farm Animal Welfare Council came to that conclusion 11 years ago when it refused to set standards that could be called humane for the keeping of mink.
The Bill extends to all fur-bearing creatures, but in practice it is mink farming that we are concerned about. The hon. Gentleman has already made some remarks on the basic facts about mink farming. There remain 13 mink farms in England—there are none in Scotland or in Wales—down from some 700 in the 1960s. The market for fur has declined in Britain by 99 per cent. since 1980. Despite what certain elements of the industry say, all the evidence is that the market is still declining.
Mink are not indigenous to Britain. They are essentially wild, which, indeed, is a key part of my argument for the Bill. If they were domesticated, it might be possible for

61
humane welfare standards to be introduced, but when the wild animal is solitary, territorial, ranges over territories of one to three miles and is semi-aquatic, it cannot be right for it to be kept in cages that are no longer than a person's forearm. The cages are no longer than a person's forearm because the mink retreat when anyone approaches the cages—they must be no longer than that, or they could not be fetched out of the cage.
It is a fallacy to argue, as it was argued on Second Reading of my Bill, that a species can be domesticated in only 70 years. A wild indigenous animal cannot become a domestic animal in only 70 years. Most of our domestic animals took hundreds or thousands of years to become domesticated.
The key argument that suggests that mink are still wild is that, when they are released—however that may happen—they immediately become feral. They are immediately able to cope, to live and to thrive in the surrounding countryside without any trouble. That is why there are feral populations of mink thriving around all but one of the remaining fur farms in England, destroying indigenous wildlife such as voles and certain birds. Therefore, it would not be possible to devise acceptable standards to keep such creatures in intensively farmed conditions. The animals are denied their natural behaviour and respond by showing clear signs of distress. They become apathetic and resort to performing repetitive, stereotyped movements. They mutilate themselves and others. They may even kill their young.
As I have said, 11 years ago, the Farm Animal Welfare Council made it clear that appropriate standards could not be set. That is still true today. In those circumstances, the only alternative that takes account of animal welfare considerations is a ban.
It is not only in this country that the debate is proceeding. Scotland has already decided to legislate. It took the decision in December last year and a Bill is expected. In Northern Ireland, action was being considered prior to the suspension of the Stormont institutions. One hopes that, if and when they are restored, consideration can be resumed.
Fur farming is effectively banned in Austria. It is not actually banned. The Austrian Government increased the standards of welfare expected to such a level that all the farmers went out of business. Where we have a small and struggling industry that could not possibly adapt and start to put in pools and three-mile territories for all its mink, rather than drive them out of business by increasing welfare standards, it is right and proper to compensate them for leaving the industry.
A Bill before the Italian Parliament offers aid to fur farmers to convert to other forms of agriculture. In Sweden, the agriculture minister has signalled her intention to ban mink and chinchilla farming. Fox farming has already been banned. In the Netherlands, where there are many fur farms, fox farming is being phased out. The Dutch Parliament has voted to ban mink farming. The debate is going on throughout Europe. We can give a lead by taking the decision and supporting the Bill tonight.
My Bill last year did not simply facilitate a debate about the issues of principle. It promoted negotiation between the fur farmers and the Government that has resulted in agreements in several areas.
Private Members' Bills, as anyone who has had the fortunate experience of coming high in the ballot will tell the House, always require consensus to proceed. That is
62
probably the biggest lesson that one learns as a Member in charge of a Bill with sufficient priority. I spent at least as much time in the previous Session trying to broker an agreement between the Government and the fur farmers as I spent trying to overcome the hurdles that were placed in the path of my Bill to get it through its parliamentary stages.
The Government Bill as currently drafted reflects a number of agreements between the Government and the fur farmers on time scales and principles of compensation, for example. As far as I am aware—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—those agreements still stand. As a result of those, the fur farmers themselves are content for the Bill to proceed. So is the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom, which represents all the fur farmers that remain in the industry. So is the National Farmers Union, which does not oppose progress of the Bill. It represents some of the fur farmers who remain in business.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who has now left the Chamber, also asserted that the NFU was not opposed to the legislation. That is not quite correct. The letter says:
It has been asserted incorrectly that the NFU supports this legislation. On the contrary you will appreciate…that we strongly dislike the principle of introducing a…ban.
Maria Eagle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the letter with him. I know from my discussions with the fur farmers, and the NFU represents them, that they do not oppose the progress of the legislation. That is what I have been told by fur farmers, who presumably give their instructions to the NFU because it represents them. Similarly, the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom, which represents all the remaining fur farmers, has made it clear that it wants the Bill to proceed.
The British Fur Trade Association, which is sometimes taken as representing fur farmers, is vocally opposed to the Bill and becomes more strident as time goes on and the closer the Bill gets to the statute book. However, it no longer represents any of the fur farmers. That is because every one of them, I am told, resigned from the association after they formed the view last year that it did not have their interests at heart, so its views should not be said to reflect the wishes of the farmers; they simply do not.
I wish the Bill to proceed as speedily as possible because, since last year, conditions in the industry have deteriorated. The price of fur fell by 31 per cent. at the Copenhagen auctions last year. Another fur farmer is being subjected to a private prosecution in the English courts for cruelty. Last year, one of the farmers was found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty and fined £5,000, with costs of £15,000, yet he still farms mink.
Despite claims to the contrary, in the past year, one of the only remaining fur retailers in London has closed and one of the very few remaining fur processors is in liquidation. The industry is dying. We should help it on its way. The sooner the Bill is enacted, the better. I commend it to the House.
5.59 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I have listened to the debate so far, just as I have listened to the wider debate on fur farming, with growing incredulity. No one,

63
let alone the Government this evening, or the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), has yet convincingly complained why it is wrong to farm animals for their fur, but acceptable to farm them for their meat. I think the reason why we have not yet heard that convincing explanation is that there is none. There is no moral distinction whatsoever; the practices are essentially the same. On that most fundamental of all points, attempts to justify the Bill fail.
We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) intervene on the Minister. Opposition Members, at least, understood the Minister to say that the Bill's justification included the fact that meat farming supplied a majority demand, whereas fur farming supplied only a minority demand—
Mr. Morley: No.
Mr. Hunter: The Minister later corrected that and said that, contrary to our understanding, he had in fact said that the Justification for criminalising included the fact that fur farming was non-essential. If I have incorrectly reported his comments, I shall give way.
Mr. Morley: No; in his latter comments, the hon. Gentleman has made the position clear. I should like, however, to make the point absolutely clear. As tomorrow's Hansard will reveal, when I mentioned minorities, I was referring to vegetarians.
Mr. Hunter: I did not catch the Minister's last word, but I believe that he is sticking with his belief that there is some justification in criminalising an activity because it is non-essential. Such a position is mind-boggling.
The simple truth is that there are no scientific or welfare grounds for criminalising fur farming. Fur farming is highly regulated. Fur farmers are bound by regulation. As with all animal husbandry, regulations can be tightened and made more demanding if there are sound reasons for so doing. Most significantly, in this case, the industry readily and willingly agrees with that. If changes are needed, the way to proceed is through tightening or making more demanding regulations.
As we have heard, last year, the Government supported the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Garston, which sought to criminalise fur farming on spurious animal welfare grounds. I played a small part in opposing the passage of that Bill, and I am glad that I did. The animal welfare-based argument made last year in support of criminalisation was fundamentally and inherently flawed, as is the Government's argument this year.
Both nationally and as a European Union member state, our approach to animal welfare is well established. Acceptable standards of animal husbandry are established in both primary and secondary legislation—by statute, order or regulation. When it comes to the welfare of pigs, for example, we do not criminalise; we introduce legislation that bans tethering. When there is outcry about the export of live animals, we do not criminalise; we improve standards of transport and encourage other countries to do the same. That is the agreeable and sensible approach.
64
Today, the Government and the hon. Member for Garston have yet again totally failed to explain convincingly why the criteria used systematically in regulating every other aspect of animal husbandry cannot be applied to fur farming. The proposed ban on United Kingdom fur farming will eliminate a sector of agriculture that is not only legitimate and responsible, but highly regulated. If objective, properly researched scientific analysis concludes that welfare standards should be more demanding, that is the way forward. The industry agrees with that and will comply.
The European Union farmers federation, the EU farm co-operatives federation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, several other organisations and individuals have demonstrated that criminalisation is very probably contrary to EU law. The Commission's own Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare is drafting a report on welfare, preparatory to producing a directive providing for the future of fur farming. The Government themselves fully supported the June 1999 Council of Europe recommendation on the keeping of farmed fur animals.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, it may very well be that the Bill breaches the European convention on human rights, despite the Bill's declaimer—which I suspect, and hope, will be contested in the courts. It will be argued that the Bill is contrary to Council directive 98/58, on the protection of animals kept for farm purposes, and to articles 28 and 29 EC—formerly articles 30 and 34—which rule on freedom of movement.
The Bill is little other than an expression of prejudice and intolerance. It is an unjustified and extreme measure. Among other things, it establishes a potentially dangerous precedent for criminalising other farming activities for no good reason. The Government's justification of "public morality" is a truly terrifying concept, and I wonder whether Labour Members have really thought it through. I suspect that some of them may not have done so.
The Bill justifies the persecution of minorities and minority interests to satisfy a prejudice of the majority, thereby taking political correctness to terrifying limits. That the Government should decide what is publicly moral, pronounce what is morally acceptable or unacceptable, and criminalise accordingly is truly terrifying. It offends every liberal instinct and principle and undermines the concept and practice of individual liberty. It is a repugnant denial of freedom.
For the Government to criminalise on the basis of public morality is highly dangerous. It echoes the ugly intolerance of Calvinist theocracies, and—for a fictional parallel—it has undertones of Orwellian thought-police. It is also strikingly inconsistent with the position that the Government adopt on so-called moral issues—on which they seek to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. The Government have become ostentatiously permissive in matters of personal and private morality. In this Bill, however, morality is reduced to fashionable posturing. Where is the morality in destroying the livelihood of a small group of hard-working, successful farmers operating in a viable, unsubsidised and well-regulated sector? We wait in vain for a credible answer to that question.
As other Opposition Members have already said, what is happening is that the Government are bowing to an animal rights lobby—which, shortly before the previous

65
general election, in the form of the political animal lobby, donated £1 million or thereabouts to Labour party funds. As we learned from the Ecclestone and Formula One saga, we have now moved firmly into the era of cash for legislation.
I have no particular constituency interest in any aspect of the fur trade, and I certainly have no personal interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in it. I happen to believe that the Bill is an ugly, dreadful measure. By all objective criteria of judgment, it is at fault and it fails. It is a vile expression of hypocrisy, intolerance and prejudice, and we should have nothing to do with it.
6.9 pm
Angela Smith: I shall not speak for long. I feel as though I have been here before, having spoken on Second Reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) some time ago. That was also an excellent Bill, which had the overwhelming support of Members of Parliament and should have become law.
I am particularly pleased to speak again tonight because this is a Government Bill, which fulfils a long-standing Labour party commitment to animal welfare. The Bill was a Labour pre-election pledge and I hope that it will send a message to all those who campaign on animal welfare issues that there is a point in engaging in political processes, lobbying Members of Parliament and making representations to the Government, because that is what brings about change. That success brings great rewards. The comments of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) from the Conservative Front Bench about animal rights protesters and terrorists did him no credit. We should encourage people who protest to make their point through the democratic process. That is what is happening tonight.
The reappearance of the Bill tonight also shows that Labour Members will not be diverted or put off by the nonsense that we saw in the House on 19 January. I would be ruled out of order if I suggested that anyone had been filibustering on that occasion. We had riveting debates for hours and hours, which included discussion on the meaning of the word "and". We will not be put off and we will come back time and again to ensure that we have proper welfare standards and meet our responsibilities to wildlife.
The Bill is also a tribute to the attitude to animal welfare of Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In a busy parliamentary Session, it sends the message that the Government have listened to those who want fur farming to be banned. Even though it is a small measure that will not change the world overnight, it is an important step forward. Fur farming is cruel, outdated, unnecessary and an incredibly unfashionable way to service the fashion industry. It should be banned.
We all have our reasons for reaching that conclusion. My main concern is animal welfare. I am concerned about the way in which mink are farmed. It is an insult to farmers who are genuinely concerned with animal welfare to describe the way in which mink have been kept as farming. When we consider the behavioural characteristics of mink, it is difficult to see how the conditions in mink farms could be less appropriate. With the best will in the world, it is not possible to replicate the conditions that mink need to ensure that they are treated humanely.
66
In the wild, mink swim for up to 60 per cent. of their waking time. They hunt live quarry, they climb, they dive, they travel between two and five dens, sometimes as much as 2 km apart. In fur farms, they are kept in rows of small wire cages approximately the size of the Dispatch Box in front of us. In those conditions, they cannot replicate any natural behaviour.
In those wire cages, mink spend a quarter of their waking hours performing endless, repetitive motions. They mutilate themselves with pelt and tail biting. They cannibalise each other. Mortality among the young mink—the kits—is high. They carry out what is known as sham feeding, including rising up and head circling. In the words of leading mink expert Dr. Nigel Dunstone, they are confined to a life of "sedentary torture". I object to the keeping of wild animals in small, barren cages.
A University of Cambridge study that examined the social behaviour of mink said that if mink farming were to continue, a radical rethink on housing would be needed. As I said on Second Reading of the earlier private Member's Bill, the conditions prevalent in mink farming would not be allowed in a zoo, where they would be under public scrutiny. I find it incredible that Conservative Members defend those conditions, but suggest that we could pass legislation to improve them. They are suggesting that mink farms should be forced to make such enormous investment that they would be put out of business. The Bill is honest and straightforward in allowing compensation. The aim is not to ban mink farming by the back door. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talked about morality. We should be proud of the honesty of the Bill.
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 specifies that mink should be
provided with space and furniture sufficient to allow such exercise as is needed for the welfare of the particular species.
Where in a fur farm do we ever see items such as nesting boxes, pools or branchwork to aid natural behaviour? In a natural habitat, mink would have at least a 40 sq m pool. Where do we see that in a fur farm? Where do we see natural soil or sand and gravel? Where do we see the hollow logs and rocks that would at least be an attempt to recreate a natural environment? If those basic minimum requirements were provided, it would not be economic to breed mink for their fur and the industry would collapse. Is that what Conservative Members are arguing for?
I have never been described as a fashion victim. Dedicated followers of fashion do not need animals to suffer for their style. The only fashion victim in this case is the mink.
Given the average age of Members of Parliament, I suspect that we have a few Doris Day fans in the Chamber.
Mr. Eric Forth: Yes.
Angela Smith: The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that Doris Day has said how embarrassed she is when she looks back at her films to see how often she wore fur. She now campaigns against the breeding of animals for fur. I hope that that does not spoil the right hon. Gentleman's fantasies.
The Bill will ban fur farming—not just the keeping of mink, but the possibility of a return to arctic fox fur farming. It is a measure whose time has well and truly

67
come. It has been delayed for far too long, during which time more mink have suffered and been killed as a result of the actions of the House. This a modern, compassionate move that will be warmly welcomed across the country. It will have the support of the majority of Members of Parliament and of people outside the House.
6.17 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister's speech deserves a wider audience. Let me save him at once from any embarrassment by saying that I did not mean that as a compliment. When I asked him to explain the moral distinction between farming for fur and farming for meat, bearing in mind that neither was essential to sustain life, he said, in effect—we will not have an argument about this, because Hansard will show what the Minister said and he will have to live with it—that the eating of meat was a majority habit, whereas the wearing of fur was a minority habit. Anybody with even the cursory knowledge of history that one might expect of a Labour Member of Parliament knows that parliamentary democracy developed in this country not by extinguishing minority rights, but by protecting them.
In contrast, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) made a much better speech. I agree with her approach, although I disagree with some of her conclusions. The Bill is an animal welfare measure or it is nothing. If mink cannot be farmed humanely, that is the end of it, because the wearing of fur is not essential. In the same way, if animals raised for meat could not be farmed humanely, that would be the end of it.
Had the Government argued that there was nothing wrong per se with the farming of mink, any more than there is anything wrong per se with the farming of animals for meat, but that they wanted standards greatly improved, we could have understood. That would have enabled us to look at the issues in more detail. We hear stories about how mink are in deep distress when they are being farmed. Like the hon. Lady, I took the trouble to go to a mink farm. I deliberately went to the best one that I could find, because I wanted to see what could be achieved when the best was being adhered to. I saw animals that could be handled and were not in deep distress. They were no worse to handle than a ferret. They appeared to be content with their captivity. The argument that an animal cannot be domesticated in 70 generations is supported by the fact that when they go back to the wild, they adapt, but so will an ordinary domestic cat if it is entire when it goes back to the wild.
We need to get into the detail of that. If the Government had examined the issue and decided that higher standards were necessary, even if those standards put fur farmers out of business, I would have said "So be it". If humane conditions cannot be achieved, the practice should stop.
I really do wonder when I hear people talk about the fact that prosecutions take place and say that that is justification for abolishing the industry. The point has already been made that the convictions under the present legislation show that it is up to the job. If we need enhanced legislation, let us have it, but that is not the argument that has been made.
The Bill will have another practical consequence. At the moment, when Ministers go to meetings in Europe they can talk about the conditions in which mink farming
68
takes place in the EU. They have a contribution to make. If Ministers simply say that we have abandoned mink farming, what standing will they have in the EU to discuss the subject? We should aim for higher standards, here and abroad.
The real motivation behind the Bill has been revealed time and again this evening—although not by the hon. Member for Garston, because she learned the lessons of her first attempt—and just a moment ago, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) offered us her views on fashion to justify banning a legal activity. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) had the naive gall to say that he found the wearing of fur pretentious. I find a group of new Labour glitterati wearing ill-fitting but expensive Armani suits unbelievably pretentious, but that is no reason for abolishing them. When the argument is reduced to that level, it is easier to understand the motivation.
The Bill is an animal welfare measure. We should have been listening tonight to an argument that justified the Bill because mink cannot be farmed humanely in any way. Instead, we have heard a load of guff about some convictions that, it is claimed, have contaminated the whole industry. Every now and again, the seeping class prejudice leaks out from Labour Members to try to justify this thoroughly illiberal measure. If the cause of animal welfare had to depend on that analysis, God help the animal kingdom, because this Government will not.
6.22 pm
Mr. James Gray: I hold no candle for the fur farming industry. There is none in my constituency, my wife owns no fur and, indeed, I own no fur, although I wish that I was rich enough to do so. I would happily do so if I could afford it. However, I am concerned by the fundamental illogicality of the Bill and the worrying principle that lies behind it.
I would understand it—although I would disagree—if the Government said that they believed the wearing, trading, farming and production of fur was immoral, wicked and distasteful, and that they intended to ban it. That would be a logical position, and indeed that is what many animal welfare activists would like the Government to do. The activists think that the wearing of fur is disgraceful and they are prepared to slash people's fur coats to prove it. They want the selling and farming of fur to be banned. That is a logical position, but not one with which I agree.
It would be equally logical to argue that the standards of welfare on fur farms should be raised to an acceptable level. If that cannot be done, as Labour Members have argued, the industry will disappear, not only here but in all those countries with which we have trade relations. However, there are 1,200 mink farms in the USA, which operate in the same way as ours. The US industry has 1,400 retailers, which turn over £1.5 billion a year. The United Kingdom trades 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the world's fur in London. It would be logical if the Government were trying to ban the trade, but they do not propose to do so. It will be legal for me to buy mink pelts in Calais and to sell them to retailers in this country and abroad. That is the first fundamental illogicality in the Bill.
The second was highlighted by the case of a farmer in Austria. He took the compensation offered by the Austrian Government for closing down his farm, and moved it

69
some two miles down the road to the Czech Republic. He still uses the same cages, animal welfare methods and production method as before. In the same way, the effect of the Bill will be to export the animal welfare considerations about which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) and others are so concerned. We will have high standards of animal welfare here, but what about the situation in Mongolia, which I visited recently with the Inter-Parliamentary Union? That is where most of the fur comes from. What about the situation in Russia, China, the US, France, Germany and Ireland?
Maria Eagle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that we legislate for this country, not for Russia and Mongolia.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady is right, and I said the same thing when we legislated on pig stalls and tethers. We have put our pig industry out of business, but in Calais they use the methods that we are banned from using and export pork to this country. That is what will happen under this Bill.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he strolled into the Chamber at a late hour, presumably to try to get a mention in his local paper. We will export to Calais the animal welfare controls that we should have here. We should argue for high animal welfare standards for mink farms before the world, but just to ban fur farming here is as logical as the socialist borough of Islington going to some length to ban fox hunting in the borough. There has been no fox hunting in Islington for 300 years, but the socialists on the council wished to ban it for politically correct reasons. The Bill is equally politically correct.
The Bill will not improve the lives of mink anywhere in the world. It will not improve animal welfare standards at all. It will put a few people out of business, but it will not reduce the amount of mink sold in the world. I would not mind if there were no mink farms in the UK, but the Bill will not do what Labour Members want it to do. All they are interested in is the opportunity for some politically correct posturing. They can say, "We are brave animal welfare activists and we are going to ban 13 unfortunate farmers from making a living." However, hundreds of millions of pounds worth of fur will still be traded in London. Fur will still be worn here. We will still be able to buy fur from Mr. A1 Fayed in Harrods. It will still be legal for hon. Members to wear fur coats in the Chamber, if they wish to do so.
All the Bill will do is ban the farming of fur, but it will still go on 22 miles across the channel and everywhere else in the world. That is illogical and illiberal. We are taking a politically correct, holier-than-thou stance. I mentioned earlier the issue of cruelty to pet dogs, but the hon. Member for City of Durham, who is no longer in his place, misunderstood my point. Some people are cruel to their pet dogs, and it is important that we have legislation to prevent that and under which we can prosecute the perpetrators. However, we do not say that because some people are cruel to their pet dogs we will
70
ban the ownership of pet dogs. The Bill is the equivalent of that, and I shall seek to oppose it in the Lobby this evening.
6.28 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: I apologise for leaving the debate shortly after the Minister began his speech, but I had to attend a Select Committee. I am sorry that I missed some of the arguments, but I remember the debate on the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). We have not moved on from the extraordinary illogicality at the heart of the Bill.
No one has to kill an animal for anything. None of us has to eat meat to survive, because we could survive on grains and vegetables. Indeed, we would save much agricultural activity, because it takes seven kilos of grain to produce one kilo of beef. We eat meat because we enjoy it. It is as simple as that. If people enjoy wearing fur, as another by-product of animals, I do not see any logic in differentiating between that and eating meat.
A raft of legislation has been passed in connection with the industry—for example, the Mink (Keeping) Order 1992, the Mink (Keeping) Regulation 1975, the Mink (Keeping) (Amendment) Regulation 1997, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulation 1995, the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, and the EU directive on farm animal welfare.
The Minister is the man responsible for implementing UK and EU directives on animal welfare. If there has been cruelty in mink farms, or if high crimes and misdemeanours have been carried out in such farms, that is his responsibility but, as in earlier debates, he has completely failed to answer my simple question.
I said earlier that, under the raft of existing regulation, it is possible to rear rabbits to maturity and that, under the Bill, a rabbit could still be kept in a cage and legally killed for its meat. However, the Minister has never explained why its owner would be fined £20,000 if the rabbit in the adjacent cage were killed for its fur.
In fact, there is no real need to kill either rabbit. We do not need the protein from rabbit meat, or the warmth from rabbit fur, as both commodities can be found elsewhere. Keeping rabbits is not a necessity but if it is legal to keep them for one purpose, should it not be legal to keep them for another?
Assertions have been made about cruelty. I have spoken to people from Scandinavia who are involved in the business, and the Dutch Government have undertaken research into the matter. I refute what the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) said about cruelty. Dr. Georgia Mason of Oxford university's zoology department has said that, compared with other intensive farming practices, mink farming is the best example and gives the least cause for concern.
There is no logic to the Bill, but it is even more dotty that, on a day when we could have had a proper debate today about Sierra Leone, where British soldiers are engaged in a serious expedition to a troubled part of the world, the House should be discussing 13 fur farms, owned by 11 fur farmers. There are 6,000 fur farms in the EU, including the UK. Britain produced only 160,000 skins last year, compared with global output of 25 million.

71
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out one of the nonsenses of the Bill. He described how, when a farm in Austria was closed, the owner moved the cages a few miles down the road to where he lived and in fact doubled the size of his operation. It is extraordinary that the Government should devote this precious parliamentary time to a measure that remains thoroughly unsatisfactory.
I managed to catch some of the opening remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). I agree with him that the Bill sets an appalling and dangerous precedent, in that the whims of an urban Government can decide how people can make a living in the countryside.
Another dangerous precedent is that the compensation remains unclear. The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill suggest a figure of £400,000, but I regard that as mythical. In the Austrian case that I described earlier, the Austrian Government had to pay about £400 per pelt to the man whose business was closed down. The Government can expect many millions of pounds to be claimed in compensation as a result of the Bill.
Today, I have spoken to Torben Nielsen, the managing director of the Copenhagen Fur Centre, and to Wim Verhagen, the chairman of the European Furbreeders Association. They are convinced that the Bill is in clear breach of European regulation 827/68, which covers the common organisation of the market in certain products listed in annexe II of the European treaty. They also consider it to be in breach of European Council directive 98/58, concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. They think that it breaches the general EU law principles of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or business. Most importantly, they regard it as being in breach of articles 28 and 29 of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.
The industry is a significant one in Europe—for example, it makes up 4 per cent. of Denmark's gross domestic product—and those who oppose the Bill are determined to take it right through the European courts. The cost to the British taxpayer will be enormous.
So what is the Bill all about? What lies behind its introduction now? The Labour party took £1 million off the International Fund for Animal Welfare before the election. There are clear signs that the Government remain in cahoots with animal rights activists.
The trade has been trying to find out when national fur day would be held. It was held yesterday, in fact—interestingly, the day before this Second Reading debate. That information has been available on the internet site of the animal rights activists for two months. That simple fact explains why we are debating this extraordinary measure tonight.
The Bill will not increase the sum of mink happiness, as mink farming will simply move abroad. It will entail considerable expense, as the British taxpayer funds compensation claims and huge legal fees. The mink farmers are sure that they will win their case, and so even larger amounts in compensation may have to be paid.
The Bill is thoroughly flawed. It sets the unhappy precedent that farming enterprises should be closed down for so-called moral reasons, even though no moral case
72
can be made. Finally, the compensation provisions are a disgrace: it is not clear how people will be compensated, and the amounts proposed are inadequate.
The head of the European fur farmers' organisation has said that people should not be able to buy legislation, but that is what has happened with this Bill, which I oppose.
6.37 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I shall be brief, but I begin by declaring an interest. I am a member of the National Farmers Union and of the Country Landowners Association, and I am also a consultant to the Countryside Alliance. In addition, one of my constituents, Mr. Peter Harrison, is a fur farmer.
The Minister has engaged in an extraordinary amount of ducking and weaving to get the Bill on the statute book. He said that his motive was predominantly one of public morality. However, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) made a good speech—
Mr. Stephen Pound: Right name, wrong constituency.
Mr. Atkinson: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon, of course I meant to refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I disagreed with what she said, but at least she made her views clear. Every Labour Member who spoke in support of the Minister based their support on the animal welfare argument. I believe that the Minister cannot use that argument, as to do so would cause him to fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights. That is why he has used article 30 of the European convention referred to earlier, which deals with public morality, as his main justification for the Bill.
My hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) have dealt with that, and I shall not pursue it. However, I want to ask the Minister to give some details about compensation.
Why could not consultation and discussion have started before the Bill came before the House? It is common practice to have an outline of a scheme before a Bill reaches this stage. My constituent Mr. Harrison has been described as one farmer who would be happy to take the compensation package, as he has been harassed by animal rights protesters for years. There have been court cases and arrests, and armed guards at one stage had to be stand guard over his mink farm.
Mr. Harrison is happy to leave the industry, but he does not know whether he will receive a paltry few thousand pounds out of the £400,000 on offer, or whether he will leave on the terms enjoyed by the Austrian fur farmer about whom we have heard. The Austrian received a substantial payment and was able to open another farm a few miles away in the Czech Republic. If fur farmers were to be compensated at the Austrian rate—based on the number of breeding females that they own—the Government would face a bill of £8 million or £9 million, compared with the £400,000 estimated in the Bill.
What happens if, as is inevitable, the Minister loses his case in the European Court of Justice? What happens if that court rules that the UK has acted unconstitutionally in this case? Will the fact that they have been put out of business illegally give fur farmers the right to seek further compensation?

73
Finally, it is a pity that the Minister will not be publishing the Government's legal advice. It is not always the case, but legal advice is sometimes placed in the Library. What will happen if the Minister loses that case? Will he resign?
6.40 pm
Mr. Moss: We have had a good debate on the issue, although we have covered much of the ground that was covered before in the Standing Committee considering the previous private Member's Bill. Without question, the argument has been won on this side of the House.
The Minister sought to justify the Bill on the basis of public morality, but I do not remember one other person supporting him on that basis. Most Labour Members returned to the old arguments of animal welfare. There is no question but that Conservative Members would support animal welfare provisions to improve the lot of mink on mink farms. The Government are not bringing forward legislation to provide for that, however—no, they are going the whole hog and imposing a ban.
As I said in my opening remarks, the proposed ban has no roots, that we can see, in European legislation. It was wrong for some hon. Members to refer to other countries having introduced a ban. Switzerland is not a European Union member, so that is irrelevant. Austria may have implemented the ban before it became a member and regional bans are not the same as a national ban.
The ban must have proper legal underpinning. We have already had submissions from other European Union countries that are going to take the matter to the highest court in Europe. It is likely, based on the legal advice that I and other right hon. and hon. Members have received, that the Government will find themselves with egg on their face. They will be forced on to retreat because they have not done their homework on the legal process.
Mr. Morley: Not true.
Mr. Moss: The Minister says "Not true" from a sedentary position, but he gave the House no justification of the legal basis for his public morality position. I submit that when this comes before the European Court of Justice, based on current EU legislation, this legislation will not reach the statute book. We will have a free vote on the Bill this evening, but our opposition to the Government is deeply felt, and we want the Minister to justify his stance in Committee.
6.43 pm
Mr. Morley: Some good points have been made in the debate, as well as some poor ones. I will address the more reasonable questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members on detailed aspects of the Bill.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke about compatibility with European Union law. I repeat that the Government are confident that the Bill is compatible with EU law, and we have taken the appropriate advice on that. The hon. Gentleman was quoting from EU law that is not relevant to this legal point. We are talking about morality, but he was talking about EU law on welfare. The Bill deals not with animal welfare standards but the wider question of public morality. Directive 98/58/EC, which he quoted, is about welfare standards, and the legal opinion quoted is
74
therefore not relevant to the Bill. On proportionality, if the aim is to stop the breeding of animals for fur, no less proportionate response could be introduced. I cannot see any element of discrimination on the ground of nationality in the way in which this is being applied as a United Kingdom measure.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) said that a number of countries had taken action on fur farming. In answer to his question, I am not aware of any challenge taken against those countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) spoke eloquently on a range of aspects in relation to fur farming. She argued her case very well, as did my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). He made a sophisticated speech and dealt well with interventions—indeed, his rebuffs were devastating.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) put forward some quite strange arguments. If I understood him correctly, he was arguing that the Government cannot get involved in any issue of morality, and should have no role in introducing legislation on matters of morality. I do not know how that attitude squares with issues such as paedophiles and pornography. They are issues of morality on which the Government have a view in relation to protecting public morality and responding to the views of the people who put them forward. That argument was entirely spurious and should be rejected.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, spoke about visiting fur farms. Well documented research on fur farms demonstrates that welfare issues need to be dealt with. The Government are arguing for a ban on the basis of public morality, but in my opening remarks I outlined a range of issues that are a part of public morality, including welfare, the effect on the environment and the cost of dealing with escapes. Many other issues are part of the wider issue of public morality, which is the overriding argument for banning fur farming.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made a number of perfectly reasonable points on behalf of his constituent. I acknowledge that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House represent fur farmers. We must address the question of compensation, and how it will apply. During the process of my hon. Friend's private Member's Bill, we discussed these issues with the National Farmers Union and with individual Members of Parliament who contacted me to talk about their constituents, which is a proper democratic function of the House. I argued in Committee that we ought to take into account the issues raised in amendments. My hon. Friend worked very hard to bring together the different sides on this matter.
The Government are committed to bringing forward the Bill; it was outlined as a pre-election pledge on animal welfare. We have delivered on the majority of our pledges. Our policies on fur farming were published long before the donation from the political animal lobby was given. The political animal lobby decided that it would donate to the Labour party because it believed that the Labour party had the best policies on animal welfare and was committed to implementing them. The lobby was quite right in that respect.
As part of discussions that my hon. Friend had with the NFU, changes to the Bill were made in Committee. The hon. Member for Hexham, who served on the Committee,

75
will be aware of that. In the course of that Bill's progress, I gave some clarification on the details of compensation and of the issues that we would take into account such as the costs of demolition and legal advice that fur farmers may have to take. Every assurance that I gave on behalf of the Government to the NFU through the offices of my hon. Friend has been incorporated in the Bill. I have stuck to every assurance that I gave in Committee, even though this is now a Government Bill and we are not obliged to incorporate everything that was discussed in the Committee considering my hon. Friend's private Member's Bill. Nevertheless, we have stuck to our principles. Where we gave assurances, they have been written into this Bill.
I am a little disappointed in the NFU's response. I do not think that its representatives kept to the spirit of what they said to me in the course of those discussions. While it is certainly true that the NFU is not in favour of the Bill—I have never claimed that it was—it made it clear to me that because of the interests of its members, it is not opposed to the Bill progressing. Even in the brief quoted by hon. Members, which I have read, the NFU does not call for a vote against the Bill or say that it wants to stop the Bill.
Many of the fur farmers are having a difficult time financially. The Bill gives them an opportunity to exit from the industry with some compensation. A great many of them would depart anyway without that financial support. It seems hard-nosed of Opposition Members to imply that we should set standards that would bankrupt fur farms rather than dealing with them as reasonably as we are.
Dr. Peter Brand: Is it not in everyone's interest that the trade should cease as soon as possible because of the uncertainty and risks involved? Does the Minister intend that compensation may be made available before January 2003, or does he hope that a war of attrition will make constituents such as mine give up before it is available?
Mr. Morley: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that. Any fur farmer who chooses to leave the business before the date on which the Bill is enacted will find compensation available as part of its second stage.
The hon. Member for Hexham asked why we had not begun consultation with the affected fur farmers about the details of the scheme, and the answer simply is that there cannot be detailed discussions on compensation before the statutory consultation period, which may substantially change the nature of the compensation.
The Bill is an enabling measure, putting in place powers to make the compensation scheme. Consultation will take place on the nature of the scheme and the income lost. It is difficult to specify great detail about compensation at this stage. Some wild claims have been made about the compensation required, and it would be wrong of the Government to paint ourselves into a corner before we have considered the implications and the way in which compensation would be calculated. As soon as the enabling powers have been enacted and the consultation period begun, we will arrange for accountants to talk with individual fur farmers about income and profits. Then we can consider the nature of the scheme.
76
I have no doubt that there is wide public support for a measure of this kind. Public morality comes into that, and we are taking account of the views of the public. We have consulted a wide range of professional and welfare organisations to ascertain their views. We received 88 responses, only two of which were in favour of retaining fur farming. All the others, some from organisations that represent many people, made it clear that the most appropriate way forward was a Bill banning fur farming. That is what we have done.
We have made our intentions clear. We have been questioned about the morality of our approach. Morality is important when it comes to the treatment of animals. I shall repeat our view on the morality of fur farming. Fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. Animal life should not be destroyed in the absence of a sufficient justification in terms of public benefit. Nor should animals be bred for such destruction in the absence of sufficient justification. That is the essence of our argument for applying morality to a Bill of this kind, and for justifying it under article 30 of the EU regulations. We are entirely entitled to do that, and the advice to the Government is that we are within our rights. We are confident that our measures are fully compatible with human rights legislation and the requirements of the single market.
Some Conservative Members have argued that the Government must justify the application of morality. I have done so. However, those Members should justify their argument that this is not an issue of morality. They should consider that animals are kept in intensive conditions, in cages. We know that there are issues of poor welfare. Some animals are being kept simply so that their skins can be removed from their backs to make clothes for which there are many alternatives.
Mr. Baker: Given the Minister's strong commitment to public morality, on which he has based this Bill, can he explain why the Government are not introducing a Bill to ban fox hunting?
Mr. Morley: That is a matter for my hon. Friends at the Home Office. The Government have, however, already given a commitment to investigate the matter, and the Prime Minister has given a commitment that hon. Members have a free vote. The question is how we take the issue forward, but that is a matter for the Home Office.
Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) compared the pretentious wearing of fur coats to the wearing of Armani suits by Labour party poseurs. Can the Minister tell us how many Armanis it takes to make a suit, and how they are killed?
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, although I have never heard of an Armani being skinned to make a suit.
We have heard a lot about morality, but where is the morality in Conservative Members arguing that the Government cannot introduce a Bill such as this because it would offend some people in other countries? Where is the morality in arguing that we cannot introduce a Bill because some people with a vested interest might take the Government to court? Where is the morality in treating animals in a way that simply is not needed in

77
modern society? Those are not the standards that people expect in the 21st century. The Bill is long overdue, it commands popular support and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act.—[Mr. Touhig.]
Question agreed to.
6.58 pm
Sitting suspended until Seven o'clock, there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business).

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
As amended, further considered.
7 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave notice of my point of order earlier today. It relates back to previous points of order that I raised about the Bill's compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. On 24 January, I said that we should be advised of the compliance of private Bills with the Act, section 19 of which states that when the Government introduce a Bill, the Minister responsible must state on the Bill its compliance with the Act. Madam Speaker made it clear that that did not apply to private Bills.
During that debate, I asked how Members of the House could be advised on that legal matter of compliance with the Act and thus with the European convention on human rights. In an intervention, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—one of the Bill's sponsors—argued that the sponsors had sought legal advice and were satisfied that the measure complied with the Act and with the ECHR. However, they have not published that legal opinion, so—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the Chair notice of his point of order. I am well aware of the point he makes. However, he too will be aware that the matter has already been well aired and that it is not one on which the Chair can rule this evening. We should now deal with the amendments that he has tabled.
Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is not much to add to that point of order.
Mr. McDonnell: I should like to clarify one point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During that previous debate, it was asserted that the non-intervention of the Attorney-General on the matter was evidence of the compliance of the measure with the Human Rights Act. I want to clarify that non-intervention—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now starting to do what I said that we could not do this evening. Those are matters for the debate, not for a ruling from the Chair. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would deal with his amendments.
Mr. McDonnell: May I—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the point of order. I want to move on to amendment No. 3.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
  Clause 2

    INTERPRETATION
    Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 10, leave out from 'there' to end of line 19.
    Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in page 2, line 12, leave out from 'director' to end of line 13 and insert 'or employee'.

    79
    No. 65, in page 2, leave out lines 14 to 16.
    No. 79, in page 2, line 19, after '1890' insert—
    'or a church, religious body, voluntary sector or community organisation which has registered as a charity under the Charities Act 1993'.
    No. 80, in page 2, line 19, after '1890' insert—
    'or trade union certificated under section one of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992'.
    No. 26, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
    "'relevant employee" means a person whose principal or only place of work on the qualifying date is ordinarily the hereditament in respect of which the entitlement to appoint a voter arises and who works for that qualifying body.'
    No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 25 to 28.
    No. 34, in clause 3, page 2, line 42, after '£200' insert—
    'and which has conducted a ballot of its relevant employees to determine the person to be appointed as a voter.'.
    No. 37, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'greater' to end of line and insert—
    'number of employees of the qualifying body.'.
    No. 16, in page 3, line 13, leave out from the beginning to 'the' in line 14 and insert—
    'A qualifying body shall appoint as voters pursuant to subsection (1)(c) above'.
    No. 17, in page 3, leave out lines 18 to 22.
    No. 38, in page 3, line 20, after 'values', insert—
    'the number of relevant employees.'
    No. 40, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 30 and insert—
    'conduct a ballot of all relevant employees to elect its voter or voters.'.
    No. 48, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (5).
    No. 51, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out 'appoint' and insert 'elect'.
    No. 52, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
    No. 25, in page 6, leave out schedule 1.
    No. 53, in schedule 1, page 6, line 2, leave out 'appoint' and insert 'elect'.
    No. 54, in page 6, line 7, leave out from 'scale:' to end of line 24 and insert—

    Number of Relevant Employees

    Maximum Number of Persons whom that Body may Elect

    Up to 1,000,

    1

    For every 1,000 over the first 1,000

    1 for every thousand relevant employees

    No. 56, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'rateable value' and insert 'number of relevant employees'.
    Mr. McDonnell: Although the matter of human rights is one for debate, it cannot be debated under any of the amendments, so I simply point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter has been debated. If the hon. Gentleman does not intend to address his remarks directly to the amendments, I shall have to call him strictly to order.
    Mr. McDonnell: I shall move on to the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We return to this debate with some
    80
    amazement. Our argument thus far has been that the Bill is thoroughly undemocratic. The amendments have been tabled in an attempt to introduce some form of democratic legitimacy to the measure.
    Although we are debating one group of amendments, it covers several separate principles, so I shall seek your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to divide the House on more than one amendment in the group. The amendments have been grouped under the heading "Qualifying Bodies", but the individual amendments have different purposes, so I believe that we should have separate votes. The main thrust of all the amendments is to democratise the Bill. Although they are grouped, I shall seek leave later to divide the House on at least three sub-groups, and I shall now set out the arguments for that.
    The amendments would ameliorate the Bill. In the previous debate, we urged compliance with some of the basic, democratic procedures of local government. The amendments would designate who can qualify to vote for a voter—who will be qualified to nominate a voter at future elections for the City of London.
    Clause 3 currently proposes three groups. The first consists of people who are
    in occupation…as owner or tenant.
    That provision strikes at the core of the debate; it refers to physical occupation.
    The second group refers to residents—as in any other local government or national election. We have just gone through a whole process of devolution; residence was a qualification in each measure that was introduced—for Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
    However, through the amendments, we need to strike at the third category of residents, defined in subsection (c) as
    a person appointed as a voter in writing by a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I could be described as a semi-permanent resident of the City of London and a tenant of the City of London's housing department. Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the Barbican Association on this aspect of the Bill and on his amendments? I live in the Barbican and other residents have mentioned the Bill in passing, but I should like to know whether the Barbican Association itself has been in touch with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. McDonnell: That is an important point. I have received no representations from tenants or residents in the Barbican. However, the City of London corporation has undertaken a range of consultations, although the House has yet to receive a report. I should be happy to give way to any hon. Member who would like to make such a report. Several meetings have been held in different areas of the City, but I do not know whether one was held in the Barbican estate.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the measure, an unelected, unsupervised, unaccountable person—perhaps a director of a major corporation—could nominate who

    81
    should have voting rights within the City, and that such nomination would be at the whim and fancy of that unelected, unaccountable person?
    Mr. McDonnell: As I go through the amendments that have been tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), my hon. Friend will see that they seek to deal with the potential of such abuse.
    As I said, we have had debates on local government reform, and on devolution and the legislatures for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In all those cases, voting has been based on residential qualifications and in none of them was there the strange mechanism of a qualifying body based on the ownership of property. According to clause 2 the qualifying body is
    a body corporate or an unincorporated body other than a partnership within the meaning of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890.
    I shall return to that point, because it is a bizarre piece of drafting. What do the words
    within the meaning of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890
    mean? I checked and found that they are almost meaningless. Under section 1 of the 1890 Act, to which I shall refer in detail later, a partnership is a relationship between people, that seeks profit. Therefore, it is an anomaly that such partnerships are ruled out by the clause.
    In effect, the problem with the Bill is that, although residents retain their right to vote and their votes are based on universal suffrage, those votes will be swamped by what is in effect the sale of votes to businesses and the votes based on property itself. This is the last area of political life in which votes can be bought in that way. As many know, we sought to reject that provision on Second Reading, and the Committee struggled with inadequate advice, so it sought more independent external advice. However, we are now left to press amendments designed to achieve two basic objectives.
    First, the amendments would ensure that the business voter was physically present, or occupied, the premises in the City from which he or she, or the qualifying body, gains the qualification to vote. Secondly, if business votes are to be allocated, the qualification for those votes should be based not on property ownership, the value of the property or how much property a company or director owns, but on human beings—the employees who work for the company. That point is based on the assertion that the employees, or the workers, are the real generators of the City's wealth and that the City is their working environment. If anyone other than the residents should have a say in the City's management, it should be the employees. That is not a radical demand to make in this century.
    With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful if you would consider allowing us to divide the House on three or four different amendments in the main group because each addresses a different principle relating to the qualifying bodies.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman feel some surprise that, in the first year of a new century, a democratic assembly is debating the buying and selling of votes?
    Mr. McDonnell: I was surprised when we debated that issue in the last century, too. Not only are we debating
    82
    such issues, but the Bill is being forced through the House on the payroll vote. If it were left to a free vote, we would not have this travesty before us.
    7.15 pm
    A number of principles are covered by this group of amendments on the qualifying bodies. Each of those principles merits the consideration of a separate vote. For that purpose, I have divided the main group of amendments into smaller groups. The first smaller group aims at stipulating the physical presence of the qualifying body. It is made up of amendments Nos. 3, 65, 5 and 48.
    The second group argues that, when the votes are allocated, a qualifying body should qualify on the basis of its employees—that is, human beings—not on the basis of the property it owns. That group is made of amendments Nos. 64, 26, 34, 37, 16, 17, 38, 54 and 56. The third group demands that employees must determine who will vote on their behalf. It contains amendment No. 40 and consequential amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53.
    The three groups that I have described strike at three distinct principles, and I argue for separate votes on that basis. The first group is about physical presence. A person's entitlement to vote should depend on the physical location of an individual within the geographical area in which the vote is to be cast and in which that vote will have its effect. That has been the basis of our democracy, for perhaps three centuries.
    The second group is about qualification, and states that the quantity of votes should not be based on how much property is owned by an individual or company. If people do not live in the area, they should at least work in the area. The argument is that they, the employees, should have a stake—an argument that is almost new Labour.
    My third group is about qualification. It argues that voters who gain a vote through a business connection should be elected by the employees of a firm or business. The votes of a firm should be cast following of a vote of its employees to determine whom they entrust to cast their votes and to fulfil that responsibility.
    I have grouped the amendments in that way because they represent a sliding scale of democratic engagement. It would almost restore to the City corporation the traditions on which it was founded—workers coming together in the distinct areas where they live and work to govern those areas. The tradition is that those who work within the City's boundaries are stakeholders as much as, and as well as, the residents. Therefore, they should have a say in running the corporation and in the management of their area.
    That is why I have tabled amendments on physical location and occupation, and those that would ensure that votes were based on employees. However, if the votes on those amendments fail, I would at least urge that we divide on whether the votes based on the property qualification should be exercised by voters who have been elected by the employees of a business that qualifies to vote. There is a logic to having separate votes on the amendments.
    I suggest a fourth vote. It would be on the amendments that were tabled last week and which Madam Speaker accepted this morning. The fourth vote would guarantee that two further organisations that would qualify as qualifying bodies were included on the face of the Bill.

    83
    I draw attention to the amendments that argue that churches, voluntary organisations, community organisations and religious groups should be specified as qualifying bodies. It may be argued that they are unincorporated bodies, but I shall return to that point. I have sought legal and other advice, as the issue is not clear.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill, which seems to be fresh out of "Jurassic Park". Am I correct in saying that the City of London corporation is the health authority for the port of London? Would not it be right to include in the measure those who work on health for the port of London, including representatives of Unison and the dock workers?
    Mr. McDonnell: The amendments would enable the employees of the City of London corporation and all the organisations that have a location in the City of London to have, if not a direct say, at least some say in who will cast their votes for corporation representatives. As my hon. Friend said, employees involved in all functions exercised by the corporation should be include in a vote.
    Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) raised an interesting matter. Is not Bart's in the City? What rights do the 300 to 400 people working in that famous hospital have under the Bill?
    Mr. McDonnell: That is an interesting question, as I am not sure whether Bart's qualifies as an incorporated body—which is one reason why clause 4 needs to be clarified.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: On that note, there is surely no doubt that the vast verdant swathes of Hampstead heath and Epping forest that are in the City of London's iron fist are under the aegis of the incorporated body. Those unfortunate but honest artisans labouring in Epping forest and Hampstead heath have no democratic input into the terms and conditions of their service. How can that possibly be defended?
    Mr. McDonnell: The amendments partly relate to that. Amendments were tabled that sought to bring Hampstead heath and Epping forest into the geographical area of the City of London, which would enable residents in those areas to vote. Those amendments were not selected for debate.
    However, it can be argued that employees of the City corporation who are based outside the corporation, but work in such fields of activity, are located primarily in the City and could participate as employees under the amendments. If nothing else, we should at least agree, in a final vote, that the definition of bodies that qualify, as businesses do, for a vote in the City should include churches, religious organisations, voluntary organisations and community organisations.
    It can be argued that the wording already allows for that. However, that is open to doubt and we must clarify the matter in the Bill. We should also vote on whether trade unions located in the City of London—in the sense
    84
    that they are operational there and represent members' interests there—should be recognised as a qualifying body, thus enabling them to elect someone who would vote on the composition of the City corporation.
    Mr. John Cryer: My hon. Friend may not be aware that, before I came to this place, I was a journalist working on the daily paper Lloyd's List, as well as various left-wing publications such as Tribune, which my colleagues on the Front Bench know and love. Under the amendments, would the chapel of the National Union of Journalists have the right to elect voters?
    Mr. McDonnell: There are two issues involved in that question, which is why I would like the details to be included in the Bill. First, does the organisation have a financial property base in the City of up to £200 rateable value? Secondly, is it a qualifying body as an incorporated or unincorporated body? The question is whether either of those factors is applicable.
    In our discussion of the amendments, I want to demonstrate that the references to corporate and unincorporated bodies in the Bill are, in legal terms, almost gobbledegook. To give security to those organisations, we should name them in the Bill. As I said, one of my arguments concerns stakeholding. Bodies such as churches, trade unions and others contribute to the life of the City of London and to the quality of that life, so I believe that they should be entitled to vote.
    With the approval of the House, I shall seek four separate votes on qualifying bodies. I accept that that is difficult, but we are dealing with a sliding scale of amendments which could improve the Bill. We should at least seek to include in the Bill an acceptance that churches and others would be recognised as qualifying bodies. I would welcome your advice on those votes and their time scale, Mr, Deputy Speaker.
    I shall explain the meaning of the linked amendments Nos. 3, 65, 5 and 48. There should have been a further consequential amendment, which would have deleted clause 3(1)(c). Unfortunately, however, it was not tabled. Let me offer apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who tabled several of the amendments and is on parliamentary duties in Washington.
    Mr. Pound: In Tyne and Wear?
    Mr. McDonnell: In the United States.
    I have added my name to several amendments tabled by my hon. Friend.
    The Labour party's manifesto sets out the background to the amendments. We are seeking to abide by the commitments that we gave to the electorate during the election. We have sought to establish good local government, enabling people to have the powers within their area which they felt that they needed to improve their quality of life. The manifesto states that local government should work in partnership with local people, local business and local voluntary organisations. We argued that councils would have the powers necessary to develop partnerships and bring about greater accountability. We also said that we would try to introduce a general power of improvement for certain areas. The amendments seek to do that.

    85
    Our party leader's argument at a certain conference about the forces of conservatism was an argument in favour of democratic engagement. The House has established, within its Public Administration Committee, a Committee to examine innovations in citizen participation. Our amendments seek to ensure that we engage the citizens of the City of London corporation in their own government and management.
    In the past, we have defined citizens, especially in relation to local government, as people living in a defined geographical area. However, there are exceptions, and overseas voters are included. The previous Government included passport holders as voters, but a local connection—even one from 20 years ago—qualified them for that. I believe that the present Government are reducing that period.
    There are also proxy and postal votes to cover temporary absences, such as holidays and working away. However, despite further innovations to enhance democratic participation, it is still based on identifiable location. Hence the reforms that we introduced to increase opportunities to register, such as a rolling register right up to the weeks just before an election. That is unlike the previous system of registering, which was based on a date in the October prior to the election. However, even the rolling register is still based on physical presence, and depends on location in a constituency in a parliamentary election, or in a ward in a local government election. Even with proportional representation in the recent London mayoral elections, qualification was still based on living in an area, being located within a boundary—a geographical area of greater London defined by the Greater London Authority's area of responsibility.
    Why is that so? It is because we have defined democracy as people who have a common interest—almost a physical interest in the area that they share—coming together in their shared life experiences. Democratic participation and votes cast should be based on the knowledge of that area.
    7.30 pm
    A voter in physical occupation is defined in clause 3(1) as an owner, tenant or resident, but, for the qualifying body, the Bill goes further. Clause 2 states that the qualifying body can be established in relation to occupation by
    a director, officer, employee or agent of that body
    and, in lines 14 to 16 on page 2, goes even further by adding
    through a holder of any paid or unpaid office.
    A person can be appointed as a voter under clause 3(1)(c) by a qualifying body solely because the organisation can have an agent present in that hereditament.
    What does "presence" mean? How long will a person have to be present? Would it be solely on the day or night of the qualifying date—1 September of the previous year? If it is based solely on the presence of a paid agent or an office holder on 1 September, businesses will be able to vote if such a person physically occupies the premises for one day only.
    We accept that clause 5 sets out that the voter's principal place of work must be in the City and that the voter must have worked for a qualifying body for 12 months previously, or, under the alternative conditions,
    86
    that the voter's principal place of work must have been in the City for an aggregate period of five, or even 10 years. However, the business connection will have to be for only one day on particular premises.
    The Bill's promoters have set out their views on what they consider to be its benefits. They say:
    The entitlement extends to a qualifying body only if it actually occupies premises in the City for the purposes of carrying out a trade, business, profession or other occupation or calling, while the performance of the functions of any paid or unpaid office being functions for whose performance accommodation has been provided by the qualifying body.
    That is a somewhat disingenuous allegation of physical presence. The qualifying body may acquire the rights of physical presence by a director's presence—not that of an employee or a major shareholder. So, the requirement that voters should have a connection with the City in order to gain a right to vote, as stated by the promoters, can be met by a qualifying body with a director—a tenuous connection.
    There is an extraordinary circular logic to the promoters' argument. They argue that the qualifying body qualifies because of physical presence, but physical presence can be gained only by a director who is a member of the board of directors. Under clause 5(5), a director can be a person treated as having his principal workplace in the City, and therefore eligible to be a voter. Clause 5(5) states:
    A person who on the qualifying date is a member of a board of directors or other governing body of a qualifying body shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having his principal or only place of work on that date, and for the period during which he has been a member of that board or governing body, at the hereditament (or part) in respect of which the entitlement to appoint by that qualifying body arises.
    Mr. Bermingham: Would not one be faced with the absolutely ridiculous situation in which somebody who does not own shares in but is a director of Amusement Ltd., running a theme park in north Yorkshire but registering it in London, could become a qualifying voter in the City of London if so appointed?
    Mr. McDonnell: There is a strong anxiety—let us put it no stronger than that—that the system will be open to abuse. The Bill is not only almost incomprehensible but unenforceable.
    Mr. Pound: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend's flow, which is as ever illuminating and elucidating. He quoted clause 5(5), which refers to the presence of the person
    at the hereditament (or part)…
    What does he understand by part of the hereditament? Is it a shed in the garden behind the building, a priest hole beneath the stairs, a forgotten part of the attic, a cupboard?
    Mr. McDonnell: Understanding the Bill requires an element of fervent study, Jesuitical training and a creativity of mind to enable enlightenment. I do not think that we have enough time for that.
    Mr. Pound: I was educated by the Jesuits.
    Mr. McDonnell: As someone who was educated by the de la Salle brothers, I suspect that my analysis of the

    87
    clause may not have reached the level of the Jesuits. I look for enlightenment from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the sponsor of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who I am sure has a full and thorough understanding of the nature of hereditament and its parts from piloting through Committee this and other Bills. I defy any hon. Member to clarify how clause 5(5) would not result in a director of a company being able to do whatever he or she wanted in order to qualify to cast a vote. We are talking about becoming a voter and not about qualifying to choose a voter.
    I shall cite a hypothetical example of someone wanting to abuse the system. If I were interested in shaping the policy of the City of London corporation because I wanted to sell off the assets to friends and reap rich rewards—God forbid—I would encourage my friends to register as a qualifying body by buying a small office or part of a hereditament. I would lodge an agent in that office on 1 September—perhaps for 12 months—or say that I was the company's director and therefore the office was my principal place of work, as clause 5(5) requires.
    Not only would my organisation acquire the right to appoint a voter, but I could become that voter because I had been a member of the board of that company and the office would be treated as my principal or only place of work. That is a recipe for every carpetbagger who wants to join the City of London corporation gravy train. I genuinely believe that the matter needs reconsideration and I am surprised that the Bill has come quite so far without much amendment.
    Amendment No. 5 would tackle the problem by deleting clause 2(2). Amendment No. 3 would delete further lines that pronounce on the need for physical location in the City of London area. It would delete the contortions in the Bill that will enable someone to qualify as a qualifying body and then as a voter.
    Mr. John Cryer: It occurs to me that multinational companies, international banks and other such institutions might consider this putative legislation with some interest on the basis that, if the business vote in Britain can be extended, there is no reason why it cannot be so extended in other countries and in cities such as Tokyo or Toronto.
    Mr. McDonnell: It is interesting that my hon. Friend cites Tokyo. I was interviewed over the Christmas recess by Japanese business journalists who were interested in the proposed legislation. They thought that it would provide a fascinating way in which a company could exert influence within a particular area, and was something that would want to be replicated elsewhere. The purchase, establishment and registration of a holder company within an area would enable voters to be chosen, and eventually the representatives could become voters themselves or become the casters of votes, and then move on to the City of London corporation.
    Mr. Wareing: Recently there has been reference in the news to the proposal to merge the stock exchanges of London and Frankfurt. Is it possible that under the Bill someone living in Frankfurt could have a vote in the City of London, while a worker, a Londoner, living in the City of London would be denied that possibility?
    Mr. McDonnell: It is important that we seek clarification from the promoters. They have issued a
    88
    statement today, and I find it difficult that we are not able to respond to such statements. If I had received today's statement early enough, I would have wanted to question parts of it or to publish an alternative brief. The statement contains assertions that voters should have a connection with the City. It goes on basically to argue that whoever qualifies for a vote and casts a vote has a connection with the City. However, as clause 5(5) demonstrates, that connection can be fairly tenuous. It can be indirect, and it can certainly overcome some of the conditions that the Committee sought to include in the Bill to ensure that there would be a connection between those people who cast their votes and those who were elected—that being that they lived, worked and served within the City.
    Amendment No. 5 would overcome some of the difficulty by removing the relevant subsection. I urge the House to examine the potential for voting for the amendment. As I have said, amendment No. 3 is designed to ensure physical location overall.
    The qualification that a qualifying body will seek under the proposed legislation is physical presence by an officer. "Officer" is not defined in the Bill. What does it mean? What legal standing does "officer" have? What officerships are we including within the definition? Are they chair, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer, auditors, chief executive, president? What other functional officers may qualify? There is a strong argument for amendment No. 3, which would delete the provision that enables a director, officer or agent, or holder of any paid or unpaid office, of the body concerned to be present and therefore qualified to vote because it is in occupation.
    As for other functional officers, how far does the provision extend and what is the relevant case law? For example, is it possible to designate more than one person to any of these officerships on a joint basis? If we had joint secretaries, could it be that only one of them would need to be present within a particular location to satisfy the condition of occupation? It seems that there has been no debate on the matter, and I would welcome assurances from the promoters and my hon. Friend the Minister that the matter has been or will be examined, and that we shall receive a statement.
    The objective of my line of questioning is to ascertain how open the proposed legislation is to abuse and manipulation by the unscrupulous, or by those who do not wish to lose their less formal or perhaps ceremonial positions. An attempt may be being made to keep the free lunches coming. However, there may also be an attempt by some to manipulate the proposed legislation to enable other abuse at a later stage.
    7.45 pm
    Amendment No. 3 would eliminate the possibility of qualifying bodies enabling the agent to be present. We should be anxious about the concept of an agent. How is agency defined? Are there qualifications to be gained for someone to become an agent? If so, can I apply? What is the transaction that enables an agent to be appointed? Has a legal process to be completed to designate an agent? If so, what is it? Is there a documentation process to record the award of an agency? The issue is important because residents qualify for a vote as a result of residency, and that residency is recorded on the electoral roll. I take it that the business qualifies as a result of the hereditament,

    89
    and that is recorded also as a result of the ownership of property and the payment of council tax, business rates and other forms of evidence.
    However, what documentation evidences an agency? If there is documentation, is it a matter of public record? Is it open to public inspection? Will it be covered by freedom of information legislation that we are promoting as part of local government legislation so that there will be access to information? Will there be an electoral roll that will be open to free examination by the public?
    It is fairly clear what I am getting at. If anyone can be an agent, if any process can be followed, if there is no transparency, if there is no documentation and if there is no so-called electoral roll of agents, how can we test the bona fides of an agency?
    Mr. John Cryer: It occurs to me that in this place at least we have a Register of Members' Interests. We know that when the Conservative Administration was in power, not all Conservative Members bothered to fill it in completely and honestly. Nevertheless, we have the register. Given the proposals in the Bill, we shall not see anything resembling a register of voters' interests.
    Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. If there is an issue of agency, the agency would enable the qualification of a qualifying body to appoint voters. Those voters would in turn elect the corporation representatives. My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that we should be aware of the interest of agents when they exercise that function. Amendments were tabled relating to the registration of masonic links, for example, which were not selected. Whatever the system, it is important that there is transparency. Why is that? It is because qualification is based on physical occupation. How is it possible to check physical occupation as in clause 2, if we do not know the name of the agent, the process of authorisation or who authorised the agent? How can we challenge the qualification of a qualifying body to vote on the basis of the occupation of the agent if the identity of the agent is not recorded along with the property that he is supposed to be occupying?
    Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend is using the word "agent". I have scoured the Bill: what is an agent?
    Mr. McDonnell: That was the first question that I asked. I would welcome a definition from the promoters and from my hon. Friend the Minister. If we are talking of a person acting on behalf of an organisation, it should be relatively simple to put him on some form of electoral roll. If the agent is an organisation, matters become more difficult. Who are the agents of that organisation? It becomes extremely difficult to define and is open to abuse because it is not transparent. I would welcome a clear definition of "agent" from the promoters.
    Dr. Godman: The aim of amendments Nos. 3 and 5 may not be to protect the interests of existing voters. If my hon. Friend fails to persuade the House to vote for those amendments, is it likely that the present electors—the people who live in London—would become a minority in the new electorate established by the Bill? That is an important question. It may be an indirect consequence of the Bill that the present electors become a minority.
    Mr. McDonnell: That is one of the issues that has been raised consistently throughout the debate and in
    90
    Committee. Our concern is that if organisations, particularly businesses, are qualifying bodies under the clause and can therefore appoint voters, they will swamp the residential vote.
    Assurances were given to the Committee that the promoters would introduce a wider package of reforming measures. Their statement today says:
    The Bill forms only part of a wider package of reforming measures, and the Promoters have given the Select Committee formal undertakings as to the implementation of the remainder. These can be dealt with by the Corporation's legislative mechanisms and do not therefore require Parliamentary powers.
    Some of those measures would entail the re-warding of the City of London corporation to protect the resident voters. Although those assurances were given to the Select Committee in June last year and we received statements like the one today from the promoters in June, July, November and January, the reform package has not been completed. Therefore the protections that my hon. Friend seeks have not been secured.
    That is why it is critical that we debate amendment No. 3 properly tonight. The amendment would go some way to providing that protection by deleting the passage from lines 10 to 19 which allows the manipulation of the system, making it possible to become a qualifying body by being a director, officer, employee and so on, or an office holder.
    The amendment would also strike at the heart of the concept of "agent". It would resist this democracy by proxy, and the substitution of the elector by other nominees. It would require physical presence. Occupation of
    any hereditament, or part of a hereditament, means occupation by personal physical presence there.
    That is what the amendment would achieve.
    In addition to the words "director" and "agent", clause 2(1)(b) refers to the catch-all concept of office holder.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: The concept of physical presence is clearly important in elections, but in general and local elections we make provision for postal voting for those who cannot be physically present. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to that?
    Mr. McDonnell: I tried to clarify that in previous debates. There is a distinction between those who are temporarily absent from their normal residence, and those who have no connection with an area. That is why this Government have tried to deal with the ridiculous provisions for the overseas vote introduced by the previous Government, whereby someone could vote in my constituency, for example, although he had not been there for 20 years. We have tried to restore the local connection. That is based on residence, either current or sometime previously. The Bill does not enable us to re-assert that principle.
    Amendment No. 65 would delete lines 14 to 16 of clause 2, which relate to the concept of office holder. That is the final catch-all. If one is not personally, physically present to qualify, one can do so by being a director or officer, or one can appoint an agent. If that is too much trouble or costs too much, one can set up an office for an office holder. The beauty of that arrangement is that it avoids any payments to an agent, because it can be an unpaid office holder.

    91
    What is an unpaid office holder? That sounds like a member of the family. It sounds like some form of sinecure. What type of office is envisaged? I would welcome a response to these questions and a clear view from the promoters. Perhaps they can provide that in a future statement. Are the offices restricted? What is their range?
    Let me give an example. Does any activity pursued on behalf of a firm enable the person pursuing that activity to be described as an office holder? If the office is unpaid, what is the relationship between the individual in occupation and the body that qualifies on the basis of his occupation? What is an office holder?
    The wording suggests that the activities of the office holder
    for the performance of whose functions accommodation is being provided by a qualifying body
    are not irrelevant. Functions are performed within that accommodation, but the clause does not define what office that person or persons will hold in relation to the performance of those functions. The wording is extraordinary. On that basis, virtually anyone who passes through a venue, or who has some vague relationship to a company, can enable it to become a qualifying body, qualifying for votes in the City corporation.
    The office holder does not necessarily have to be an office holder of that qualifying body. The clause refers to
    a holder or any paid or unpaid office for the performance of whose functions accommodation is being provided by a qualifying body.
    It does not specify that that is an office holder of that qualifying body.
    There may have been an error of drafting. I understand the intent, but it is not reflected in the content. A person operating from accommodation provided by a qualifying body may be unrelated to that body, may not be an employee of that body and may not be performing a function of that body. That is muddled drafting, which could open up a vista of abuse and manipulation.
    The muddle continues into the next paragraph. What is a "qualifying body"? The drafting is unbelievable. I asked the House of Commons Library to provide advice. Amendment No. 3 would strike out this paragraph as well. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, it is gobbledegook.
    The clause states:
    "qualifying body" means a body corporate or an unincorporated body other than a partnership within the meaning of section of the Partnership Act 1890…
    I want to explore what that means because it is almost meaningless as it is currently drafted. I have asked for a definition of "body corporate". It usually means a body that is incorporated under a public or private statute other than the Companies Acts. A good example is a private water company or, previously, the Post Office. It also includes companies that are incorporated by a royal charter and probably those that are incorporated by prescription. The City of London corporation is a good example.
    Although the term "body corporate" is used to distinguish a body from companies under the Companies Acts, in general usage, it could include such companies. It may also include companies that are incorporated
    92
    overseas. How much stakeholding can foreign companies have in the City of London corporation? That question was asked earlier. Under the definition that I have given, a body corporate could be a body that was incorporated overseas.
    I asked the Library for a definition of an "unincorporated body". If we have at least some definition of a body corporate, what is an incorporated body? The response said that "unincorporated body" would probably cover almost every entity apart from an individual. That is startling. It means that almost everything apart from an individual is an unincorporated body. However, we cannot be sure because our advice from the Library states that the meaning will depend on the context because it can be further defined. The term that is used in the Companies Act 1985 is applied widely, but that measure contains no helpful definition.
    "Unincorporated" could include partnerships, building societies, friendly societies, corporate and joint ventures, co-operatives and other mutual bodies, and unincorporated associations. It could even include such bodies as police authorities. The previous debate that we held about hospitals might therefore be relevant. The Library said that "unincorporated body" was a catch-all term. The clause states that a qualifying body is a body corporate or an unincorporated body. That is extraordinary. In other words, it covers anything apart from an individual.
    However, for some bizarre reason, the clause excludes
    a partnership within the meaning of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890…
    I tried to clarify that. As a Member of Parliament, stumbling through a private Bill, I believed that it should at least be comprehensible to us before we enacted it, if we enact it. I dutifully asked the Library to trawl through the definition of partnership in section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890. I challenge the majority of hon. Members to understand the relevance of the exclusion of such partnerships. Section 1 of the 1890 Act states:
    Partnership is the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.
    I cannot understand why, having included bodies corporate and unincorporated bodies, the Bill excludes partnerships that are established to pursue profit.
    8 pm
    Mr. Bermingham: As a lawyer, I declare an interest. A partnership under the 1890 Act does not carry limited liability. Each partner is jointly and severally liable for the whole of the debts incurred. A corporate or unincorporated body can carry limited liability. If specific partnerships are permitted, what happens to those, such as me, who are members of chambers in the City of London, but are not in partnership with anyone? Every member of my chambers is entitled to vote in the City of London.
    Mr. McDonnell: That is a good point, which I was going to make later. The Bill must clarify exactly who is entitled to vote. Clause 1, which is a quagmire of a provision, gives a vote to almost all those who want to wangle one if they own a certain amount of property. It is therefore bizarre that it isolates the partnerships for

    93
    which the 1890 Act provides. I understand the issue about limited liability. However, section 1 of the 1890 Act also states:
    But the relation between members of any company or association which is registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1862, or any other Act of Parliament…formed or incorporated by or in pursuance of any other Act…a company engaged in working mines within and subject to the jurisdiction of the Stannaries…is not a partnership within the meaning of this Act.
    It is extraordinary that the Bill proposes the exclusion of partnerships that do not have limited liability, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who has vast experience of the law, pointed out, and those that pursue profit. Why exclude them? The promoters should explain that. Surely the City corporation is not embarrassed about the pursuit of profit? If it is, the revolution is here.
    Amendment No. 5 would delete subsection (2) of clause 2. As I explained, the amendments that are associated through trying to define "qualifying body" refer to the concept of an unincorporated body in occupation that is treated as the owner or tenant. Subsection (2) provides for the unincorporated body to be treated as owner or tenant
    whether or not the…owner or tenant…is in occupation.
    Again, that is gobbledegook. What does it mean? If an unincorporated body is any organisation other than an individual, the provision is open to abuse. Subsection (2) provides that the
    unincorporated body which is in occupation of the whole or part of a hereditament shall be taken to be so as owner or tenant whether or not the person who is on its behalf the owner or tenant of that hereditament or part is in occupation.
    Occupation goes out of the window.
    The associated amendments deal with physical occupation. The Bill drives a coach and horses through the concept of physical occupation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead stated in a letter that one only has to read clause 2(2) to realise that it is gobbledegook, vague and not properly defined. He asks whether partnerships and other non-corporate bodies are included. He states that the provision is open to abuse, misuse or misinterpretation and that it is a lawyer's paradise. I agree, but the lawyers will be corporate lawyers, who will try to secure an interest for their company.
    We have heard the interpretation of what is an unincorporated body. I suggest in amendment No. 79 that we should include as a qualifying body
    a church, religious body, voluntary sector or community organisation which has registered as a charity under the Charities Act 1993.
    Those may fall within the definition of an unincorporated body, but there is no guarantee of that. I sought clarification and advice on whether their inclusion could be guaranteed. Unincorporated bodies can be interpreted in the context of specific legislation, a law or a particular case, but there is an element of uncertainty. We need to guarantee recognition of the role played by those key stakeholders, which must be able to qualify for votes.
    I care about the fact that such organisations must be reputable. For that reason, I have included the safeguard that they should be registered as charities under the Charities Act 1993. There are guaranteed standards of transparency, probity and community support for voluntary or community organisations, which provide
    94
    justification for their qualifying for a vote. There is no doubt that they are key stakeholders. There are numerous churches and a vast number of voluntary organisations in the City of London corporation area and I pay tribute to the enhanced role that the corporation has played in recent years, particularly through the Bridges fund, to develop community support in its area. The Bill should ensure that community organisations, especially those that have been enhanced by the corporation's support, are entitled to qualify at least for a vote on determining a voter.
    Amendment No. 80, which also deals with qualification, recognises another stakeholder by suggesting that a
    trade union certificated under section one of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
    should also be a qualifying body. That represents not a back-door route to workers' control, but recognition that trade unions, which have many members and a presence in the City corporation, are key stakeholders. The Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union and other unions that organise City employees have strong memberships and therefore should have a strong voice, at least as qualifying bodies that can nominate a voter who would then qualify for a vote that would help to elect the City of London corporation. The representatives of the organised work force would then be eligible to qualify for a vote.
    Amendment No. 80 does not represent industrial democracy, but it recognises the role of trade unions as stakeholders and partners. It would open up the management of the City corporation to its own trade unionists as well as the trade unions based in the City that represent City workers. For example, it would enable trade unions such as Unison and the Police Federation, as an association, to have some say in the management of the City corporation as they would qualify for a vote for a voter. I welcome the promoters looking sympathetically on the engagement of those key stakeholders in the system.
    The argument on these amendments is important to us because physical presence is critical; it has been at the heart of our democratic system throughout. Democracy, from the Greeks onward, has been founded on the rights of those living and working in a defined geographical area. Why? Because electors then have a direct interest in the management of their environment and the place in which they live and work, because they have shared life experiences that bind them together and because democratic participation and casting a vote should be based on living knowledge of the area that people seek to represent. They should know which issues need to be confronted and how best to address them. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like a separate vote on physical presence.
    8.15 pm
    Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend rightly emphasises the need to protect the interests of the residential voters, but what assurances have the promoters given on the protection of the interests of residents who want to stand for office in the court of common council? Am I right that a number of the elected representatives on the court of common council live in the Barbican? Would his amendments protect their interests as elected representatives?
    Mr. McDonnell: Again, the protections that my hon. Friend seeks may be present in the wider package of

    95
    reform measures that the corporation and the promoters suggest in their statement. However, until the measures are implemented, how can we ensure that those rights are guaranteed? That is a valid point and I am sure that those from the corporation who are listening to the debate would be willing to meet him to go through the details. They kindly saw my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead and the meeting was fruitful, if only in terms of discussing crossrail and how many more grants for his constituency could be pursued. They have also offered to see me. I apologise for being unable to make a previous meeting; it was to have taken place on the day of Bernie Grant's funeral so I could not attend. The corporation has been courteous enough to offer Members individual meetings to discuss protection and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) to take that matter up directly with it.
    Amendment No. 64 is associated with amendments Nos. 26, 34, 37, 16, 17, 38, 25, 54 and 56, and I shall explain why they are all of a part. They are based on the simple premise that a body should have a physical presence in the area to qualify. We have considered how that can be distorted and contorted in the Bill, but now we must discuss another matter. Even if a vote is to be based on a business, a location or a commercial operation—not the stringent physical presence requirements that we want—the number of votes should be based not on the property holding, but on the number of employees at a particular firm or qualifying body. Those employees should be able to elect the voters who in turn, along with the residents, would eventually elect the City corporation. The electorate should comprise human beings, not properties, and electoral rights should be based on individuals and their role as residents, workers or employees.
    Amendment No. 64 makes the first reference to the "employee" as having a physical presence in the hereditament to gain qualification for the qualifying body.
    Mr. Bermingham: Has my hon. Friend considered the situation that could well arise in which a registered office is in a building occupied by firms of solicitors? He will no doubt have seen a sign listing company after company whose registered offices are in such a building. According to the promoters, under clause 3 they do not have to be separately rated. Does each of those companies, because the director and secretary are registered there, become a qualifying voter? If so, one block could have 50, 60, 70, 80 or 150 qualifying voters, all of whom would have a vote but none of whom would have any employees working in the block.
    Mr. McDonnell: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am not sure whether such contortion can be prevented. I would welcome the promoter's response to that point. Such multiple qualification could lead to abuse. It would be worth having a statement from the promoters about how that problem would be tackled. It may be tackled in the reform package that they have suggested, which falls outside the Bill. We may need to examine that problem in more detail.
    Amendment No. 64 would identify the employee as the first reference and key to defining physical presence in the hereditament to gain qualification as a qualifying body. I accept that there are possibilities for abuse, as my hon.
    96
    Friend suggested, either with or without employees, but we need to state the principle of the employee being the key element.
    Amendment No. 26 would define "relevant employee" as
    a person whose principal or only place of work on the qualifying date is ordinarily the hereditament in respect of which the entitlement to appoint a voter arises and who works for that qualifying body.
    I have chosen that definition to overcome some of the queries and concerns that hon. Members have previously raised. It is important that it is not a fly-by-night employee who is at that place of work for only a limited time and moves on, or who moves from place to place and can qualify various bodies simultaneously. It should be the employee's principal or only place of work. That would prevent a person from being hired as a transient or peripatetic employee to become the carpetbagger who enables individual companies to qualify.
    There have been discussions about how difficult it would be to establish a company's employment resources. I appreciate the difficulties in establishing who the relevant employees are and whether a location is their principal or only place of work. I acknowledged that on Second Reading, but I think that we were too charitable because it is clear that companies can readily identify from their records who their employees are. Extensive employment records are required for statutory purposes, such as national insurance, taxation, tax avoidance, and health and safety. Employees can be traced, located, verified and associated with a particular company.
    There is no difficulty identifying employees and relating them to firms. The difficulty is relating employees to fixed locations: that may be open to abuse. If so, we should perhaps introduce a location register similar to the electoral roll. It could be funded by companies seeking qualification. If they apply to be a qualifying body on the basis of having employees at a particular location, they could fund the registration of those employees with the City corporation. If the City corporation can produce an electoral roll for residents, I see no difficulty in ensuring an electoral roll for employees.
    It is argued that, on the City corporation's estimate, about 250,000 employees commute to the City each day for work. That number of people would not be difficult to register. It may seem large, but it is the electoral roll of my borough and of most boroughs in London, so it is manageable. The onus should be on the companies seeking to be qualifying bodies on the basis of their employees. They should assist in the financing of an electoral roll based on employment.
    Such a register would be verifiable, because anyone could compare the electoral roll of employees with national insurance, taxation or health and safety records. I do not accept the argument that it is an insuperable problem to define "relevant employee" and to ensure that that person has a principal or only place of work at that firm and that they are located within that hereditament.
    Amendment No. 4 was not selected, so I shall pass it by. It would have excluded people associated with the sex industry. I am not sure why it was not selected, but I shall leave that to hon. Members' imagination. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead wanted to show that the term "relevant employee" may have to be further

    97
    defined. We may want to exclude certain employment, and I understand that. We exclude people from the electoral roll because of their criminal activity.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing what he knows perfectly well he must not do. He said he would pass the amendment by, and he must pass it by completely.
    Mr. McDonnell: I have passed the amendment by, and shall now deal with amendment No. 34, which states that a qualifying body may only appoint—I detest the word "appoint" and prefer the word "elect", which is why I have tried to amend other parts of the Bill—
    Mr. Pound: There is no future for my hon. Friend in the Labour party then.
    Mr. McDonnell: I hope that you did not hear that, Sir Alan. It was almost a compliment.
    Amendment No. 34 would require that a qualifying body could appoint a voter only if it had conducted a ballot of its employees to determine the person appointed as a voter. As it stands, the Bill provides that a person appointed as a voter would probably be appointed by a decision of the board or by a director or chief executive, but we do not know, because it is not defined.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend realise that that creates one of the most alarming anomalies in the Bill? Say that the board of X Ltd. decided to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) as a voter in the City of London and then by some mischance he gets himself elected to the corporation's board and the directors decide that they do not like him and take him off the voting list. He would lose his right to sit on the City corporation. Someone who is unelected and unaccountable would have disfranchised a human being and removed a councillor. I cannot see that being in accordance with the European convention on human rights.
    Mr. McDonnell: I advise my hon. Friend not to stray into the issue of compliance with the European convention on human rights, because that may cause difficulties. The issue is about right of recall. Amendment No. 34 suggests that a ballot should be conducted to ensure that a person appointed as a voter is appointed on the basis of the wishes of employees in the relevant firm. As my hon. Friend says, under the Bill as it stands that person will be appointed on the whim of the firm, and his or her appointment can therefore be withdrawn on the same whim. Not only would that undermine the potential vote; it could undermine the individual's position and status if he or she were elected to the corporation of the City of London. It cannot be right for a company to have that power of veto and that right of recall.
    8.30 pm
    I am trying to ensure that there is an election by employees, because that would prevent an individual company from seeking to influence the corporation in respect of a point of policy that might have a direct bearing on its own operation. As far as I can see, the Bill
    98
    as it stands allows companies to exert immense influence on the appointment of voters, and therefore on representatives of the corporation.
    In earlier debates, concern was expressed about how, if we agree on a ballot of employees to nominate a voter, we can practically ensure that the ballot is fair, open and transparent and enables employees' will to be exercised fairly and democratically, without undue influence. It is always difficult to prevent the exercising of undue influence, but I do not believe that difficulties will be involved in registering the number of employees in a company in order to conduct a ballot to enable a vote to take place, either in the workplace or by post to employees' home addresses, so that those employees can decide who should exercise their votes and, in some instances, who should become members of the corporation.
    The proposal relates to an earlier point, because it would be facilitated by a register of employees. It is not difficult to do that in the case of a population of 250,000, and it is surely not a problem to place such a duty on a company with a limited number of employees in order to ensure probity in the conduct of a ballot. It would remove the right to appoint from the chief executive or the board of directors, and would place that important right in the hands of those who work for the qualifying body.
    Amendment No. 37 is consequential. The Bill suggests that if a hereditament spans more than one ward, it should be deemed to be in whichever ward contains the greatest part or structure. The amendment simply proposes that if a hereditament spans more than one ward, the decision on which ward it should belong to should be based not on the scale of the property holding, but on where the largest number of employees are. That would prevent a skewing of the balance.
    Amendment No. 16 is also consequential. It suggests that the limitation in clause 3(6) is not necessary if the qualification is based on the number of employees, and would eliminate the limit on the number of votes that a company can exercise on the basis of the number of its employees. Amendment No. 17, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, would delete schedule 1, which, in its present form, bases the allocation of votes on property and is therefore superfluous. The amendment is slightly more radical than amendment No. 38, which would retain the schedule but would amend it to ensure that voters were appointed on the basis of the number of employees.
    Amendment No. 40 would place a duty on the qualifying body to ballot its employees to elect the voter or voters. Amendment No. 51 would throw out the word "appoint". It is, I think, a reflection on the Bill that throughout it are references to appointing rather than electing. That is a stain on any Bill that purports to bring about democratic reform. The amendment would install the concept of election—the concept of democracy—where it should be. Perhaps in this debate it constitutes heady radicalism, almost reaching the heights of democratic socialism: it not only includes the word "elect", but would bestow the vote on the workers themselves.
    Amendment No. 52, another consequential amendment, would remove the word "appointed" and insert the word "elected". Amendment No. 25 would abolish schedule 1. Amendment No. 53 would also remove "appoint" and

    99
    insert "elect". Amendment No. 54, a more moderate amendment to the schedule, would introduce a system whereby, rather than the current allocation of votes in relation to the value of property owned—£200 up to £20,000 of rateable value, over £20,000 but not over £1 million, and over £1 million—there would be an allocation based on the number of employees. I suggest that the association with rateable value should be replaced by a system of one vote for every 1,000 employees, and that they should be "relevant employees" physically based in the hereditament in which a company seeks to qualify for the vote.
    It has been argued that the residential vote might be swamped. Given an electorate of about 250,000 commuters coming into the City, that will not happen: the 2,500 votes will be allocated to companies on the basis of the number of their employees, and, with 5,000 residential votes, there will be no such swamping. I do not think that linking the number of votes to the number of employees on the basis of one per 1,000 is in any way intimidating in terms of the residential vote; I also think that my amendment would secure a balanced approach to the number of votes employees should have, on which businesses can then draw.
    Amendment No. 56 is a similar consequential amendment that removes the reference to votes based on rateable value and installs the reference to the vote based on the number of employees.
    At its mildest, my argument throughout the debate on this sub-group of amendments is that, if votes are to be distributed, the employees themselves must have their say, and that their right to have a say has been denied them until now; there has been no say for employees within companies.
    If we are—I mean it sincerely—to build a stakeholder society, we will need to ensure that all the stakeholders are thoroughly involved. The Bill does not do that. The amendments go some way to ensuring that stakeholders are identified and provided with rights. I accept that with those rights come responsibilities; there is a responsibility of service. If one votes for a body, one is also entitled at some stage to stand for that body and to provide it with a service.
    We discussed the stakeholder theme before the last general election and it was seized on by the Government. We developed it under new Labour and as part of the third way following Will Hutton's book "The State We're In." That seminal work opened and developed a debate about what a just society is. A just society is one in which we all have a stake. It is one in which we can make a contribution financially, in employment terms or, as some of us do, by participating voluntarily through voluntary organisations. In any democratic reform, those stakes, those contributions, should be recognised.
    The amendments go some way to acknowledging the stakeholder society within the City corporation area. Almost unlike any other area, the City corporation is ripe for a stakeholder approach. It has a combination of residents and, thanks to City corporation funding, a strong and developed voluntary and community sector. Religious organisations and churches, which have been with us since mediaeval times, have also developed there, and there is the business sector. However, what has been
    100
    missing among all those groups of stakeholders has been the voice of the workers themselves—the people who spend most of their working day in the environment of the City.
    Mr. Wareing: There is another group of people who perhaps deserve an amendment: the students, for example, at the London school of economics.
    Dr. Godman: There is also the City university.
    Mr. Wareing: Indeed, there is the City university, Goldsmith's college and various other higher and further education establishments.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us deal with the Bill as it is.
    Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a way in which to acknowledge the role of students almost as though they were employees of a particular body within an organisation, but I shall not pursue that matter because I can see that you are not succumbing to that argument. I shall concentrate on the amendments in hand.
    That set of amendments, which is linked to a further set that we may debate later or on another occasion—which establishes electoral colleges—seeks to establish a stakeholder concept within the City of London corporation.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No doubt inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has started to repeat himself. That I cannot allow.
    Mr. McDonnell: At this stage, then, I simply need to say that the amendments allow for the formation of the right of workers within the City to have a say over their immediate environment. Why is that important? Because they should have a right to have a say over how their immediate environment is managed and governed. What does that mean? It is not industrial democracy within a firm; it is not about workers' rights; it is about the right of the estimated 250,000 workers who commute to the City to have a say and to make their contribution. It enables development of a discussion whereby those people can say what they require and how their needs can be met within the City area.
    Before I conclude, may I briefly put the following point? Residents have their say over what they feel they need. Businesses have their say over what they feel they require within that limited environment to ensure that they function as businesses. What is not heard is the voice of employees who come into the area, telling us what they need to function as employees. I give a few simple examples.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has dwelt on that point to such an extent that I shall begin to think of invoking the Standing Order against him for repetition.
    Mr. McDonnell: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wanted to mention the example of nurseries, which would enhance the quality of employees' lives, and the need for out-of-hours schooling.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on repetition. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need fear that any of those people will feel that their views have not been represented.
    Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    101
    This group of amendments opens up a new agenda for the City corporation and asks new questions of all of us. It opens up a new horizon, giving us the opportunity to liberate the legislation, to make it truly democratic. I would not want such provision to be replicated elsewhere, because I understand the special argument about the City of London. I understand the special needs of businesses, employees and residents in the City, and how we have to combine those needs.
    8.45 pm
    Although I do not accept the Bill, if we are to compromise on it—that is what we are trying to do today—I urge hon. Members to accept this group of amendments. The amendments define physical presence, ensure that qualifying bodies are proper qualifying bodies and give a voice to employees.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: I once moved a group of 25 amendments, in Committee, in opposition on the Finance Act 1978, but I do not think that I have ever replied to a grouping of 20. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on the stamina with which he spoke to the amendments, although I cannot necessarily agree with the content of his speech. I hope that he and the House will excuse me if I am rather briefer than he has been. Nevertheless, I shall concentrate on and cover his amendments. As the issues are complicated, however, I shall not hurry my objections to his amendments and to those that he shares with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) in this group.
    In replying to this group of amendments, I should like first to say a little about Labour Members' objections—on what might be described as grounds of general principle—to the Bill's reference to "qualifying bodies" before explaining the amendments' effect and why, consequently, I shall be inviting the House not to accept them.
    As has been made clear in today's exchanges, many of the amendments in this group are prompted by objection in principle to the involvement of those representing businesses—qualifying bodies, in the terminology of this group of amendments—in the City's voting system in the way anticipated or, indeed, at all. The entitlement of individuals appointed by qualifying bodies to participate in City elections—which the amendments seek to alter—reflects, as the arrangements in the City have always reflected, the fact that the City is overwhelmingly a place for doing business rather than for living in.
    Participation by business in City elections is not new, as all hon. Members will by now appreciate, but the voting system has been adapted over time to meet changing circumstances. The Bill continues that process. By way of illustration, in the 14th century, the qualification to vote in common council elections was solely a business one: voting entitlement was confined to members of the guilds. That arrangement was later expanded—[Interruption.]
    Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brooke: I shall give way in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—no doubt he had the same situation in his speech—it is easier if I reach the end of a sentence before someone interrupts me.
    102
    The arrangement was later expanded to enable electoral participation, partly by the City companies and partly by the wards. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. Gentleman is as courteous as ever. I urge him to recognise that, in those days, there was not the same distinction between those who had a company and those who did not. Those who lived and those who worked in the City were one—people worked in their area. I urge him—he has read as much of the literature as I have—to accept that.
    Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but he will know—as I was saying a moment or two ago—that part of the objection to the process of this legislation and the City having a business vote has come back to the business vote, as such. However, I acknowledge what he has just said.
    The principle of participation by both business and residential interests remains today, and it is reflected in the proposals that we are now considering and in which the concept of qualifying bodies is a key ingredient.
    Much of what has been said on the amendments is informed by objection to the inconsistency between the electoral arrangements in the City and those elsewhere. That criticism overlooks the fact that, while local authorities are statutory bodies created since the 19th century, with boundaries determined in accordance with resident populations, the City's jurisdiction has always been based on its position as a centre of trade. As I have already said, its franchises have, over time, reflected that fact. I remark in passing that the City is the most notable centre in Europe for archaeological research, because there has been continuous commercial activity on the site for 2000 years.
    The aim of the Bill is to ensure, through appointments made by qualifying bodies, that the range of interests in the modern City business community is properly represented. That aim is no novelty in the development of the City's local governance. It is axiomatic. An argument that local governance of the world's leading international financial centre—which, I remind Labour Members, includes the economic development brief—should be decided solely by 5,000 residents is surely misplaced.
    The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has contended that the Bill would result in City business being given a disproportionate influence in the workings of the Greater London Authority, given the duties on the authority to consult the City's common council, as a London local authority. That point lacks substance, because the Greater London Authority Act 1999, on whose Committee the hon. Gentleman and I both served for many hours, imposes obligations on the authority to consult London local authorities and business interests in the capital. It provides that the business voice is to be heard, regardless of whether it is channelled through a local authority.
    The notion that the City is a threat to the workings of the Greater London Authority does not seem to be shared by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), now the mayor of London. His mayoral manifesto, "Ken for London" said, in its business section, "London: Business Capital of Europe", that he will
    work with the Corporation of the City of London and major City institutions to ensure London remains the financial capital of Europe.

    103
    I shall address specifically the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, whose absence I entirely understand and which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington explained. I shall then respond to the details of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The hon. Gentleman gave an accurate precis of the meeting that the City corporation and I were able to have outside this place with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead since we last debated the Bill.
    Amendment No. 3 would remove reference to directors, officers, employees, agents and holders of paid or unpaid offices from the definition of occupation in clause 2. That would define occupation as "personal physical presence" on premises, but without referring to the classes of people who might be included. It is a paving amendment for others in the group, to which I shall speak later. The result would not change the requirement for occupation, but it would create ambiguity as to which people were intended to be covered by the definition.
    Amendment No. 5, to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has also appended his name, would remove clause 2(2). In consequence, unincorporated bodies, whose property must, as a matter of law, be held by individuals, would be taken out of entitlement if the individuals who acted as trustees or custodians of the property were not based on the premises. The main casualties of the amendment would be charitable and voluntary sector bodies, which are often unincorporated. Their property is frequently held through the permanent officers based in national or regional offices, with local premises used by voluntary staff or place workers.
    Clause 2(2) was included in the Bill because it seemed to the promoters undesirable that such people should be excluded from participation in elections simply as the result of a legal technicality.
    Mr. McDonnell: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman supports the amendment that would include churches, religious bodies, the voluntary sector and community organisations in the Bill?
    Mr. Brooke: I shall come to that point. The hon. Gentleman has also tabled an amendment including trade unions, and I will deal with both points. To return to the point I was making, such a result seemed to the promoters arbitrary and contrary to the aim of ensuring that as wide a range of interests as possible are included in the new scheme.
    Amendment No. 16 would remove the current restriction in clause 3(1)(b) on the number of individuals qualifying bodies may appoint as voters and would require City businesses to appoint as voters everybody working at the premises. As drafted, the amendment would not restrict the entitlement to employees working at premises in the City. That arrangement would increase substantially the electoral base that is consistent with the objectives of the Bill. Requiring entry on the voting lists of all those working for City employers, not necessarily in premises in the City, is questionable, and I suspect that it was not what the hon. Gentleman intended.
    Even if the requirement is assumed to be applicable only to City premises, the consequences would mean that the City's resident voters would be completely swamped.
    104
    The scheme now before the House has been developed mindful of the need to maintain the voice of residential voters, as I mentioned myself on Second Reading. That objective must mean that the voting entitlement of City businesses has to involve some process of selection. It might be said that the need to apply a mechanism to give the various interests of the City a voice on a representational basis, involving the selection of individuals, is one of the principal points of contention, but amending it by entering every City worker as a voter—I remind the hon. Gentleman that the City has a resident population of some 5,000 and a daytime one well in excess of 250,000—is not a practical solution.
    Mr. McDonnell: The amendments would register employers as voters for voters, who would in turn elect the City corporation, in the same way that the Bill would register businesses to appoint voters for voters who would then take part in the elections.
    Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to have a laboured exchange with the hon. Gentleman, but as I said a moment ago his intent is not always matched by the words he seeks to include in the Bill.
    Amendments Nos. 17 and 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, are interlinked and would remove schedule 1. The result would be to delete the scheme for appointing voters by qualifying bodies by reference to rateable values. Acceptance of the amendments would leave the Bill in a highly ambiguous, indeed unworkable, state, because clause 3 would provide for appointments by qualifying bodies by reference to rateable values. I infer, however, that taken together the hon. Gentleman's amendments are intended to remove the appointments mechanism for qualifying bodies altogether. That would leave clause 3(1)(a) and (b) to define the qualifications of voters in ward elections. That definition is essentially a restatement of the existing business and residential franchise, which therefore means that the primary objective of the current Bill—to broaden the franchise—would be defeated.
    Here I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington may deliberately have been seeking to reach that outcome, even though it is not the purpose of the Bill.
    9 pm
    I turn now to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Amendment No. 48 would exclude members of governing bodies of qualifying bodies who are not based at the premises to which the voting entitlement relates. Clause 5(5) was included in the Bill for those reasons.
    First, as a matter of law, the directors or members of the governing body of an unincorporated business are regarded as the personification of the company. It would be somewhat odd if such people, who could be held personally responsible for a qualifying body, could not be appointed under the Bill. Clause 5(5) makes sure that the entitlement is conferred.
    Secondly, it seems inequitable to exclude everyone working for a qualifying body from participating in the new scheme simply because the directors happened not to have offices in that building. I have referred already to a similar point with regard to amendment No. 5.

    105
    Thirdly, there was a specific desire to enable those who participate in the running of charities to involve themselves in the extended franchise. Charities often depend on part-time board members. Those public-spirited people may well have a very valuable contribution to make, and the City corporation has sought to facilitate that contribution by including clause 5(5) in the Bill.
    Amendment No. 64 would exclude reference to officers and agents from the definition of occupation in clause 2. Personal physical presence as a requirement of occupation would remain, but the explanation of which classes of persons might satisfy the requirement would be removed. There would continue to be specific reference to directors and employees, but not to officers and agents. At the very least, the result would make the meaning of the word "occupation" less clear.
    However, if amendment No. 64 were to exclude officers and agents from the definition, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington may intend, the effect would be rather worse. For example, if the company secretary were based in the premises but the directors were based in another building, the whole work force at the former premises would be excluded from participation in the enlarged franchise. That would be a form of social exclusion.
    The reference to agents was included by the promoters of the Bill because the conduct of company affairs through an agent has long been established as a fact of commercial life, and there appears to be no reason to exclude those working for companies from the scheme simply on the basis of those companies' internal management arrangements.
    Amendment No. 65 would remove limb (b) from the definition of "occupation" in clause 2. That provides that occupation by personal physical presence includes the situation where holders of paid or unpaid offices occupy premises for the performance of their work. Amendments Nos. 79 and 80, with which I shall deal later, touch on the same subject.
    The provision was included primarily to deal with religious organisations, which will, under the Bill, be able to participate even if the property in the City that they occupy is unrated. Premises used by holders of religious offices—those offices may well be unpaid—will not usually be owned by them. Instead, office holders will use accommodation made available by others, either for philanthropic reasons, or through a board or other intermediate body whose job is to provide accommodation throughout a given area or nationally for members of the religious organisation concerned. The clergy, and those connected with religious orders, are a relevant interest in the City community, as elsewhere, and the promoters of the Bill would not wish them to be excluded.
    Amendment No. 79, about which the hon. Gentleman intervened on me, would exclude churches, religious bodies, and voluntary sector and community organisations registered as charities from the extended franchise. Amendment No. 80 would have a similar effect on trade unions. From the manner in which the hon. Gentleman spoke to those amendments, and from his recent intervention, I do not think that that was his intention in tabling them. However, that is the effect that they would have. The reason is that in both cases, the additional words proposed in the amendments follow the words "other than" in the current definition of a qualifying body in clause 2.
    106
    It will be apparent from what I have said already that the amendments run counter to the intention of the Bill, which is to include as wide a range of interests as possible in the new scheme. In the amendments, the hon. Gentleman—inadvertently, I am quite certain—would simply enlarge the number of people who could be excluded, by specific reference.
    Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out what could have been a drafting error. Leaving that aside, would he, on behalf of the promoters, suggest that with a redraft the proposal could be brought back to ensure that the Bill provided for the inclusion of churches, voluntary organisations, religious bodies and trade unions?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he put his question. I was not seeking to grind him—to use the phrase so often used by Ministers—about the amendments being defective. Those amendments are not so much defective as wrongly addressed.
    I have alluded on two occasions to the importance of including charities and churches. The hon. Gentleman intervened on me in my first reference to that. It is the promoters' intention that churches and charities should be included. I will, of course, in the familiar phrase, make sure that the promoters are confident that their intent is fully reinforced by the way in which the Bill is currently constructed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing the need for that contribution.
    Mr. McDonnell: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to extend his reference to trade unions?
    Mr. Brooke: I am less well advised on trade unions, but I will certainly draw the issue to the attention of the promoters.
    Amendment No. 26 would insert a new definition of "relevant employee" in clause 2. The definition is picked up in the substantive amendment No. 34, which would require a ballot of all employees to decide who is to be appointed. Selection by ballot, rather than by appointment, can be made to sound attractive—and if I may say so, the hon. Gentleman did so make it. That is, however, as far as the matter goes, as is apparent—at least, in my speech—once the practical implications are examined. I should like to spend a short while in that examination.
    The hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of industrial ballots and referral under the Employment Relations Act 1999. He will know that a simple statement requiring a ballot is a very long way from the difficulties of the practice. As one of the leading independently produced handbooks on the subject says:
    the rules for industrial action ballots are notoriously complex…
    It notes the description by the Master of the Rolls of the practice of ballots as
    a minefield in which it is all too easy to stray from the paths of safety and legality…
    The hon. Gentleman may know of the survey conducted in 1998 by the Labour research department, a body whose findings may appeal more to him than they necessarily would to me. The survey revealed that balloting irregularities accounted for 45 per cent. of all employers'

    107
    legal actions against trade unions since 1983. It is against that background that the hon. Gentleman's amendments must be judged.
    The amendments do not provide anything like the level of safeguards that Parliament has set down as necessary to ensure fairness and propriety in the conduct of industrial ballots. That is particularly apposite when one considers the context of the amendments, which seek to address issues of democratic legitimacy. For example, there is no requirement for an independent scrutineer, and no control over how the ballot is to be conducted. In particular, there is nothing about whether the ballot should be secret, as is now required for all industrial action ballots. In fact, nothing is said about the procedure by which the ballots envisaged by the amendments would be conducted.
    I do not seek in any way to get at the hon. Gentleman's amendments. If I may pay him a parliamentary compliment across the Floor of the House, I think that his 20 amendments—all of which were regarded by Madam Speaker as being within the rules of order—have provided us with a rich feast. The fact that one or two details may be missing at the margins should not be held against his achievement in constructing them.
    The hon. Gentleman might quite properly say that he would envisage ballots being conducted as all others are, so that probity may be reasonably assumed. Once that point is accepted, however, one must also accept that statutory procedures and rules would need to be imposed, which is, to re-quote the graphic terminology of the Master of the Rolls, "a minefield". It appears to be generally agreed that—because, no doubt, of the procedural complexities—ballots are an expensive business. They are not embarked upon lightly, but the hon. Gentleman's amendments would require every business and other qualifying body in the City to embark on one. That seems tantamount to the creation of an obstacle guaranteed to ensure that City businesses did not participate, with the result that the Bill's proposals would come to nothing.
    Mr. McDonnell rose—
    Mr. Brooke: I shall give way, but the hon. Gentleman will understand, after what I have just said, if I animadvert to him in my subsequent remarks.
    Mr. McDonnell: I am trying to sidestep becoming a parliamentary institution. On independent scrutiny, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I made points about the ability of individual firms to fund proposals, the structure of balloting and postal balloting. That aside, will he advise me on what independent scrutiny there is of the registration of qualifying bodies under the Bill?
    Mr. Brooke: I shall respond first to that point and then return to what I had intended to say. In answer to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I must, if he will allow me, fall back on the ministerial prop of saying that I shall write to him. As for the references that he perfectly properly made in his speech, as his speech lasted in excess of 100 minutes, I should not wish to take an examination on the whole of it. I was seeking, as best I could, to ensure that I responded to his central points.
    108
    Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to say that I could not tell whether the fact that his references to ballots might drive a coach and horses through the City's intentions for the Bill was his ulterior and secret motive, but that I could say that that would be their effect.
    Amendment No. 37 seeks to alter clause 3 to provide that hereditaments that cross ward boundaries are to be treated as located in the ward in which the majority of employees working at the hereditament concerned are located. The clause provides that cross-boundary properties are allocated on the basis of the ward in which the greater part of the building is located.
    9.15 pm
    The undesirability—if not the impracticability—of deciding location on the basis of where in the premises employees are located is not difficult to identify. Employees are not static, and an attempted assessment of the part of the premises in which the majority of them might be located at any given moment is likely to yield highly arbitrary results. Even if the amendment were read as implying reference to an additional parameter—such as where in the building the employees usually work—in deciding location, the results would be capricious. Allocation of the voting entitlement could, for example, end up being based on the position of office furniture in a room, and could be altered simply by moving the desks around.
    Buildings have a degree of permanence, and the approach taken by clause 3 is consistent with that taken in other contexts, including, for example, the compilation of rating lists where hereditaments cross rating authority boundaries. That, I suggest, offers a much more practicable and precedented method of dealing with property that crosses ward boundaries.
    Amendment No. 38 would add a reference to "relevant employees" in clause 3(7); it refers to schedule 1 and is consequential on amendment No. 26, to which I have already spoken. Amendment No. 40 would delete from clause 4(1) the requirement on qualifying bodies to ensure that the composition of the work force is reflected in the appointments made, and substitutes the requirement for a ballot. In speaking to amendment No. 34, I explained at some length why ballots do not promote a practicable way forward. Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 56 are also consequential, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out.
    Amendment No. 54 again refers to relevant employees and thus back to the issue of ballots. However, it substitutes for the table in schedule 1 an entitlement for qualifying bodies limited to the appointment of one person for work places where up to 1,000 people are employed and one more for each thousand thereafter. The effect of that would be to limit the entitlement of the vast majority of City businesses to one person. Only the largest City businesses—less than 1 per cent. of the total—would be eligible to appoint more. For the vast majority of businesses, there would thus be no prospect of participation by a cross-section of the work force.
    There would be an absence of proportionality. The retail kiosk would have the same level of representation as the business employing hundreds of people. Such representation would then be triggered only if businesses went through the ballot procedure. For the reasons I gave earlier, that is not a reasonable expectation.

    109
    In addition to those elements, even if—for the sake of argument—it is taken as realistic to assume that businesses would voluntarily go through a balloting exercise to appoint one person, the overall increase in the City's electorate, and thus the level of representation of the City's diverse commercial interests, would be small and distorted. That runs counter to the Bill's intentions.
    I have responded to the amendments in some detail to demonstrate to the House why the Bill, and especially the process to which this group of amendments is directed, have been framed in their current form. I hope that also explains why I have to invite the House not to accept the amendments.
    Mr. Pound: It is with a slight reluctance that I speak in opposition to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). Normally, to see his name as a Bill's sponsor is similar to seeing the old sign outside Lords cricket ground saying that admission was 6d, or a shilling if Dr. Grace was batting. The presence of the right hon. Gentleman is usually the imprimatur of acceptability to the broad feeling of the House.
    As the right hon. Gentleman walks to the wicket for what he has described as his last season at the crease in this place, with his club tie around his flannels, perhaps a decent touring cap rakishly worn over one eye, and his bat tucked under his arm, the plasters around its base bearing witness to many past struggles, many of us on both sides of the House will think of the last innings of John Berry Hobbs, Hammond, or any other great batsman. We shall look with sentiment at what has been—and will continue to be—a most distinguished career. Be that as it may, tonight the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
    Mr. Brooke: I much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has just said. However, given the metaphor that he is using, is he aware that a predecessor as Member of Parliament for my constituency, Mr. William Ward, accomplished in 1820 the ground record for Lords of 278 when he played for the MCC against Norfolk? That remained the ground record for 105 years.
    Mr. Pound: Very few Labour Members are not aware of that fact. As has already been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and I had the benefit of education from the de la Salle brothers and the Jesuits. In fact, many of us thought that Lords was the Catholic cricket ground. We have learned more about it tonight and we have been pleased to do so.
    It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, as he takes guard at the crease in his last season, is faced, on the Labour Benches, by the rude mechanicals from west London. Although I have no doubt that, as ever, he will gracefully caress the crimson wanderer to the palings with the waft of the willow that has characterised his parliamentary style, he will, I trust, forgive some of us if we see ourselves as Eric Hollies to his Bradman, or even Lillee to his Edrich.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. He is not yet my right hon. Friend although after tonight's tour de force, I have no doubt that the Cabinet beckons him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which cabinet is that?"] Unfortunately, it is probably the cabinet of Dr. Caligari or the cabinet used by Harry Houdini.
    110
    My hon. Friend has attempted to do what I thought to be wholly impossible. He has attempted to make better a bad piece of legislation and he has attempted to bring daylight, clarity, sanity and logic into the most bizarre mosaic of mediaeval mummery that anyone can look at without doubting that their senses still rest between their ears. How on earth can one justify the Bill?
    There is only one intellectually sustainable case to be made for the Bill. I have my views on the amendments and, in my opinion, the City of London is in many ways an extremely successful institution. It would be a glorious addition to the London borough of Hackney.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am not sure which amendment the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is addressing. I would be very grateful if he would start to address one of them.
    Mr. Pound: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend goes into detail as to which amendment would extend the boundaries of the borough of Hackney into the City of London, will he remember that the borough of Islington also has a boundary with the City of London, as does the borough of Tower Hamlets? We do not wish the City to be annexed to Hackney to the exclusion of Islington and Tower Hamlets. Will my hon. Friend reflect on that point?
    Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for so brutally and publicly correcting me. Although the resident population of the City of London is about one third the size of an average London ward, why should not the three adjoining boroughs be refreshed by the addition of new wards from the City of London?
    On the generality of the 20 amendments before us—the overwhelming thrust of which is to seek to input an element of democracy, participation and accountability into the Bill—I do not think that even the inclusion of the ingenious proposals and propositions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington addresses the fundamental issue in the Bill. The problem is a yawning dichotomy in which a mediaeval structure, which is successful, does not have the courage to say, "We are remarkably successful. Yes, we are capitalist robber barons and we are something special."
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. However, he must differentiate between a Second Reading speech and dealing with the amendments. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must direct his remarks specifically to the amendment before the House.
    Mr. Pound: I accept your criticism, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is entirely justified.
    I am especially concerned with amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 26, which seek to address the democratic deficit of the franchise proposed by the Bill for the City of London. It is perfectly possible to argue, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has done, that religious bodies and voluntary sector and community organisations

    111
    are already represented. Even if amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 26 are accepted—I do not doubt that they will be, as I have faith in the good nature, will and intelligence of the House—that will not resolve the issue, and will provide the City of London with no more than a fig leaf of democracy.
    I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke for more than 100 minutes. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I am reluctant to speak at that length. However, in considering the Bill we should ask ourselves—as has been said in an intervention—what legacy we wish to leave the people reading the history of the 21st century. In discussing amendments to a Bill in the House of Commons in the first year of the first decade of the third millennium, are we seriously considering a mediaeval formulation of property franchise, which is not based on any justifiable or defensible system anywhere in the world? Indeed, it is a modern artifice grafted on to a mediaeval structure.
    When those who follow us read what we have said tonight, will they be able to understand why we were seriously suggesting that any democratic organisation—even a soi-disant democratic organisation—in this country could, seriously and intellectually, try to base its franchise on property value and the ability and skills of employers, whether at first or second remove, and nominate its staff to vote on its behalf? I cannot believe that future generations will regard that with anything but amazement and bemusement.
    If there were a clause in the Bill abolishing the City of London it would gain support but, unfortunately, there is no such clause. We must therefore content ourselves with the 20 amendments tabled by my hon.—soon to be right hon.—Friend. His amendments address consistently the issue of appointment, which goes to the heart of the concerns that many of us have about the continued existence of the Baltic trading post that has grown and swelled into the vast City of London today. The 21st century is surely not the century of appointments. If it is anything, it must be the century of election, of democracy, of accountability, of the—
    Mr. Edward Davey: House of Lords?
    Mr. Pound: I naturally exclude Labour's plans for the House of Lords, in response to that quiet aside from the hon. Member for somewhere south of the river.
    We must avoid an appointments system that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington graphically demonstrated, is so open if not to misuse at least to misunderstanding. There is no accountability or transparency in it. How can one possibly attempt to structure a democratic model based on such appointments when any number of mechanisms may flow into the nomination or appointment?
    9.30 pm
    An election along the lines proposed in the amendments, the numbers of which have temporarily escaped me—I suspect that they will be whispered in my ear in a moment—
    Mr. McDonnell: Nos. 3 and 40.
    Mr. Pound: The numbers 3 and 40 come as if from the ether. The amendments would go a long way towards meeting the problem, filling the vacuum, providing that element of accountability. They may not provide the democracy that those who work and live in the City of London are entitled to demand, not as a privilege but as an absolute bounden right, but at least they would go some way towards meeting the need for accountability. It is for that reason—surely, no other reason is necessary—that hon. Members should support the amendments.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) strayed on to the issue of the Baltic exchange, some of us questioned whether he was really holding to the amendments. The House is entitled to know. Will you give us your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall obviously bring the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) into line whenever I think it is appropriate.
    Mr. Pound: I was going to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) for that intervention, but I shall in future have to refer to him as my hon. and learned former Friend. However, he makes a good point, which has occurred to many hon. Members. I can see eyes glazing over and the laser-like glare of the Whips drifting in my direction.
    I implore the House to take the amendments very seriously. There may seem something farcical about the Bill—almost a Gilbert and Sullivan, comic-opera aspect to it. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the Bill's sponsor, or to the representatives of the City of London, although there is something strange about people who wear fur hats and carry on at the Mansion house in the way that they do—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has almost run out of things to say about the amendments.
    Mr. Pound: In conclusion, although there are comic aspects to the Bill—that is undeniable—I ask right hon. and hon. Members seriously to consider the amendments and simply to address themselves to the one fundamental question at their heart: will they make the Bill better, or is the Bill fundamentally flawed in the first place? We need to consider that. My contention is that my hon. Friend's amendments would make a bad Bill better. They would make it not defendable, but less indefensible.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarified the Government's position on the amendments.
    As we have made clear, the Government welcome the fact that the City is beginning to face up to the need to put its governance on a more modern footing. We believe that its proposals are a step in the right direction. I remind the House that many of the City's proposed reforms do not require parliamentary legislation. There is the

    113
    abolition of the aldermanic veto, the introduction of a shorter term of office for aldermen, improved qualifications for aldermanic candidates, a reduction in the size of the court of common council, normalisation of the term of office for common council men and the better allocation of members between wards. The City also gave an undertaking in Committee to adjust the boundaries of the four residential wards to preserve their residential character, and to review the number of members returned by the residential wards to ensure that they retain the same proportion of the overall membership of the common council as at present.
    The proposals for a corporate franchise as expressed in the Bill are based on electoral systems introduced recently in Melbourne and Sydney, so they are precedented elsewhere. The Bill's provisions serve to double the number of voters involved in elections in the corporation from about 19,800 to about 40,000.
    In general terms, the Bill provides for a report to be brought to the House after four years for further consideration of the progress that has been made under the current provisions and, I dare say, for consideration of other changes.
    The amendments would make major changes to the Bill's core provisions. They would alter the basis on which voting entitlement would arise and restrict the ability of companies to appoint voters in a manner that is appropriate to their own way of working. The City corporation considered a franchise based on the work force in its initial consultation but concluded that that was not a reasonable basis on which to proceed because of the impracticalities of such a system.
    Mr. John Cryer: My hon. Friend might know that in Havering, the borough that covers my constituency, there are thousands of City workers. A few of these workers are higher paid but many of them are low and medium earners. Is there not a justifiable case for arguing that they should be entitled to some say in how the corporation is run, rather than, for example, bankers sitting in a boardroom in Tokyo or Frankfurt?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that thought. However, it is not for me to get sucked into the detail of the proposals that are before us. Many different and fascinating proposals have been discussed this evening during an important and interesting debate, one of the main lessons of which has been my discovery of the pronunciation of "hereditament". My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation but not one on which I wish to be drawn.
    For all the reasons that I have enunciated, the Government cannot support the amendments. We had a substantial debate on many of the matters raised by them when we began consideration of the Bill on Report in July 1999. Those earlier amendments were rejected and I hope that the House will not support them this time around.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    Hon. Members: Aye.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Noes have it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
    "'business electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(c) with responsibility for electing the business voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
    "'employees' electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(d) with responsibility for electing the employees voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.
    No. 75, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out from 'person' to 'ordinarily' and insert—
    'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies which are'.
    No. 71, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
    '(d) is a person elected from the employees' electoral college comprising voters who are employees of a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list as having a rateable value of not less than £200.'.
    No. 76, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
    '(1A) the employees' electoral college shall reflect the range of occupations operating within the City of London, and shall comprise relevant occupational constituencies for which an employee must register based upon his/her principal occupation as defined under the DFEE Standard Occupational Classification Major Groups; and the proportion of voters to be elected from an occupational constituency shall be determined in proportion to the number of employees registering for a particular occupational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
    No. 77, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
    '(1B) the business electoral college shall reflect the range of business activity within the city, and shall comprise relevant business operational constituencies for which a qualifying body must register based upon its principal business operation; and the proportion of voters to be elected from a business operational constituency will be determined in proportion to the number of qualifying bodies registering for a particular business operational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
    No. 72, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
    '(1C) The number of business voters elected from the business electoral college shall be no more than 2000.'.
    No. 73, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
    '(1D) The number of employee voters elected from the employees' electoral college shall be no more than 2000.'.
    No. 78, in page 2, line 46, at end insert—
    '(2A)—(1) For the election of voters to represent the business operational and occupational constituencies within the electoral colleges, each vote in the poll shall be a single transferable vote.
    (2) A single transferable vote is a vote—

    (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

    (b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not needed to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes or when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.

    No. 74, in page 3, line 22, at end insert—
    'subject to subsections (1C) and (1D) above'.
    Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I clarify the procedures by which we sought

    115
    to vote on the previous group of amendments? I gave an indication that I wished to move other amendments but they have not been called.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We debate amendments in the groupings set down on the selection list, but we deal with them as we come to them in the amendment paper. We have dealt with amendment No. 3. We have not yet reached the group of amendments on which the hon. Gentleman would like to vote. We must now debate the next group of amendments that have been selected, and after that we will come to the amendment on which he wants to vote.
    Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on why we did not vote on amendment No. 3, when there was a clear indication of support for it on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the Chair to hear the voices and make a judgment on whether a Division is warranted. In my view, the voices did not warrant a Division.
    Mr. McDonnell: May I express my disappointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I felt that there were sufficient voices to merit a vote.
    Through the present group of amendments, we seek to establish a new democratic structure for the City. In an attempt to establish the stakeholder structure that we discussed earlier, we propose to establish electoral colleges.
    In the Labour party in recent years, there has been some debate about electoral colleges. There was an electoral college for the selection of the Labour party's candidate for mayor of London. We have learned some lessons about the drawbacks of that procedure, and we have had the opportunity to consider both the dangers and the strengths of electoral colleges.
    A balance is needed between the stakeholder components in the City. The amendments provide a definition of the various electoral colleges. Amendment No. 66 deals with the business college,
    a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(c) with responsibility for electing the business voters entitled to vote in ward elections.
    A group of businesses would come together to nominate individual voters, who could go on to vote in ward elections to enable the election of the corporation. That would protect the business vote.
    During previous stages of the Bill, there was discussion of amendments to introduce employees into the electoral process and to expand the role of residents in the franchise, and of attempts by me and others to undermine the business vote. Far from undermining the business vote, the amendments consolidate it within a structure which guarantees business a role in perpetuity in the City of London corporation.
    Businesses could come together, discuss common concerns, promote individual manifestos and in due course elect voters who would nominate and vote for the City of London corporation. Although I have some concerns about the business vote continuing, this is one
    116
    way in which it can be contained constructively. Business could engage in discussion of its own interests and comment on matters that concern the residents—the environment, education, social services and policing—and matters that concern the voluntary sector and community organisations, as we discussed in the context of previous amendments. At the same time, business could form an electoral college with its own interests.
    The second electoral college that I propose is the electoral college for employees. That relates partly to the previous set of amendments, to which we shall return in due course. I am sure that we will be quick enough on our toes to ensure that there is a vote on those amendments.
    Amendment No. 67 establishes the right of employees to have a say about the management of the environment of the City, the management of the City corporation, and the corporation's performance of its functions.
    9.45 pm
    Amendment No. 67 states:
    "employees' electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(d)—
    I shall discuss that in due course—
    with responsibility for electing the employees voters entitled to vote in ward elections.
    I shall clarify that because previous amendments were misunderstood. The amendment would provide for employees to come together who will in due course elect the voters. The latter will be able to vote individuals on to the City of London corporation.
    I have tried to ensure that the amendments comprise a balance of interests in an electoral college, which provides a procedure whereby, first, the residential vote will continue—it will not be diminished or swamped, as was suggested in the previous debate. Secondly, the important role of employees as stakeholders will be acknowledged. Thirdly, the role of businesses will be recognised. I have not sought to amend the qualification for businesses. I tried to ensure that the qualifying business body is included early in the Bill.
    Qualification requires an element of physical occupation. I am not happy about the definition of physical occupation. However, my amendment on that was not accepted. The definition of physical occupation will apply to businesses, which will be qualifying bodies. I am pleased that we have established to some extent that qualifying bodies will include voluntary organisations, Churches and religious bodies. They will be covered by the business electoral college. Perhaps amendment No. 66 requires a wider definition and a better term than "business electoral college". For example, "qualifying body electoral college" would cover a wider range of bodies.
    The business colleges as comprised in the amendment would be based on a franchise that the Bill defines. An additional amendment would enable an employees' electoral college to be formed. The members of those electoral colleges would meet, discuss and hold hustings to secure the candidates who wished to stand as voters. Having listened to the arguments in the electoral colleges, the voters would be able to cast their votes for candidates for the corporation.

    117
    Amendment No. 75 would provide that a person entitled to vote at a ward election would be
    elected from the business college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies…
    As I said earlier, we have not tried to amend the definition of qualifying body, although we may wish to do that later. There will be an opportunity for those in the business college further to reform the individual aspects of their voting entitlement.
    Amendment No. 71 would add paragraph (d) to clause 3(1):
    a person elected from the employees' electoral college comprising voters who are employees of a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament—
    I use the French pronunciation—
    situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list as having a rateable value of not less than £200.
    When we discussed previous amendments, points were made that I want to consider now because they strike at the heart of the amendment.
    Amendment No. 71 would establish an electoral college of employees. How should we determine who those employees are and where and for whom they work? I reject the argument that it is impossible to identify, register and ballot those employees effectively. Why? The arguments put forward so far were used to undermine the demand for a residential vote and for universal adult suffrage. I cannot comprehend that registering company employees would present any logistical problem. I cannot repeat too often that the records for national insurance, taxation and health and safety regulation are such that it is almost impossible to argue that we cannot identify employees in a company and on a particular site.
    I shall clarify the verification process. It has been argued that there could be no independent verification of those employees nor independent supervision of such ballots. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), although he properly cited research on industrial ballots and associated problems, the history of industrial ballots during recent years nevertheless shows an almost superb improvement in their conduct. We have moved on to another plateau of industrial democracy. That ensures that the mechanical processes of industrial ballots can be completed so as to produce respectable, verifiable and acceptable results.
    With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the legal challenges to industrial ballots that have taken place were the result of legislation pursued by the previous Government, which was aimed at undermining any potential for industrial democracy and workers exercising their right to withdraw their labour. The arguments that an industrial ballot cannot be organised and that the registration of employees cannot be verified independently to ensure high standards of probity, correctness and electoral success are fallacious. For that reason, it is difficult to make such arguments against the introduction of an electoral college. Such an electoral college would give a voice to all those employees, who have been denied one by the refusal to accept the previous amendments. They are key stakeholders, whom we should involve in running the City administration.
    Mr. Hopkins: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's speech. I am sure that a century or two ago,
    118
    when people were talking about registering voters for political elections as residents of particular areas or towns, all sorts of objections were made as to whether voters could be registered effectively and electoral registers drawn up. Does he agree that such objections represent an attempt to obfuscate a simple process and that, if people are registered on a particular day, the registers would stay in force for a year, just as they do for general and local elections?
    Mr. McDonnell: It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to the origins of the City corporation. It was formed in mediaeval times by groups of workers who organised themselves into guilds so that they could exercise their rights of franchise in those guilds. That is not so different from what we request; we want workers to come together in their individual units to form an electoral college, which could organise a ballot to select and elect the voters who would qualify to vote for the City corporation.
    With the greatest respect to the hon. Members who have mobilised those arguments, they have been used against every democratic advance made in this country over the centuries and, therefore, they must be rejected. We must say clearly that a compromise is involved if we cannot have full adult suffrage in the City corporation. Involving the work force in managing the City corporation represents a compromise that should be seized upon if it wants to portray itself as a progressive organisation.
    No one has argued that there has been any difficulty registering businesses for a vote. What independent supervision of the registration of businesses is there apart from the rating list? It has been argued that ballots of employees could be fixed by moving a desk from one corner to another. The same could apply to businesses. They could build an extension to their office, and by so doing straddle another ward. I do not accept the arguments that have been expounded.
    Amendment No. 77 concerns the business college, and provides an opportunity to address the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster about businesses all being the same. In that amendment, I have tried to ensure that the business college represents and reflects the full range of businesses operating in the City. [Interruption.] I can tell from the mutterings that I have lost the House's attention, but perhaps I could draw hon. Members back to examining the critical issue of how to ensure the representativeness in the City of the business community.
    Amendment No. 77 tries to establish within the electoral college certain constituencies of interest. I have suggested in the amendment that we should consider the Government's categorisation of business and industry. We could identify within that categorisation certain business operations and allocate them to those categories. If we allow a general franchise of businesses, the finance sector could dominate.
    I want the business electoral college to reflect the full range of expertise in the City, so that it can be brought to bear on the management of the City corporation. That would bring benefits. The amendment would not only ensure that the financial sector does not dominate the business electoral college, but would draw in the other expertise to produce a balance. That means the lawyers, the accountants and a range of other facilities.

    119
    In our definition of qualifying bodies, we recognised that trade unions could become qualifying bodies because we are now assured that under the legislation they can be unincorporated bodies. That means that if trade unions are not accepted in the employee section, they could be included in the business college, because they are stakeholders.
    I have also tried to overcome the problem of the residential vote being swamped. That is our biggest fear about the legislation. I have tried to do that by limiting the number of business voters elected from the business electoral college to no more than 2,000. That would significantly enhance the number of business voters, but would not allow the swamping of the residential vote, which stands at about 5,000 electors, although I am open to correction on that. [Interruption.] We have a real opportunity of establishing a business college that is representative, that will be able to create a business agenda for the City corporation in its own right and independently, reflects the different professions in the City and is not of such a scale, as it is currently, to overrun the residential vote. [Interruption.]
    I plead your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the noise that is emanating from hon. Members. With my amendment, I want to try to tackle some of the abuses that we have described under the previous amendments, and in doing so to ensure that the business electoral college has independent—
    It being Ten o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
    Bill to be further considered on Wednesday 17 May.

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MODE OF TRIAL) (NO. 2) BILL
    Motion made,
    That, during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Nigel Jones be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Paddy Ashdown be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Age Discrimination (NHS)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    10 pm
    Mr. Paul Burstow: There is nothing inevitable about illness and disability in old age. They are not synonymous. That is not to say that an ageing population does not present challenges; it certainly does. By 2031, nearly one in three of the population—some 18.6 million people—will be over 60. It is cause for celebration that, as we age, many more of us will continue to lead active and healthy lives, but it is inevitable that the number of people needing acute and long-term care will increase.
    Change is needed in the national health service: a change in culture and mindset, and a change in organisation and practice. The NHS reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s created a breeding ground in which I believe ageism flourishes. More and more older people are being admitted to fewer and fewer beds for shorter and shorter stays; two in three general and acute-care beds are occupied by people over 65; more than half the recent increase in the number of emergency hospital admissions involved older people; and bed occupancy rates have more than doubled over the past 10 years in the geriatric sector.
    The first step in eradicating age discrimination in the NHS is an acceptance that ageism exists at all levels of the health service. The Minister will know that the concerns I expressed this evening are echoed by Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) introduced a ten-minute Bill, the Health Care Standards for Elderly Persons Bill, only last month to press the case for an independent national inquiry. I certainly believe that such an inquiry would have a part to play in addressing the concern felt by many outside the House.
    As one of the sponsors of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, and as a co-chair of the all-party group on ageing and older people, I believe that the issue needs urgent attention. Both Age Concern and Help the Aged have collected evidence of ageism in the NHS, and the number of cases rose steadily. In its report "Turning your back on us", Age Concern discussed the findings of a Gallup poll carried out in March last year. It found that one in 20 people over 65 had been refused treatment, while two in 20 felt that they had been treated differently since they turned 50.
    Even the Department of Health has found evidence of discrimination. A review of renal services revealed that as many as two thirds of kidney patients over 70 had been refused dialysis or transplants. More recently, the spotlight has fallen on the use of "not for resuscitation" orders. The British Medical Journal recently drew attention to a gap between guidelines and practice in the use of such orders. An article in the issue of 29 April refers to an independent review. Following a complaint by the family of an elderly woman who had died in hospital, the review stated:
    It was hard to avoid the conclusion that the treatment plan…was to do little more than allow the patient's life to ebb away.
    At no point had the family or the patient been consulted about the decision to mark the hospital records "not for resuscitation".

    121
    Research has found that more than two out of three patients with NFRs are not involved in making that decision. More worrying still is the finding that labelling patients "not for resuscitation" makes them 30 times more likely to die—and with no say in the decision. That cannot be right or acceptable. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about what the Government are doing to stamp out such an immoral practice.
    The need for action at all levels of the NHS to tackle ageism was brought home to me by the case of Mrs. Marge Terry. When Mrs. Terry, described as an "elderly and alert lady", was admitted to St. Helier hospital last September with breathing difficulties, she had every reason to expect to be quickly discharged and back in her home at Bawtree house, a residential home in my constituency. Mrs. Terry, who was 91-years-old, never recovered. After four weeks and five ward changes, she died.
    A catalogue of neglect has prompted Mrs. Terry's daughter, Mrs. Eileen McAndrew, to speak out. During those four weeks, the NHS let Mrs. Terry down. Cleaning was inadequate. Bedside cabinets and tables were left sticky and dirty. Bins were left full to overflowing with tissues and other waste. Her records were not kept properly. Address details were wrong. Her age was recorded incorrectly three times in the same notes. She was left sitting in bed in a nightdress and bedjacket badly soiled with blood.
    Mrs. Terry waited four days to see a doctor after developing a serious chest infection and a further two days for an X-ray. Soiled bandages were left lying on her bed. She was given little help with eating and drinking. As a result, food was left to go cold. Staff blamed her for that, describing her as unco-operative. She was even left to take her own medication.
    On Saturday 9 October, the hospital phoned Mrs. Terry's daughter to come in as quickly as possible. Sadly, Mrs. Terry died minutes before she could get there.
    Mrs. McAndrew put it in the following terms:
    In the four weeks my Mum was in St Helier Hospital, I saw her deteriorate from an elderly alert lady, who used an electric wheelchair and kept me on my toes, to an old frail weak 91 year old going on 100, who kept asking me to take her out of here.
    I was very disturbed by Mrs. Terry's death. I have already raised the case with the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust chief executive, Nigel Sewell. It is clear from the correspondence that the trust has acknowledged that not everything it did for Mrs. Terry was up to scratch. Although the trust has taken a number of steps to improve its procedures, no older person in hospital should be treated like Mrs. Terry. The care and attention to detail that are essential to promoting recovery were missing. The trust management needs to ask some searching questions. Why was she not properly fed? Why was she left to wait for so long before a doctor saw her?
    Mrs. Terry was robbed of her dignity. That was clearly not the intention of any of the staff at the hospital, but it was the result. I want the trust to commit itself to a wholesale review of the way in which acute care is provided for older people. I hope that the Minister will ensure that such a review is undertaken.
    What needs to be understood in cases such as Mrs. Terry's is that, although the health needs of most older people are the same as everyone else's, the oldest old people often have a complex mixture of problems and
    122
    symptoms. A medical profession that is increasingly specialised often poorly meets their needs. What is needed is a people-centred approach. By people-centred, I mean an interdisciplinary team-work approach. Therefore, medical and nursing education needs to take that on board.
    In the early 1970s, the British Medical Students Association called for a joint core curriculum for all health professionals to achieve just that end, but the opposite has happened. Increased sub-specialisation has created a generation of doctors who are ill equipped to deal with the complex, multiple needs of older people. Reforms to undergraduate medical education are squeezing training in geriatric medicine out of the curriculum altogether.
    Last Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) highlighted the need for a concerted effort to tackle poor hygiene and cleanliness in our hospitals. With two in three acute beds occupied by people over 75, and the fact that hospital-acquired infections make death as much as seven times more likely, there is a crying need for investment in the cleaning of our hospitals. Saving through cheap cleaning contracts is a false economy as the cost to the NHS of hospital-acquired infections has risen to some £1 billion a year.
    Last week, I visited the Florence Nightingale museum at St. Thomas's hospital to mark the 180th anniversary of that great reformer's birthday. When it comes to care and to hospital cleanliness, it seems that many of the hard-learned lessons that Florence Nightingale taught us have been forgotten. She introduced simple hygiene measures, scrupulous cleanliness and effective nurse training. All of that is described in her book, "Notes on Nursing" and in many letters and other writings. She said:
    It may seem a strange principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a Hospital that it should do the sick no harm.
    Ageist assumptions in health care are doing harm. Work by Help the Aged as part of its dignity on the ward campaign shows that the most effective care for older people builds on the Nightingale legacy and creates an experience of well-being.
    The key findings of Help the Aged's report were, first, that to create a "positive culture of care" that values older people, the needs of both patients and staff must be addressed. Secondly, staff motivation is central to the delivery of a high standard of care. Help the Aged found that the motivation and morale of staff and their leadership had a direct effect on the quality of the care provided.
    The report identified six factors that are essential if we want to protect the dignity and to promote the recovery of older patients: a sense of security, of significance, of belonging, of purpose, of continuity and of achievement. Although, as Help the Aged has acknowledged, those six senses need further refinement, they provide a conceptual framework for understanding what matters to patients.
    Help the Aged also identified some basic prerequisites for staff to deliver better services, the first of which is adequate staffing levels. Low staff numbers leads to a lower quality of care, as staff do not have the time—and, often, the inclination—to do what is necessary to provide a positive culture of care. They are simply too busy. The second prerequisite is adequate resources for staff to perform their roles. Effective medicine requires sufficient basic equipment to provide care properly and effectively.

    123
    The third prerequisite—it is probably the most important of all—is effective leadership to create "zero tolerance" of bad practice.
    Clearly, the national service framework for older people, which is expected in July, will be crucial in driving forward change and driving out ageism. I hope that it will incorporate the model described in dignity on the ward. Will the Minister tell the House whether the framework will explicitly challenge ageist assumptions in the NHS and force practitioners to re-evaluate what they do? Will it require older people to be involved in the commissioning and design of services? Will it place multi-disciplinary working at the heart of good patient care? Will it make it clear that there is no place in the NHS for age-based rationing?
    I believe that, even when the national health service's national framework is in place, there will be a need to make ageism illegal. Just as the House has legislated to protect the rights of ethnic minorities and disabled people, it is now time for us to protect older people. Outlawing age discrimination would not entail older people receiving treatment that is of no benefit to them or having treatment imposed on them against their will. Anti-discrimination would simply make doctors think more than they do now before refusing treatment for an older person.
    What older people need now is tough antidiscrimination legislation, a national service framework that is people-centred and well-resourced, and a change in medical education, that equips our doctors with skills and understanding to work with older people. By ensuring that our health service is fit for older people, we make it fit for everyone. Quite simply, there can be no place for ageist assumptions in the NHS. Ageism must be met with zero tolerance.
    10.12 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has provided to the House to discuss an issue that is of very great importance to all of us. I congratulate him on the eloquent and considerably persuasive way in which he made his speech.
    The issue is important to us, first, because most of us have elderly relatives, friends and neighbours. Secondly, many of us will, at some stage in our lives, be involved in the care of older people. Last—but not least—we are all getting older, and we are living longer. Already, one in five people in the United Kingdom is over 60. By 2020, we will have the highest percentage of people aged 60 and over in the European Union. It is essential that we ensure that older people are not discriminated against in the national health service and that they do not receive an inferior service simply because of their age. Therefore, services for older people are, and have been, a priority for the Government.
    We know from patient surveys, for example, that older people are generally satisfied with the services that they receive from the NHS. However, there are spheres in which standards fall short of those that we should all like. Perceptions of age discrimination affect the confidence that users and carers have in the NHS.
    124
    I must emphasise as clearly as I can that any type of discrimination—whether it is on the basis of age, race or gender—is completely unacceptable in the NHS. In fact, discrimination contradicts the ethos and some of the basic principles on which the NHS was established 50 years ago. Action is and will be taken to challenge and correct such practices.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recent Age Concern report, "Turning Your Back On Us". The Government welcome publication of that thoughtful report and the contribution that it has made to the debate on the standards of health care for older people in our country. Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting Lady Greengross, the chief executive of Age Concern, and I gave her a very clear undertaking that we wish to work closely with Age Concern and others in addressing the issue of discrimination in the NHS.
    Age Concern and others have called for an inquiry into age discrimination in the national health service. The hon. Gentleman repeated that call tonight. I fully understand the concerns that older people sometimes get a poor deal from the NHS. We have recognised those concerns and take them very seriously. In 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who was then Secretary of State for Health, commissioned the Health Advisory Service 2000 to undertake an investigation into the care of older people in acute wards in general hospitals. He published the report, "Not Because they are Old" in November 1998—the hon. Gentleman might be familiar with it. The report made it clear that older people should receive the same quality of care from the NHS as younger people, based on clinical need, not on their age or where they happen to live. A health service circular was distributed to the chief executives of all health authorities and trusts, together with a copy of the report, requiring appropriate remedial action where the essentials of care were not being provided locally.
    The Government followed up the report by putting in hand work to develop a new national service framework for older people, which we will publish later this year. That will be an important landmark for improving quality and equity in health care for older people. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the new national framework would address discrimination. I assure him that a significant section of it will address fair access to NHS services. He also asked whether older people would be involved in the planning and delivery of health care for their age group. We were very lucky to have the active participation of a group of older people and their carers in preparing the national service framework. Older people and their carers have been fundamentally involved in the preparation and development of the standards.
    The national service framework will be an important landmark for improving quality and equity in health care. For the first time, it will set national standards and define new service models for the health care of older people. It will include performance measures for monitoring progress. Against that programme of action that we have already taken, a further inquiry into age discrimination in the NHS would not be helpful in solving the problems that older people face or perceive. We need action to tackle the issues. The important task is to concentrate on preparing for the implementation of the new national service framework to deliver higher quality services to all older people based on clinical need.

    125
    There are two further arguments to bear in mind on the issue. First, an inquiry along the lines proposed by the hon. Gentleman would almost inevitably take time, posing a real risk of delay in taking the necessary remedial action that he and others are rightly calling for. Secondly, his call for an inquiry rests in part on an assumption that the Government will not act unless such an inquiry finds evidence of unsatisfactory practices. He is looking for a means of forcing us into taking action to address his concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth or more divorced from reality. The Government are already committed to taking action to improve services for older people, as evidenced by the forthcoming national service framework and the development of a range of new intermediate care services designed specifically to meet the needs of frail older people. We have a range of other initiatives under way to improve health care services for older people.
    I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but things have moved on. Now is the time to get to grips with solving some of the problems that he and others have identified, rather than rehearsing the case for an inquiry. We accept many of the criticisms that have been made and think that it is time to take action to address them.
    Mr. Burstow: The Minister may have noted from the balance of my remarks that I was looking for action. Since the issue of "not for resuscitation" orders marked on records was highlighted in April, Age Concern has received information on 100 further cases. What action are the Government taking to stamp that practice out so that people are consulted before their records are so marked?
    Mr. Hutton: We are very aware of some of the concerns that have been expressed about the policies and guidelines on resuscitation and we are carefully considering those issues to see if there is a need for further action. That is a fair point and we are alert to those concerns. It may be that we will need to return to that general issue. I accept the hon. Gentleman's case that we need to do more to involve older people in the debate about improving services and we are trying to do that in a number of ways. The work on the national service framework has been informed by older people and carers through two groups which we set up to ensure that the development of the NSF was informed by those who matter most—older people and those who care for them. I recently received a joint letter from Help the Aged and the Carers National Association on that point. It states:
    We wanted to write and express our appreciation for the way that older people and carers were involved in the development of the National Service Framework for Older People. We know that it is difficult to get these things right, but felt that their involvement in this case has been real.
    It also states that the groups were treated as equal partners, their views were respected and carried weight, and they were involved from a very early stage which meant their advice helped to shape the final report to Ministers.
    We will involve older people in other ways as well. The expert patients taskforce, which is chaired by the Chief Medical Officer and which was established in November 1999, is a partnership of people who are living with chronic conditions, voluntary sector organisations working in this area, health and social care professionals
    126
    and carers' representatives. Organisations on the task force include Age Concern, Arthritis Care, the British Diabetic Association, and the Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance, many of which deal with chronic conditions that impact greatly on older people. In developing its recommendations about an expert patients programme, the taskforce has made access issues for older people a key consideration
    As I said earlier, the Government intend to publish the national service framework for older people later this year. The NSF will enable us to work towards reducing variations in standards of care, but the volume of services is also important, and the significant investment we are making in the NHS enables us to ensure that we get services which are modern and which will reflect the way society is changing.
    Earlier this year, we published for consultation "The National Beds Inquiry". It shows that, by comparison with a number of other European countries, the NHS is a relatively efficient user of beds, with comparatively low bed numbers. However, there is a wide variation in hospital bed usage between health authorities in the NHS. Interestingly, it has not shown any simple link between the number of acute beds, the management of emergencies, and elective waiting times.
    All this evidence points to the need to take a whole-systems view of services, a point to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention. Nowhere is that need clearer than in the case of older people. As he reminded us, two thirds of hospital beds are occupied by people aged 65 or over. Since the mid-1990s, half of the growth in all emergency admissions has come from people aged 75 or over, especially for conditions relating to the frailty and infirmity of very old people.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those findings require a different approach to the management of care in the NHS. NHS care has traditionally been about dealing with life's incidents, such as heart attacks and broken bones. Now an ageing population and increasing chronic disease means that NHS care has also to be about dealing with life's experiences, such as getting older and becoming frailer.
    NHS care must therefore be modernised to reflect changes in society itself. The services that the NHS provides for older people are a vital part of that modernisation. At the moment, for too many elderly people, there is a lack of real choice. Many older people stay in acute hospital beds longer than they need to because they have not recovered enough to go home, but have nowhere else to go. What they need is intermediate care services to provide a new bridge between home and hospital.
    Intermediate care will take many forms. Some services will be in specially designated hospital wards run by nurse consultants. Some will be in new facilities in the community, perhaps giving new purpose and life to cottage hospitals. Some will be about improved care services in the home.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech in the House the day after the Budget, announced a new national plan for the NHS. One of the five key challenges he laid down was about partnership. I shall lead the team that will develop that section of the national plan, and we shall focus on partnership in the health, housing, and social care systems to make all parts of the system work

    127
    better together and ensure the right emphasis at each level of care. That is of particular importance for older people to ensure that they receive well co-ordinated care.
    All those initiatives focus on older people and will help us to build on the achievements and improvements that we have already made. We are making the biggest-ever investment in the history of the national health service, and the recent Budget announcement of real-terms increases of 6.3 per cent annually over the next four years will ensure that that investment takes place.
    It is worth bearing in mind that that investment will allow the NHS to grow in real terms by a third by 2004. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a very significant investment in the NHS and its sustainability in the future. I believe that older people will be among the principal beneficiaries of that new investment.
    The extra resources present us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the NHS radically. We have made a good start: a record number of hospitals are being built and every accident and emergency department that needs it will be modernised. Waiting lists are coming down. By the end of this year, patients with suspected cancer who are urgently referred by their GP to hospital will be seen within two weeks.
    In addition, new chest pain clinics will do the same for patients with suspected heart problems. We are taking action to improve access to cataract surgery. Waiting times for hip and knee surgery—common conditions among older people—are falling. All of those developments are positive and welcome.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, older people are the biggest users of health services. We want them to benefit from the new investment in the national health service. 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. All people aged 60 and over are now entitled to free eye tests, regardless of income or health status. An estimated 5 million older people will have had free sight tests by April 2001.
    Those are all very positive developments. They show the Government's commitment to improving services for older people, and disprove the contention that the Government are ignoring issues of age discrimination in the NHS. We are certainly not ignoring those issues.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I mentioned in my speech the case of a constituent of mine, Mrs. Marge Terry. Will the Minister be able to deal with that this evening, or will he respond in writing later?
    Mr. Hutton: I was going to say something about the hon. Gentleman's constituent. I fully understand the hon.
    128
    Gentleman's concerns and comments about that very tragic case. Mrs. Terry died in St. Helier's hospital in October last year. He will know that a formal complaint has been made about Mrs. Terry's treatment and that a thorough investigation into the circumstances of her death is under way.
    It is not that I do not want to say anything about the case but, given the circumstances surrounding it and the fact that a formal inquiry is under way, it would not be appropriate or helpful for me to comment on it tonight. However, I am sure that all hon. Members would express their condolences to Mrs. Terry's family at what I am sure is a very difficult time. I hope that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically to review the care provided for elderly people in his local NHS trust. We are looking carefully at care for the elderly in all NHS trusts, as part of the preparation for the introduction of the new arrangements for intermediate care to which I have referred.
    Increased life expectancy is among the greatest achievements of modern times. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is something to celebrate. The Government recognise the valuable contributions that older people can make—and do make—to their families and communities. Wisdom, experience, tolerance and good citizenship are some of the precious gifts that older people share with the younger generations.
    We in the Government are determined that older people should have high standards of care in the NHS, based on clinical need and on no other factor. As I and other Ministers have made clear repeatedly, discrimination has no place at all, in any shape or form, in the NHS. We sense that there is a real appetite for, and commitment to, changing the NHS into a modern, 21st-century, consumer-focused service.
    We are determined to listen to what people—the users of the NHS—think about the services that we provide, and last week we launched the biggest public consultation ever on the future of the NHS and how to modernise its services. I hope that older people in particular will take the opportunity to let us know what they think. For the first time, every member of staff and every citizen will have the chance to speak up for the modern health service that they want.
    Alongside the national service framework for older people and some of the other initiatives that I have described, the consultation is a unique opportunity for everyone to shape the health service to meet the needs of older people.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the published and pre-reviewed studies that the Government have assessed to date on the safety of GM crops. [117029]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are hundreds of published and peer-reviewed scientific papers and studies that inform the safety assessments of GM crops. It is not possible to list them all here but some examples considered recently by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) are as follows. This body of knowledge on GM crops which is contained in the scientific literature is brought to bear on risk assessment not only through the individual experts on Government advisory committees, such as ACRE, but also via the Government's own scientists and Non-Governmental Organisations.
  Environmental Risks of Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed Rape: A Review of the PGS Hybrid Oilseed Rape, DETR Research Report No. 15. March 1999.Birch, A.N.E., Geoghegan. I.E., Majerus, M.E.N., McNicol, J.W., Hackett, C.A., Gatehouse, A.M.R. and Gatehouse, J.A. (1999). Tri-trophic interactions involving pest aphids, predatory 2-spot ladybirds and transgenic potatoes expressing snowdrop lectin for aphid resistance. Molecular Breeding 5, 75–83 Huang, F., Buschman, L., Higgins, R.A. and W.H. McGaughey. (1999). Inheritance of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer. Science 284 pp 965–967 Losey, J.E., Raynor, L.S., and Carter, M.E. (1999). Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch Larvae. Nature 399 pp 2141Ho, M. W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J.,(1999). Cauliflower mosaic viral promoter—a recipe for disaster. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 11 (4)Note:
  1Discussed at ACRE meeting on 9 June 1999.
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he took to notify district and parish councils about the GM crop trials in(a) St. Osyth and (b) Wivenhoe in Essex. [121276]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]: Information about the Farm Scale Evaluations of GM crops is widely available. I announced the programme on 17 March and wrote to the hon. Member and other MPs with constituencies in England, outlining the aims and nature of the research.

  A full list of proposed site locations is available on my Department's website, along with more detailed information about the programme and GM crops in general. The Cabinet Office website also contains further information.
  2W
  My Department has organised a series of regional meetings, to which district and local councillors in areas where GM crop trials are proposed have been invited. There is also a DETR leaflet, "GM Crops—Take a Closer Look", which is on the website and available at public meetings.

  The proposed trial of oil seed rape at St. Osyth (which is now not going ahead) was advertised locally by Aventis. Officials from my Department wrote to the local parish and district councillors to invite them to attend a public meeting in Ipswich on 13 April and I understand that several councillors were able to attend.

  The proposed trial of GM maize at Wivenhoe has not been advertised locally, because the crop involved has a European Part C marketing consent which means that it can be grown in the UK without my Department being notified. However, the biotechnology industry has agreed that this crop should be grown in the Farm Scale Evaluations and have agreed to provide my Department with the grid references of the fields involved. Details are on the DETR website.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from Herefordshire about the siting of the GM trial sites in Kempley, Gloucestershire, and Preston Wynne, Herefordshire; and if he will make a statement. [122039]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following notification of the proposed Farm Scale Evaluation of oil seed rape at Kempley, Gloucestershire, my Department has received 18 letters from those objecting to, and seeking further information about, the Evaluations programme.

  My Department was told about the GM maize at Preston Wynne on 26 April, at which time details were placed on the Department's website. To date, no letters have specifically referred to this field site.

  Food Safety (Hospitals)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in each of the last five years, how many times the Health and Safety Executive has investigated hygiene and food safety standards in hospitals through(a) spot checks, (b) pre-arranged inspections and (c) legal action for the enforcement of standards. [120990]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive has not, in any of the last five years, investigated any hygiene and food safety standards in hospitals.

  These matters are properly the responsibility of Environmental Health Officers employed by local authorities for the districts in which the premises are located.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of converting air conditioning and refrigeration equipment from using HFC refrigerants to using(a) hydrocarbons and (b) ammonia. [120427]
  3W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]: My Department's local property managers are asked to assess the practicality and cost-effectiveness of such measures in drawing up plans to reduce the environmental impact of our estate.

  Estimating the costs of converting from HFC refrigerants, consistent with the draft UK programme on climate change, requires studies by appropriate specialists to determine on a case by case basis the practical and economic options. These studies address the size and costs of replacement plant and associated works as well as the cost of replacement refrigerants.

  Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for improving the management of programmes for disadvantaged neighbourhoods. [121453]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's plans for the future management of regeneration programmes, targeted at deprived neighbourhoods, will take account of the recommendations in the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (the framework document of which was published for consultation on 12 April) and the Urban and Rural White Papers (scheduled for publication later in the year). The National Strategy framework document proposes a significant number of recommendations for overcoming the problems of deprived areas, including ideas for improving the way regeneration, and other, programmes are managed and delivered centrally and regionally.

  Bus Safety
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make the installation on buses of safety equipment designed to alert drivers to faults in bus wheels mandatory. [121491]

  Mr. Hill
  Faults in wheels of commercial vehicles and buses are identified during normal maintenance checks depending on a particular operator's maintenance schedule. My Department's Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, which is issued to all vehicle operators, emphasises the need for a daily "walk round" check by the driver. My Department is aware of several proprietary devices intended to give a visual indication of loosening of wheel retaining nuts, which could assist the driver in this check, but there are not any plans to introduce these as a mandatory requirement. Certain wheel faults such as cracks or excessive wear are only apparent on close inspection which is not normally expected to be within the competence of the driver.

  Green Transport Plans
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the number and quality of green transport plans produced by private sector businesses. [121481]

  Mr. Hill
  A survey carried out in early 1998 showed that at least 200 organisations (excluding local authorities) were implementing plans. The provisional Local 4W
  Transport Plans submitted in 1999 suggest that numbers have increased significantly in some areas since then. We intend to commission a full survey shortly.

  Town Centres
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research he has undertaken on the impact of upward-only rent reviews on town centre property markets. [121483]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning published a research report on 19 April about the impact of the property industry's Code of Practice on Commercial Property Leases. This considered, among other things, the extent of upward-only review clauses in the property market generally. The research did not look specifically at town centre property markets.

  The study, by the University of Reading, found that upward-only rent review clauses still predominate in longer leases. We have asked the property market and professions to consider how the market could best promote alternatives to upward-only rent review clauses. We recognise that landlords may seek a higher initial rent to offset the greater risk of letting without such a clause. It will therefore be important for market promotion to draw the tenant's attention to the offsetting advantages of renting without an upward-only provision, as well as to any higher rent.

  Stoke Lane Allotments, Gedling
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contact his Department has had with Gedling Borough Council regarding the proposed sale of part of the Stoke Lane Allotments. [121946]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department has had no contact with Gedling Borough Council regarding the proposed sale of part of the Stoke Lane Allotments.

  Whitley Way, Hampshire
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 4W, on Whitley Way, if he will list the representations he has received about this road. [122300]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There have been six separate representations on this matter. In addition to the reply that the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) sent the hon. Member on 19 August 1998 in response to representations on this issue, one further representation was received from Winchester City Council in September 1999. Representations were made by three local members of the public between April and June 1999. More recently, representations have been received from one further member of the public.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals
  5W
  he has to return moneys collected from the landfill tax to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [121023]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no such proposals. Revenues raised from the landfill tax contribute to general Government revenue. The Government are considering the question of resources for local authorities as part of the overall 2000 spending review.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Sir George Young
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to introduce mechanisms to oversee the use of statutory instruments to amend primary legislation under the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. [121505]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government intend to invite the House to give the proposed Joint Committee on Human Rights the task of scrutinising remedial orders shortly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Computers for Teachers Scheme
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps he will take to ensure that teachers can obtain a response from his Department about receiving their subsidy under the Computers for Teachers scheme; [121948]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the operation of the Computers for Teachers scheme; and if he will make a statement. [121947]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: The Computers for Teachers Initiative was launched on 12 January 2000. Due to high teacher take-up, the first phase of the scheme was closed on 30 April, with a deadline for receipt of applications of 5 June. Some 17,000 applications have been received, with over 2,200 teachers already having received their subsidies. The Department has put in place a range of measures to answer teachers' inquiries, including the recruitment of extra staff, opening further telephone lines and arranging a dedicated Computers for Teachers e-mail address.

  Higher Education (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people resident in the Cheltenham constituency have(a) applied for, (b) been accepted into and (c) graduated from full-time courses in higher education in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [122004]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available data for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are given in the following table; the data on student postcodes from which these figures are derived is not sufficiently complete to allow similar figures to be produced for earlier years.
  6W

  Full-time undergraduates whose normal residence prior to entry was Cheltenham constituency

  Academic year

  Entrants

  Graduates

  1998–99

  920

  710

  1999–2000

  905

  1n/a

  1Data on 1999–2000 graduates will be available in February 2001

  Student Support Contributions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason changes were made to the calculations for parental income in assessing liability for student support contributions whereby MIRAS relief was disapplied in 2000–01; and for what reason life assurance premiums were similarly disapplied. [121339]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The removal of the disregard of parental income in student support for mortgage interest that attracts tax relief follows the wider Government decision to abolish tax relief for mortgage payments from April 2000. The abolition of MIRAS has been public for some time and the families of students entering higher education this year will be well aware of it. We will ensure that the families of students already in higher education are not asked to pay any more as a result of the abolition of MIRAS in the 2000–01 academic year. From the 2001–02 academic year, we are raising the contribution threshold from £17,805 to £20,000, as announced by the Secretary of State on 25 January. This increase is well above the rate of inflation and will benefit both mortgage payers and those who do not have mortgages.

  The Government keep the student support system under review to ensure that support is targeted at those students who need it most. The disregard for life assurance premiums which attract tax relief has been removed because it gave a limited group of parents with certain life assurance policies a double benefit of tax relief on payments and a disregard from their income in determining their contribution to their children's support.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received from schools that are having to fund the use of supply teachers in place of teachers who are on jury service; and if he will make a statement. [121730]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No such representations have been received.

  Fresh Start Schools
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress at each of the Fresh Start schools. [121970]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Fresh Start policy is in its infancy—only 15 schools have undergone a fresh start to date, 11 secondary and four primary. Three opened in September 1998, eight in September 1999, two in January 2000, one in April 2000 and one in May 2000.
  7W

  Former school name

  New school name

  Phase

  LEA area

  September 1998

  Blakelaw School

  Firfield Community School

  Secondary

  Newcastle

  Earl Marshal School

  Fir Vale School

  Secondary

  Sheffield

  The King's CE School

  Regis County Secondry

  Secondary

  Wolverhampton

  September 1999

  The Marina High School

  East Brighton College of Media Arts

  Secondary

  Brighton

  George Orwell School

  Islington Arts and Media

  Secondary

  Islington

  Perronet Thomson School

  Kingswood High School

  Secondary

  Kingston Upon Hull

  Hatcham Wood School

  Telegraph Hill

  Secondary

  Lewisham

  Watermeads High School

  Bishopsford Community School

  Secondary

  Merton

  Alderman Derbyshire School

  River Leen School

  Secondary

  Nottingham City

  New College

  News Park Community College

  Secondary

  Leicester City

  Park View Academy

  Langham School

  Secondary

  Haringey

  January 2000

  Kevington Primary School

  Manor Oak Primary

  Primary

  Bromley

  Heathcote County Primary

  The Richard Heathcote Community Primary

  Primary

  Staffordshire

  April/May 2000

  Christ Church CEVC Primary

  New Christ Church CE VC Primary

  Primary

  Reading

  Grove Vale Primary

  Goose Green Primary

  Primary

  Southwark

  These schools all present major challenges, and we are working with them to support them and learn from the early experiences of the process. All currently have a substantive or acting headteacher in place and Ofsted is monitoring the schools progress on a termly basis. There are no performance data on the schools that fresh started since September 1999 but there are early signs of improvement in the first three schools. Exam results are up and truancy down—to a marked degree.

  5+A*-G GCSEs

  Unauthorised absence

  School/Year

  1997

  1999

  1997

  1999

  Firvale

  57

  80

  6.9

  3.2

  Firfield Community School

  43

  74

  12.6

  3.3

  The King's School

  81

  91

  13.2

  8.5

  GCSE Statistics
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of pupils achieved at least five GCSEs at grades A* to C at
  8W
  (a) Blakelaw school, (b) Earl Marshall school and (c) Regis school in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998. [121969]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The proportion of pupils who achieved at least five GCSEs at grades A* to C was as follows:

  Percentage

  (i) 1995–96

  (ii) 1996–97

  (iii) 1997–98

  (a) Blakelaw School

  10

  9

  7

  (b) Earl Marshall

  8

  11

  10

  (c) Regis school

  24

  25

  29

  New Deal (Sheffield)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal places have been(a) offered, (b) taken up and (c) completed within Sheffield City Council since the start of the New Deal initiative. [121492]

  Ms Jowell
  From April 1998 to date (10 May 2000), Sheffield City Council have employed two new deal 25+ clients on the New Deal subsidised employment option. These were a result of the clients being encouraged by their New Deal personal advisers to market the option themselves to prospective employers.

  One client commenced subsidised employment on 7 September 1999 and has since been retained after the six-month subsidy period.

  The other client commenced subsidised employment on 26 April 2000, and is in the process of completing the subsidised period of six months.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each publication issued by his Department since May 1997, the number of copies printed of each publication and the cost of publication, printing and distribution of each publication. [121328]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 9 May 2000]: It is not possible to provide all the information requested on individual publications without disproportionate expense.

  The Department faces enormous communication challenges in reaching its diverse audiences, including around 6.5 million parents, over 415,000 teachers, some 8.5 million students in further and higher education and up to 3.2 million small and medium-sized employers. Since May 1997, the Department has spent £5.85 million from its central Advertising and Publicity Budget on printing 559 new information leaflets and booklets. Print runs vary greatly—from 4.3 million copies of the leaflet "It all adds up", which shows parents easy ways to help with their children's mathematics, to 5,000 copies of an information pack on Millennium Volunteers.

  Distribution costs for publications cannot be separated from the Department's contract with its mailing house without disproportionate expense. Since May 1997 this contract has cost £5.22 million for distribution and fulfilment of requests for publications funded from the Advertising and Publicity Budget.

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the funding available for individual students at further education colleges on similar courses when sourced by(a) the Further Education Funding Council and (b) New Deal programmes. [121688]

  Mr. Wicks
  Currently the Further Education Funding Council and Employment Service funding systems are not directly comparable. We intend that all post-16 funding should be on a more comparable basis in future. We are currently consulting on a common funding system across the Learning and Skills Council and Employment Service.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education corporations have not yet cleared their 1998–99 accounts following external audit. [121687]

  Mr. Wicks
  Matters concerning external audits and college accounts are dealt with by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC). I have asked the Chief Executive to reply to the hon. Member direct.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Trawlermen
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he expects to publish his joint report with the Department of Trade and Industry on compensation for distant-water trawlermen. [121955]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not customary for policy advice given by officials to Ministers to be made publicly available. I can assure the House that the trawlermen's case is well understood and that the Government are considering it as a matter of urgency.

  Environment Agency (Fisheries)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received on the environmental impact caused by the cut in grant in aid for the Environment Agency for fisheries work; [121734]

  (2) what representations he has received on the effects on the Environment Agency's fisheries work as a result of the cuts in their grant in aid. [121758]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received representations from a number of individuals and organisations, including some 150 letters from Members of Parliament and over 90 letters from the general public.

  Migratory Salmonid Fisheries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he is pursuing to aid migratory salmonid fisheries. [121733]
  10W
  Mr. Morley
  The report of the independent Group established by Ministers to review all aspects of salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation and policy in England and Wales was issued for public consultation in March. This report includes many recommendations aimed at improving migratory salmonid fisheries. Interested parties have until 31 July to submit their views; we shall then prepare a Government response setting out how we intend to take matters forward.

  Pest Shooting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his current policy to allow a general licence to shoot pests includes(a) sporting events and (b) mass shoots; and if he will make a statement. [121782]

  Mr. Morley
  The shooting of certain 'pest' bird species is permitted under the terms of general licences issued by MAFF and DETR under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The general licences allow authorised persons, such as the landowner or occupier, or a person acting with the owner or occupier's permission, to kill or take certain bird species. This control is permitted for the purposes of preventing damage to agriculture (licensed by MAFF) and to preserve public health or public or air safety (licensed by DETR) and does not cover sporting events.

  The populations of the species concerned are monitored and there is no evidence that their conservation status is currently threatened by any of these control measures.

  Primates
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many primates are kept in research laboratories in the UK funded through the European Community; and if he will make a statement. [121306]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  Home Office records are not held in such a way as to identify the numbers of primates, or other animals, being held at designated establishments at a particular time, nor do they record centrally the sources of funding of establishments engaged in animal research. It is the nature of the work proposed in relation to the cost/benefit assessment, rather than the source of funding, which is the key consideration in deciding whether a project should be licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

PRIME MINISTER

  Broadcasting (Religious Freedom)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters have been received by his office since 1 May 1997 supporting greater religious freedom in broadcasting. [121324]

  The Prime Minister
  Between 1 May 1997 and 20 April 2000 my Office received 9,898 letters regarding broadcasting. Information on whether letters supported greater religious freedom in broadcasting is not kept.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his latest estimate of net receipts to the New Millennium Experience Company from ticket sales. [120229]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]: Net receipts from ticket sales up to 31 December 1999 will be published in the company's 1 April 1999–31 December 1999 Annual Report and Financial Statements due to be published before the end of June. Forecast net receipts from ticket sales over the project life-time are an integral part of the business review. They will be informed by assumptions and judgments made about ticket yield and about percentages of sales through the different ticket distribution channels—the call centre, the National Lottery, the website (www.dome2000.co.uk). The potential range of net receipts under discussion are commercially confidential because they are directly relevant to the company's competitive position in the visitor attraction market-place.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what expressions of corporate interest in acquiring the New Millennium Experience Company as a going concern he has received. [121952]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: The Dome Legacy competition has received one serious expression of interest in acquiring the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) as a going concern since financial offers were invited.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on attendance figures for the Millennium Dome. [120806]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: Attendance at the Dome to date totals 2.1 million, making it the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the UK. Visitor figures are posted on the Dome website (www.dome2000.co.uk) weekly.

  The latest independent survey shoes that visitors have overwhelmingly enjoyed their day at the Dome with satisfaction levels of over 80 per cent. This is borne out by the largest monthly attendance to date of 579,333 visitors in April and May day's record attendance of 32,192 visitors.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many responses were received to the dome legacy competition; if he will publish them; and if he will make a statement. [121953]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions gave my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) on 17 January 2000.

  Road Closures
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has 12W
  received regarding the cancellation of sporting and charitable events due to the imposition of charges for road closures; and if he will make a statement. [121358]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department has received three letters recently about the cancellation of athletics events on the public highway. The Association of Chief Police Officers is undertaking work on the staging of sporting events on the public highway and I am consulting it on the current position. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have had a response, placing copies of my reply in the Library.

  Broadcasting (Religious Freedom)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason religious groups are prohibited from applying for local digital radio licences. [121320]

  Janet Anderson
  Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 (as amended by the Broadcasting Act 1996) disqualifies a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding local digital multiplex or digital sound programme service licences.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many letters have been received by his Department since 1 May 1997 supporting greater religious freedom in broadcasting. [121323]

  Janet Anderson
  Since 1 January 1999, my Department has replied to around 16,500 letters on religious broadcasting. Figures relating to the period since 1 May 1997 are not available.

  Creative and Cultural Education
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made towards implementing the recommendations of the report of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education; and if he will make a statement. [121950]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: The Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I announced the Government' s response to the NACCCE report, "All our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education", in January and have placed copies in both Libraries of the House. We have made significant progress in implementing the commitments, notably: guidance on creative development for pre-school children is available to accompany the new Early Learning Goals; schools will be working with a more flexible National Curriculum from September with greater emphasis on the need for creative and cultural education; guidance on building partnerships between schools and arts practitioners has been published; an arts award for schools is being developed and will be piloted shortly; the creation of the National Foundation for Youth Music and the injection of £180 million has made a huge impact on the teaching of music.

  We will also be making £150 million available to create multi-purpose sports and arts facilities for primary schools; and work by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on the role of arts and creativity in the curriculum will further strengthen standards of teaching and learning.

  13W
  This is a substantial body of work and underlines the importance we place on creativity and culture in education. But this is just a small snapshot of where we have got to so far. The real value of the NACCCE report is the influence it is continuing to have as our thinking develops.

  Museums (North-west)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds museums in the North West of England will receive from the amounts which his Department has allocated to cut museum entry fees; and which museums will receive the money. [119101]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Due to an error my answer was incorrectly printed. The correct version is as follows:

  In 1990–2000 to enable free admission for children at the two museums funded by my Department in the North-West which are affected, the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside (NMGM) received £719,000 and the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester (MSIM) £188,000. In 2000–01, to enable free admission for children and people over 60, NMGM has been allocated £855,000, and for free children only MSIM has been allocated £188,000. The allocation of funds to cut museum entry fees at the museums and galleries funded by my Department in 2001–02 is still under consideration and no detailed figures are available yet. An announcement will be made in due course.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  European Humanitarian Office
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the remit of the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office; what public reports it has issued; and what are the(a) percentage and (b) total of United Kingdom Overseas Development funds that are channelled through the European Union. [121637]

  Clare Short
  The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) is mandated to provide humanitarian assistance to people outside the European Union, particularly in developing countries, who are affected by natural disasters or man-made crises.

  Since 1993 ECHO has published an Annual Report, periodic information updates (ECHO News and ECHO Files) and special reports on particular aspects of its activities such as disaster preparedness. A full list of current publications is available on the ECHO website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/index.html).

  Some 30 per cent. of UK development funds are currently channelled through the EC. In 1998–99 (the latest year for which confirmed figures are available), the total DFID contribution to EC external spending was approximately £706 million.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much food aid was 14W
  promised by the European Union through ECHO to Ethiopia in 1999; and when and where it was delivered. [121094]

  Clare Short
  Food Aid is the responsibility of the EC's DG-Development rather than ECHO. The EC pledged some 150,000 metric tonnes (MT) of food aid in 1999 and delivered about 190,000MT. EU pledges against Government of Ethiopia Emergency appeals are effectively multi-annual. Food pledges one year may not be delivered in the same year. The process is in effect a rolling programme of support with food from the year before filling gaps in the food pipeline. We do not have details of where the food was distributed.

  European Community Humanitarian Office
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much food aid has been committed to Ethiopia by the European Union through ECHO in 2000; and when and where it will be delivered. [121095]

  Clare Short
  Food aid is the responsibility of the EC's DG-Development rather than ECHO. The EC has committed 432,526 metric tonnes (MT) of food aid this year. A further 110,000MT will be provided by July 2001. Britain contributes 17 per cent. of the cost. Two shipments carrying 46,500MT of cereals have arrived. We do not have details of where the food was distributed.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if ECHO is committed to finding the cheapest appropriate food aid on the open market in responding to humanitarian need in Ethiopia and other such crises. [121097]

  Clare Short
  Food aid is the responsibility of EC DG-Development. EC procurement rules for food aid include assurances on value for money and takes quality and quantity into account.

CABINET OFFICE

  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she expects to announce the new chair of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission; and what role this body will fulfil with regard to the GM farm scale trials. [120717]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Appointments to the AEBC will be made shortly.

  The Commission will have a wide-ranging remit to provide Government with independent strategic advice on developments in biotechnology and their implications for both agriculture and the environment.

DEFENCE

  Service Discipline Acts
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the consolidation of the Service Discipline Acts. [122507]
  15W
  Mr. Spellar
  We recognise the importance of updating the legislation governing discipline in the armed forces. It has been the intention for some time to consolidate the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. We have been taking stock of the consolidation in the light of the changes to the present legislation made by the Armed Forces Discipline Bill and the likelihood of further changes in the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill in the next Session.

  A further consideration is the Government's intention, indicated in the Strategic Defence Review, to replace the three present Acts with a single tri-Service Act. It is planned that the substantive development of this important project should get under way as soon as the quinquennial Bill is enacted and that, when the work is complete, the resulting legislation should be introduced when the parliamentary timetable allows. As a consequence, legislation consolidating the present Acts would be likely to have an effective life of only a few years.

  We have therefore concluded that the most sensible approach would be to subsume consolidation within the development of the tri-Service Act, the purpose of which will be to provide legislation that better meets the requirements of the three Services in an increasingly joint environment.

  Disciplinary Procedures
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to Civil Service Appeal Board Case No. AB/6751, held on 13 April, concerning Mr. A. J. Ely of Linlithgow and ABRO (MOD), what response he has made to the request by the Board to examine the implementation of the case, with particular reference to the rating of the offence in the charge letter, in their current review of disciplinary procedures. [120836]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Civil Service Appeal Board (CSAB) makes reference to a current review by the Ministry of Defence of its disciplinary procedures. The review was completed some time ago and, following lengthy consultation with the trade unions, revised guidance has been issued on the handling of the most serious disciplinary offences. This has also been made available to the CSAB.

  The rating of a disciplinary offence as gross misconduct in the particular case in question followed full and proper consideration of the facts of the offence committed.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what failure rates for cluster bomb submunitions are assessed as acceptable. [121693]

  Mr. Spellar
  The small possibility of submunition failure is taken into account when reaching decisions on the use of UK cluster bombs in the light of national Rules of Engagement and targeting constraints.

  Ranger Anti-personnel Mines
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ranger anti-personnel mines have been cleared from the Falkland Islands. [121977]
  16W
  Mr. Spellar
  No Ranger anti-personnel mines have been laid by UK forces in the Falklands, and therefore none have been cleared.

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Lynx helicopters are in reserve. [121601]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: As of 10 May 2000, the Ministry of Defence has a total of 203 Lynx helicopters. All aircraft are rotated through a routine of operational use and regular maintenance, including update work such as the conversion from Mk 3 to Mk 8. There are no Lynx helicopters held as a "reserve", although some aircraft in maintenance are characterised, for fleet management purposes, as an In-Use Reserve.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the number of Royal Navy Lynx helicopters has been decreased to 59. [121599]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The Royal Navy has 59 Lynx helicopters available for front-line units, sufficient for our current operational requirements. Other Naval Lynx are undergoing routine deep maintenance or conversion work.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Harriers are available to the Royal Navy; how many are in service; of these how many are in reserve and how many Sea Harriers(a) have been converted to FA2 standard, (b) are undergoing conversion and (c) will be converted in due course. [121596]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 programme consisted of 52 aircraft: 18 were purchased from new and a further 34 were converted from Sea Harrier FRS1. The conversion programme was completed in 1999. Allowing for attrition losses, the Royal Navy now has 47 Sea Harriers of which 29 are available to meet operational requirements. Of the remainder, a number are undergoing updates to the navigational system. The balance is held in reserve.

HEALTH

  Social Workers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish his proposals for education and training for social workers; and if it is his policy that undergraduate and postgraduate social work qualifications should continue to be recognized when the General Social Care Council assumes its responsibilities. [119694]

  Mr. Hutton
  Independent contractors have completed reports on the content and delivery of the Diploma in Social Work. We shall make these reports available when we publish our Quality Strategy Green Paper for social care later in the spring.

  In carrying out its functions the General Social Care Council will recognise existing professional social work qualifications at both entry and post qualifying levels.

  Vaccinations (Deaths)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have died following a routine vaccination in each year since 1990. [111958]

  Yvette Cooper
  Over 150 million doses of vaccine have been distributed in the United Kingdom for use in the childhood programme in the last 10 years.

  A report of a particular suspected reaction does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by the vaccine. There is no evidence to support the suggestion of a causal link between any of the childhood vaccines recommended in the UK and death.

  Yellow card reports to the Medicines Control Agency of suspected adverse reactions to a routine vaccine where a child, aged 16 years or less, died are presented in the table for the UK.

  Year

  Reports of a fatal reaction to a vaccine

  1990

  2

  1991

  9

  1992

  10

  1993

  7

  1994

  4

  1995

  4

  1996

  3

  1997

  5

  1998

  2

  1999

  align="right">4

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current percentage take-up for each childhood vaccination. [122157]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information available about the percentage of children receiving childhood vaccinations is contained in the Statistical Bulletin, "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 1998–99". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and can also be found on the Department's website: www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb9928.htm.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the potential side-effects for each of the current childhood vaccinations. [122155]

  Yvette Cooper
  The potential side effects for each of the current childhood vaccines are listed in the UK health departments' handbook, "Immunisation against infectious disease", a copy of which is in the Library. A revised chapter on meningococcal vaccine, including reference to the new meningococcal Group C conjugate vaccine, was issued on 18 October 1999 under cover of PL/CMO/99/4, PL/CNO/99/8, PL/CPHO/99/3; a copy of this is also available in the Library.

  Strategic Services Reviews (South Staffordshire)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the total cost to date and (b) the total budgeted cost on completion of the Strategic Services Review being undertaken by South Staffordshire Health Authority. [121579]
  18W
  Mr. Denham
  The review of South Staffordshire health services commenced in July 1999 and has involved the health authority, National Health Service trusts, primary care groups and social services serving the health community. To date the review has spent £65,000 on specialist advice and consultants support and an additional £8,000 in respect of materials and publications to keep staff and the public informed (these costs exclude normal staff and professional time). It is anticipated that expenditure for the assessment and recommendation phases will not exceed £100,000.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2000,Official Report, columns 324–25W, on transfer of work, how many of the bodies listed in (a) (i) and (ii) have been transferred since 1992 or are planned to be transferred to and from the Northern Region. [121624]

  Ms Stuart
  Of the bodies listed at(a)(i) (executive agencies), National Health Service Estates relocated its headquarters from London to Leeds in April 1993; it also has staff at the regional office headquarters in Durham and has an office in Newcastle, opened in April 2000.

  Of the bodies listed at (a)(ii) (non-Departmental public bodies), the Family Health Services Appeal Authority has been located in Harrogate since it was established in 1995.

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on taking power to issue statutory guidance to local authorities concerning their social services charging policies. [121612]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: Our White Paper, "Modernising Social Services", recognised that the scale of variation in discretionary charges for non-residential care is unacceptable. This has now been confirmed in the Audit Commission report, "Charging with Care". We are considering all the options for changing the current system, and will consult representatives of service users, carers, local authorities, and other interested parties.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions are made by his Department in the social services Standard Spending Assessment for the recoupment of costs by means of charges. [121611]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) for personal social services comprises four elements: SSAs for children's services, residential care services for older people, non-residential care services for older people, and services for adults aged 18 to 64 years

  The SSA formula for residential services for older people includes an estimate of the actual amount of income collected. The SSA formula for non-residential services for older people reflects differences in the potential to raise charge income in different councils. However, SSAs are intended to reflect relative differences in councils' need to spend. The Department does not set targets for recoupment rates, nor make assumptions regarding the monetary value of cost recoupment.
  19W
  The SSA formulae for the other two elements make no assumption about income from charges.

  VAT (Continence Products)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the reimposition of VAT on continence products is estimated to cost the NHS in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [122106]

  Mr. Hutton
  Details of expenditure on continence products are not held centrally. The estimate of £9 million per annum given in the reply to the hon. Gentleman on 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 487W, was based on an earlier study. However, there is no reason to suppose that this estimate is not valid for 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of patients in the last five years who knew that the drugs dispensed to them had been tested on animals; and if he will make a statement. [122103]

  Ms Stuart
  No estimate has been made of the proportion of patients in the last five years who knew that the drugs dispensed to them had been tested on animals. Although there is no statutory requirement for pharmaceutical product labels to include a statement on animal testing, such information is often available in the Summary of Product Characteristic.

  Breastfeeding (Food Supplements)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide mothers with vouchers for food supplements to help with the breastfeeding of their babies; and if he will make a statement. [122142]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Welfare Food Scheme is being reviewed and the Prevention Modernisation Action Team is examining a wide range of options but no conclusions have been reached. Any proposals for change will be subject to parliamentary approval.

  Phenobarbitone
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the increase in the cost of phenobarbitone over the last three years. [122143]

  Ms Stuart
  Table A shows the change in prescription items and the net ingredient cost of phenobarbitone dispensed in the community, 1996 to 1998, and January 1999 to September 1999.
  20W
  Phenobarbitone is included in our proposals to set maximum prices for certain generic medicines, announced on 20 April 2000.

  Table A: Number of prescription items and net ingredient cost of phenobarbitone dispensed in the community, 1996 to 1998, and January 1999 to September 1999

  Year

  Prescription items (thousand)

  Net ingredient (£000)

  1996

  403.6

  187.6

  1997

  381.8

  215.5

  1998

  363.8

  237.2

  19991

  260.1

  258.8

  1January to September

  Notes:

  1. The prescription information is from the Prescribed Cost Analysis (PCA) system and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  2. The net ingredient cost (NIC) is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  3. Phenobarbitone drugs are those defined within the British National Formulary section 4.8.1, "Control of epilepsy".

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clusters of sufferers of leukaemia there are around(a) current and (b) past rubbish tips. [122154]

  Yvette Cooper
  Epidemiological studies have not demonstrated that there is a connection between landfill sites and leukaemias. We have commissioned the Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College, London, to carry out a study of health outcomes, including leukaemias, in populations living near landfills in England, Scotland and Wales during the period 1982 to 1996. The study is expected to be completed this year. Further information is available on the Department website, at http://www.doh.gov.uk/landh.htm

  Respite Care (Disabled Children)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make respite care available for parents of children with severe physical, mental or physiological difficulties. [120943]

  Mr. Hutton
  Respite care is already available for families with disabled children. Availability of respite care is being boosted by two important Government initiatives. First, the Carers National Strategy, which gives a strong commitment to improving services and support for all carers, including parent carers of disabled children. The Carers Grant in 2000–01 includes £10 million for services for families with disabled children.

  Secondly, Quality Protects, the Government's £375 million programme to improve children's services includes the specific sub-objective for all local authorities to:
  increase the number of disabled children receiving family support services (including short term breaks/respite care).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Deprived Neighbourhoods
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support is available to businesses in deprived neighbourhoods outside the inner city. [120125]

  Ms Hewitt
  The full range of business support from the Small Business Service is available throughout the country. In the Assisted Areas, grants are available for eligible investment: in Tiers 1 and 2 Regional Selective Assistance, and in Tier 3 Enterprise Grants. There is a wider range of regeneration initiatives in the most deprived neighbourhoods, and the Government are currently consulting on a new National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.

  Eco-schools Scheme
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support his Department gives to the Eco-schools scheme. [121672]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Eco-schools is run by Going for Green and is funded through ENTRUST (the approved regulator of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme) by Coca-Cola/Sita Environmental Trust. The Department also pays grant to Going for Green and its sister company, the Tidy Britain Group, to run a number of programmes, including Eco-schools, that will create an awareness of, and a demand for, litter free and sustainable environments. The Department paid a total grant of £3,763,000 in 199–2000, with the same amount available in 2000–01.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to establish UK representation in a WTO parliamentary body to meet alongside future WTO ministerial meetings. [121964]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK Government support the current consultations by WTO Director General Mike Moore and General Council Chair Ambassador Bryn which include consideration of WTO consultative and decision-making procedures. We would not like to pre-judge the outcome of these consultations—including any ideas concerning a WTO parliamentary body—which will need to take into account a wide range of views among WTO members on the nature of the issues and the shape of solutions for reform, in order to reach consensus between WTO members on a way forward.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions the Government have undertaken with the Inter-Parliamentary Union about organising the representation of parliamentarians at future WTO ministerial meetings. [121965]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK Government support the current consultations by WTO Director General Mike Moore and General Council Chair Ambassador Bryn which include consideration of WTO consultative and decision-making procedures. We would not like to pre-judge the outcome of these consultations—including any ideas concerning the representation of parliamentarians at future WTO ministerial meetings—which will need to take into 22W
  account a wide range of views among WTO members on the nature of the issues and the shape of solutions for reform, in order to reach consensus between WTO members on a way forward.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Neath, (Mr. Hain) of 3 May 2000,Official Report, column 84WH, on what dates each of the UK's nuclear reprocessing plants, including those used to process military nuclear materials, were (a) put under Euratom safeguards and (b) made liable to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. [121978]

  Dr. Howells
  Civil nuclear material at UK reprocessing facilities became subject to the safeguards provisions of the Euratom Treaty on 1 January 1973. Such material became subject to the terms of the United Kingdom's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Euratom (INFCIRC/263) when that agreement entered force on 14 August 1978. All reprocessing in the UK since March 1996 has been performed under Euratom safeguards and been liable to inspection by the IAEA under the terms of the INFCIRC/263 agreement.

  Banana Dispute
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate of the number of British jobs lost as a result of the banana dispute between the EU and the US. [121711]

  Mr. Caborn
  The number of jobs lost within UK companies in the targeted sectors will depend on a number of factors, including the length of time that the retaliatory measures remain in place, and the ability of affected companies to find alternative customers for their goods. I have received many representations from UK companies affected by the US retaliation and recognise that there is a real risk of damage to UK companies in terms of both lost trade and jobs.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Council of Ministers will next meet to discuss the banana dispute between the EU and the US. [121709]

  Mr. Caborn
  I understand that Commissioner Lamy intends to report to the General Affairs Council on 22 May.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives he is pursuing to safeguard jobs in the motor components industry which may be under threat from the sale of Rover; and if he will make a statement. [121728]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The sale of Rover cars to the Phoenix consortium is the best outcome to safeguard jobs in the supply chain for the models produced at Longbridge and the R75.
  23W
  In the longer term, the Government will continue their efforts to help the industry to improve its competitiveness. The DTI is providing a total of over £18 million of support for initiatives such as the SMMT Industry Forum and the Foresight Vehicle programme, as well as undertaking activity to attract new investment and develop exports.

  Coal
  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many deep mine coal pits are operating in Great Britain; and what percentage of national electricity generation is fuelled by coal. [121448]

  Mr. Byers
  There are currently 17 major deep mine coal pits in operation in the UK.

  There are also a number of smaller deep mines, each producing less than 100,000 tonnes of coal per year.

  In 1999, coal accounted for 29 per cent. of national electricity generation.

  Sub-post Offices
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those documents and publications produced by his Department and its Agencies, including the Royal Mail but excluding the Post Office, that are available at sub-post offices. [121628]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the information requested is not readily available in the form sought. However, they have supplied their list of stores items available to be sent to sub-post offices. I have arranged for a copy of this information to be placed in the Libraries of the House. The Post Office has advised that changes to the list can occur on a weekly basis as items are withdrawn and new items added.

  New World Trade Round
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what will be the objectives of the European Union in respect of its initiating a further new world trade round; and what problems the Commission seeks to resolve in respect of specific market problems referred to in paragraph 1.2 of its work programme. [121636]

  Mr. Caborn
  The EU objectives for a future round of trade negotiations remain as set out in the October 1999 General Affairs Council Conclusions. This was confirmed at the Porto Informal Ministerial for EU Trade Ministers which I attended on 17–18 March. A copy of these Conclusions has been placed in the Library of the House and is also available on the European Commission's website at:www.europa.eu.int/comm/trade/pdf/agr15en.pdf.

  The Commission has an ongoing programme to secure the removal of a wide variety of obstacles to EU exports in a range of third country markets by various means, including resort to the WTO disputes settlement procedure.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the action for miners' compensation for chest disease, how many claims 24W
  questionnaires have been sent out by his Department's solicitors; and how many of them have been returned by miners' solicitors in each week from 1 January to the present. [121523]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In total, to date, the Department's claim handlers have issued 27,372 claims questionnaires to solicitors in England, Wales and Scotland, and of these 11,722 (42.8 per cent.) have been returned. Detailed weekly statistics separately for Claims Questionnaires back to January are not readily available. But the return of full claims packs (consisting of Claims Questionnaires, Financial and Other Loss Questionnaires and Mandates) is monitored. From levels of 200 a week in the early part of the year, these have now risen to around 700 a week currently. This needs to rise to about 1,000 a week as the Medical Assessment Process becomes fully operational.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish for each medical assessment centre set up by Healthcall Services Ltd. for handling miners' compensation claims for chest disease(a) its location and whether it is a hospital, (b) the number of chest consultants employed at the centre in full-time equivalents, (c) the capacity of the centre in terms of the number of medical assessment procedures per month and (d) the total number that have to date undergone medical assessment procedures at the centre. [121522]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is as follows:

  Centre

  Centre type

  Whole time equivalents

  Capacity of tests per month

  Enfield

  Healthcall

  0.2

  35

  Newcastle

  Healthcall

  1.0

  156

  Nottingham

  Healthcall

  0.6

  90

  Sheffield

  Healthcall

  0.7

  105

  Newport

  Healthcall

  1.1

  175

  Swansea

  Healthcall

  1.1

  175

  Mountain Ash1

  NHS

  0.0

  272

  Mansfield

  Union

  2.6

  400

  Glasgow

  Healthcall

  1.3

  210

  Lochore

  Union

  1.3

  210

  Coventry

  Healthcall

  0.4

  60

  Deal

  Union

  1.0

  160

  Chesterfield1

  Union

  0.0

  272

  Mexborough

  NHS

  0.4

  70

  Pontefract

  NHS

  0.4

  70

  Stoke

  Union

  0.7

  105

  Manchester

  Healthcall

  0.9

  140

  Huddersfield

  Healthcall

  0.3

  55

  Cannock

  Union

  0.3

  55

  Durham

  Union

  0.8

  130

  Bristol

  Healthcall

  1.0

  160

  Barnsley

  NHS

  0.3

  55

  Edinburgh

  Healthcall

  0.9

  140

  Wrexham

  Union

  0.6

  90

  Ayr

  Other

  1.1

  175

  Unallocated3

  —

  3.1

  413

  Floaters/Holidays only4

  —

  2.8

  363

  Total

  24.9

  3,941

  1Floating/unallocated consultants will be used here

  2Estimate

  3Consultants who have agreed to do sessions and will work in their holidays

  4Consultants trained or to be trained and will work in their holidays

  25W

  Total number of MAP assessments completed

  Number

  Newport

  97

  Swansea

  83

  Mounatain Ash

  2

  Domiciliary

  40

  Deceased

  26

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish for each company of solicitors involved in the claims for miners' compensation for chest disease in South Wales(a) the total number of claims questionnaires sent to date, (b) the total number of completed questionnaires returned to date and (c) the percentage of those sent that have been returned. [121524]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is as follows:

  Solicitors in South Wales

  Questionnaires issued

  Questionnaires returned (percentage)

  Incomplete questionnnaires referred back to the solicitor (percentage)

  Hugh James

  6,542

  1,544 (23.6)

  149 (9.7)

  Thompsons

  3,158

  2,275 (72)

  378 (16.6)

  Randall Saunders

  354

  77 (21.7)

  13 (16.9)

  Morgan Cole

  233

  139 (59.6)

  7(5)

  TS Edwards

  212

  149 (70.2)

  15(10.1)

  Thomas and Company

  155

  87 (56.1)

  6 (6.9)

  Gabb and Company

  23

  1(4.3)

  0(0)

  Osborne Jones

  2

  1(50)

  0(0)

  David W. Harris

  2

  2(100)

  0(0)

  Leo Abse and Cohen

  1

  0(0)

  0(0)

  Total

  10,682

  4,275(40)

  568(13.3)

  Energy Supplies
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of Beacon Gas's practices in respect of taking over consumers' gas supplies. [121444]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is for the Director General of Gas and Electricity Supply to monitor the performance of individual suppliers.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance he has given to Ofgem about its treatment of companies that take over consumers' energy supplies without their consent. [121446]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In 1998, the Government worked with Ofgem in introducing a licence condition governing the sales and marketing practices of gas and electricity suppliers. Under the condition, suppliers are, among other things, required to make all reasonable efforts to confirm that individual customers wish to proceed with a change of supplier. Ofgem recently renewed the condition for a further two years, and is currently consulting on enhancing it by requiring suppliers to have effective management of their sales agents; ensuring that gas, as 26W
  well as electricity, suppliers provide customers with copies of the terms and conditions of contracts entered into over the telephone; extending coverage of the condition to sales undertaken in public places and to certain sales over the internet; and requiring suppliers to take steps to ensure that the customer understands that he has entered into a contract.

  The Government support these proposals to give additional protection to consumers. The Utilities Bill currently before Parliament would allow Ofgem to impose financial penalties for breaching the licence condition, including infringements relating to involuntary transfer.

  Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the new electricity trading arrangements. [122510]

  Mr. Byers
  Implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements is planned to take place this autumn in the period following the change from British Summer Time to Greenwich Mean Time on 29 October. The project remains on target. A contract with Logica for the central computer systems has now been agreed which specifies 21 November 2000 for the new market to be implemented.

  Parental Leave
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the introduction of paid parental leave. [120974]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  From the start of the consultation on the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations on 4 August 1999, we have received over 300 representations in support of paid parental leave.

  As announced in the Budget speech, we will be undertaking a review of parental leave and maternity pay. The findings of the review will contribute to our future thinking on this issue.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the change in the total number of(a) full-time equivalent employees and (b) hours worked due to the introduction of the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [121745]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The second report of the Low Pay Commission, published in February 2000, looked at these matters but found no indication so far of significant effects on the economy as a whole as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage. Some sectors have been affected more than others and this is dealt with in detail in the report.

  The Low Pay Commission continues to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the national minimum wage and is due to report again by July 2001.
  27W
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the(a) absolute and (b) proportional gross impact of the minimum wage on hourly wage rates for employees who were previously paid below the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [121744]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  According to the second report of the Low Pay Commission, the average increase in hourly earnings in the year to April 1999 for those earning below minimum wage rates in April 1998 was between 18 and 31 per cent.

  Domestic Fuels
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what price elasticities of demand for domestic fuels were used in the document entitled "Energy Projections for the UK, Working Paper, March 2000"; and if he will make a statement. [121747]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The long run price elasticities of demand for domestic fuel implied in the working paper "Energy Projections for the UK, March 2000" are given in the table. This paper represents work in progress, on which comments have been invited.

  Fuel

  Price elasticity

  Electricity

  -0.29

  Gas

  -0.35

  Oil

  -0.22

  Solid fuel

  -1.46

  The table is interpreted in the following way:

  The electricity price elasticity implies that, in the long run, for a 10 per cent. increase in the price of electricity, demand for electricity would be expected to decrease by 2.9 per cent.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which relocation companies his Department has used when relocating civil servants since May 1997. [122295]

  Dr. Howells
  Since May 1997, the Department has used only one company for relocating civil servants, Bradford and Bingley Relocation Services (before March 1999, known as Black Horse Relocation Services).

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to improve access to finance for small businesses through the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. [122074]

  Ms Hewitt
  David Irwin, Chief Executive of the Small Business Service, will be taking a close look at the problems faced by small businesses in accessing finance and what improvements might be made to existing forms of financial support provided by the Small Business Service, including the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. To assist this work the Small Business Service will shortly be setting up a dedicated finance division.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UK Veto
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those areas of policy where the United Kingdom would lose its veto if the Commission proposals in Com(2000)34 were adopted. [120812]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The Commission's opinion Com(2000)34 is not an agenda for the intergovernmental conference. Only member states can make changes to voting procedures in the Treaty. The Government will consider the possible extension of qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. When it is in Britain's interests to support QMV, we shall do so. However, where key national interests are at stake—such as on treaty changes, border controls, social security, taxation, own resources and defence—we shall insist on retaining unanimity.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the areas of policy where the United Kingdom has a veto over EU proposals. [120813]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: There are 73 articles and sub-articles subject to unanimity in the main EU Treaties. I have placed a complete list in the House of Commons Library.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of response was anticipated to the questionnaire on the "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign; and what plans he has to issue further questionnaires. [121513]

  Mr. Vaz
  Although we distributed almost 7,000 copies of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" leaflet, we have no level of anticipation on the response numbers. We have no plans to issue any further questionnaires in the near future.

  EU Postcards
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of the postcard, "50 years of solidarity, property and peace" have been printed by the European Union; for what purpose; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [121495]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the office of the European Commission in London.

  Belarus
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards human rights in Belarus; and what representations he has made to the Government of Belarus on this issue. [121494]

  Mr. Vaz
  Her Majesty's Government regularly raise our concerns over the human rights situation in Belarus with the Belarusian authorities. Our Embassy in Minsk is in close contact with human rights groups, trades unions and members of the Belarusian opposition. Embassy officials have been attending trials of members of the Belarusian opposition including the ongoing trial against
  29W
  Mr. Chigir, former Prime Minister. During 2000, we have funded visits to the UK by two members of the Belarusian Independent Trade Unions. Mr. Vyachorka, Chairman of the BPF-Renewal party, will visit the UK next week for a series of meetings. Mr. Sharetsky, Speaker of the 13th Supreme Soviet (former Parliament disbanded by President Lukashenko in 1996), is planning to visit the UK in early June and will have meetings with senior officials.

  EU policy towards Belarus is based around the General Affairs Council Conclusions of September 1997 which substantially restrict relations pending demonstrable improvements on constitutional and human rights matters. The EU has made a number of representations to the Government of Belarus including, most recently, a Declaration deploring the use of force by the Belarusian authorities to suppress an opposition-organised march in March 2000 and a formal representation on human rights concerns in April 2000.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy in relation to the demand made by Mr. Denktash for recognition of Northern Cyprus as a pre-condition to discussions on the future of Cyprus. [121474]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UN proximity talks being held under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General are taking place on the basis of no pre-conditions. The UK continues to urge both parties to adhere to this important principle. The Government look to the Cypriot parties and all those with an interest in Cyprus to co-operate with Kofi Annan constructively and flexibly.

  UN Millennium Summit
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department is making to contribute to the UN Millennium Summit in September. [121516]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has worked hard to build international support for the UN Secretary-General's proposals for the Millennium Summit. We intend to publicise his recently published Millennium Report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website and to invite feedback on it. We helped fund a forum organised by the United Nations Association which sought to frame UK national civil society input to the UN's Millennium events. With DfID, we are also helping finance the Millennium Forum—the civil society companion event to the Summit.

  EU Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a list of all the(a) current and (b) temporarily suspended working groups of the European Union, listing in each case (i) the mandate of and (ii) the grade of participants in each group; what is on the agenda of each group; which groups have been attended by a United Kingdom Minister for at least one meeting since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement on his policy on openness in such groups. [121511]
  30W
  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to earlier questions on this subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 179W; from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Boarder (Mr. Maclean), on 22 March 1999, Official Report, column 57W; and from Lord Pearson of Rannock, on 3 December 1998, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA56, and on 5 April 2000, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA137. None of the 28 Common Foreign and Security Policy Working Groups is suspended. The United Kingdom is represented by officials, with the necessary expertise, of varying grade, depending on the importance of the issues being discussed. No Working Group has been attended by a Minister. The Government favour the maximum possible transparency in all areas of EU business, including Common Foreign and Security Policy, and have consequently introduced procedures for the parliamentary scrutiny of all Common Foreign and Security Policy Common Positions and Joint Actions, and other politically important documents. The preparatory discussions within Working Groups are confidential, in order to preserve the negotiating position of the individual member state.

  Ranger Anti-personnel Mines (DRC)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the use of Ranger anti-personnel mines in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [121979]

  Mr. Hain
  We have received no reports of the use of Ranger anti-personnel mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

  Penalty Clauses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services since May 1997 where penalty clauses were triggered for non-performance; and if he will make a statement. [122019]

  Mr. Hain
  Penalty clauses are not legally enforceable, but the FCO does include liquidated damages clauses in its contracts when this is appropriate. The FCO has a large number of contracts in operation at any one time, but details are not held centrally. A record of contracts where liquidated damages clauses had been enforced could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Diamonds (Sierra Leone)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to work with other countries to block the sale on the world market of diamonds illegally mined in Sierra Leone. [121833]

  Mr. Hain
  We have taken a leading role internationally in arguing for measures to improve the transparency of the international diamond trade and prevent the proceeds from illicit diamond trading fuelling conflict, including in Sierra Leone. In doing so, we have consulted a number of countries in Africa and elsewhere. At the forthcoming meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers we will be pressing for
  31W
  agreement on further steps, including consideration of an international system to keep such diamonds out of the market.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to persuade(a) Israel, (b) India, (c) Pakistan and (d) Cuba to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [121945]

  Mr. Hain
  Ministers and officials regularly raise this issue with the countries concerned. At the ongoing Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference the need for universal ratification of the NPT has been stressed in a number of documents, including the statement by the five Nuclear Weapons States and the EU Common Position and Statement.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library each of the documents(a) produced by Her Majesty's Government or (b) referring to United Kingdom nuclear and non-proliferation policy, distributed by official delegations to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York on 24 April to 19 May. [121944]

  Mr. Hain
  We shall arrange for documents circulated by the UK delegation at the NPT Review Conference to be placed in the Library. We shall also place a copy of the final document of the Review Conference in the Library when it is available. This will contain all the documents issued at the Conference.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 257W, what evidence he has evaluated of the extent of the financial interests of President Mugabe in OSLEG Private Ltd.[121617]

  Mr. Hain
  We have no information on President Mugabe's interests, or otherwise, in OSLEG Private Ltd.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the amount of unallocated land which the Government of Zimbabwe currently holds. [121349]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government of Zimbabwe have not published details of unallocated land. It has been unofficially estimated that the Government owed 300,000 hectares of former commercial land farm land that has not been resettled.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's policies towards the disabled. [120950]
  32W
  Mr. Bayley
  We are committed to providing support and opportunities for all disabled people. We are introducing comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people and we are modernising the welfare system to help disabled people work and to provide better support for those in greatest need.

  Local Exchange Trading Schemes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a benefits disregard for local exchange trading schemes. [120951]

  Angela Eagle
  We welcome initiatives to improve social inclusion and want to remove unjustified obstacles to greater community participation where that will contribute to our overall welfare to work goals.

  LETS schemes can help promote community participation and we are, therefore, carefully considering whether changes are needed to the treatment of credits earned through participation in LETS.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made in tackling Housing Benefit fraud. [120952]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress in tackling Housing Benefit fraud. [120954]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Members to the oral answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) earlier today,Official Report, columns 5–6.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform Invalid Care Allowance. [120956]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are aware of the need for adequate financial support for carers. Our National Strategy for Carers, published last year, committed us to keep under review the financial support available to carers, including Invalid Care Allowance, and we are continuing to do that.

  Basic State Pension
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people entitled to, but awaiting, their first payment of basic state pension. [120957]

  Mr. Rooker
  No estimate has been made of the number of people entitled to but awaiting their first payment of basic state pension.

  Most new claims to Retirement Pension each year result from people being invited to claim by the Department some four months before they reach pension age. This enables the majority of claims to be paid by the time the first pension pay day is reached.

  The calculation of the various components that can make up a Retirement Pension award is made by the NIRS2 computer. Although there have been problems in NIRS2 calculating the additional pension for some claims, this has not applied to the basic pension calculation.

  Housing Benefit Reform
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the Housing Benefit system and his proposals for reform. [120958]

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to reform Housing Benefit. [120966]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend to reform Housing Benefit to improve customer service through a modernised streamlined system, to tackle fraud and error, and to reduce the barriers to work. We have already made significant progress; our Housing Green Paper, currently out for consultation, sets out how we can take this further.

  We are determined to deal with the weaknesses of the system we inherited from the previous Administration.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what impact the minimum income guarantee will have on incentives to save for low earners. [120961]

  Mr. Bayley
  One of the Government's main objectives is to encourage people to save more for their retirement where they can afford to do so, while at the same time providing extra State support for those who cannot save.

  We are introducing new stakeholder pensions and reforming SERPS through the State Second Pension. These reforms will mean that, in future, people with a lifetime of working behind them will get a large enough pension to take them above the MIG, even if they have been on low earnings throughout their life. However, it takes time to build up pension entitlements, so for many, particularly those who have already retired or who are close to retirement age, these reforms come too late. That is why we introduced the MIG to make sure that the poorest pensioners are guaranteed a basic decent income in retirement, even before stakeholder pensions and the Second State Pension mature.

  We recently announced an increase in the MIG capital limits to make sure that people with relatively modest savings do not lose out. We want to do more to encourage savers. In the last Budget, the Chancellor announced that we propose to consult on a new Pensioner Credit which will do just that.

  Our pensions reforms should be looked at as a package. We believe the package strikes the right balance between encouraging savers, while protecting those who cannot save.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in North-West Norfolk he estimates will benefit from the minimum income guarantee for pensioners in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [120968]

  Mr. Bayley
  Around 3,500 pensioners in North-West Norfolk benefited from the minimum income guarantee last year.
  34W
  For this year we estimate that around 1.5 million pensioners across Great Britain will benefit from the minimum income guarantee. This information is not available at local level.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the take-up of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [120969]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have recently announced our plans for an ambitious national take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee. Starting from the end of this month there will be intense activity on a number of fronts; including television advertising, writing to around 2 million pensioners and a new tele-claim centre which allows pensioners to make a claim over the telephone.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners entitled to minimum income guarantee are receiving it. [120947]

  Mr. Darling
  Estimates on the numbers of pensioners in receipt of the minimum income guarantee (MIG) are to be found in the DSS report "Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take-Up, 1996/97 and 1997/98". A copy has been placed in the Library.

  To encourage pensioners to take up their entitlement we have launched a national helpline which has already received nearly 31,000 calls in the last five weeks, and we are launching a national TV advertising campaign on 30 May. We are determined that as many pensioners as possible get the MIG to which they are entitled.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how changes in Government spending since 1997 have affected the incomes of(a) poorer pensioners and (b) pensioners with small savings. [120960]

  Mr. Rooker
  The minimum income guarantee benefits around 1.5 million of the least well off pensioners.

  From April the rates increased to £78.45 for a single pensioner this represents an extra £5 a week in real terms since 1998.

  By increasing the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, more and more pensioners with modest pensions and savings are benefiting. With an extra 92,000 cases becoming newly entitled to the MIG since April 1999.

  From next April, the planned changes to capital limits will mean that pensioners with savings up to £12,000 will be entitled to the guarantee. Our estimate is that this will benefit a further 500,000 pensioners.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the loss of benefits suffered per week by a pensioner who is entitled to minimum income guarantee but is not receiving it. [120955]

  Mr. Bayley
  The latest estimates were published in the DSS report "Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take-Up, 1996/97 and 1997/98". A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Paternity Tests
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision is available for a mother to demand a second DNA test to determine the father of her child. [120962]

  Angela Eagle
  If a man who is named by a parent with care denies that he is the father of a child, the Child Support Agency will normally offer DNA tests to the parties involved.

  The DNA testing company has rigorous and secure procedures for carrying out these tests. If a parent with care refuses to accept the outcome of the DNA tests, it is open to her to apply to court for a declaration of parentage which would be binding on the CSA.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding fraud in the Social Security system. [120963]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are determined to combat fraud and error in the Social Security system. We have a comprehensive strategy, to safeguard the system from the first to the final payment. For example, we are insisting claimants produce more evidence before Income Support is paid, which will save £1 billion over the Parliament. This comprehensive strategy will help to strengthen public confidence, and thereby encourage their support.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on assistance for pensioners with small occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement. [120967]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a considerable number of representations from this group over the years. Following the current success of the Minimum Income Guarantee our concern is to develop initiatives that will reward work and savings. That is why we are starting development work on a new pensioner credit that will better help those pensioners with small second pensions and modest savings who have worked hard to provide for themselves in their retirement.

  SERPS
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the proposed scheme for providing redress to those who were not informed about the benefit changes to SERPS. [120970]

  Mr. Rooker
  As the House was informed on the 15 March, we will introduce a scheme to give redress to those who received and relied on wrong or incomplete advice given by this Department in relation to the SERPS additional pension their spouses would inherit. The House was also informed that we would consult widely before bringing forward regulations setting out the detail of the Scheme.
  36W
  In addition to the reports from the NAO and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Department has received representations from Age Concern, NACAB, Help the Aged and the noble Lord Rix, and from a number of members of the public.

  Pensioners (Departmental Spending)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of GDP his Department's spending on people of above pensionable age represented in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [120972]

  Mr. Rooker
  Social security expenditure on people aged over 60 was 5.33 per cent. of GDP in 1996–97, and 5.23 per cent. in 1997–98.

  Occupational Pensions (Taxable Allowances)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of providing that the state pension should not count against taxable allowances in respect of occupational pensions. [120973]

  Mr. Rooker
  The cost of exempting the basic state pension from income tax is estimated to be £2.2 billion in 2000–01.

  Older Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to encourage older benefit claimants back into employment. [120975]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have developed a range of measures to help older benefit recipients return to work.

  The New Deal 50plus was launched by the Prime Minister at the beginning of April. It is the first major national programme of back to work help for older people and has the potential to bring back into the labour market thousands of people with the skills and expertise employers need.

  New Deal 50plus is a voluntary programme available for people over age 50 who have been on Jobseeker's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance or Income Support for at least six months. It provides support from a personal adviser, jobsearch help, in-work training support worth £750 and a tax free Employment Credit of £60 a week for up to a year for those taking up full-time work, or £40 a week for those taking part-time work.

  In addition the New Deal for Disabled People, which includes a large proportion of older benefit recipients, provides active help and encouragement for people with long-term illnesses or disabilities to move back into work.

  The Performance and Innovation Unit Report "Winning the Generation Game" includes a number of recommendations for improving people's opportunity to contribute to society and the economy in their later working years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, will be carrying forward these recommendations in his role as Cabinet Champion for Older People and Chair of the Ministerial Group on Older People.

  Appeal Tribunals (Medical Members)
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the appointment of part-time sessional doctors engaged by Medical Services (SEMA) and Nestor Disability Analysis Ltd. as medical members of appeal tribunals. [120938]

  Mr. Bayley
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor appoints appeal tribunal members. The qualification requirements for appointment are set out in regulations and do not exclude SEMA and NESTOR doctors.

  We laid an amendment regulation on 10 May to reinforce current Appeals Service instructions which preclude doctors from hearing an appeal in which they have previously given advice or prepared reports on a claimant's medical condition.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 334W, concerning child poverty, what measures he will use to judge performance against his target of halving child poverty in 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [121846]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 486W.

  Further details on all the indicators in the "Opportunity for All" report have been placed in the Library.

  Bereavement Allowances
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy on the benefit position of widowers with dependent children prior to the introduction of the new system of bereavement allowances, following recent judgments in the European Court. [122107]

  Angela Eagle
  Our obligation, following the friendly settlement of two cases before the European Court of Human Rights, is to future widowers. Our reforms meet this obligation and go further. Widowed Parents Allowance will be available to men who were widowed before the introduction of the benefit. Existing widowed fathers who meet the entitlement conditions may receive Widowed Parent's Allowance from the date it is introduced.

  New Deal
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ensure that women seeking to enter the labour market will benefit from the new deal. [120953]

  Angela Eagle
  The new deal programmes provide individually tailored advice and opportunities for each client. This ensures that everyone seeking to enter the labour market, men and women, will benefit from the new deal.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the 38W
  number of people who no longer receive (a) one and (b) more than one means-tested benefit due to the introduction of the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [121743]

  Angela Eagle
  It is estimated that there are 50,000 people who no longer receive one of Income Support, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage and there are 10,000 people who no longer receive more than one of these benefits.
  Notes:

  1. Estimates based on 1997–98 Family Resources Survey Data, uprated to 2000–01 prices and benefit rates. Minimum wage and benefit receipt have been modelled with the Policy Simulation Model.

  2. Estimates rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  3. Estimates are based on minimum wage rates when it was introduced (£3.60 for those aged over 21 and £3.00 for those aged 18–21).

  4. Estimates assume no secondary effects on employment or wages.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the proportion of recipients of(a) Council Tax Benefit, (b) Housing Benefit and (c) other means-tested benefits who are paid within (i) 5 per cent. and (ii) 10 per cent. of the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [121746]

  Angela Eagle
  Actual data on hourly earnings of those in receipt of means-tested benefits from administrative sources are not available. However, it is estimated that 6 per cent. of Housing Benefit recipients, 3 per cent. of Council Tax Benefit recipients and 3 per cent. of Income Support recipients are paid within 5 per cent. of the minimum wage. It is also estimated that 7 per cent. of Housing Benefit recipients, 3 per cent. of Council Tax recipients and 3 per cent. of Income Support recipients earn within 10 per cent. of the minimum wage.
  Notes:

  1. Estimates based on 1997–98 Family Resources Survey data, uprated to 2000–01 prices and benefit rates. Minimum wage and benefit receipt has been modelled within the Policy Simulation Model.

  2. Estimates give individuals earning between the minimum wage and 5 or 10 per cent. above the minimum wage who are in a benefit unit receiving the means-tested benefit as a proportion of all adults in benefit units in receipt of the benefit. No account has been taken of overlapping receipt of means tested benefits.

  3. Estimates are based on minimum wage rates when it was introduced (£3.60 for those aged over 21 and £3.00 for those aged 18–21).

  4. Estimates assume no secondary effects on employment or wages.

  Early Retirement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on his policy in relation to pension provision for those over 50 years old who take early retirement; and if he will make a statement. [120948]

  Mr. Rooker
  None. Under the present policy employees may retire early and draw an immediate pension from age 50 if their employer agrees. We will be consulting very widely before any decisions are made to change this policy.

  Vaccinations (Compensation)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what compensation has been paid to children who have suffered severe damage by vaccinations since 1970; [122160]

  (2) what outstanding cases for compensation for severe damage resulting from childhood vaccinations there are; and what measures he is taking to draw these claims to a close. [122156]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Vaccine Damage payment scheme, which has been in place since 1979, provides a one-off payment to people severely disabled by vaccination against certain diseases. The scheme is not intended as compensation but is designed to ease the burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage, and their families. During the first six years of the scheme claims were accepted from people who had received vaccinations at any stage since 1948 (the creation of the NHS). The amounts payable since the inception of the scheme are as follows:

  £10,000 for claims made from 9 May 1978 until 15 August 1985

  £20,000 for claims made on or after 16 August 1985

  £30,000 for claims made on or after 15 April 1991

  £40,000 for claims made on or after 1 July 1998.

  There are 29 claims for Vaccine Damage Payments outstanding and one awaiting a reconsideration. There are 46 appeals awaiting hearing with the Appeals Service. All cases are being actively considered by the Department's Vaccine Damage Payments Unit or the Appeals Service as appropriate.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to the Post Office, instructing sub-postmasters not to issue forms encouraging customers to opt for benefit payment at post offices. [122236]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have written no such letter.

  I did recently write a private letter to Colin Baker (General Secretary of the National Federation of Sub-postmasters) about payment of benefits by automated credit transfer. However, it is not Government policy to make private letters such as this public.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the documents and publications produced by his Department and Agencies that are available at sub-post offices. [121625]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following leaflets have been distributed to all post offices in Great Britain:

  Leaflet

  Benefit Rates

  (Leaflet GL23)

  Financial Help If You Work Or Are Looking For Work

  (WK1)

  Sick Or Disabled

  (SD1)

  Babies and Children

  (BC1)

  Retirement

  (RM1)

  For Parents Who Live Apart

  (CSA 2001)

  New Deal For Parents

  (LP15)

  Help With Your Rent

  (GL16)

  You have A Choice

  (PAY10)

  40W
  "You Have A Choice" is a joint leaflet produced with the Post Office to advise customers on the payment of benefits.

  In addition posters have been distributed for display. Which posters are displayed depends on whether a Post Office Point Of Sale (POPOS) display board and viewing area are available in the post office. The distributed posters are:

  Poster

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (GL23P)

  Lone Parents

  (LP20P)

  Fraud Hotline Poster

  (NBFH0300)

  Help With Your Rent and Council Tax

  (GL16/17P)

  Welsh bilingual versions of all leaflets and posters are available in Wales.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide illustrative examples of cases where taxes and benefits interact to produce a replacement ratio of(a) 70 per cent. and above, (b) 80 per cent. and above, (c) 90 per cent. and above, and (d) 100 per cent. and above on the same basis as figure 36 in the departmental report, Cm 4614, p.80. [120383]

  Mr. Rooker
  Replacement ratios in Figure 36 of the latest departmental report were calculated by micro-simulation modelling, using a sample of households from the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey. The examples are drawn from the sample underpinning the latest estimates, for 1999–2000. They are shown by 10 per cent. bands. As in Figure 36, the examples are for the head of household only where the head of the household works 30 hours or more a week, and are based on income levels after housing costs.

  70 per cent. to 79 per cent. ratio: a single person with no children and an in work income after income tax (£5), National Insurance contributions (£5) and housing costs (£41) of £71 per week, and an income out of work from contributory Jobseeker's Allowance of £51 (replacement ratio 73 per cent.).

  80 per cent. to 89 per cent. ratio: a single person with no children and an in work income after income tax (£4), National Insurance contributions (£5) and housing costs (£48) of £64 per week, and an income out of work from contributory Jobseeker's Allowance of £51 (replacement ratio 81 per cent.).

  90 per cent. to 99 per cent. ratio: the head of household in a benefit unit with two earners and two children and a combined in work income of £389 per week, after income tax (£33), National Insurance contributions (£23) and housing costs (£45), and including Child Benefit (£24) and Family Credit (£4), and an out of work income of £271 per week, including contributory Jobseeker's Allowance (£51), Child Benefit (£24), Family Credit (£78) and the partner's original earnings (£172). (replacement ratio 94 per cent.).

  100 per cent. + ratio: the head of household in a couple benefit unit with one earner and one child and a combined in work income of £4 per week, after income tax (£18),

  41W
  National Insurance contributions (£13) and housing costs (£217), and including Child Benefit (£14), and an out of work income of £7 per week, including contributory Jobseeker's Allowance (£51), income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (£159), Child Benefit (££14). (replacement ratio 186 per cent.).

  Pensions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what co-operation the European Commission is seeking from the Government in respect of(a) its objective of modernising the system of pensions and social protection in member states, and if such modernisation is to extend to applicant member states and (b) its intention to establish a legal framework for supplementary pensions. [121635]

  Mr. Rooker
  Heads of State and Government agreed at the Lisbon Special Summit in March that social protection systems should be adapted as part of an active welfare state to ensure that work pays, and that they should be sustainable in the long-term in the face of an ageing population. It was agreed at the Summit that the High Level Working Party on social protection, of which the Commission is a member along with representatives from all member states, should arrange a study on the future long-term evolution of social protection, with particular attention on pensions. The Commission has indicated it will produce a new Communication on modernising social protection, concentrating on pensions, later this year. The High Level Working Party is due to produce a progress report on social protection by December at the Nice summit; and a more substantial report for the Spring Council 2001.

  In December 1999, in the context of modernising social protection, the Council of Ministers concluded that the Community should pay particular attention to a balanced economic and social development in the applicant countries in the process towards an enlargement of the European Union. The High Level Working Party is considering ways of involving applicant countries in their work.

  The Commission's Communication "Financial Services: Implementing the Framework for Financial Markets: Action Plan" (COM(1999)232) noted that the Commission would propose a Directive on the prudential supervision of pension funds. The Commission has held informal discussions with member states.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been (1) the highest compensation payment paid to date by the Child Support Agency; [121475]

  (2) the total amount of money paid by way of compensation payments by the Child Support Agency. [121476]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.
  42W
  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Tom Cox, dated May 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about compensation payments paid by the Child Support Agency.In common with other DSS Agencies, the CSA operates a discretionary "special payments" scheme to compensate customers for actual financial losses, or any suffering and distress caused in cases of maladministration. For CSA these arrangements cover maintenance lost to a parent with care (PWC), as well as expenses incurred by PWCs or non-resident parents (NRPs) in dealing with the Agency. It is also possible to make consolatory payments in recognition of the less tangible effects of maladministration, such as inconvenience, embarrassment and the worry and distress that can result from delay and errors.The largest individual amount of compensation paid was £27,393.60. This figure did not include any consolatory element but represented monies due to a parent with care, which would have been paid by the non-resident parent, had it not been for the Agency's maladministration. It also included a payment for loss of use of monies (interest). Each case is considered on its own merits and payments of this magnitude are particularly exceptional. The average payment during 1998/99 was £95.The largest individual consolatory payment is £1,150, however, on average this type of payment is around £133.Since its inception, the Agency has made compensation payments to a value of £8.6 million (figure to end February 2000). During 1998/99 the Agency paid out £ 4.3 million in compensation payments. Evidence this year shows that this amount is falling. From April 1999 to the end of February 2000 the Agency had paid out £2.4 million for the 1999/2000 financial year. The main reason why this figure was so high in recent years is that the Agency has been clearing the backlog of cases that had built up during the early years of its operations. As the Agency is now more up to date with its work, payments of this scale are unlikely to recur.I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received from hon. Members with regard to constituents who had been awarded disability benefit for life but have subsequently had it withdrawn or downgraded; and if he will make a statement. [121927]

  Mr. Bayley
  Prior to 12 January 2000 the legislation that applied to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) allowed awards to be made for life or for a limited period. Although some awards were therefore given "for life", this terminology was misleading because the law has always allowed for awards of DLA to be altered where, for example:

  (a) a person's care or mobility needs had increased or reduced;

  (b) there had either been a mistake, or ignorance regarding the relevant facts; or

  (c) there had been an error of law.

  These rules are the same as those that apply to changes of almost all Social Security benefits. However the "life award" terminology in DLA was in this respect anomalous and created uncertainty. As a result, many representations were received from hon. Members on behalf of constituents who had been given life awards which were subsequently withdrawn or downgraded.

  To help clarify the nature of these awards, references to awards made for life were removed from the legislation by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, and replaced with the words "indefinite award".

  43W
  This made the language used consistent with that which applies to other benefits. This change was welcomed by the Social Security Select Committee in its third report of the 1998–99 session.

  Although the terminology has been changed to help clarify the situation, indefinite awards are made in the same circumstances in which a life award would previously be made. The rules that apply when an indefinite award is altered are the same that applied to life awards.

TREASURY

  Tax (People over 65)
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of tax revenues have been paid by people aged 65 years and above in each year since 1979. [121015]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: It is possible to provide reliable and appropriate estimates only for income tax and capital gains tax, and only for years after 1990–91 following the introduction of independent taxation. The estimates are given in the table.

  Liabilities for individual income tax and capital gains tax payers: proportion relating to those aged 65 years and above

  year

  Percentage

  1990–91

  9.2

  1991–92

  9.1

  1992–93

  8.3

  1993–94

  7.5

  1994–95

  8.1

  1995–96

  7.9

  1996–97

  7.7

  1997–981

  8.2

  1998–991

  8.4

  1999–20001

  7.6

  1Provisional

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes, the capital gains tax assessments and Self Assessment extracts. The provisional estimates are consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of increasing the age-related personal allowance for people aged(a) 65 to 74 years and (b) 75 years and over by (i) £500, (ii) £1,000, (iii) £1,500 and (iv) £2,000; and how many people would cease to pay income tax in each case. [121017]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The costs and effects of raising the age-related personal allowances in 2000–01 are shown in the tables:

  Revenue effect in 2000–01

  £ million

  Increasing personal allowance by

  £500

  £1,000

  £1,500

  £2,000

  for 65–74s

  -150

  -310

  -450

  -600

  for 75s and over

  -100

  -190

  -270

  -350

  44W

  Change in taxpayer numbers in 2000–01

  Thousand

  Increasing personal allowances by

  £500

  £1,000

  £1,500

  £2,000

  for 65–74s

  -170

  -310

  -450

  -600

  for 75s and over

  -130

  -240

  -330

  -400

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the carbon dioxide which will be saved by his proposals for(a) general vehicle excise duty and (b) company car taxation. [120286]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]: As indicated in table 6.2 of the 2000 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, the reforms to company car taxation (and general vehicle excise duty) announced by the Chancellor in the recent Budget are expected to result in emission savings of up to 1.0 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) by 2010.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [121571]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers on 8 May.

  The Council agreed Exceptional Financial Assistance for Montenegro in the form of a 20 million euro grant. This must come from within the existing category IV ceiling.

  The Council broadly welcomed the Commission's report on the implementation of the 1999 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) and the Commission recommendation for the 2000 BEPGs.

  The Commission presented its priorities for the 2001 EC Budget. Most Finance Ministers, myself included, rejected proposals to revise the financial perspectives.

  The Council reached a political agreement on the amended proposal for a directive on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions. The directive will be adopted once it is clear of all scrutiny reserves, and the final formalities are completed.

  The Council agreed and published an opinion on the update to the Austrian stability programme for 2000–03.

  The Council took note of a Commission presentation of its strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system.

  Banana Dispute
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on tax revenues to the Exchequer of the banana dispute between the EU and the US. [121710]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No estimate has been made.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the arrangements whereby rebate on the climate change levy will be made available to the horticulture industry. [121773]

  Mr. Timms
  The administrative arrangements for the repayment of climate change levy to horticultural users will be included in regulations to be published later this year.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government will announce the kind of financial incentives they propose to make available to those companies that agree to take on binding emission targets. [R] [121772]

  Mr. Timms
  In the recent Budget, the Government announced that they see merit in the case put forward by the business led Emissions Trading Group (ETG) that some form of financial incentive will be required for companies to take on binding emission targets that generate additional emission reductions.

  Since the Budget, the Government have continued to work closely with the ETG on the many complex issues that remain to be resolved, including the form such a financial incentive might take. Further announcements on financial incentives will depend on the progress the ETG and the Government can make in dealing with these outstanding issues.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how individual companies in the horticulture sector may apply for rebates for the Climate Change Levy; and on what basis such rebate will be made. [121774]

  Mr. Timms
  The administrative arrangements for the repayment of climate change levy to horticultural users will be included in regulations to be published later this year.

  The basis for the rebate is set out in paragraph 41 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Bill.

  EU (UK Contribution)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the authority is for payment of the UK's contribution to the EU; and how the amount is calculated. [121810]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Authority for payment of UK contributions to the EU is contained in the EC (Finance) Act 1995. Contributions are calculated in accordance with the Decision of the Council of the European Communities on the system of the Communities' Own Resources (31 October 1994). Further information on the Own Resources system can be found at Section E: Community Revenue of the White Paper European Community Finances (Cm 4382).

  EU Strategy
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what request for consultation he has received from the Commission of the European Union concerning(a) its intention to consider future strategy for changes to (i) pan-community taxation, (ii) the
  46W
  Customs Union and (iii) changes to the current system of value added tax and (b) the views of the Government on the need for such changes. [121634]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Commission, in considering what legislation to propose, consults member states continuously including through established working groups. The Government consider each proposal on its merits and details are lodged with the scrutiny committees.

  Eurocheque System
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the withdrawal of British banks from the Eurocheque system on the cost and ease of transferring small payments within the European Union by(a) small businesses and (b) private individuals. [121484]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None. There has been an 80 per cent. drop in the use and acceptance of eurocheques in the 1990s. This has been matched by significant growth in the use of alternative methods—automated teller machines, debit cards and credit cards—of making payments and obtaining cash abroad. The Association for Payment Clearing Services, the industry body for the UK's banks and building societies which oversees money transmission systems, have advised that the majority of UK banks are able to offer cost effective alternatives to eurocheques.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many manufacturing jobs have ceased to exist in the United Kingdom since May 1997. [120869]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Estimates of manufacturing jobs are compiled by the Office for National Statistics. I refer my hon. Friend to tables B12 and B18 of Labour Market Trends.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many families are receiving the Working Families Tax Credit; and of these, how many were previously receiving family credit; [121689]

  (2) how many Working Families Tax Credit recipients are men in couples where family credit was previously in payment to the female in the couple; and what is the average weekly value of the Working Families Tax Credit in payment in such cases. [121685]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: Up to the end of March 2000, there had been 1,030,200 awards made of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC). The families in receipt of 574,300 of these awards had previously been in receipt of Family Credit (FC) awards that ended immediately before the start of the WFTC awards.

  It is not possible, without incurring disproportionate cost, to estimate how many such WFTC awards are paid to men in couples where the previous FC award was paid to the female in the couple; or the average weekly value of such awards.
  47W
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average amount by which the incomes of families with incomes of less than £12,000 per annum have increased as a result of the Working Families Tax Credit [120971]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For awards of Working Families Tax Credit made by the end of March, the average award made to families with gross weekly earnings up to £230 was £81.53 per week.

  Scanning Equipment
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation he has(a) made and (b) commissioned of the potential health risks from the use of (i) high-energy and (ii) low-energy scanning equipment for the detection of smuggled goods and substances at ports of entry. [121794]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Before any scanning equipment is used by Customs and Excise, a full health and safety evaluation is carried out by an independent consultant to ensure compliance with all UK health and safety legislation.

  Child Care Credit
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the take-up of the child care credit in the Working Families Tax Credit. [120959]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The child care tax credit component of the Working Families Tax Credit has been particularly successful, with about 103,000 recipients in awards made to the end of March. At its peak, in August 1999, 47,000 families claimed the child care disregard in Family Credit.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the advisory cost limit of £500 for answering written parliamentary questions; and if he will make a statement. [122509]

  Mr. Timms
  The advisory cost limit was last increased in 1997–21 July 1997,Official Report, column 442W—and is to be further increased to £550 from today.

  The purpose and application of the advisory cost limit remains unchanged. It is intended to act as a threshold for disproportionate cost parliamentary questions. Any written question where the marginal cost of preparing the answer is considered likely to exceed the threshold may be refused in whole or in part on the grounds of disproportionate cost. Alternatively the Minister may decide that the question is to be answered irrespective of cost. There is no advisory limit for oral questions.

  The advisory limit continues to be based on eight times the average marginal cost for written questions, which is now £70, rounded down to the nearest £50 for convenience of application.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average cost of answering(a) oral and (b) written parliamentary questions in the last three months. [122070]
  48W
  Mr. Timms
  As at April 1999, the latest date for which information is available, the average cost of answering an oral and written parliamentary question was £282 and £121 respectively.

  State Pension
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his oral statement of 21 March 2000,Official Report, column 867, if the increases in the basic state pension forecast will be the minimum applied irrespective of the retail price index for September 2000. [120604]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  As our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his budget statement on 21 March:
  Based on forecast rates of inflation, we can expect the pension rise in 2001 to be more than £2 for single pensioners and over £3 for couples—[Official Report, 21 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 867.]

  Our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to review rates of benefit annually, the outcome of that review will be announced in the Autumn as normal.

  European Institute of Public Administration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) level of public funding, (b) purpose and (c) United Kingdom-sponsored activities of the European Institute of Public Administration. [121503]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK subscription to EIPA for the financial year 1999–2000 was 97,000 euros, equivalent to £67,550.

  The EIPA is a non-profit making organisation, which serves public administration in member states of the European Union. It supports the practical management of European integration through the provision of training, applied research and consultancy at a European level as a complement to national and subnational programmes. It is also dedicated to supporting the process of the accession of future member states to the European Union. EIPA is currently undertaking a review of its structure and activities which is due to report in June.

  There are no specific UK sponsored activities of the EIPA but the UK plays a full part in its activities by sending delegates to courses and seminars and through the Director of Recruitment and People Development in the Cabinet Office sitting in both the EIPA Board of Governors and the Review Committee.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police Area Crime Rate
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much crime rose in the Metropolitan police area during the year to 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [122093]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the total number of notifiable offences in the Metropolitan police district for the year ending 31 March 2000 was some 12.6 per cent. higher than that in the previous financial year.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the Metropolitan Police Service's report on Policing during the Chinese state visit; what input Government Departments had to the report; and if he will make a statement. [121497]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Service's review into the policing arrangements for the state visit by the President of China was put into the public domain on 17 March 2000, and copies were placed in the Library.

  The report was written without reference to any person or body outside the Metropolitan Police Service. Government Departments had sight of the report prior to publication.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the admission by the Metropolitan police that some of its officers behaved unlawfully during the Chinese state visit of October 1999; [121801]

  (2) for what reasons the Metropolitan police's review of policing of the Chinese state visit during October 1999 did not identify behaviour that it later found to be unlawful. [121800]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that the statement made by the Metropolitan police in the context of court proceedings was based on further legal advice concerning the powers available to them under the byelaws applying in the Royal Parks.

  This indicated that flags and banners could not be removed from protesters where such items were being used solely for peaceful protest purposes.

  The review by the Metropolitan police concerned the operational policing arrangements for the visit and did not benefit from the additional legal advice.

  Illegal Entrants
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2000,Official Report, columns 310–11W, on persons served with notice as clandestine illegal entrants, if he will indicate in each case how many of such persons have claimed asylum. [121572]

  Mrs. Roche
  Precise information on the numbers of those persons issued with notice of illegal entry as clandestine entrants who had also claimed asylum is not contained in the central records and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, it is possible to deduce from the available data that at least 81 per cent. of those clandestine illegal entrants who were issued with a notice of illegal entry between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000 had also applied for asylum. It should be noted that this is a bare minimum and the actual percentage may well be higher than this.

  Rape and Sexual Assault
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 416W, on
  50W
  rape and sexual assault, when the Sexual Offences Review will report; and when the proposals will be published for consultation. [121694]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The sexual offences review has completed its work and reported to Ministers. I hope that its proposals will be published for consultation shortly.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 478W, on rape and sexual assault, what organisations have provided submissions to the Review of Sexual Offences relating to the law and rape including psychological and physical impact of rape on victims. [121695]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following organisations provided submissions and evidence to the review in relation to the law on rape and sexual assault:

  Action Concern Empathy

  University of Cambridge—Institute of Criminology

  Campaign to End Rape

  English Collective of Prostitutes

  Europap

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe Rape Crisis

  Harrogate and District Women's Aid

  Hull Women's Centre

  Jewish Care

  ManKind

  National Association for the Treatment of Offenders

  University of North London—Child and Women Abuse Studies

  Nottingham Rape Crisis Centre

  Rape Crisis Federation of England and Wales

  Rape Crisis (North Staffordshire)

  St. Mary's Sexual Assault Referral Centre

  Sheffield Hallam University—School of Law

  Soroptimist International

  South Essex Rape and Incest Crisis Centre

  Committee of the Joint Council of Stipendiary Magistrates

  The Suzy Lamplugh Trust

  University of Teesside—School of Social Sciences

  The Tizard Centre

  United Kingdom Men's Movement

  Women Against Rape

  Women's Education Partnership

  Wyre Forest Women's Aid

  Young Women's Christian Association of Great Britain

  In addition the review received many submissions from individuals on the subject of rape and sexual assault.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 484W, on domestic violence, if the improvements in systems which will allow the information on domestic assaults to be collated have been made; and if the Office Court Proceedings Database is available on line or in a format available to the public. [121696]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The improvements referred to in the reply were with respect to police systems for recording domestic assaults. These have not yet been made and will be undertaken as part of the work associated with implementation of the National Strategy for Police Information Systems.
  51W
  Aggregated data from the Court Proceedings Database are published annually in the command paper "Criminal statistics, England and Wales" together with four supplementary volumes. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Some aggregated data can be found on the Home Office website and more will appear in the future. Detailed information is available on floppy disk in Excel format, this being known as the Home Office Court Appearances System (HOCAS). Copies of the relevant disks are available in the Library.

  Corpus Juris
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is regarding Corpus Juris; and if he will make a statement. [121670]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The House of Lords European Union Committee's inquiry into Corpus Juris concluded in May last year that the Corpus Juris proposals do not offer an acceptable way forward. The Government share that view. Although we fully share the objective of the Corpus Juris paper to provide more effective remedies against fraud affecting the European Community budget, the Government do not agree that this should be done by "unifying" the laws and procedures of all member states. We believe that the aims of Corpus Juris can best be achieved by improvements in judicial co-operation between member states as agreed at the Tampere European Council, including mutual recognition of judicial decisions and the creation of Eurojust.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on mutual recognition in relation to Corpus Juris. [121666]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On the basis of a United Kingdom initiative, European Union Heads of Government at the Tampere European Council endorsed the concept of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and stated that it should become the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union.

  Unlike Corpus Juris, mutual recognition does not involve "unifying" the laws and procedures of the member states of the Union. Decisions taken in other European Union jurisdictions could be recognised and enforced despite the differences in the member states' legal systems.

  The Government have made it clear that some agreed safeguards would be necessary in order to protect civil rights; for example for any changes to extradition arrangements between member states. The need for common minimum standards, respecting the fundamental legal principles of member states, was also recognised at Tampere.

  Macpherson Report
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to ensure that policies regarding Roma, gipsies and travellers are included in action plans following the Macpherson report. [121518]

  Mr. Straw
  In March 1999, I published an Action Plan detailing the Government's response to all 70 recommendations of Sir William Macpherson's Report on 52W
  the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Details of progress on these recommendations can be found in my First Annual Report on Progress on this Action Plan, published in February this year, a copy of which is in the Library. None of the recommendations of the report were specific to particular ethnic or cultural groups, and the action taken has accordingly been targeted equally at all minority ethnic communities.

  Roma
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanism he has established to collect data concerning human rights abuses documented against Roma, by country; how many Roma(a) sought asylum in the United Kingdom, by country of origin and (b) had their asylum claims (i) upheld and (ii) denied in the United Kingdom in the last five years. [121519]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Country Information and Policy Unit in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate obtains from a wide variety of sources information on issues which are raised in the asylum process, including the question of human rights abuses against Roma. Country assessments based on this information are published on the top 35 asylum-producing countries. The assessments are revised and updated every six months.

  The majority of Roma asylum seekers in the United Kingdom come from the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. During the period January 1995 to January 1999, there were 2,600 asylum applications from nationals of the Czech Republic. 6,110 asylum applications were received from nationals of Poland and 1,250 received from Slovakia. A visa regime was introduced on 8 October 1998 in respect of Slovakia. During the period January 1995 to May 1999, 490 Czech and 910 Slovak asylum applications were refused. There were no grants of asylum during this period. During the same period 3,355 Polish asylum applications were refused. One or two Polish applicants were granted asylum in each of the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 although our information does not show on what basis asylum was granted. It is not possible to give decisions with a nationality breakdown after May 1999.

  Schengen Information System
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for. the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 May 2000,Official Report, column 209W, on the Schengen Information System, what part that system can play in the fight against crime, fraud and drug trafficking in the European Union; and what constraints exist in the use of this system by member states not within the Schengen arrangements. [121639]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Schengen Information System exists to support the substantive provisions of the Schengen Implementing Convention, which include police and judicial co-operation between participating member states.

  Only those member states which have acceded to the Schengen acquis have access to the Schengen Information System. In accordance with separate arrangements with the European Union member states, Norway and Iceland are also associated with Schengen co-operation, including access to the Schengen Information System.
  53W
  In line with its application to participate in parts of the Schengen acquis relating to law enforcement and judicial co-operation, the United Kingdom would have access to the corresponding parts of the Schengen Information System database.

  Police (Crown Insignia)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces in England and Wales have the Crown as part of the(a) crest and (b) cap badge. [121462]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that 41 forces in England and Wales incorporate a crown in their crest, and that all 43 do so in their cap badge.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 May 2000,Official Report, column 152W, on animal experiments, who funds the programmes looking into the development of treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. [121488]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents disclosure of detailed information about individual research programmes licensed under the Act that has been given in confidence.

  Section 24 is being reviewed in the context of the freedom of information legislation.

  Animal Procedures
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on public accessibility of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate's databases on cost-benefit assessments. [121958]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To meet section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, any application to use protected animals in research must be subjected to a detailed cost/benefit assessment by Home Office inspectors. The likely adverse effects on the animals concerned must be weighed against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the proposed programme of work.

  Section 24 of the Act currently prohibits the release of an application and the cost/benefit assessment. The status of the inspectors' advice to Ministers, on the basis of the cost/benefit assessment, is being examined as part of our review of section 24 and freedom of information. An electronic database of precedents and key cases is maintained by the Inspectorate for internal reference. This comprises material that has been provided in confidence and its status will also be considered as part of our review.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to propose further amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. [122287]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As I indicated in the debate on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill on 8 May 2000,Official Report, columns 608–10, I do intend to add a new Schedule to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill listing the public authorities which may use directed
  54W
  surveillance and covert sources. There will be other changes related to the use and oversight of these powers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I also expect a very small number of minor and technical amendments. The Government continue to engage with interested parties, including industry, and look forward to consideration of the Bill by the other place. These discussions may lead to further amendments.

  Constabulary Inspectorate
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the manual explaining the new inspection model for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary has been published. [122285]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The manual explaining the new inspection model for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has not been published. However, the manual has been sent to all police forces and police authorities and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Public Relations and Marketing
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials in his Department were engaged in public relations and marketing work in(a) March 1997 and (b) March 2000. [122286]

  Mr. Straw
  The nearest monthly figures I am able to provide are for April 1997 when there were a total of eight information and senior information officers employed in Home Office Publicity.

  There was a total of eight information and senior information officers employed in Home Office Publicity in March 2000.

  Police College, Hendon
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the residential and non-residential training courses provided by the Police College at Hendon since January and the number of officers attending each course. [122272]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the tables, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Course title

  Number of Courses

  Number of attending

  Non-residential training courses provided by the Police College at Hendon since January 2000

  1 Armoured Landrover

  4

  12

  2 CAD Module

  12

  119

  3 Check Tests

  7

  8

  4 CJU Financial Awareness

  2

  15

  5 Control Room Foundation

  3

  20

  6 Control Room Trainer

  3

  20

  7 Controller Module

  5

  35

  8 Covert Blues and Twos

  11

  51

  9 Crime Prevention Design Adviser

  2

  20

  10 CRIMINT

  3

  22

  11 Drivers Assessors Programme

  8

  34

  12 HOLMES (Non-Residential)

  26

  209

  13 Intranet Publisher

  6

  53

  14 Introduction to Management

  4

  51

  15 Introduction to Training Assessment

  4

  48

  16 INUIT

  11

  101

  55W

  Course title

  Number of courses

  Number attending

  17 Leadership

  1

  12

  18 Managing Change

  1

  7

  19 Managing Team

  1

  6

  20 MSS Trainer

  2

  15

  21 Officer Safety Instructor Training

  2

  37

  22 Officer Safety Instructor Stage 1 Development

  21

  265

  23 OTIS V4 Trainer

  22

  180

  24 Performance Management

  2

  12

  25 PIMS

  2

  13

  26 PNC Module

  12

  120

  27 PNC on OTIS Trainer

  3

  18

  28 PNC Operator

  4

  34

  29 Presentation Skills

  1

  6

  30 Probationary Standard Response

  11

  90

  31 Problem Solving and Decision Making

  1

  6

  32 PSIS

  4

  33

  33 Radio Telephony

  59

  279

  34 Recruit Foundation Course for Traffic Wardens

  2

  17

  35 Role Players Training for Traffic Wardens

  1

  7

  36 RSIS

  5

  38

  37 Standard Response (Assessed)

  19

  85

  38 Street Duty Tutor for Traffic Wardens

  1

  12

  39 Tough Interviewing

  1

  6

  40 Trainer Development Part 1

  5

  49

  41 Trainer Development Part 2

  1

  11

  42 Trainer Foundation Part 3

  3

  29

  43 Tutoring and Coaching

  1

  8

  Total

  299

  2,213

  Residential Training Courses provided by the Police College at Hendon since January 2000:

  1 Advanced Traffic Patrol

  2

  15

  2 Advanced Car

  7

  61

  3 Audocrime

  7

  60

  4 Community Safety Unit

  3

  83

  5 Company Fraud and Financial Investigation

  1

  10

  6 Custody Officer

  16

  192

  7 Detective Foundation

  2

  153

  8 Family Liaison

  1

  16

  9 Financial Intelligence

  1

  15

  10 HOLMES (residential)

  4

  50

  11 Inspectors Foundation

  4

  36

  12 National Autocrime

  4

  32

  13 National Negotiators

  1

  20

  14 National Protection

  2

  12

  15 National Undercover Course

  1

  20

  16 Pre-Surveillance (Fast Car)

  2

  12

  17 PSU Carrier

  10

  60

  18 Response Motorcyle

  6

  54

  19 Scence Management and Examination Course

  1

  14

  20 Senior Investigating Officer

  5

  65

  21 Senior Investigating Officers Development

  1

  15

  22 Sergeants Foundation

  11

  128

  23 Sexual Offences Investigative Techniques

  3

  45

  24 Standard Accident Investigation

  4

  31

  25 Standard Financial Investigation

  2

  30

  26 Standard Traffic Patrol

  4

  29

  27 Surveillance

  2

  24

  28 Test Purchases

  2

  53

  29 TRAFFAC

  3

  22

  Total

  112

  1,357

  56W

  Police recruit intakes (residential) training courses provided by the Police College at Hendon since January 2000

  Intake date

  Number attending

  4 January

  108

  7 February

  62

  13 March

  65

  17 April

  98

  28 May

  1125

  2 July

  1125

  6 August

  1125

  10 September

  1125

  15 October

  1125

  19 November

  1125

  24 December

  1125

  1These numbers are target numbers

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the monthly recruitment intake target for the Police College at Hendon for 2000–01. [122277]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is shown in the following table, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Month

  Target

  April

  100

  May

  125

  July

  125

  August

  125

  September

  125

  October

  125

  November

  125

  December

  125

  February-2001

  130

  March-2001

  130

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers applied to join training at the Police College at Hendon in the April and May intakes. [122274]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis tells me that 98 applicants began training at Hendon on 17 April 2000. The exact figure for the next intake will not be known until the course begins on 28 May: the intake target is 125.

  Warrants
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) interception warrants and (b) modifications of warrants he authorised in 1999. [122280]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The annual reports of the Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 list the number of interception warrants issued by the Home Secretary in the course of each year. The report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 1999 has not yet been published. However, as in 1998, the Commissioner Lord Nolan has agreed to release the figures requested in advance of publication. The numbers to be published are:

  (a) 1,734

  (b) 565

  Special Constables
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were recruited by each police force in England and Wales, and how many left, between 30 September 1999 and 31 December 1999. [122298]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  These figures are collected from police forces on a half-yearly basis as at 30 September and 31 March each financial year. The latest period for which figures are available is 1 April 1999 to 30 September 1999. The number of special constables in each police force area in England and Wales who were recruited and who left during that period were:

  Force

  Recruited

  Left

  Avon and Somerset

  14

  79

  Bedfordshire

  11

  17

  Cambridgeshire

  29

  31

  Cheshire

  8

  29

  City of London

  8

  6

  Cleveland

  9

  18

  Cumbria

  11

  22

  Derbyshire

  15

  29

  Devon and Cornwall

  75

  60

  Dorset

  15

  16

  Durham

  24

  15

  Dyfed-Powys

  6

  19

  Essex

  38

  43

  Gloucestershire

  6

  9

  Greater Manchester

  53

  78

  Gwent

  6

  9

  Hampshire

  73

  113

  Hertfordshire

  21

  21

  Humberside

  14

  15

  Kent

  54

  96

  Lancashire

  20

  38

  Leicestershire

  18

  31

  Lincolnshire

  14

  8

  Merseyside

  41

  3

  Metropolitan Police

  11

  39

  Norfolk

  23

  43

  Northamptonshire

  13

  28

  Northumbria

  27

  37

  North Wales

  10

  67

  North Yorkshire

  22

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  13

  21

  South Wales

  12

  21

  South Yorkshire

  20

  34

  Staffordshire

  20

  21

  Suffolk

  53

  53

  Surrey

  8

  26

  Sussex

  19

  51

  Thames Valley

  35

  63

  Warwickshire

  15

  38

  West Mercia

  46

  24

  West Midlands

  55

  53

  West Yorkshire

  93

  80

  Wiltshire

  11

  13

  Total

  1,059

  1,555

  1A number of successful applicants were awaiting a training course towards the end of 1999 and were not counted as recruited until the course commenced.

  2Due to boundary restructuring applications during the relevant period were not processed until the end of 1999.

  The figures have been supplied by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

  We are addressing the decline in numbers. In March we funded a two-week national radio and press recruitment campaign at a cost of £700,000. We have commissioned
  58W
  some research into what attracts people to the Special Constabulary to help inform the next phase of recruitment activity. The findings are due shortly. In addition, in the next few months we will be providing better sick pay arrangements for injury on duty and improving expenses and allowances. We will also be introducing a scheme to give special constables access to free legal advice and representation if subject to criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in each police force in England and Wales on 31 December 1999. [122301]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest date for which figures are available is 30 September 1999. The number of special constables in post in each police force area in England and Wales on that date was:

  Special constables in post on 30 September 1999

  Force

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  482

  Bedfordshire

  148

  Cambridgeshire

  293

  Cheshire

  358

  City of London

  66

  Cleveland

  108

  Cumbria

  193

  Derbyshire

  303

  Devon and Cornwall

  908

  Dorset

  287

  Durham

  169

  Dyfed-Powys

  237

  Essex

  528

  Gloucestershire

  221

  Greater Manchester

  498

  Gwent

  110

  Hampshire

  720

  Hertfordshire

  232

  Humberside

  263

  Kent

  484

  Lancashire

  397

  Leicestershire

  303

  Lincolnshire

  218

  Merseyside

  467

  Metropolitan Police

  1,173

  Norfolk

  317

  Northamptonshire

  210

  Northumbria

  356

  North Wales

  262

  North Yorkshire

  245

  Nottinghamshire

  405

  South Wales

  331

  South Yorkshire

  236

  Staffordshire

  460

  Suffolk

  420

  Surrey

  205

  Sussex

  377

  Thames Valley

  514

  Warwickshire

  260

  West Mercia

  512

  West Midlands

  697

  West Yorkshire

  572

  Wiltshire

  182

  Total

  15,727

  The figures have been supplied by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

  Metropolitan Police Officers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many constables have had less than two years police service in the Metropolitan police in each month since January. [122271]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the table, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis:

  Constables with less than two years police service since January 2000

  Month

  Total

  January

  2,221

  February

  2,205

  March

  2,242

  April

  2,326

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the Metropolitan police have(a) resigned, (b) applied to retire on ill health grounds or have retired and (c) transferred to another force since 1 January. [122273]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that since 1 January 2000, 130 of his officers have resigned, 89 have retired on ill-health grounds and 107 have transferred to other forces.

  Metropolitan Police Stations
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police stations in the Metropolitan police area which(a) closed and (b) reduced hours in 1999. [122288]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that six police stations closed during 1999: Biggin Hill, Chislehurst, Westcombe Park, Collier Row, Lee Road and Barnes. A further six reduced opening hours: Muswell Hill, Highgate, St. Ann's, Brockley, Banstead (now part of Surrey Constabulary) and Tooting.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police stations in the Metropolitan police area which are planned(a) to close and (b) to reduce hours in 2000. [122289]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that Putney police station closed in January of this year. No further closures are planned for 2000. Opening hours will be reduced at Shepherd's Bush and Stratford.

  Police Numbers (Wastage)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what wastage in police numbers has taken place since September 1999 in each police force; and if he will make a statement. [122279]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information about wastage and other changes in police numbers, between 30 September 1999 and 31 March 2000, is not yet complete as a number of forces are still to submit returns. We plan to publish 60W
  data on police numbers as soon as they are complete and have been verified. Our current plans are to publish these data by 30 June.

  Metropolitan Police (Civilian Staff)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilian staff there have been in the Metropolitan Police Service in each month since January. [122276]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the table, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Month

  Civil staff (full-time equivalent)

  January

  10,791

  February

  10,782

  March

  10,759

  April

  10,666

  Press Officers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers were employed by his Department in(a) March 1997 and (b) March 2000. [122299]

  Mr. Straw
  The nearest monthly figures I am able to provide are for April 1997 when there were 14 press officers employed in the Home Office press office. This figure includes one trainee, a Higher Executive Officer and a Chief Immigration Officer on secondment.

  As at March 2000 there were 17. This figure includes three trainees, a Chief Immigration Officer and a Higher Executive Officer on secondment to the Home Office Press Office.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic wardens there have been in the Metropolitan Police Service area in each month since January. [122275]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the table, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Month

  Metropolitan Polic Service traffic wardens

  January

  845

  February

  837

  March

  826

  April

  809

  Bramshill National Police Training
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the equal opportunities audit of the Extended Interview Process to attend Bramshill National Police Training will be completed; and if he intends to publish the report. [122282]
  61W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The report should be circulated to interested stakeholders in July after validation of the research data.

  There are no plans for the report to be published more widely but I will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy when it is circulated.

  Police (DNA Samples)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in England and Wales(a) invites and (b) requires their officers to give DNA samples; and if he will make a statement. [122270]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At the Police Advisory Board meeting on 2 February 2000, agreement was reached on the terms of a protocol governing the establishment of a voluntary Police Personnel DNA Elimination Database to aid the elimination of innocent contamination at crime scenes by front line police staff.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has written to forces to request the sampling of nominated front line staff by 31 May. All sampling for the Elimination Database is voluntary.

  Crime Reduction Partnerships
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to improve the attendance of(a) social services departments and (b) health authorities at meetings of crime reduction partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [122283]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have put in place a support programme for local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, part of which is aimed at maximising the involvement of all the statutory partners. As an example, we have recently launched a series of conferences organised jointly by the Home Office and the National Health Service Executive, for health service managers to increase awareness of the mutual advantages of partnerships working under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are planned to be recruited in each police force area under the Crime Fighting Fund in the first two years of the scheme. [122281]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), on 6 April 2000,Official Report, columns 595–96W. I hope to make the promised announcement shortly.

  Police Helicopters
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 314W, on police use of helicopters, how many of the 200 arrests led to successful prosecutions. [122237]
  62W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Visitors (Financial Bonds)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce(a) the implementation date and (b) the level of financial bonds for overseas visitors. [121714]

  Mrs. Roche
  The proposed pilot study for financial bonds for visitors will begin in October. I hope to make an announcement on the design of the pilot study, including the level of the financial bond, very soon.

  Election Turnouts
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of experiments aimed at increasing voter turnout in elections. [122008]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the terms of the Representation of the People Act 2000, responsibility for evaluating the recent electoral pilot schemes rests with the local authorities concerned and we do not wish to prejudge that process.

  Early indications are that the all-postal ballot schemes had the most significant impact on voter turnout. However, this is not, of course, the only measure of success: the evaluation reports will also be concerned with such issues as ease of voting and increased administrative efficiency.

  London Mayoral Election
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what(a) written and (b) oral instructions were given to voters on how to vote using the supplementary vote system at the election for Mayor of London; whether voters were explicitly informed at any stage that they were not obliged to indicate more than one preference; and if he will make a statement; [121815]

  (2) if he, his Ministers or his officials (a) approved and (b) were informed of the wording of the instructions to voters on the supplementary vote system used in the election for Mayor of London that were (i) printed on ballot papers, (ii) displayed in polling stations and (iii) to be given orally to voters; [121959]

  (3) what discussions he, his Ministers or his officials have had with, and what representations he has received from (a) the Greater London Returning Officer, (b) Ministers and officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and (c) other persons regarding the wording of the instructions used at the election for Mayor of London; and if he will make a statement; [121832]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the instruction to voters on the ballot paper and in polling booths to indicate two preferences in the election for Mayor of London with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights; for what reason voters were not informed (a) on the ballot paper, (b) in the

  63W
  polling booth and (c) by staff at polling stations that they were not obliged to indicate two preferences; and if he will make a statement. [121818]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The wording to be printed on the Mayoral ballot papers and to be displayed in polling stations was set out in the Greater London Authority Elections (No. 2) Rules 2000 (SI 2000/427) which were approved by both Houses of Parliament. We have no reason to believe they were not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

  It has never been the practice to issue central instructions to polling station staff on what they should say to voters and none were issued on this occasion.

  Proportional Representation
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has conducted into the number of spoilt ballot papers under systems of proportional representation; and if he will make a statement. [122035]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: Approximately 0.3 per cent. of the ballot papers that were issued at the European Parliamentary elections and the Scottish Parliamentary elections last year were spoilt, broadly the same percentage as at the 1997 general election. I am advised that the figure for the elections to the Greater London Authority were significantly higher largely because a large number of ballot papers were left blank.

  St. George's Day
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations, at what cost, Government Departments made for celebrating St. George's Day this year. [120867]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]: Although Government Departments did not officially celebrate St. George's Day this year, I understand that some embassies and missions overseas and some English Heritage properties took the opportunity to give a St. George's Day theme to events taking place at that time. I further understand that the Coldstream Guards and possibly some other English regiments normally celebrate the Day, at the expense of regimental funds rather than the defence budget.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on drug treatment and testing orders; and if he will make a statement. [122508]

  Mr. Straw
  The order was piloted in three areas: Croydon, Liverpool and Gloucestershire. The pilots ended on 31 March 2000. The final evaluation is being undertaken by the South Bank University and is expected to be available in early July. I intend to publish that evaluation.
  64W
  The Government have made available £20 million in 2000–01 and £40 million 2001–02 under the Comprehensive Spending Review to fund Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs). Most of this money is being channelled through probation services, ring-fenced for the purpose, and each area has been advised of its allocation. Services have been instructed to prepare for roll out of the order subject to the final evaluation, and their preparations are well under way.

  We have indicated to probation services that, subject to satisfactory evaluation, the roll out should commence in October 2000. Although the final evaluation is not yet to hand, it is clear that the overall impact of DTTOs in the pilot areas has been very positive: both offending and expenditure on illegal drugs by those subject to the order has reduced markedly. In order to allow both probation services and their partner treatment agencies the maximum time to prepare with certainty, we have decided that, as we are confident as to the outcome of the final evaluation, we should make an early decision on national roll out. The Government have, therefore, decided that the order will be rolled out to all areas in England and Wales with effect from 1 October 2000.

  On Track Crime Reduction
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the areas that have been selected to participate in the On Track Crime Reduction Programme. [122441]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am pleased to announce today that 24 areas have been selected to participate in the On Track programme.

  The On Track programme is a long-term crime reduction programme aimed at children between four and 12 years who are at risk of offending. It is a central element of the Government's Crime Reduction Programme's agenda on tackling the causes of crime. Eighty local authorities were invited last December to participate in the programme. The 24 areas have been selected from 76.

  The objective will be to establish in each pilot area an enhanced range of evidenced-based preventive services. These will include family support training, home visiting, pre-school education, parent-school partnerships, family therapy and specialist interventions. There will be intensive inter-agency co-operation so that children at risk of offending are identified early and they and their families provided with consistent services through the child's development.

  The following areas have been selected to participate in the programme:

  Bradford

  Brent

  Bristol

  Brighton and Hove

  Bury St. Edmunds (Suffolk)

  Easington (Durham)

  Greenwich

  Haringey

  Kerrier (Cornwall)

  Luton

  Manchester

  65W

  Northampton (Northamptonshire)

  Oldham

  Portsmouth

  Rochdale

  Sandwell

  Scarborough (North Yorkshire)

  Sheffield

  Solihull

  Southwark

  Sunderland

  66W

  Wirral

  Wales:

  Bridgend

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  I have written to the Members for these areas in whose constituencies the pilot areas fall.

  The On Track programme will establish an effective and cohesive programme of early prevention in these communities. It will have a real impact on youth crime in the areas concerned and provide valuable information on what works best in terms of early prevention.

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

Baroness Scott of Needham Market
Rosalind Carol Scott, having been created Baroness Scott of Needham Market, of Needham Market in the County of Suffolk, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Tope and the Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
Anne Gibson, OBE, having been created Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen, of Market Rasen in the County of Lincolnshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Gould of Potternewton and the Lord Hoyle.

Burma: Operations of UK Companies
2.47 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, and under what authority, they have pressed Premier Oil and other United Kingdom companies to give up their operations in Burma.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the presence of reputable companies in Burma is not helping the democratic cause there. We therefore told Premier Oil, the largest UK investor, that we would welcome their moving out of Burma. We have no legal powers to force them to do
2
so, nor do we seek any. We also tell British companies inquiring about Burma that we do not encourage trade with nor investment there.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, while we all deplore the human rights situation in Burma, how is it that the Government are pursuing this policy of economic sanctions against that country, when they encouraged Jiang Zemin of China, a country not well known for its observance of human rights, to visit this country and be received at Buckingham Palace? Why did the Government fail to support a resolution of the United Nations proposed by the United States criticising China's human rights record? What is the difference? Could it be that Burma is a small country and cannot hurt us very much, whereas China is a big country and could hurt us a lot? Is that an ethical foreign policy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have said on a number of occasions, but let me repeat, that the difference between the two is clear. We are currently engaging in a critical dialogue with China. There is therefore a way forward so that we can hopefully improve the human rights situation in China, improve our relationship with the Chinese, and include China more in the international community. Burma turned her back on any such critical engagement. She refuses to engage with the international community. She refuses to recognise that there is any problem at all when it comes to human rights and will not bend her knee in any way to the lures that we put out for reasonableness. There is a clear difference between the two and therefore we have to maintain a difference in the way in which we approach the two nations.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her forthright answer. We on these Benches wholly agree with her. Will she confirm that the government of Burma are a military government that overthrew a clearly democratically-elected regime and to this day keep its leader under effective house arrest? Does she agree that, in pursuing an ethical foreign policy, it is necessary to try to win the support

3
of major corporations in the private sector? Will she confirm that, as in the case of De Beers in Angola and Shell in Nigeria and Indonesia, it has often been the case that the help and assistance of large multinational and other corporations has been sought on behalf of the British Government?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am pleased to confirm that. It is important for large, multinational companies of this nature to assist us in this regard. The discussion with them is important and we welcome every occasion when they help us.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is widely known throughout the country that Burma is in a special position and that the Government's action in this matter is widely supported, generally understood and I hope will be persisted in until such time as Burma acquires, in the course of time (as one hopes it must) a government that are prepared to act as part of the international community? While it insists on putting itself outside the national community, one cannot expect, nor wish the Government to treat it as though it were the same as any other country.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's support. We have received support from all sides in this endeavour and welcome that support. It is a joint endeavour. We are working together with many partners and need everybody in every sphere to join with us.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the government of the Sudan engaging in a critical dialogue with Her Majesty's Government on human rights matters? If not, why is it correct to seek to restrain human rights abuses in Burma by impeding the exploitation of oil in that country? Would it not be correct to do the same thing in the Sudan, to which we continue to send machinery for that purpose?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said earlier, we are engaging with all those who will engage with us. The noble Lord knows well that we have to look at each country and decide which sanctions or movements will most effectively deliver a better quality of human rights. It is quite wrong for us to have a "one-size-fits-all" policy; regrettably, it does not. We must fashion the sanctions that we impose to the situation that pertains in each individual country.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is not the answer to the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Blaker, that if you wait for a perfect world you will wait for ever? In the case of Burma, there is no doubt that the action against oil companies could make a difference, bearing in mind that the construction of oil pipelines requires the removal of villages and a programme of forced labour? Indeed, this has resulted in the deaths of many local people at the hands of the
4
SLORC troops. Is my noble friend aware that the firm stand she takes certainly has strong support on this side of the House?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to hear that echo of support from my noble friend who sits behind me. Indeed, I hope that that echo will be found in front of me, notwithstanding the comments that have been made by some noble Lords opposite.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we can all agree that Myanmar has a brutal and undemocratic regime. It is quite understandable that HMG should want to be as distant as possible from it. However, I am advised that other countries, which take the same broad view about this repulsive team, still retain informal links with Myanmar. For example, the United States has welfare programmes in the country and, of course, Japan took part in the ASEAN meeting that was held in Myanmar. Indeed, other neighbouring countries of ours retain links with the country through private enterprise. Can the Minister say why we are different in that respect? Are we sure that we have got the balance right between isolation, which is understandable, and constructive engagement, which is our policy in other areas?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me the privilege of welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to the Dispatch Box. We know that he will cover his duty with great honour and expedition.
As I have already said, the difference in the situation with Burma is that the Burmese have withdrawn. If constructive engagement were possible with Burma, this would be pursued. Regrettably it has not been. That is a matter of great sadness to us all, because in other areas where we have been able to communicate that approach has yielded real benefit. Unfortunately, Burma is an exception; there are exceptions to every rule.

Maternity Units
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlegeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the closure of maternity units.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are aware of concerns over the closure of some maternity units. We commissioned a multi-disciplinary working party to consider this and make recommendations on safe and appropriate service provision.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful reply. In so doing, I should declare an interest as patron of the National Childbirth Trust. I am very pleased that the noble

5
Lord understands the anxiety in this respect, but is he aware that some reports of the situation have not been published? One in particular, produced by the Royal Colleges, construes that 80 units may close. These are consultant-led units. Can the Minister please give an assurance that a thorough appraisal of the situation will be made before any units are closed? Further, where there is the remotest possibility of this happening, can he assure us that consultant-led units will be transformed into midwife-led units?
Lord Hunt of King Heath: My Lords, we should be very cautious about accepting the figure of 80 at its face value. I cart certainly assure the noble Baroness that the criteria being developed as a result of the work of the three Royal Colleges will be used by the NHS to help towards assessing the future provision of services. I can well understand the popularity of midwife-led units; indeed, as far as concerns low-risk births, there is no evidence to show that such units are unsafe.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it may be that as many as 80 smaller units are involved if press reports regarding the report of the Royal Colleges are to be believed. Is it not quite unacceptable that many of these units face closure due to lack of medical specialists when many young "obs" and "gynae" registrars in training cannot get consultant jobs because such posts have not been created? Is it not high time that the Department of Health got to grips with the problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as far as concerns obstetric and gynaecological consultants, I can tell the noble Lord that Ministers met with the president of the Royal College only last week. He put forward some very interesting suggestions as to how we should move forward in tackling the issue. We shall consider his suggestions most carefully in addition to the other matters that we have taken forward for consideration in relation to the problem of "obs" and "gynae" posts.
Again, I urge caution on the noble Lord as regards the figure of 80 units. The report that we received from the Royal Colleges does not make any recommendation in relation to the closure of units. However, the colleges have provided very helpful criteria under which the NHS can make proper decisions about the future configuration of maternity services.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, today is the start of Breast-Feeding Awareness Week. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that all maternity units encourage the benefits of breast-feeding for the baby and the mother?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would be happy to do so. Breast-Feeding Awareness Week has been run for a number of years. I believe that it has proved to be successful. We certainly continue our support for it. I believe that the campaign launched this week will be highly effective in encouraging those
6
who wish to do so to breast-feed and will perhaps also combat negative perceptions of breast-feeding which may be held particularly by the male partners of mothers.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, how many mothers now wish to give birth at home and are they being encouraged so to do? I had my four at home and I certainly have not suffered as a result.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as my wife gave birth to two children at home I very much agree with what the noble Baroness says. The latest figures I have show that throughout the 1980s home deliveries accounted for 1 per cent of the total number of births. That proportion has slowly risen. In 1994–95, 1.8 per cent of total births were home births. I very much accept that the NHS should do its best to meet the legitimate wishes of women who wish to have a home birth.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I must declare an interest as my wife expects to be using the maternity service in the next week and a half. Is the Minister aware that maternity services in London are under severe strain through lack of staff? This is apparent to those who are about to use the service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are committed to developing policies and practices to encourage more nurses and midwives to enter the NHS. The campaigns that we have run have been successful. We have attracted more nurses and more midwives. We have increased the number of training places available. I believe that those measures, along with the other work in developing maternity services, will ensure that the noble Lord and others receive the best possible service.

Prison and Crime Reduction
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dholakiaasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the statement by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 10th April (HL Deb, col. 9) that "prison works" is consistent with the finding of Home Office Research Study No 187 that the largest reductions in offending occur in community based programmes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord on 10th April we believe that prison can be a positive experience and our aim, and that of the Prison Service, is to make it work. Although Home Office Research Study No.187 provides evidence that community-based programmes generally show better results in reducing offending, programmes which take account of "what works" principles can be successful in reducing offending in any treatment setting. There is considerable evidence that programmes in prison can be effective, as can the provision of constructive

7
regimes. Indeed, international research shows that good programmes which are delivered well can reduce re-offending by up to 33 per cent.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the subtle use of the English language has never failed to amuse me. If prison works, why has there been such a huge rise in serious crime in this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that there are many reasons for increases in crime across the United Kingdom. However, this Government's commitment and determination to tackle all of those issues remain unaltered. We shall continue to press through and put in place effective crime reduction programmes. There is little doubt that crime reduction programmes will in the longer term have a most profound effect and impact on levels of crime.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the oft repeated statement that prison is frequently an expensive means of making bad people worse? Does he accept that Parliament has accepted that proposition in legislation; namely, the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which makes prison the sentence of last resort?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, prison may well be a sentence of last resort, but it is an effective and necessary sentence. I would like the noble and learned Lord and others to say what is the alternative for those who are convicted of offences, particularly serious offences. Prison constitutes an expensive provision, but it is necessary.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, where possible, punishment in the community is preferable to punishment in prison for all kinds of reasons? Has he been able to assess, as yet, the effect of the probation programmes which are run according to the "what works" principles, and which he has said can be successful? But are they? What is the national programme to extend probation practice according to that principle?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we believe that "what works" is an effective programme. Research evidence shows that properly conducted offender treatment programmes can have a significant impact on reconviction rates, whether those programmes are conducted in prison or in the community. The research literature reveals a broad consensus of about a 10 per cent typical reduction in reconviction rates, compared with those offenders who do not attend the programmes. The "what works" initiative that we are introducing provides better planned, targeted and delivered programmes to bring down overall conviction rates. These programmes are based on methods known to stand the best chance of reducing reoffending. It is our intention to start introducing the first of these programmes later this month.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given that the average cost of a custodial sentence is £2,070 a month, according to government figures, will the Government spend a small percentage of the extra money that is necessary to ensure that the majority of prison sentences have the chance of proving to be the positive experience which the noble Lord tells us they are in terms of education, out of cell time and constructive work? Any money that is left over could be best spent in stopping people becoming criminals altogether.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the final point that the noble Lord made. He speaks with great wisdom on the subject. This Government's programme is all about improving the purposive nature of people's time spent in custodial sentences. Between 1997 and 1999 we have managed to add an extra 20,000 teaching hours across the prison estate. That is part of our general programme. We must invest in education and training as we can demonstrate a clear and proven track record that that has the best effect in terms of what happens to prisoners when they leave prison and try to access the world of work. We must continue that work and put more money into crime reduction in the community. Those are the important points of our programme.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister think that short custodial sentences are a positive experience for graffiti artists, or does he consider on the contrary that it would be better to give those people community service to enable them to remove the graffiti which has been daubed on walls by other people?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure it would be much better to encourage graffiti artists to produce more mainstream art. I am not aware that a large number of graffiti artists are incarcerated within the prison estate. It is often felt that we lock up people unnecessarily. The favourite example which is given is that of fine defaulters. As of today of a prison population of some 64,000 just 56 are fine defaulters.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, notwithstanding what has been said about rehabilitation and education, does the Minister agree that there will always be prisoners who, on leaving prison, will return to society embittered against authority; or perhaps having learned new ways of committing crime from fellow prisoners; or who may have become drug addicts during their time inside, all of whom are likely to reoffend? Is not that how prison works in a rather unattractive way?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord contributes to an important and interesting aspect of the debate. Of course there will be prisoners who feel embittered as a result of being in prison. Our task, and that of any government, must be to try to make that

9
experience as positive as possible. We should never give up on this issue. As regards drugs and prison, we have now had some considerable success in reducing the quantity of drugs used in prison. Over the past two years we have reduced drugs found through mandatory drugs testing from 24 per cent to 14 per cent. I believe that that will have a desirable long-term impact on reconviction rates.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, in light of the Prison Service targets for purposeful activity, will the Minister join me in congratulating Bristol prison on achieving 23.05 hours per prisoner per week during April—despite the plethora of bank holidays? More importantly, will the Government support and encourage the development of community prison chaplaincy as a contribution to a diminution in reoffending, especially among short-term prisoners and those on remand?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the efforts of the staff at that prison are obviously to be congratulated. The more hours of purposeful activity that can be encouraged, the better for all prisoners. Of course we support the prison chaplaincy in all its work. It has a considerable and highly desirable impact on the lives of prisoners and is much appreciated by all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware and not embarrassed by the fact that I agree with his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia and others, in respect of the alternative to prison for persons who commit serious crimes? I welcome the Minister's conversion to the views of my right honourable and learned friend Michael Howard that prison works. It does, because convicted persons cannot reoffend while they are in prison.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have heard that response before. I congratulate the noble Lord on agreeing with me.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the fastest increase in the prison population is accounted for by children and young people of 17 years of age and below? That is also the group with the highest reoffending rate, of 80 per cent and more. Does the Minister believe that those figures can justify the claim that prison works for that group?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, prison will always be a necessity. If people commit serious offences, they must expect that prison will be an option. However, we need to make the time they spend in prison useful and valuable, and trust that will make a meaningful contribution—so that when individuals leave prison or young offender institutions, they are better fitted to entering the world of work—which I believe makes a strong contribution to ensuring that offenders do not commit more convictable offences.

National Insurance: Employers' Contributions
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburnasked Her Majesty's Government:
What reductions they have proposed in the employers' national insurance contribution, when these have taken or will take effect, and by how much they will reduce the National Insurance Fund.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the rate of employers' secondary Class 1 national insurance contributions will be reduced from 12.2 per cent to 11.9 per cent in April 2001, and from 11.9 per cent to 11.8 per cent in April 2002. As a result of those changes, employers' contributions to the fund will reduce by around £1 billion and £350 million respectively.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Does not the Minister think that is a scandal? It is not the Government who are giving the employers a sweetener but pensioner contributors, because the National Insurance Fund will shrink by £1.35 billion. The Government say, "We can't afford an earnings link. Look what it would cost. Contributions would have to go up". Would they? If only the Government would stop using pensioners' insurance contributions, as has happened over the years, to sweeten the taxes that they are levying on employers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the short answer to my noble friend is that I do not think that it is a scandal. It would be a mistake to think that such a change in a very large fund is "defrauding"—my noble friend used that word last November—pensioners. Pension entitlement has not been taken away by the changes to national insurance contributions. Neither a surplus nor a deficit in the National Insurance Fund determines how much is available for pensioners; otherwise, if there were a shortfall in the fund, as in 1993–94, it might be suggested that pensions ought to be cut. I do not think that my noble friend would agree with that being done.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend explain why some 81 million national insurance numbers are currently in use? Can he give some indication of how many of those numbers involve neither an employer's nor an employee's contribution? Does he agree that any reform of the national insurance system should involve the allocation of national insurance numbers—whose proliferation only seems to be of benefit to potential fraudsters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as Professor Joad used to say, it all depends what one means by "in use". Many more national insurance numbers have been issued than there are persons who have them for legitimate purposes. That does not necessarily mean

11
that the other numbers are being used fraudulently. However, the availability and potential misuse of national insurance numbers is a problem that the Treasury is addressing.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that employers' national insurance contributions are a straightforward employment tax? Would it not be better to move away from taxes on employment— which we wish to encourage— to taxes on the use of non-renewable resources and on environmental pollution?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord asked that question. As I was responding literally to the previous question, I was not able to say that the first reduction in employers' national insurance contributions in April 2001 is to ensure that the climate change levy is neutral in its effect on industry as a whole; and that the second, smaller reduction in April 2002 will ensure that the aggregates levy is neutral in its effect on industry as a whole. Both are desirable environmental objectives. Although I do not agree with the noble Lord's wider generalisation, I hope that he agrees that those two reductions argue in support of his concern for the environment.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Does not the Minister's reply and the comments made by others opposite mean that the Government are not treating state insurance as an insurance system at all? It is thought not to matter and is to be left to wither on the vine. As Mr Michael Portillo said when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury a short while ago, it becomes nugatory. The Labour manifesto stated that a Labour Government would make the basic state pension the foundation of their pensions provision. Now they are admitting that it does not matter: "It is expendable. A fund doesn't mean a fund. We can allow it to continue to diminish". This is not the first cut. The Tories cut it. They would. They do not believe in state insurance. I thought that this Government did. May we take it from the Minister's reply that he is giving us a guarantee today that there will be no further cuts in employers' contributions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not responsible for what the Conservative Party says in government or in opposition; I certainly do not subscribe to the views that my noble friend attributes to them. The present Government have not in any way cut the state basic pension. It has been continued on the same basis since 1980. The effect of all government policies over the whole of this Parliament will mean that an extra £6.5 billion is available to pensioners, compared with the smaller figure of £4.5 billion that would be available if my noble friend's proposal to restore earnings-related pensions had been followed.

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on Sierra Leone. The Statement is likely to be taken following discussion of Amendment No. 105 to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.

Street Works Bill [H.L.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for charges for the occupation of a maintainable highway by undertakers executing street works. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 19 [Reduced benefit decisions]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 94:
Page 20, leave out lines 12 to 15.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 94 I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with it standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Amendment No. 94 is concerned with "reduced benefit decisions" in relation to the payment of child support. Effectively, we on this side of the House are strongly in favour of more effective measures to ensure that those responsible for having children seek to meet the payments to finance them. Generally speaking, there are a whole series of penalties, but this particular penalty is unusual in stating that should a mother decline to provide information to the Child Support Agency on the grounds that if she were to do so she would be in danger of violence from the absent parent arrangements will be made to impose a penalty upon her. We are concerned whether that is appropriate.

13
The jargon used is whether she has good cause for not seeking child support—which would result in the cost of the children falling on the Exchequer or the National Insurance Fund—and, effectively, it suggests that she should not do that. As a result, the department or the Child Support Agency will seek to establish whether or not there is good cause in a particular case.
We propose the amendments because of representations we have received, for example, from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has many people dealing with these kinds of cases. It suggests that decisions to reduce the benefit of the parent with care because she has not co-operated with the department and has instead made excuses—for instance, that she would suffer violence—are not infrequently incorrect, unreasonable and inappropriate.
Coming from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, this is strong language. The association therefore goes along with the recommendations made by the Social Security Select Committee in another place that the application of the reduced benefit penalty should be suspended over a phasing-in period and that the operation of the present scheme should be reviewed. Perhaps the second recommendation is fairly formidable; I understand that some 28,000 decisions have been made in regard to reduced benefit.
The other matter which gives cause for concern is the way in which the severity of this particular penalty has escalated over time. If we go back to 1993, the penalty was open to revision in the light of changed circumstances and the number of cases was at a comparatively low level. Since 1996, the severity of the penalty has increased considerably and there seems to be some argument for reviewing the arrangement. That is the essence of the case. We look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him which government were responsible for the changes in 1996.
Lord Higgins: Certainly the previous government were responsible. That is why we can reasonably argue that, given the space of time since then, one should take into account the overall situation; the representations one has received; and, in particular, one's experience of the way in which the system is working. The more recent evidence seems to indicate that it is not working as satisfactorily as one would wish. These are essentially probing amendments. We wish to get the Government's reaction to the considerable number of recent cases put forward by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As Amendments Nos. 96 to 98, 101 and 102 are also being spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 96 is agreed to,
14
I cannot call Amendments Nos. 97 and 98; and if Amendment No. 101 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 102.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: Amendments to or the removal of Clause 19 would be a retrograde step. A reduction or time-limiting delay of the benefit penalty would be counter-productive.
The whole emphasis of the Bill—this was stressed during last week's proceedings and has been supported by a number of agencies which seek to help children—is to tackle child poverty. What is good for the child is of prime importance.
Clause 19 concerns benefit penalties for parents with care who are on income support or on income-based jobseeker's allowance and who, without good cause, ask the Secretary of State not to act to recover child support; or fail to provide relevant information; or refuse to take a scientific test.
Child support cannot be a voluntary option of whether or not to involve the CSA or whether to rely on benefit provided by taxpayers, many of whom are themselves parents supporting children. Many thousands of children would not receive the maintenance due to them. The only parents affected by sanctions are either those who face no risk and prefer to rely on benefits, or those who refuse to tell the DSS why they are opting out.
The penalty provision needs to be retained. It would not be fair on children if parents were allowed to prevent the recovery of child support; it would not be fair on the parents who do support their children; and it would not be fair on the taxpayer.
Of course, sanctions should be avoided wherever possible. Parents with care must be clearly told about their rights; they must not receive a benefits sanction by accident. However, low sanctions for a short time, such as those suggested, may not be enough to encourage parents with care to co-operate with the CSA. Delaying the introduction of penalties would mean that many parents with care would not seek child maintenance. Clause 19 as it stands seems to offer protection to parents and children. It should not be tampered with.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, is on her first child support Bill. Welcome to the club. I am now on my third. In 1991, I succeeded in deleting the whole provision of the benefit penalty. The "good cause" provision was the sop put in by another place to keep me quiet. It may have reduced the volume of my voice somewhat; it has not kept me quiet.
I cannot help thinking, on the record of the CSA since 1991, that Clause 19 and the measures preceding it have done a great deal more to increase child poverty than to diminish it. So I ask the Minister: in the light of the Government's pledge to abolish child poverty within 20 years, how will they abolish child poverty

15
while depriving the mother of 40 per cent of her income? There seems to me a certain Gilbertian element of paradox about that suggestion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, said that all that is needed is for the mothers to comply. That reminds me a little of the argument of the ill-fated General Stockwell, who commanded the British intervention in Port Said during the Suez campaign. When challenged on the level of casualties in Port Said, General Stockwell said it was all the fault of the Egyptians who would insist on defending themselves.
The Government here are intruding into some of the most sensitive areas of private life and into some of the strongest personal emotions which become stirred in the whole complicated history of the relations of the sexes. It is an area in which the Government, by rule of thumb, assume they must be right and that everybody has to comply. If only the world were that simple. The Government here are out of their element—and, when I say the Government, I make no political point. We have here, even more than in most other areas of policy, a situation where the Court and Treasury Party is always in office, no matter which political colours it may wear and the Country Party is always in opposition, no matter which political colours it may wear. It is my contention that the Court and Treasury Party here has it fundamentally wrong. It has overrated the limits of its competence and is attempting to tackle matters which it really cannot handle.
We have here a large group of amendments. The first ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has spoken put forward a proposal which emanates from the Social Security Select Committee in another place—a two year deferral of the operation of the benefit penalty in order to see whether, in the light of the Minister's achievement, on which I again warmly congratulate her in introducing the maintenance disregard, a carrot might prove rather more effective than a stick. I support that approach with the sole rider that, if we had a rather bigger carrot—and I have an amendment down to that purpose—it might work a little better. If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, should choose to go beyond probing and press those amendments, we would support them.
With regard to the other group—the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and we have down identical amendments. That is a waste of paper that I think we should not repeat. The amendments seek to go back to the level of deductions which were originally introduced in 1991 and to go back once more to the duration of deductions. The new one is for three years and may be renewed ad infinitum. In the briefings from the CAB, we have one which had been running since 1994—five years—before the parent with care discovered what it was all about. She supposed that it was for poll tax arrears. That is the danger of an indefinite provision.
Here, too, we are of one mind and, whichever of our amendments goes forward, we would support it. My ambitions go further. I want, as I have wanted since 1991, to abolish the benefit penalty altogether. I have
16
three reasons for wishing to do that. First, it is draconian; secondly, it is outside the area of the Government's competence and, thirdly, it is ineffective or—and in my view this is equally bad—effective in the wrong cases.
Whenever one discusses any of these policies designed to deter people, like the use of prescription charges to deter people from claiming unnecessary prescriptions, it is always the wrong people who are deterred. The genuinely ill are deterred and the hypochondriacs are not deterred by anything. So, if the penalty is producing compliance—I hope the Minister may enlighten us a little more on the extent to which it is—then we have no reason to suppose that it is producing compliance in those cases where it ought to be producing compliance. We know it is producing compliance in a number of cases where, for the mother's own safety, there ought not to be compliance.
A 40 per cent reduction in income support is a fairly draconian penalty. I shall not take us again through all the argument about the Acheson report, the Medical Research Council and the rest. The Minister knows that I have considerable doubts about the claims of income support to be even so much as a subsistence benefit. If you have only 60 per cent of income support, that is a benefit on which I think legal subsistence is extremely difficult.
We have one case here which was referred to in an article in the Independent a few weeks ago where a mother was found to be stealing nappies from the supermarket because she could not afford to buy them. I do not see what that does to reduce child poverty. We have another case which comes from the CAB of a mother who was subjected to a reduced benefit directive and was unable to buy her youngest son's school uniform with the result that he was excluded from the school.
The Minister should not so blithely assume that her policy is for the benefit of children. I know it is so intended, but the Minister knows what paves the road to hell. I think her confidence in this is entirely misplaced. My greatest concern is that, in dealing with these raw emotions, the Government are in an area where they are not a competent judge and where material penalties are not necessarily a suitable deterrent.
The emotions raised by a relationship break-up can be extremely strong. All that the Government can put in the scale against it is material penalty. In some of the cases with which we are dealing, that is a very light feather to put in the scales against the intensity of emotion which is aroused. I have never thought of the Minister as a "Material Girl" but, in this context, I think that is all that she can claim to be. There is no room in the CSA's calculations for feelings. In fact, there is practically no right to have any feelings other than those prescribed by statute.
Of course, the feelings that result from relationship break-down are not always rational. I would not for a moment attempt to pretend that they were. First, the Government are not competent to judge which feelings are rational and which are not—they do not have the

17
evidence—and, secondly, even supposing that the feelings are not rational, those are perhaps hardest of all to deter by a mere material penalty.
In 1996, during Mr Andrew Mitchell's tenure of office, the Government undertook a survey—not a particularly good piece of research—in which, out of a sample of 38, 26 people reported that the reduced benefit directive had no impact. Mr Andrew Mitchell chose to take that finding literally and therefore argued that the penalty was not sufficient to deter. I think Mr Mitchell had failed to read between the lines and had failed to recognise language which might have been more accurately transliterated—and I cannot repeat all the words in the Chamber—as …off". People simply did not recognise the right of the state to use this penalty to make them resume a contact which they were absolutely determined to eschew. In fact, the penalty was wide of their area of concern.
Domestic violence is only the tip of that iceberg. I think all governments have been sincere in their attempts to follow the good cause provisions and I welcome that. Of course, the administration is quite another matter. I have already said in the course of this Bill that I think the culture of this country is very far from sufficiently aware of the dangers which domestic violence may pose under the need to preserve confidentiality.
We had one case which was reported recently by the CAB when a client had been threatened by the absent parent and the absent parent even threatened the CSA. Even after that, the CSA refused to recognise that she had good cause. So she suffered the benefit penalty. That is surely a wrong decision on the law as it presently stands. I am delighted to give way to the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the noble Earl then go on to argue, which is the crucial information, that, as a result, the woman then suffered violence?
Earl Russell: No, I do not.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can the noble Earl give me any instance in which, to his certain knowledge, she has?
Earl Russell: When we discussed this matter last week I had seen many such examples. I have not succeeded in tracking them down and therefore must fail to rise to the Minister's challenge for the time being. It is one-nil to the Minister on that as it stands at present. I congratulate her on her determination in following up the points I raised last week. Some of that has come to my attention—not through her. I congratulate her very warmly on it and thank her for it. However, the noble Baroness will not challenge my contention that in this case, if the facts are as alleged, the penalty was wrongly imposed. That does happen. It is a distressingly frequent situation.
I have other cases. The case of Georgina McCarthy, about which my honourable friend Mr George is much concerned, is not an exact direct case in point. Again,
18
it illustrates the weakness of the culture for not being sufficiency aware of the need for confidentiality. But we are in a different area, and a much more difficult one, when we deal with the woman who has fear of violence without direct experience of it. I have in my hand the report prepared by the department in April 1996 which studied a series of model cases. The passage to which I am referring may be found on page 114. It is the case of Miss Rogers. She described a man who had threatened her, often throwing things or thumping the wall in anger. The case study states:
"She got frightened that he would hurt her one day. She had decided it was time to make a complete break; to end the relationship …and make a new start. She had come to a big city in another area of the country so that 'he will never find me'".
That case was decided, having been studied in a seminar as a model case, not to be an example of good cause. I believe that that was mistaken on the law as it stands at present. She may not have offered clear evidence of harm. She had certainly offered clear evidence of undue distress and she had convinced me at least that, whether or not she was found to have good cause, she was not going to co-operate. The penalty would fall wide of its mark.
The Secretary of State here is judge and party in his own cause. That is a big weakness in the legislation. I do not think it is any good setting out to starve mothers into submission as if they were besieged towns. The Minister says that the legislation will never work on a voluntary basis. I say, what I said first on "Bill do now pass" in 1991. Nothing has yet convinced me that I am wrong. The legislation will not work unless it is on a voluntary basis. You can coerce all the people some of the time or you can coerce some of the people all the time; but you cannot coerce all the people all the time.
If this legislation is to work, someone has to be in favour of it. So if it cannot be made to work by applying it only to those mothers who see an advantage to themselves in it, the Government are simply attempting a job of coercion which is beyond their reach. Their eyes are bigger than their stomachs. They will not be the first government to make that mistake and I fear they will not be the last.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When my noble friend moved the first amendment in this group the noble Baroness seemed to think that he could not do such a thing because the previous government introduced the concept of benefit reduction. I think that, all these years later, my noble friend has every right to read what the citizens advice bureaux are telling us and what the Select Committee has told us and to respond. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been completely consistent. He argued against this concept last time round when we legislated for this matter. He has reminded us of that. My noble friend has been extremely sensible and is doing something with which, I am sorry to say, the noble Baroness does not feel she can go along.

19
It surely is absolutely reasonable to pause for a moment to study the effect of the implementation of maintenance disregard before taking this draconian action which may make it impossible for a person to feed her family. A drop of income of 40 per cent, as was pointed out when the matter was discussed last week, can have a very serious effect on the nutrition of a family. We need not go into that again.
During the remaining proceedings on the Bill I hope that the Minister will not go on accusing my noble friend of criticising something which began during the time of the Conservative government. The circumstances have now been changed by the present Government. It may be a good idea just to pause, as has been asked of us by the Select Committee in another place and by the CABs, to see what the effects will be before the draconian measures are implemented.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to open my response to this group of amendments by responding to the direct challenge raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as to how I think the proposals in any sense honour the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to reduce and then abolish child poverty. Very straightforwardly, the children in this country who are poor are disproportionately the children of lone parents and particularly the children of lone parents where, first, the mother does not go out to work and where, secondly, the father of that child does not pay maintenance. If it is asked what the Government are therefore doing about it, they are seeking to help the mother back into work through the New Deal, the working families' tax credit and the minimum wage. If she feels that it is not right for her to go back to work at this point, she will effectively have had, between April 1997 and October this year, nearly a 100 per cent increase in the income support rates for children under 11, which is a huge increase—from just over £16.80 to around £31 during the course of the first three years of this Government.
We are seeking, first, to encourage her back into work when she feels ready; secondly, to make her benefit levels more generous for children while she is out of the labour market; and, thirdly, to get the maintenance flowing. Together, those are the ways we will springboard those children out of poverty and honour the Prime Minister's commitment. I do not know whether the noble Earl wishes to intervene. No, he accepts what our policy seeks to do. In that sense, what we are seeking to do in terms of getting maintenance flowing is an integral part— not an accidental bolt-on— of seeking to redress the problem of child poverty.
As my noble friend Lady Massey said, Clause 19 is about the benefit penalty for parents with care on income support or income-based JSA who, without good cause, ask the Secretary of State not to act to recover child support or who fail to provide relevant information or refuse to take a scientific test such as DNA. The amendments seek both to reduce and time
20
limit the benefit penalty and to delay its introduction. Amendments Nos. 94. 95, 96, 99 and 101 would make the clause unworkable. Amendments Nos. 102A and 198A seek to remove the clause from the Bill and to repeal Section 46 of the 1991 Act that relates to reduced benefit directions which Clause 19 is replacing.
As my noble friend said, the impact of removing Clause 19—Section 46 of the 1991 Act—would go much further than just removing the penalty. Effectively—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, acknowledged this point—it would make child support a voluntary option by giving the lone parent the choice of whether or not to involve the Child Support Agency or whether simply to rely on benefits provided by the taxpayers many of whom are themselves parents supporting children. I do not believe that low-earning, tax-paying fathers should be required to support the children of other fathers who can, but prefer not to, support their own children. I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: The logic of that argument would be complete if the Minister could tell us what taxpayers are spending in supporting harm caused by the hardship inflicted on lone parents who suffer the benefit penalty. When the Minister's department monitors that, she can complete the calculation. At present, she does not possess the information, and has admitted as much.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that I can help the noble Earl a little. At present, 85 per cent of lone parents are co-operating with the agency in naming the father. When I took over some responsibility for this portfolio, the figure was only about 30 per cent. The difference between that 30 per cent and 85 per cent, given the premium that is being introduced, is that that number of families and their children are denied the possibility of a £10 maintenance premium. Perhaps the noble Earl will accept and respect the fact that, under the new scheme, by placing the emphasis on getting the woman to name the father and therefore comply with the procedures of the CSA, children will be the direct beneficiaries. The figure has risen from 30 per cent to 85 per cent; I hope that it will be even higher in future.
Earl Russell: I accept the information and I thank the Minister. Before I accept the claim that they are the direct beneficiaries, will the Minister think again about the Gary Craig study of 53 families, which indicated the very high levels of stress caused to families by the operations of the CSA. How does the Minister weigh that against any increase in money? She has given no answer at all to my major question: what is the effect on mothers who suffer the benefit penalty? What hardship do they suffer, and what does that cost the taxpayer? The noble Baroness cannot complete the equation until she can answer that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am only a page and a half into my brief; I was hoping to return to those

21
points. If the noble Earl thinks that I have not answered him fully, I am sure that he will wish to intervene and I shall respect his wish to do so.
I repeat: if we were to follow the noble Earl's proposal and a lone parent decided not to co-operate with the agency, that would mean that many thousands of children would not receive the maintenance due to them which could make a real difference to their lives. Equally importantly, it is more likely rather than less that they will continue to have contact with their natural fathers, which we know is in the best interest of those children.
Children are entitled to the financial as well as the emotional support of both parents. The CSA exists to ensure that non-resident parents meet their responsibility to their children. We believe that children have a right to support and that parents have a duty to provide it. That means, therefore, that child support is not an optional extra. It is right that the benefits system should step in, but only where parents are unable to support their children rather than merely prefer not to do so.
In the new scheme, where child support or income-based JSA pays for children, child support action will follow unless the parent with care refuses to allow that to happen. Those who refuse without good cause face a benefit penalty equivalent to 40 per cent, not of their income support—I should like this point to be corrected—but of the adult amount that is applicable, which is a reduction of about £21 a week; it is not a sanction on the children's element within income support.
The underlying purpose of a reduced benefit direction is to encourage parents with care to apply for child support unless they have good reason not to do so. We believe that a benefit penalty of 40 per cent of the adult applicable amount in income support is probably set at about the right level.
We are conscious of the need to protect vulnerable parents and children. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that the parent with care or any child living with her would suffer harm, no penalty would result. The noble Earl asked why we are not taking feelings into account. We are taking them into account. If we believe that there is undue distress as a result of pursuing child support, no penalty will be imposed. "Distress" does not mean violence, but feelings. Only those parents who choose not to pursue child maintenance and do not have a good reason, or do not tell the DSS why, will have their benefit reduced. But those who will be put at risk or who will suffer undue distress as a result of child support action have nothing to worry about.
I repeat: the only parents who will face a sanction will be those who either face no risk and simply prefer to rely on benefit from other fathers— I have never understood the morality of not receiving support from the particular father but being perfectly happy to have support from other fathers; that point seems morally "iffy"— or those who refuse to tell the DSS why they are opting out.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps the Minister will give way. I am seeking to follow her argument carefully. The position is, indeed, as she has stated it. As I understand it, the dispute is not over the basic argument but over decisions as to whether the adverse circumstances which would result in the benefit reduction exist. The point is whether the decisions are being correctly made, which is why they are described by the CAB as incorrect, unreasonable and inappropriate in a number of cases.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a wider issue. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, would like to see the reduced benefit direction removed altogether. I am seeking to reply to the entire group of amendments. It seemed to me sensible, therefore, to address the bigger issue before coming to some of the more specific points raised. The bigger issue is: what is the justification for having a reduced benefit direction at all?
Earl Russell: Perhaps it may clarify matters if I say that my argument is that, by the nature of the case, a large proportion of the decisions will always be erroneous.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a second order statement. The noble Earl's basic statement is that whether or not the father is named should be optional. He will say that if we compel the mother to do so and she refuses, there will always be a percentage of error. I pressed him to give an instance where pressure by the CSA to require the woman to name the father, when she was reluctant to do so because of fear of violence, had actually resulted in violence. The noble Earl was candid enough to say that he had no such evidence.
I should not wish to say that the CSA gets it right all the time. There may be occasions on which it has applied a reduced benefit direction about which the noble Earl would have some concerns— although, of course, there is an appeals system. Where the alternative is the case— where a parent has been required to name the father even though reluctant to do so because she alleged a fear of violence which the DSS did not accept— I could be wrong, but I have not been made aware of any case, nor I believe has the noble Earl, where as a result the lone parent was subject to the violence that she predicted. That is crucial to the effectiveness of the CSA. There may be cases where the woman has refused to name the father and there may have been a benefit penalty which she or the CAB regards as inappropriately applied, but I do not know of a case where violence has resulted, and that is the test.
As a result, 85 per cent of parents with care and claiming income support now choose to seek maintenance for their children. However, the fact remains that a number of parents with care refuse to co-operate with the CSA without good reason. As I said, they may prefer the taxpayer rather than their former partner to support their children. But I do not believe—here I disagree profoundly with the noble Earl, Lord Russell—that it is a choice that they are

23
entitled to make; namely, that some other father rather than this particular father should support their children.
Equally, there may be other reasons. The woman may have a new partner and fear that if the CSA is involved that may come to light and affect their benefit entitlement; or perhaps in the past she may have done an informal deal with her ex-partner; he may have arranged with the woman that if she refuses to name him and therefore he does not have to pay any maintenance, he, in turn, will recycle back to her some of the maintenance that he has saved. We believe that we need the benefit of penalty provision. It is not fair on children or on taxpayers if we allow parents to prevent the recovery of child support on their behalf. We want to ensure their co-operation, above all for the sake of the children.
The noble Earl was gracious enough to admit that we are trying to strengthen the grounds for reasons for compliance. Under the new scheme, the man's average maintenance payment falls. It is likely to be reduced from about £38 on average to about £31 on average. Therefore, under the new scheme, if the woman failed to name him, she would not only suffer a reduced benefit direction of £21 but would also lose her £10 premium—a loss in total of £31. That means that if it were worth her while doing an informal deal with him, he would have to pay her at least £31 so that she was no worse off, or, in other words, the level of maintenance that he would probably have to pay anyway.
With the best will in the world, we hope that we have constructed a system where financially it is not worth the while of either party to manipulate the system and women will find it attractive to co-operate with the CSA in the best interests of the child. Where we can we wish to avoid imposing a benefit penalty. The number of RBDs in place has fallen, and we hope that that decline will continue. In 1996 the figure was 17,500. The latest figure as of November 1999 was 13,700. That is a significant reduction, and represents only 1.5 per cent of the total number of parents with care on income support.
The noble Lord pressed me to say whether we knew what happened to women who accepted reduced benefit directions. I asked for research to be done not only for my information but because I suspected, quite rightly, that the noble Lord would want to know. The department's research suggests that 70 per cent of those with reduced benefit directions come off the benefits sanction within a month or so. Of those, one-third go into work and are no longer dependent on benefit and therefore it is not a matter for the CSA. One-third re-partner—which many of them may already be doing— and, as a result, decide to take themselves off the books rather than have the matter explored further and possibly lay themselves open to further action. One-third decide to co-operate. Of the remaining 30 per cent, almost all come off sanction within the year.
24
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the Government were not a competent judge as to whether or not a woman wanted to name the man. I do not see it as a battle between the lone parent and the CSA. Sometimes the lone parent makes the judgment, in my view inadvisedly, not to co-operate and that is not in the best interests of the child. Somebody must decide the matter when there are conflicting interests.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: What makes the Minister believe that she is a better judge than the parent of the interests of the child?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All the research available to us suggests that, for example, where lone parents thwart contact— that happens in 42 per cent of cases—that is not in the best interests of the child. Surely, the noble Earl accepts that there will be occasions when, for example, the lone parent has a new partner who wants her to cut all her ties with the former partner, even though the child needs those ties. In those cases her interests as she perceives them and the best interests of the child will be at odds. We believe that where that happens it is the responsibility of government to side with the child, which is what we are doing here. We hope that that does not happen very often, but the noble Earl will accept that that can and does occur. In my experience such cases arise.
I am confident that we are doing all that we can to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place so that parents at risk do not suffer accidentally. No one should suffer such a penalty through ignorance. If the woman's circumstances change and she forms a new relationship she may not fully understand the financial implications, for example that she must still seek child maintenance if her new partner is on benefit. For that reason, not only do we seek to set up the system so that financially it is attractive to her, and in her interest, to co-operate; we attempt to back it by improving the quality of advice through the development of the face-to-face service and the opportunities and contacts that she has.
Those who claim good cause are, we believe, treated in an understanding way by staff who are specially trained in the procedures. The training and procedural instructions were designed following considerable consultation with clients and key groups representing lone parents. Therefore, the staff who work with lone parents and seek to determine whether or not good cause is appropriate have been trained in part by the organisations that represent lone parents. We have done everything we possibly can to ensure that that training is professional and that there is an incentive.
It may shock the Committee to learn—this may put noble Lords into the mindset of the issues with which we must deal—that the Government seriously considered the removal of the provision of good cause altogether and making it mandatory for everyone to name, as happens in many European countries and in broad terms in the United States and New Zealand. Those countries have decided that by making it mandatory they can better protect the lone parent and

25
they are more likely to discourage bad behaviour by non-resident parents because they know that they will not avoid maintenance by threatening violence. The NACSA website remains on my mind. I have seen for myself the advice given to men by a men's group:
"Break a window, send a photo, and you'll avoid maintenance".
That advice was given on a website to all men who wished to avoid maintenance. That threat can work precisely because the lone parent normally has a choice and, therefore, can be blackmailed or pressured by her partner not to name him. The man knows that whatever despicable behaviour he engages in will make no difference, as is the case in New Zealand, many other European countries and in part in the United States. In Europe some of that bad behaviour can be checked and is referred to the police.
We seriously considered whether that offered better protection to the lone parent than the policies that we had pursued. However, as a result of the consultation exercise on the Green Paper, I was persuaded that that would send out a wrong signal about domestic violence and that, although it might stop some men, where the man was under the influence of drugs or alcohol the risk might continue and we did not want that.
It is important to bear in mind that parents who do not receive child maintenance will lose any chance of receiving the child maintenance premium. In all, 600,000 children in the poorest families stand to gain over £150 million a year through the maintenance premium, and individual families will be up to £10 a week better off. We hope that that will be real money which goes to children.
Amendment No. 102 would also result in children losing out in child maintenance. This amendment would decrease and time-limit the reduced benefit decisions. Here, what is proposed is a 10 per cent, instead of a 40 per cent, sanction for six months. Before October 1996 when the current sanction of 40 per cent was introduced, there was a sanction of 20 per cent for six months and then 10 per cent for a year. However, at that time around 70 per cent of parents with care initially claimed that they had good cause not to co-operate with the CSA, and of those only about 8 per cent were found to have good cause. No one of whom I am aware whose good cause has been rejected has subsequently gone on to experience violence. I have no evidence to suggest that the CSA has ever made a wrong decision on that.
These figures were a cause for concern and the subject of a report by the Social Security Select Committee in June 1996 which recommended a strengthening of the sanctions. We want a meaningful penalty. Amendment No. 102 would reduce the sanction and time-limit it to six months. The effect would be to reduce the benefit of a parent with care by about £ 5, instead of £20, per week. I do not believe that that would be effective in encouraging the lone parent to co-Operate or that it would be high enough to discourage the manipulation of the benefit system that I have just described.
26
Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 would delay the introduction of a reduced benefit penalty for two years from the introduction of the child maintenance premium. The underlying purpose of a reduced benefit direction is to encourage parents with care to apply for child support, unless they have good cause for failing to do so. To delay the introduction of this penalty would reduce the incentive and mean that many parents with care would not seek child maintenance. It would also mean that many fathers would be exempt for a period of up to two years from paying maintenance if the woman chose not to name him and, as a result, would not get into the habit of paying. The hope and expectation that after two years' grace he would go on to pay maintenance with willingness seems to be Utopian. I do not know why the figure was chosen. The Social Security Select Committee believed that during the five-year phasing-in period the new incentives should be given a chance to work before the provisions of Clause 19 were brought into effect. We do not believe that that is reasonable.
Amendments Nos. 94, 95, 96, 99 and 101 remove a number of subsections from Clause 19. Their effect is to retain Clause 19 but to make it unworkable. I should like to quote to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the words of Mr Pickles in another place at Committee stage on 3rd February. When dealing with a similar amendment moved by the Liberal Democrat Party, he said:
"I support the Minister".
although one would not believe that tonight. He went on:
"Legislation is about the support of children, and one cannot opt out of that unless there is an adequate reason"—
for example, good cause—
"why the taxpayer should bear that burden. People have occasionally been content to accept both benefit and a little extra money. It is important to ensure that the CSA is respected. I have never come across a case in which the CSA has gone too far".
Amendments Nos. 102A and 198A seek to remove Clause 19 from the Bill. They also repeal the existing legislation on reduced benefit directions and take them out of the child support system.
I think that it would be deeply unfair, to taxpayers, other fathers and, above all, to children, to make child support voluntary, which is what the removal of RBDs would do, and to transfer the responsibility to other fathers—not that particular father, but generalised other fathers—to take on the care of those children. Why should some non-resident parents walk away from their responsibilities without good cause and, frankly, place those same responsibilities on other people who, because they are taxpayers, cannot protest about it? I do not believe that child support should be voluntary. The cluster of these amendments, subject to the provisions I have made with the noble Lord opposite, would make it voluntary. We know that the failure to pay child maintenance is bad for the financial and the emotional health of the child. Therefore, if Members of the Committee are on the side of the child, they will join me today in urging the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will forgive me, perhaps I may say that I understand the Minister's concern about non-resident parents walking away from their responsibilities. I suggest that in many cases the Minister is pursuing that concern at the expense of the child. The Minister thinks in categories. She thinks in averages. I ask the noble Baroness to read Hansard tomorrow and to ask herself how many times she has used the phrase "the child". One child is not like another. The average child is quite a rare animal. The Minister has great confidence that she is able to judge the interests of this mythical child better than the parent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can the noble Earl cite me any child who would not be better off if the family were not receiving maintenance? I think that it is perfectly proper to generalise in that respect.
Earl Russell: Perhaps the Minister could consider the possibility that although material matters are important, a child's interests may not be a matter of material factors alone. The happiness of the environment, the sense of safety and peace, and the avoidance of being in the middle of a game of battledore and shuttlecock may matter to a child. Money matters, but it is not the only factor. Until we take that on board, we cannot have a serious debate.
I ask the Minister one final question. She will not think it material, but I shall ask her before answering it to pause for one deep breath long enough to wonder why I think that it is material. Let us suppose that the Minister is on benefit and is threatened with a benefit penalty of this size if she does not join the Conservative Party. Would she do so?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would have considerable difficulty in doing so. If I may say so, that is not a helpful analogy. Normally, I am full of admiration for the stories the noble Earl brings. But to suggest that if I fail to pay I could expect to suffer violence from the Conservative Party seems unlikely; undue distress, maybe, but violence—surely not.
Earl Russell: Does the Minister understand that a single parent may believe that it is contrary to her conscience to do what the Government require of her?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. The noble Earl will have to help me. We may have different understandings of the word "conscience". I can understand, as I said, that many lone parents would prefer a clean break, with nothing to do with the individual father and, in particular if there is a new partner on the scene, would like him out of her life and to have another father support the child. I do not think that that is a choice she is entitled to make. It is not in the best interests of the child, of taxpayers and, sometimes, of the non-resident parent father.
28
I do not accept the word "conscience". All that I understand by the word "conscience" means that I support those who are not autonomous adults against the often perverse will of autonomous adults; that is, I support children.
Lord Davies of Coity: Perhaps I may follow on from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I understand the argument he advances in respect of the interests of the child. I do not think that any of us would depart from that interest.
However, we also have to recognise that there are conflicting interests. We are addressing the interests of the child, the parent who looks after the child, the parent who is absent, the question of the responsibility under the Child Support Agency and the benefit provided by the state. Those are conflicting interests which have to be addressed.
Clause 19 gives a degree of flexibility which enables each and every circumstance to be addressed in accordance with the way in which they are presented and have to be considered. In putting forward these amendments to Clause 19, we are placing too much emphasis on a particular interest when they all have to be, and will be, addressed under Clause 19 by the people involved at the time the circumstances present themselves. That degree of flexibility is necessary to make the provision work; otherwise it becomes totally inflexible and will never work.
Lord Higgins: As I said, this is essentially a probing amendment. It has revealed clearly that the position of the Liberal Party is not the same as that of noble Lords on these Benches. We are primarily concerned with ensuring that the absent parent makes a contribution to the child's maintenance. We believe that there is a case for penalties. But it is important for a specific penalty to be administered in a way which does not result in the bodies which deal with the problem at the front end saying that the decisions are not infrequently incorrect, unreasonable or inappropriate. It is in marked contrast with the view put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Before Report stage, I wish to consider carefully what the noble Baroness said. I do not find wholly convincing the argument that because no one who said that she was threatened with violence has been subjected to violence, that removes the fear of it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not say that. I said that I was not aware of any case where a parent has had fears of violence and has been, so to speak, over-ruled and required by the CSA to co-operate. Women have decided to co-operate rather than receive reduced benefit. In other words, they have named the father. I simply asked: in that case, to noble Lords' knowledge, has the judgment of the CSA been at fault? I did not suggest the reverse: that sometimes there may have been a reduced benefit direction where, as the CAB suggested, there may have been grounds for a different response.

29
The important issue is, where a parent who is reluctant to co-operate did co-operate because of the reduced benefit direction, was she, as a result, subject to the violence she originally feared? That would have suggested that the CSA was wrong to require her to co-operate. I have not heard a single piece of evidence today.
Lord Higgins: I understand that, but the reason that she did not co-operate in the first place may have been that she was afraid she would be subjected to violence. However, I shall consider the noble Baroness's point.
The Minister was somewhat dismissive of the recommendation of the Select Committee in another place that there should be a delay before the new sanctions were fully operative. The Minister pointed out—it had not been clear previously—that the reduction of benefit applies to the benefit of the parent with care rather than the child's benefit. None the less if the, parent with care was existing on the level of support which the Government regard as the minimum, and for a period of perhaps three or more years she has to live at substantially below that level, it is not clear how she will survive. There may be an argument for examining to what extent that has been a problem in individual cases.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The lone parent makes a voluntary choice not to co-operate with the CSA where there is no evidence that there is good cause or undue risk of distress. That penalty is £20 on an income of, say, £90 or so where there is one child plus housing benefit, council tax benefit and the like. In order to receive back the full amount, she has only to co-operate with the CSA. As I said, there is no case in which a lone parent has subsequently co-operated with a CSA where, to my knowledge, violence has been validated. Therefore, it is up to her.
One could argue equally well that it is unreasonable, for example, that people in receipt of the jobseeker's allowance who fail to be available for work should be sanctioned, because they cannot live on a reduced benefit. One either accepts that benefits have conditions attached or one believes that benefit is a birthright. I happen to believe that it is perfectly proper for society to attach conditions that are appropriate to a benefit, as in this case, and that it is up to the lone parent to remedy the situation.
We know that 70 per cent of those who have taken a reduced benefit come off that reduced benefit, if I can express it in that way, within a matter of a month or a couple of weeks. A third do so in order to go into work; some do so because, presumably, they are already re-partnering or have started to re-partner and therefore do not claim benefit at all; and a third decide to co-operate with the CSA. Therefore, many possibilities exist under which the lone parent may return to enjoy the full benefit. I agree that she should have it and it is in the best interests of her child to have it.
Lord Higgins: That does not cover the point that I raised: that, apparently, someone who is on the absolute minimum on which the Government believe
30
anyone can reasonably exist then goes for some time—in some cases perhaps for three years—while being subject to a 40 per cent cut in that minimum level.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I said, it is her choice. She simply has to name the father.
Lord Higgins: I understand that it is her choice. I ask simply how she manages to do it. Is there not a case for looking into that matter?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The problem arises from a failure to return the forms on time. How does she manage to live? It is a two-way process. If she wishes to receive the full benefit, there are conditions with which she must comply. She must return the forms, renew them appropriately, and she must attend a ONE interview, or whatever. That is essentially the case. I take the simple point that anyone who has an income which is less than income support is below the income support level. That is true by definition. The questions are: was it her own activity that put her into that situation; and, can she remedy it reasonably? The answer to both those questions is: yes.
Lord Higgins: I believe that there is no point in my continuing to make the same point over and over again. I still remain completely unconvinced by what the noble Baroness has said. However, having said that, I want to raise one final point. Perhaps we may then consider coming back to it on Report. Apparently, in a number of cases this situation has been continuing for three years and sometimes has been extended by three years. Of course, as the noble Baroness just said, it is true that in a number of cases results are produced in a matter of days, weeks or months. However, it seems that if nothing has happened by the end of three years, the person concerned is not likely to change his or her mind. Again, that is a point to which we should perhaps return.
Having said that, there is a significant difference of opinion on these issues between the noble Earl and myself, and we shall need to read very carefully what the noble Baroness said. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment which has, I believe, given rise to a useful debate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 102A not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT: PRIORITIES
("…After section 43 of the 1991 Act there shall be inserted—
"Collection and enforcement: priorities.
43A. In exercising his powers under sections 29 to 43 of this Act the Secretary of State shall ensure that such powers are exercised with a view to securing the collection and enforcement of child support maintenance from those non-resident parents who have failed to pay any amount of child support maintenance and that

31
this duty is accorded priority over the collection and enforcement of child support maintenance from those non-resident parents who have made some payments of child support maintenance.".").
The noble Lord said: I believe that we can dispose of this amendment very briefly. The amendment seeks to establish the Government's priorities: whether, given the huge backlog within the Child Support Agency, they are going to concentrate on the collection of maintenance from the 30 per cent of cases where parents have made no payments rather than the 23 per cent where parents are partially compliant but not making full payments. Given the extent of the backlog, presumably some degree of priority will be established as to how the department proceeds. I merely inquire what instructions have been given to the department and its officials for the Child Support Agency and its officials.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 103 would require the CSA to set a priority order for the operation of its collection and enforcement activities. It proposes that they take action against non-resident parents who have made no payments regarding child support before turning to those who have paid some, however little. It may be of interest to the noble Lord to know that 47 per cent of non-resident parents who now pay through the CSA are fully compliant. In 1997 that figure was 30 per cent. Therefore, we have already gone a long way. Twenty-three per cent are partially compliant; 30 per cent pay nothing at all.
Non-resident parents would be able to work out that if they made a token payment, that would move them to the back of the list of cases which the agency would be obliged to pursue. We all know that the complexities of the current formula leave the agency with little time for collecting maintenance. Too often, people have been able to avoid payment. Even where the assessment is completed, many NRPs fail to pay all that is due.
When I visited a child support centre in Hastings, I was struck by the fact that approximately 90 per cent of the non-resident parents asked for a review of the amount that they were liable to pay because their circumstances had changed. The review was carried out and they still do not pay. Their requests were intended simply as a means of stretching out the process. Non-resident parents must not and will not be able to escape meeting their full responsibility by making an occasional payment. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.
Under the new system, instead of 26 weeks, we expect an assessment to be made within four to five days, and the non-resident parent to pay within five to six weeks. Given that, the staff resource will be in compliance for all cases. It will not be the case, as the noble Lord feared may have happened in the past, that one simply adds to the payments required by those who are paying rather than chases those who fail to pay it all. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
32
Enforcement action will now be taken against all non-resident parents who do not meet their responsibilities because such a simplified formula will free the resource for such action. I do not believe that a legislative priority for collecting enforcement payments provides the best way to ensure that parents receive the maintenance which is theirs by right.
Given that, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. If he requires further information, I shall be very happy to try to provide it for him. However, by virtue of a simplified formula, the speed of assessment and the fact that we should be able to get money flowing from everyone, our whole push is that it should no longer be necessary to go after what some may have alleged in the past were the easy targets. As I said, we hope that we should not need to discriminate in a way that the noble Lord may fear has sometimes occurred in the past.
Lord Higgins: What are the priorities so far as concerns those who are on the old system?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We seek to obtain the money from all fathers. In the past, the priority has been to do so in private cases where the money is enjoyed by the family as opposed to cases where, for example, the father and mother are on benefit and where there is very little money involved. Therefore, in the past the priority has tended to be cost-effective: that is, to go for maintenance actions which are most likely to produce most money for children. If one must prioritise, it seems to me that that is the most decent way to do so.
It is not a matter of saving the Treasury money. In so far as public cases have had a degree of priority, it has been a question of what money will benefit the children. That has been the situation in the past. However, in future, with a simplified system, we hope that those choices—I am not trying to suggest that it has been widespread—would not have to be made.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the Minister consider that the parents with care will believe that it is fair if the absent parent who has paid some money is traced just as quickly as one who has not paid any?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the noble Baroness asking me to change the situation for the future Bill or to change the situation as it is now? In future, there should be no question of prioritising. At the moment, in order to obtain an assessment of child maintenance it is necessary to acquire approximately 100 pieces of information from the non-resident parent. If he holds back only one of those, the money will be delayed. In future, only three pieces of information will be required from the non-resident parent: the name of his employer, details of his take-home pay and the number of children that he has.
As a result, the assessment should be made within four to five days and the money should be flowing from him to the parent with care within four to five weeks, compared with the six months plus that it now takes. If it takes a long time at present, it is understandable

33
that officials will go after the money which most benefits the child. That dilemma should not occur in the future under the new system. We have tried to construct a system in which precisely those difficulties do not arise. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that assurance.
Lord Higgins: In the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Regulations]:
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 23, line 30, after ("section") insert ("6(1),")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment gives effect to a commitment we made in Committee last week. During the debate on Clause 3 noble Lords expressed some concern about delegated powers set out in new Section 6 (1), which has been inserted in the Child Support Act by Clause 3. Concern was expressed in this House about how the power might be used and some Lords queried whether such a power was needed at all. As I explained to the House, we wish to be able to retain a power to add other benefits to those already in the Act should the need arise though we have no present plans to add to the list. It mirrors the formula we have in the Child Support Act 1991.
I also explained that delegated powers are a feature of social security legislation, and that approach has been endorsed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. However, in response to the concerns of your Lordships' House I gave a commitment that in future any regulations made under this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure even though that was not recommended by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
The amendment before us now places a reference to new Section 6 (1) and Section 52 of the Act as amended by Clause 25, that adds to the list of affirmative provisions. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we have responded positively to your Lordships' wishes.
During a previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me to consider whether we would amend the subsection so that any other means-tested benefit of a prescribed kind could be substituted for the current wording. I promised to reflect on this. Having done so, I do not think that wording would be appropriate because the benefits we define as means tested or income related are a narrow group of benefits such as IS or income-based CSM. Those two benefits are contained in new Section 6 (1) on the face of the Bill before us. We may want to add some benefits in future that are similar in nature to income related benefits but are not strictly defined as such, for example, WFTC which is not means tested but did replace a means-tested benefit called family credit. We do not intend to add WFTC, but there are a number of tax credit type benefits that are being considered. It is possible that
34
more may be developed in the future. Therefore, a future government may wish to add it, but I must emphasise strongly that we have no such plans in mind.
Secondly, and more importantly, not all income-related benefits currently in existence require a person to seek child maintenance, for example, HB or council tax benefits, and IRBs which are not expected to apply for child support. The noble Lord's definition might well bring in groups of people to whom we had not intended it to apply.
I hope that on the first' part, by making the regulation subject to the affirmative procedure, noble Lords will be satisfied that Parliament will be able to scrutinise any regulations made under this power and on the second part that we might actually be widening the scope beyond perhaps what the noble Lord intended. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept this amendment and will accept the Government's response to the House.
Lord Higgins: We are grateful for that explanation. We will study what the Minister said very carefully.
Earl Russell: I, too, would like to thank the Minister warmly for that amendment and also for her further reflections. The Government say what I was afraid they would say, but a fact is a fact.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendment of enactments relating to child support]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No 104:
Page 99, line 17, at end insert (";and
(b) in subsection (1)(b), after "made" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, treated as made".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No 105:
Page 100, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) In section 33 (liability orders), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(6) Where regulations have been made under section 29(3)(a)—

(a) the liable person fails to make a payment (for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) of this section); and

(b) a payment is not paid (for the purposes of subsection (3)),

unless the payment is made to, or through, the person specified in or by virtue of those regulations for the case of the liable person in question."").
The noble Baroness said: This is the last of the amendments to the Child Support Act.
Amendment No. 105 is a technical amendment to put beyond doubt the intentions when maintenance remains due if payment has not been made in the way that the regulations require it to be made. When the CSA is arranging the collection of child support maintenance, it will notify the non-resident parent of the amount, how and when the payments are to be

35
made and who should receive them. The notification which imposes a legal obligation on the non-resident parent will state that the payments should either be made direct to the parent with care to or through the Secretary of State to any other such persons that the Secretary of State may specify.
If the CSA is unable to obtain regular payments of maintenance, for example, where the non-resident parent is self-employed or where a deduction from earnings order is ineffective, enforcement action will be considered. The agency must, as a first step, obtain a liability order from magistrates' courts in England and Wales or sheriff courts in Scotland. Where such a liability order is considered being made the magistrates' or the sheriff's office have to be satisfied that the payments are due and have not been paid. The intention has always been that this means maintenance payments as directed by the CSA. However, some non-resident parents may claim that they have met their maintenance liability by making payment in a variety of other ways, for example, by giving pocket money direct to the child or paying for treats. To take such payments into account would be operationally difficult to manage and run counter to the objectives underlying the child support scheme. For example, the CSA might have to become involved in resolving disputes between the parents as to whether the payments had actually been made and, at the extreme, fathers could give all the maintenance to their children as pocket money and leave the mother unable to buy basics such as food and clothing.
This amendment will ensure that it is absolutely clear to everyone, both parents and the courts, that maintenance payments must be made to the person specified.
I would, therefore, ask your Lordships to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos 106 to 108:
Page 100, line 36, at end insert (", and after "28A" there shall be inserted "or 28G"").
Page 101. line 1 at end insert—
("( ) In section 58 (short title, commencement and extent)—

(a) in subsection (9), after "35" there shall be inserted ", 40"; and

(b) in subsection (10). after "28" there shall be inserted ", 40A" ").

Page 101, line 5, after ("effect;") insert—
("( ) in paragraph 14 (which provides for consolidated applications and assessments), the existing text shall be sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph, and after that subparagraph there shall be inserted—
"(2) In sub-paragraph (1), the references (however expressed) to applications for maintenance calculations include references to applications treated as made.";").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
36
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sierra Leone
4.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Sierra Leone which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows.
"With permission, I would like to make a statement about Sierra Leone. In his statement last week my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House about the serious security situation in Sierra Leone and the implications for British citizens and others for whom we have consular responsibility. He said that the British Government had taken the precautionary measure of deploying military assets to the region. British forces were deployed to allow for the safe evacuation of British nationals and other entitled personnel.
"Essential to this task has been the securing of Lungi Airport which, as the Foreign Secretary said, will be extremely valuable in allowing UN forces to build up to their mandated strength over the next month. We have seen evidence of this in the recent arrival of two additional Jordanian companies, numbering some 300 personnel. This remains the clear and unambiguous position on the deployment of British forces. It was re-affirmed by the Prime Minister on 11th May, and it remains our position today.
"I am confident that the House would agree that the deployment of UK forces to Sierra Leone has been an outstanding success. Faced with a rapidly deteriorating security situation, UK forces have evacuated almost 450 people. The airport was secured quickly and effectively. Although we have consistently made it clear that UK forces will not be deployed in a combat role in support of UNAMSIL, the presence of UK troops on the ground has helped stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone. We are providing technical advice to the UN as to how matters might be further improved. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Armed Forces on the work they have done so far. It is a remarkable demonstration of their flexibility and speed of deployment identified as key requirements in the Strategic Defence Review. Both President Kabbah and Kofi Annan have welcomed the contribution that British forces are making.
"The situation in Sierra Leone remains volatile and we must all be concerned about the situation, in particular, for the detainees. We have received reports that a number of UN personnel have been released, and I understand that the British officer, Major Andrew Harrison, is fit and well under the

37
protection of the Indian battalion in the east of Sierra Leone. While this is welcome news, we continue to work for the safe release of all those currently being detained by the RUF.
"Freetown remains calm but tense. Outside Freetown, clashes between government troops and the rebels continue. For the moment, the rebels appear to be on the back foot. The government of Sierra Leone and UN forces have retaken the initiative. The arrival of Jordanian reinforcements at the weekend has been a significant boost to the UN mission. Reports to me this morning from the Chief of the Defence Staff have been encouraging.
"The forces we have deployed are those we consider necessary to carry out their primary task effectively. The First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment is currently shouldering the main burden in Lungi. But the maritime forces we have deployed—including our amphibious capability—provide vital flexibility for the Joint Force Commander in what remains a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. If attacked, our forces have the rules of engagement and firepower to allow them to respond robustly.
"In that context, while our forces remain, we shall do what we can to assist the UN mission. Its success is essential to enuring long-term peace and stability in Sierra Leone. UN forces have been doing a difficult job under uncertain and dangerous circumstances, disarming large numbers of ex-combatants despite not being up to full strength in terms of numbers of personnel and equipment. Our presence has helped to increase confidence and has contributed to the stabilisation of the situation.
"As a result of our force's presence we have been able to give significant assistance. British officers are providing advice to UNAMSIL. They are giving technical military advice to the government of Sierra Leone, and to the UN in New York. We have assisted the UN with the transport of vehicles into theatre by air. We have airlifted 230 Jordanians by helicopter from the airport at Lungi to Hastings, where the Jordanian battalion is strengthening its position.
"I recognise that there have been questions about the length of our commitment. The UN plans to build up its forces to the authorised level of about 11,000 over the next month. We are in contact with those countries that are contributing troops to the UN force, particularly with India, Jordan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, urging them to bring in troops as soon as possible in order to reinforce UNAMSIL. We would expect that once the UN mission has been reinforced by these troops, our role at the airport would no longer be required. I can assure the House that UK forces will stay no longer than is necessary.
"However, even when our forces do withdraw, we will not be ending our political or diplomatic support for the UN and for Sierra Leone. When it is safe to do so, we will continue with our programme of assistance to help train and build effective, democratically accountable Sierra Leonean armed forces., which we announced in April.
38
"We will also continue to contribute military observers to the UN mission, and if required, technical advice to UNAMSIL and other support.
"I have made it clear that we are committed to the safe evacuation and protection of our nationals and to supporting the UN in its mission to restore stability in Sierra Leone. The deployment of British forces for a limited period on these tasks is a model of the rapid deployment concept that was at the heart of the Strategic Defence Review. It has been much admired and acknowledged by all concerned. Our Armed Forces are doing an excellent job, which is acknowledged around the world. But there is no question of the UK taking over the UN mission or of being drawn into the civil war".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister most warmly for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place.
On Friday, while the noble Baroness did not answer many of the questions we asked, she gave us a very good sketch of what was going on in Sierra Leone. I am afraid that what the right honourable Member has said today has really not added anything to that.
My noble friends and I asked the noble Baroness a number of questions which I must now press. The first can be dealt with quickly. Who is to pay for all this? Will it come out of the Ministry of Defence budget or the Foreign Office contingency reserve? I hope most sincerely that the Ministry of Defence will not have to pay for it.
Secondly, I must return to what was a decent little skirmish between the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Attlee on the rules of engagement. Without intruding on private grief as to how it went, my noble friend did not press the matter but I am afraid that I must now do so. What are the rules of engagement in Sierra Leone? The Statement is less than clear about that. In what circumstances will British troops become involved? What if United Nations troops are attacked? That was a point which I raised on Friday, mentioning Zambians. I cannot remember whether Zambians are actually there. If a unit of the UN is attacked but the British forces are not, do they stand back and do nothing or do they become involved in the conflict?
Those British forces have now done what they set out to do. British citizens have been evacuated and Lungi airport has been secured. Why, therefore, will they remain? What is the purpose of that? Reports show that British troops are patrolling in Freetown itself and in the countryside in support of the United Nations. That does not seem to be limited solely to the aims for which they have gone there.
With those units has come a very large task force. Will Sea Harriers be involved and in what capacity? I am rather worried about the thought of keeping 1,800 Royal Marines on HMS "Ocean" for a month. I think there will not be very much left of the inside of HMS "Ocean".

39
The period of deployment for which the British troops are there needs to be clarified. Is it to be four weeks, as we are told? What are they to do in that time? Will they then withdraw, regardless of the conditions? If they stay, what will be the effect on other countries planning to send troops as part of the United Nations force? It is inevitable, and always has been, that the British are carrying the bulk of the burden. That will not encourage other countries to send their people out at once. When we come to the end of the four weeks, how will the British troops get out? All those are vital questions to which I hope we shall have some replies.
I must remind the Government of what happened in Bosnia. There, UN troops stood by while local inhabitants were massacred. Do British forces have a mandate to prevent that?
In 1993, after the Somalia conflict, the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee produced a report in which it said that before the United Nations became involved in an area of conflict, that should be tested by the Security Council against the following key considerations: first, whether the UN has a role for itself in the conflict in question; secondly, whether the objectives of the proposed military intervention are realistic; thirdly, given the likelihood of escalation into more and more intervention of a political and military kind, whether the Security Council is prepared to recognised the full consequences. It then went on to state:
"Finally, and most crucially, if the Security Council is so committed, are Member States prepared to mobilise the resources, manpower cash and equipment",
and so on. Have the Government considered all those matters, as they should have done?
I have one or two other small questions. What is General Guthrie doing there? The noble Baroness told me on Friday that his visit is coincidental and that he is travelling round the countryside. But it does seem a bit of a coincidence.
Even Brigadier Richards seems to present a problem. He is in Sierra Leone primarily as adviser to the lawful government and to help the United Nations forces to get things right. Command of British forces was given to him as an add-on. He must be suffering from wearing too many hats. It is not easy for him.
I suspect a lack of total co-operation between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister reassure noble Lords that those two departments are singing the same tune?
I must and do pay great tribute to what British forces are doing. However, we have not been told what it is. I wonder whether the Government know.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for kindly repeating the Statement made in another place. We, on these Benches, fully support the actions taken by the Government. The collapse of the UN mission in Sierra Leone would have the most disastrous consequences for the whole of central Africa and for the United Nations.
40
Those of us with long memories may recall what happened between the wars with regard to the situation in Abyssinia which heralded the end of the League of Nations. I believe that most of us would hate to see any such parallel drawn in the period after the Second World War. However, there are questions which need to be asked.
The increase in morale among government troops and United Nations troops as a result of the appearance of the British Parachute Regiment and supporting naval and military forces has been remarkable. It is clear that both government forces and UN forces are fighting with a degree of commitment they simply did not show before. That, by itself, is an astonishing tribute to the organisation, effectiveness and efficiency of British troops, which I am sure all in this House profoundly welcome.
Can the Minister confirm the most recent indications that, as a result of the intervention of Charles Taylor of Liberia, 150 hostage UN troops have now been released, or have the figures increased in the past few hours? Does the Minister agree that perhaps one of the less fortunate aspects of this welcome release of hostages is that Mr Taylor is a close ally of Foday Sankoh, who was the leader of the rebel movement? Can the Minister tell us whether she has any more up-to-date information about the whereabouts of Mr Sankoh? Perhaps I may suggest that it would be better to stop calling him "the leader of a rebel group" and call him what he is; namely, a bandit who has helped to betray his own government.
I strongly agree with the question posed by the Opposition spokesman on defence, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham; we need to press a little further on the issue of the rules of engagement and on whether the UN mandate might be strengthened. Given the breaking of the peace agreement by one of its major protagonists, it becomes more and more clear that we are looking not at a peacekeeping effort but at a peacemaking effort.
My final question is lengthy. It seems that the strategy of Her Majesty's Government—I may be misinterpreting it, but it seems a sensible strategy—is to hold Lungi airport and the surrounding area in order to ensure that reinforcements to the UN troops already in Sierra Leone can be made over the next few weeks. I understand that the governments of India, Bangladesh and Jordan have all confirmed their willingness to send additional troops. That is good news. If the UN can be built up to force, it may be able to re-establish an element of law and order and end the terrible atrocities occurring in Sierra Leone.
However, as I understand it, there is one serious problem. To get to the airport, those countries will require heavy lift equipment which is not available to them. From reports which I have not yet been able to confirm, I understand that that equipment would be available from the United States but that the price being asked is beyond the means of those poor governments to meet. Is it not an essential element in the strategy of United Nations peacemaking and peacekeeping that the wealthy member states of the

41
UN begin to understand that their responsibility must be to provide essential equipment to enable the poor member states of the UN to do what they are doing; that is, to offer their soldiers who are risking their lives? It would be absurd and wrong for the wealthy member states of the UN not to do what they can do; that is, to ensure that those troops get to Sierra Leone within the next month in time to rescue the situation.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the welcome they gave the Statement. Having just listened to his right honourable colleague in another place, I am bound to say that I was not tremendously surprised by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. None the less, I was disappointed in the tone he took.
It is not surprising that the Statement did not particularly add anything to what I announced to your Lordships on Friday. Another place did not have the benefit of a defence debate. I was therefore able to bring your Lordships more up to date than those in another place. I thought that that was the right thing to do. If that was a judgment with which noble Lords wish to quarrel, I hope that they will say so. I thought it was correct and what your Lordships would have expected.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked who would pay for the operation. We are recording the costs involved. I can tell your Lordships that to date it looks as if about £3 million in extra costs have been identified. However, I am certain that further consequential costs will be identified. We have agreed with colleagues in Her Majesty's Treasury and the FCO to monitor such costs and shall decide attribution later.
A great deal has been said about rules of engagement. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, told me on Friday that he would not press that question. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, decided that now is the time to do so. I informed your Lordships that there are robust rules of engagement. In my period in your Lordships' House—I am, of course, relatively inexperienced compared to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—I have never heard your Lordships discuss rules of engagement in any detail. The reason for that is always that we do not want to undermine the operational effectiveness of our troops in theatre. If that has been true on previous occasions, it is equally true today. However, perhaps I can try to help the noble Lord a little further.
I repeat that there is no question of UK forces being deployed in a combat role in support of UNAMSIL. I repeat that, if attacked, United Kingdom forces have the rules of engagement and the fire power to allow them to respond robustly, and they will do so. The rules of engagement allow our troops to defend themselves in the way we would expect. I hope that the noble Lord is content with that answer. Although I may be willing to trust the noble Lord with more information, I am bound to tell him that I would not be willing to trust the RUF with further information on that issue.
42
Our troops remain at Lungi airport. I believe it was clear from the comments made last week by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that not only are they there to secure the egress of British and other nationals, for whom we have consular responsibility; they are also there to secure the access of UN forces. That was made clear last Monday as it has been on every occasion on which Government Ministers have addressed these issues.
The noble Lord asked about the presence of the Navy. The task force is there to secure flexibility for British troops. Let us not forget that when British troops went to Sierra Leone, we had little accurate information on what was happening on the ground. It was judged essential that we had the support of the British Navy offshore. That was the unanimous recommendation of the Chiefs of Staff. I believe that noble Lords would be extraordinarily disappointed and anxious had Ministers not taken that entirely sensible, right and proper advice.
The noble Lord asked about the period of deployment. General Sir Charles Guthrie has said that United Kingdom forces would remain in place for around a month. In interviews yesterday I believe that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said much the same. It is reasonable to suppose at this stage that the Government believe that it is important to have British troops in place in Sierra Leone for about that length of time. Of course we hope to see the imminent arrival of Jordanian, Indian, Bangladeshi and Nigerian forces. I do not believe that because we have gone in, others who have committed themselves in international fora to sending their troops will now decide that it is no longer necessary to go. I simply do not believe that that will be the case. We are urging those troops to move into Sierra Leone and it is for that purpose that we have secured the position at the airport.
I believe that from the beginning the British role has been entirely clear. I am sorry that the noble Lord is worried about the position on HMS "Ocean". As I have said, the presence of the ship in the area is precautionary and the move has been made on clear military advice.
I believe that I can be a little more welcoming in response to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I agree with the noble Baroness that this has been a remarkable and effective operation by our British troops. I feel extraordinarily proud of them and I know that all my colleagues share those feelings. However, I have to say that I am sorry that the Official Opposition have perhaps decided to use this situation for political argument. I feel that that is inappropriate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the most recent reports indicate that around 150 hostages—perhaps, more suitably, I should call them "detainees"—have been released. However, I must stress to the noble Baroness that that figure is unconfirmed. She will have seen press reports, but I am afraid that we do not have any confirmation on that point.

43
The noble Baroness also asked me a question about Mr Sankoh. I shall choose my words carefully. At this stage I can communicate nothing to the House as regards the whereabouts of Mr Sankoh. I hope that what I have said in relation to the rules of engagement has given some assurance to the noble Baroness. The strategy she outlined in her remarks is indeed the strategy that we have put in place. Furthermore, as regards her comments about the need for heavy lifting equipment, this issue is covered by the logistics element of the role Her Majesty's Government have undertaken. The noble Baroness is quite right here. When a mandate is being pursued on behalf of the United Nations, it behoves all countries that belong to the United Nations to do what they can to support such a mandate. The United Kingdom has willingly shouldered that burden.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on the point he made about General Sir Charles Guthrie. Last Friday I told the House that a visit to the region had been planned by the Chief of the Defence Staff some time ago. I think it would be unthinkable that the Chief of the Defence Staff should not go to the region and visit British troops engaged in operations. After all, he is their head of profession. Those troops would expect to see him and we are very pleased that he is there. Furthermore, we are glad to see that he is lifting the morale of the troops in the way that only Sir Charles can. I for one was delighted to learn that he was broadcasting from Sierra Leone over the weekend.
On the question of relations between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, I can assure noble Lords that there is in place a strong, good and worthwhile working relationship. I hope that the presence of my noble friend Lady Scotland on the Front Bench with me today demonstrates that.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the noble Baroness—
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I believe that it is the turn of noble Lords on this side to speak.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why?
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, we have heard the spokesman from this side, but we have not heard from the Back Benches.
Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps we should first hear from my noble friend Lord Shore.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I wished only to offer my congratulations and encouragement to my noble friend. She has made an excellent Statement. We have done our duty to safeguard our fellow citizens and others, but there is a wider duty that we must perform. My noble friend has made that very clear.
44
We cannot afford to allow the United Nations to be humiliated and rebuffed in the mission it has undertaken. If we need to commit more forces in order to safeguard the position of the United Nations, I for one would be prepared to support that.
However, I should like to make one point to my noble friend. I am not worried about our terms of engagement, but I am a little concerned about those of the forces of the United Nations. The entire situation has changed over recent weeks as regards the government of Sierra Leone, which previously were supposed to be a government of coalition and reconciliation. The second principal member has turned out once again to be an arch rebel and destabiliser. Frankly, I think that it would be most sensible if we could put out feelers for an early recall of the Security Council to see what other measures, both in its own interests and those of us all, might now be undertaken.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney for those remarks. On the question of United Nations troops, the fact is that troop numbers did not build up as quickly as had been originally anticipated. Now that the security of the airport is assured, we hope that it will be possible to see the pace of deployment accelerated, in particular by those countries which have already committed themselves; namely, India, Bangladesh and Jordan. As I indicated in the Statement, over the weekend we saw the deployment of some 230 Jordanese troops precisely because the United Kingdom had already taken steps to secure the airport.
As regards the position of the Security Council, this is of course a matter in which the UN will take the lead. It is the responsibility of the UN to ensure that this matter is kept under constant review. I am happy to say once again to noble Lords that the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, has expressed his great pleasure as regards the United Kingdom role and deployment in Sierra Leone.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Baroness. The Statement announces the intention to "cover the withdrawal" and to "support the United Nations". Those two declarations are in fact mutually exclusive. We have just heard a plea from the noble Lord, Lord Shore, for imperial rule, more or less. The idea of Mr Cook as Secretary of State for India is something that would amuse me if it were not so sad.
Can the Minister explain what would happen if we were to allow Mr Sankoh, who was forced back into power by ourselves—that was surely the equivalent of making Dr Shipman Minister of Health or Kenneth Noye Chancellor of the Exchequer—back into power again? Forcing him back into power would be a great mistake. What Sandline did to keep the old democratic government in proper order went by the board. Everything collapsed and Sankoh came back.

45
Please can we have a definition of the Government's aims? Do they intend to go in to get British people out or do they aim a reimposition of an element of the imperialism so eloquently advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Shore?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl has stated that it is mutually exclusive to hold to the twin aims of evacuating British and other nationals for whom we have responsibility and supporting the United Nations. I simply do not know how the noble Earl has come to draw that conclusion. The fact is that we needed to secure the airport in order to facilitate the egress of our citizens and others for whom we had responsibility. Having secured the airport, it would be unthinkable not to keep it secure for the access necessary to the UN. Those two seem to me to be mutually supportive objectives and aims, and no matter how much the noble Earl may shake his head and assert the contrary, I am afraid that in logic, for once, the noble Earl is wrong.
To turn to the question in relation to imperial rule, as we all know, the noble Earl has an excellent turn of phrase and can often be extremely amusing. But this is not a joke; it is a serious issue. It is not a question of the return of imperial rule; it is a question of doing what we can in the limited context. I described of upholding the United Nation's mandate. We are a responsible member of the United Nations and are doing what we can in the circumstances.
The noble Earl will know that Mr Sankoh's appointment was part of the Lomé agreement; it was a part into which Mr Sankoh entered. Of course it is outrageous and appalling that he did not uphold the agreement and has effectively plunged the country back into civil war. But the noble Earl asks me to go on and speculate what may happen in various eventualities if Mr Sankoh were to do various things. It cannot be right for us to discuss such eventualities and I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. This is not a play in which we have a script and know to what end we are all going. This is military action on the ground. People's lives are at stake and I for one will not do anything that speculates in such a way that makes it less effective in operational terms to secure the safe return of all our British troops.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I fully support the stance that both the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State have taken over the rules of engagement; let the other side find out first.
However, I take slight issue with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—I know he did not mean them—in relation to the Royal Marines on board HMS "Ocean". They will not be causing any problems; they will be training, keeping fit and getting as much sleep as possible because, if they are landed, they will get no sleep. They will also be planning for eventualities that may come. I say that because, when we read Hansard tomorrow, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, may feel that his remarks make it appear as though matters of little consequence are happening on
46
board that vessel. But it is right, when we do not know the end, to be flexible and to prepare for any eventualities that may come.
To repeat something I said on Friday, involvement in a city or a town eats up soldiers. Fighting in built-up areas and in streets requires plenty of reinforcements. We hope at does not come to that. But the Statement is about right for what is happening in Sierra Leone today.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those wise words. Like him, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, did not mean to imply anything that he will regret when he reads Hansard tomorrow in relation to the Royal Marines.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I withdraw those remarks and apologise for my flippancy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean anything untoward. I know that he has the greatest respect for our troops and I am sure that, like us, he understands that they are doing an important job. They are training and keeping fit, but they are also providing for any additional flexibility that may be needed should the occasion arise. Of course, we hope that that does not happen, but the flexibility is available on advice.
Perhaps I can assure the noble Lord that we will only fight in self-defence; that is, if we are attacked. I hope that the rules of engagement are absolutely clear to your Lordships. Of course, there are a lot of troops in place. Some noble Lords remarked on that on Friday. When one is securing the airport, it is necessary not only to have troops in the airport, but also to secure the access and egress of the airport and to secure communications between the airport and Freetown, which, as I explained, is difficult because of the geography of Sierra Leone. But I thank the noble Lord for his support.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the noble Baroness see the statement made by Solomon Berewa, the Attorney-General of Sierra Leone that, according to documents found in Foday Sankoh's house, he himself took 442 carats of diamonds between August 1999 and January 2000 worth around £150,000? Is not that the key to the situation? The RUF still controls the diamond-producing areas and as long as it derives revenue from that source it will continue to import arms illicitly from places like Burkina Faso, stemming from eastern Europe. We must deal with that question if Sierra Leone is ever to have permanent peace.
Will the noble Baroness therefore answer my noble friend's question in relation to the terms of reference of the UN mission? Is it there to enforce the peace, as it has started doing already? If so, will it assist the Sierra Leonean armed forces to recapture the diamond-producing areas and thus cut off the sources of revenue from which Foday Sankoh continues this war? Will the

47
British commander also assist in the rapprochement between Hinga Norman and his commodores and Johnny Paul Karoma of the AFRC, which again are instrumental to the success of the government armed forces, since they should present a unified front against the RUF instead of being divided into three parts as they have been up until now? Can the noble Baroness also reply to the question of my noble friend regarding the heavy lift equipment? How did the Jordanians who arrived over the weekend get to Lungi? What heavy lift equipment is available for bringing the other troops which have been promised and which she says will arrive in the near future?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would prefer to write to the noble Lord on the question of heavy lift. I do not feel able to tell your Lordships what heavy lift is available because I am not sure how much of our operational hand that will expose. I hope to be able to give the noble Lord details and put a copy of my letter into your Lordships' Library. But the situation being what it is, I prefer to take advice about any security implications that may arise on that question.
I agree with the fundamental premise of the noble Lord. We have in the past had exchanges on Sierra Leone where the noble Lord centred his remarks on what happened in the diamond trade. I agree that the whole issue of diamonds has fuelled this appalling conflict for many years. I am sure it is the issue of diamonds that led to the disgraceful, rapacious greed demonstrated by certain members of the RUF in particular but no doubt others as well.
To turn to the specific question, the UN troops are present to provide for the implementation of the Lomé agreement, which provides for the permanent cessation of hostilities, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of all ex-combatants. As part of that, the creation of democratically accountable armed forces to protect the country is necessary. Of course, when trying to reintegrate members of the armed forces into society, we have to look at the ways in which that can be done, and that will mean diverting people's attention away from the disgraceful trade we have seen in diamonds to things which benefit the country as a whole. But that is a long process.
The noble Lord and I have been exchanging comments over these issues for some two and a half years or so. But that does not detract from the wisdom of what he said; namely, that some solution to the problem has to be found. I believe that it is well understood in the United Nations that the diamond situation—I hesitate to use the word "trade" because that is a respectable word—and the disgraceful intercourse that exists in that respect must be addressed so as to bring peace to that unhappy country.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her strong presentation of the UK role. However, perhaps I may ask her a question about the evacuation process which, in general, has been carried out with exemplary speed by
48
UK personnel. I have in mind the evacuation in relation to British nationals who are black. Complaints were expressed today on BBC radio that black UK people had been held back while white people were processed. There were also two examples in press reports of black people being held up when returning to the United Kingdom. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what guidance is given to our authorities on the range of UK ethnicities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can say, unequivocally, to my noble friend that I, too, heard that claim made on a radio broadcast this morning and was appalled by it. Naturally, I have requested information about the validity of that claim from my colleagues in the Foreign Office. I am assured that there was no discrimination of any kind during the evacuation. I believe that; I believe that there was no discrimination of any kind. Some 442 people have so far been safely evacuated to Dakar by official means—that is to say, the means provided by British troops. But, of course, other people may have evacuated under their own steam and may have travelled by civilian means.
Our responsibility was to evacuate people for whom we have the consular responsibility—not just British people, but others as well—to a place of safety. Once in Dakar, it was for evacuees to make their own onward travel arrangements. Many did so and arrived in the UK soon after reaching Dakar, but many evacuees had little or no money. Those people were provided with hotel accommodation, while arrangements were made by our consular staff in Dakar for their onward travel to the United Kingdom. Foreign Office staff in Paris and London met those who were evacuated on Thursday and Friday. I can give my noble friend the assurance that there is no question whatever of any racial discrimination over evacuation.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I have had the strong impression in recent days that there are more reports than there used to be about the activities of the SAS, its equipment and even its intentions. This seems to me to be undesirable. Can the Minister assure us that there has been no change of policy as regards the release of information on that sort of subject?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I can. I, too, have been rather disturbed by some of these reports. I was most disturbed to hear a reference to special forces from the noble Lord's right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State on a radio programme this morning. I thought that that was an astonishing reference for a responsible member of the Opposition to make. I should tell the noble Lord that such reports are not "reports" in the accepted sense of being official reports from the MoD, the Foreign Office, or anywhere else. There is a great deal of speculation about what is happening. In line with our predecessor administrations—and, I hope, our successor administrations—we do not comment on the activities of special forces.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. It seems to demonstrate that the

49
expeditionary capacity, which is part of SDR, is being maintained. Can my noble friend say whether there is sufficient flexibility in policy to allow the UK to contribute significantly to the maintenance of training and the enhancement of the strength of the regular forces in Sierra Leone so that, when we have gone, people are not left in reliance upon the irregular forces, which seem to be very irregular indeed? Would not that role be particularly appropriate for our European partners; indeed, could we not ask them to take a more generous interest in the matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath is quite right. Recent events have clearly demonstrated the need for properly trained, effective and democratically accountable armed forces in Sierra Leone. We still have plans to send a UK military advisory and training team to the country, whose remit will he to deliver what the armed forces of Sierra Leone need to ensure a lasting peace. As I reported when repeating the Statement and as was announced in April of this year, we remain committed to that aim. But the team's arrival in Sierra Leone is likely to be delayed if the security situation is deemed to be too volatile. I am sure that my noble friend will not be surprised—indeed, I hope that he is reassured to know—that no firm decisions have been taken on when the bulk of those personnel will arrive in Sierra Leone.
I agree with my noble friend. All those who wish Sierra Leone well ought to be thinking about ways in which they can contribute to the civil well-being of the country. We must ensure that the armed forces, many of whom will have to be deployed in different ways in the future, are properly trained so as to secure a peaceful and democratic society in that country for the future.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, in line with the recommendations set out in the Companion, I have to tell noble Lords that the time limit of 20 minutes allowed for Back-Bench contributions has now been reached. We must move on.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
5.26 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 109:
Before Clause 30 insert the following new Clause—
("Age addition
AGE ADDITION
. For section 79 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 there shall be substituted—
"Age addition.
79.—(1) A person who is above the specified age and who is entitled lo a retirement pension of any category shall be entitled to an increase of the pension, to be known as "age addition".
50
(2) Where a person is in receipt of a pension or allowance payable by the Secretary of State by virtue of any enactment or instrument (whether passed or made before or after this Act) and—

(a) he is above the specified age; and

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

he shall be entitled to an increase of that pension or allowance, also known as age addition.
(3) In this section "specified age" means an age specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(4) Age addition shall be payable for the life of the person entitled, at weekly rates to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(5) Regulations under this section may—

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

(b) provide for different rates of age addition to be payable for persons of different specified ages.".").

The noble Lord said: I rise to make what is positively my first, but not my last, appearance in the debates in Committee on this Bill. The proposed new clause provides for age additions—that is, additional payments—that are to be paid to older pensioners as an addition to their basic state pension. It would be paid to everyone who is entitled to a basic state pension.
The amendment is the same as one introduced by my honourable friend Mr Steve Webb in the other place. Formally, it does not specify the age at which the additions will be paid or the amount of such additions. Of course, the amounts will need to be flexible and will have to be varied from year to year. I should say that the current proposals of my party are that there should be an extra payment of £5 to single pensioners aged 75 or more. That £5 should become £7 when they reach the age of 80.
We recognise the problems with financing earnings-linked increases in the basic pension, but we also recognise—and do so acutely—the serious problems of elderly pensioners. The present "age addition" of 25p per week payable at the age of 80 is obviously completely farcical and I believe has not been increased at all since 1971. Elderly pensioners are undoubtedly those who are most in need. If they have an occupational pension, they are likely to have the lowest. They are very unlikely to have a personal pension; certainly not one of any significant amount. Moreover, those in their 80s will not even have SERPS (or not SERPS of any significant amount) because in many cases they will have retired before that was introduced in 1978.
In some respects, elderly pensioners have greater expenses, especially when it comes to heating and perhaps to some extent clothing. Therefore an additional pension for pensioners who are aged 75 and over will target those most in need without having to require them to submit to means testing. It will also greatly reduce the need for older pensioners to have to claim the minimum income guarantee.
As pensioners get older, it becomes more difficult for them to get hold of forms, to understand them and to fill them in. I believe that much of the failure to claim MIG is due to difficulties with form filling which may

51
deter people, particularly the more elderly pensioners, from claiming what are often relatively small sums which are payable.
I should, however, add that, strong as the case is for age additions in any case, that case is made vastly stronger by the proposed introduction of the state second pension. There are two reasons why that is so. First, the state second pension will be earnings-related up to pension age by the revaluation of the earnings factors but will be price-linked thereafter. Once the state second pension comes into payment, it will increase annually only in accordance with prices and not in accordance with earnings. The minimum income guarantee, however, is likely to be earnings-linked. The result of that will be that people who start with a pension above MIG level will find that their pensions fall below MIG after a few years. The estimate is that this could happen after some 10 to 15 years, even for people with full contribution records who rely on the basic pension and the state second pension.
I do not believe that that result is acceptable. The age addition should be fixed at levels which will prevent pensioners with full contribution records for the state second pension falling below MIG level. There is, I believe, also another reason why the state second pension makes the age addition particularly necessary; that is, that the state second pension, at stage 2, will cease to be an earnings-related pension, or a pension which has an earnings-related element in it, because the amount of pension at stage 2 will be linked solely to the notional lower earnings threshold—a figure which is currently £9,500.
As I understand it, the lower earnings threshold will increase in line with earnings. The result of that will be, for example, that people who retire in the year 2020 will receive a higher state second pension than those who retire in the year 2010 and are still living in the year 2020. Of course, to some extent this problem already arises with SERPS but it is much less obvious because SERPS is earnings-related—as its name suggests—and therefore the spread of pension amounts among those retiring in any one year is wide. However, this problem does not arise with the basic pension because it is the same for all pensioners with full contribution records whenever they retire. Therefore someone who retires this year will receive the same basic pension as someone who retired 10 years ago.
At stage 2, the state second pension will become, in effect, an additional basic pension. If those who retire this year were to get a higher basic pension than those who retired in 1985, I believe, frankly, that there would be hell to pay. If the Government are to stop short of a full earnings link for the state second pension while it is in payment, I believe that they must find some other way of providing larger pensions for older pensioners. I believe that this can, and should, be done by a substantial age addition.
52
As we know, the Government face outrage over their 75p per week increase in the basic pension.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Did the noble Lord refer to the earnings-related state second pension, or did he mean the state pension? Will he clarify what he said in his previous one or two sentences? I believe that he referred to the state second pension; I think that he may have meant to refer to the state pension.
Lord Goodhart: I am not quite sure to which passage the noble Baroness refers. I said that in effect at stage 2 the state second pension will become an additional basic pension and will cease to have any earnings-related element.
I believe that, particularly after the state second pension has ceased to be an earnings-related pension or have an earnings-related element, there will be serious problems because someone who retires in 2020 will receive a higher state second pension than someone who retires in 2010, even though in neither case is the pension earnings-related.
Even if the present system was maintained, I believe that age additions are essential if the Government are unwilling to return to the earnings link for the basic pension. I also believe that the introduction of the state second pension makes age additions doubly important. Without them the unfairness to older pensioners will be built into the system and the state second pension simply will not work. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put his case eloquently. We on these Benches share his concern for older pensioners. However, reluctantly, we are unable to support the insertion of the new clause. As he explained, it proposes that pensioners of a certain age should be entitled to a pensions increase. However, as the noble Lord said, the age and amount are unspecified.
Furthermore, it is open-ended and would commit future governments to expenditure that might not be sustainable in the long run. The oldest pensioners are an important priority for these Benches. In the years 1997–98 the previous Conservative government targeted the oldest pensioners by increasing premiums for income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. We feel that there are more effective ways to help older pensioners than this new clause.
Lord Brett: I find the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, superficially attractive, particularly as regards the desire to help poorer older pensioners. However, I question whether the age addition—whatever amount is suggested—would achieve that as well as the Government's current policy. Over the past two years the Government have tried to eradicate pensioner poverty by aiming policies at less well off pensioners, whether that be through reductions in VAT on fuel, the increase in winter fuel payments or the lop rate of tax.

53
The amendment, which contains elements which concern the Conservative Front Bench, does not target the poorest pensioners. Those on income-related benefits would not benefit at all from the provision that is proposed. Perhaps the simplest and the wisest policy is to try to do everything possible to overcome elderly pensioners' fear of filling in forms. Perhaps the Government should make an extra special effort to ensure that pensioners who qualify for the minimum income guarantee are given every assistance to enable them to claim it. I believe that the minimum income guarantee will be in the gift of governments in years to come. It can be made more effective provided we ensure that people understand the role it plays and their rights to it. I hope that the Minister will explain what plans the Government have to ensure absolute take-up of that benefit rather than go down the route of added payments at the age of 75 or 80.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: As an 89 year-old it is obvious that this amendment has superficial attractions for me, if I understood what it committed the Government to do. As has been pointed out, it is totally vague and gives the Government a blank cheque to do nothing. However, I am sure they would seize on that avidly.
The mover made it clear that he considers the amendment to be an alternative to restoring the earnings link, but it seems to me that it is a device for distracting attention from the division in the Liberal ranks. As I said on Second Reading, a large contingent of Liberal Democrat Members in the other place joined Labour rebels in supporting an amendment to restore the earnings link. I do not think this amendment would satisfy them as an alternative and it certainly does not satisfy me, so I would not dream of voting for it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness has taken most of the words out of my mouth and said them very much better than I would have done. I hope that the problems of older pensions will not be discussed in terms of gimmicks. The amendment, with its free television licences and a heating allowance of £150, would help me every bit as much as pensioners who are much poorer. The benefits are not targeted. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell the Committee how it would be funded and how older pensioners could plan their retirement, when they would have no idea of the amount decided by the Secretary of State and at what age; otherwise, one cannot take the amendment seriously.
The problems of older, poorer pensioners are great, as I know from a number who live near me. They are extremely grateful for a free TV licence and a heating allowance but wish to plan—and they will always want to watch television and it will always be cold in Angus. I do not believe that the amendment is the right way to assist pensioners. The public may regard its provisions as somewhat cynical. Pensioners want certain, targeted help so that they know what is ahead. I am sure that any serious government will have to think about that—including the present Government. If the
54
Liberal Democrats really aspire to govern us, I do not think that they should table such an amendment. I am really quite shocked by it.
Baroness Greengross: There is a strong argument for any increases in state pensions to be for all older people, rather than targeting particular age groups. However, the benefits system already recognises the greater needs of the oldest, which is why income support is more for older pensioners and why rates of attendance allowance are higher according to need, which is often age-related. The Government have recognised that greater need in their provision of free TV licences for the over-75s, and that is what was behind the original 25p age addition on the state pension at age 80. That has been allowed to wither to such an extent that it has become an insult. Older people point out regularly to me and others that one cannot even buy a first-class stamp for 25p. It would be better either to resurrect the addition meaningfully or to get rid of it altogether.
Today's oldest pensioners, especially women, are the poorest and would benefit particularly from the amendment. My concern is where to draw the line and at what level to pitch any extra help. More research is required into what is needed by older people at different ages. I shall return to that aspect when we debate Amendments Nos. 132 and 133.
Earl Russell: I shall respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. The amendment as drafted allows for regular uprating. I am sure that the noble Baroness would be the last person to query the importance of that opportunity. In Committee on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill last year, it was said that while we were not going to adopt the earnings link, it would be necessary in good years for earnings to be above the level of prices. Nobody knows how much above that level we might be able to uprate in future years. We would like to leave available the option of generosity where that is financially permissible.
As to what was done by my right honourable and honourable friends on Report, I do not think that the noble Baroness understands the difficulties of being a third party in the other place, where there is no guarantee, as there is here, of being able to table amendments and vote on them. Our amendment in another place was not selected, so voting for the earnings link was the only way we could vote in favour of an increase in pensions. We thought that principle so important that it justified departing from our normal practice and policy. That may have been an unusual way of deciding the issue but in view of the concerns that we share, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive us.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, is so easily shocked. I shall not advert to incidents in past Parliaments. The noble Baroness knows that I could, but I shall not bother.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My noble friend Lady Castle is being a little hard on the Government in accusing them of doing nothing. They have uprated pensions, introduced a minimum income guarantee, and given better heating allowances and free TV licences.
I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Brett. Although I welcome the Government's improvements to reduce pensioner poverty, my concern is that pensioners should claim the benefits to which they are entitled and that they should not be made to feel that they are receiving charity. Recent figures show that there is much variation in poverty within each group of pensioners. Offering the same benefits to all will not eliminate poverty. The only way to do that is to target the poorest pensioners and to make sure that they claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment relates to the increase in the basic retirement pension, known as the age addition, paid to people over the age of 80. The practical effect would be to remove the specified age from primary legislation and allow it to be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. The amendment would also permit regulations to specify different rates of age addition.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, it is difficult to defend the current level of age addition. The sum of 25p a week is nonsensical by anyone's reckoning. However, although I appreciate the desire to help the oldest in society, the amendment presents real difficulties. Our mixed strategy is more effective. The noble Earl's amendment overlooks the cohort effect, and the method of paying for it would undermine longer-term policies.
My noble friends Lord Brett and Lord Haskel referred to the minimum income guarantee. We already have age-related premiums in the MIG and believe that that is the quickest and most effective way to help those in need. Through MIG, we increased income support for pensioners last year by three times the rate of inflation. This April it was increased in line with earnings. So, for example, a couple over 75 are getting through MIG nearly £18 more than they would under the retirement pension; and a single person over 80 is getting through MIG nearly £20 more than the retirement pension—and, incidentally, £9 more than a 65 year-old would get on MIG. We again expect to increase this by earnings next year. We shall further enhance the amount of the premium that older pensioners receive through MIG over other pensioners.
We have invested much in the minimum income guarantee, but, as my noble friend Lord Brett rightly said, it is not worth a jot unless people claim it. So through the late spring and all summer we shall be writing to more than 2 million pensioners to tell them about MIG. The campaign will be supported by TV advertising and, for the first time, pensioners will be able to claim MIG over the phone by ringing the new MIG Telecentre in Newcastle. They do not need to go into a benefits office; they can claim it from the comfort of their home.
56
We believe that providing help through MIG is the most effective way to help those most in need immediately. In the longer term, our radical pension reforms—in particular the introduction of stakeholder pension schemes and the state second pension—will ensure that everyone with a lifetime of work behind them will build up rights to a pension on retirement which will take them above MIG and ensure that they have an income above that level for longer.
Over and beyond that, we have introduced other benefits—for example, the winter fuel payments, which are tax free and worth £150 to eligible householders from next winter; the introduction of concessionary bus fares; the free eye tests for the over 60s; the reduction of VAT on fuel; the tax changes which have cut the starting rate of tax to lop; and the free television licence. As a result, we are spending an extra £6.5 billion on pensioner income this Parliament. Put broadly, half of that money is going on the poorest 3 million pensioners.
Against this, I should like now to engage, as seriously as I can, with the propositions in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I take them very seriously. The noble Lord should consider that extending the payment of the age addition in this way would have a net annual cost of around £660 million. That is not my problem. My problem is, as was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Haskel, that the noble Lord—by repeating some of the proposals spelt out in much greater detail by his honourable friend, Mr Steven Webb, from another place, which were based on statistics produced by the last two pensioner surveys of the DSS—is assuming that age cohorts are an appropriate proxy for picking up the poverty of pensioners.
It is true that older pensioners are poorer than younger pensioners—for example, they become poorer over time because they are less likely to be earning, as 65 to 70 year-olds often do; they are likely to have spent more of their capital; and it is likely that their occupational pension will have not kept pace with the general wealth of the country. But the offset against that is that we have seen across the country a huge increase in the number of occupational pensions over the past 20 years, as well as the higher state pension benefits and better housing. But it is true that older pensioners are poorer than younger pensioners.
However, it is also true that women pensioners are poorer than men pensioners; and it is also true that single pensioners are poorer than couples. By using only the age proxy—which is what the noble Lord seeks to do—we will have exactly the same problems as we had with City Challenge and urban regeneration projects.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. As to the use of age as a cohort, is it not the case that, because of women's greater life expectancy, a much higher proportion of the oldest pensioners are women and, therefore, an age addition helps not only the older pensioners but helps women disproportionately to men?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is perfectly true. But the opposite is also true: we would probably do more to help poverty by giving all women pensioners, of whatever age, an increase of, say, £10, than to concentrate on the age cohort targets. It is arguable.
I have some serious information for the noble Lord. I respect the fact that the diagnosis is connected with age and with gender, and I accept the fact that because women live longer than men they are more likely to be single. I do not disagree at all with that diagnosis; the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his honourable friend, Mr Webb, are correct. However, whenever one goes for a broad-brush approach such as a cohort—as we have found, for example, in urban renewal projects and the like—if one seeks to concentrate money on poor areas to overcome the problem of individuals claiming it, the difficulty arises that more than half of all people live outside poor areas. Exactly the same is true of the noble Lord's amendment and age additions.
Perhaps I may give him some figures on which he might care to reflect. The gap between age cohorts is far smaller than the income disparities within each age cohort. Let me give the facts. Let us take, for example, a single pensioner. The quintile—the bottom fifth of income—for single pensioners under the age of 75 is £70; for those over 80, it is £65. That is the gap for single pensioners. For couples the figures are similar: £133 for under 75s; £113 for those over 80. That is medium, quintile income; the net income before housing costs of pensioner units. So, by age, a gap between £133 and £113 in the bottom quintile for couples; and a gap between £70 and £65 for the under 75s and over 80s for single pensioners. That is the only difference one would pick up through age cohorts.
But when one looks within each age cohort, one sees that for couples under 75—the ones that are getting £133 —the top fifth would be getting £457. Extend that to the over 80s: for the bottom quintile couples it is £113, the figure I have given, but, for the top fifth, £348 is the median income. It is the same for singles. As I said, the bottom fifth of under 75s would have a median income of £70; but the top fifth would have £224. As to the over 80s, the bottom fifth would get £65; the top fifth £195. In other words, the inequalities within each age cohort approximate to a ratio of three to one, but the gap in median incomes between each age cohort is 20 per cent, 40 per cent or 60 per cent, according to how one calculates the figures.
The policy of the noble Lord will not work. All it does is to pay some money to older pensioners who need it; it gives a lot of money to older pensioners who, given the figures, do not need it; and it ignores the poverty in younger pensioners, who need it but who will get nothing at all. There is more poverty within each age group than there is between age groups; therefore, as a result, any measure designed to tackle the poverty of pensioners by attaching more money to age will not be enough to help lift the poorest out of poverty; it will give a lot of money to those who do not need it; and it will neglect the poverty among poor pensioners, who will still need to claim MIG. The statistics do not sustain the noble Lord's argument.
58
I shall be very happy to send him a copy of the statistics—I am sure that the noble Lord and his honourable friends will want to look at them—hut, given my explanation, I am afraid that his amendment will not work.
Perhaps I may give another example. Only 40 per cent of those over 80 are entitled to claim MIG; 60 per cent are not. Under the noble Lord's proposal, he would give them all a hefty lift. In other words, the greater inequality is within each age group rather than between age groups. I would suggest that the noble Lord's basic assumption is, therefore, invalid.
It would still be the case that the majority of those over 75 and over 80 would be above the poverty line as measured by access to MIG. Equally, even given these proposals, four-fifths of over 75s and over 80s who were previously on MIG, would still need to remain on it because the noble Lord's allowance would not be sufficient to float them off. I suggest that that is not the right way to help.
As I said, it could equally be argued that the money should be added for women. One would then have exactly the same problem; there would be greater discrepancies within genders than between genders age for age, quintile for quintile.
I accept that this is a generational problem; I accept that 75 and 80 year-olds will always be relatively poorer than 65 year-olds. But this will not be so much because of disparities in income but because they are more likely to be widows and, as the noble Lord rightly described, given their greater frailty, they are more likely to have higher expenditure. That gap is closing and will continue to close given our proposals for the state second pension.
Thus, my first criticism of the noble Lord's proposals is that they will not address poverty in the way he thinks that they will. The bulk of poor people will remain unhelped by his proposals—for example, those poor people who are aged under 75—and equally, in his method, he will be giving still more money to those who do not need it as opposed to those who do and, as a result, the poorest will still need a top-up.
My second criticism of his proposals is that he has identified what I believe to be a temporary problem which will be overcome by the state second pension and our proposals for that and for stakeholder pensions. However, to my dismay, he is proposing to fund those schemes—at least in the Steve Webb paper—by abolishing the state second pension and SERPS. That means of solving a temporary problem—and inadequately—removes the possibility of a permanent and proper solution. I have the paper here and I shall happily quote it to the noble Lord.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I never said anything about the abolition of the state second pension; it is not part of our proposal.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, I have Mr Webb's proposals here and that is how he proposes

59
to fund it. I am very happy to give the noble Lord a copy of his honourable friend's document on which his amendment was based, but let him be in no doubt that that is how it is proposed to be funded. Therefore, to solve a temporary problem, the noble Lord is proposing to remove the possibility of a permanent solution. Indeed, to solve the problem of pensioner poverty at ages 75 and 80, he will add to it at 65. Under these proposals, far more pensioners (both younger and older) will come on to the MIG and then, of course, will have to be lifted off it again. That is not to mention that the natural consequence will be that if you abolish SERPS and the state second pension, you will have to remove contracted-out rebates, which is the equivalent of SERPS for private pensions, which will have a devastating effect on private pension provision. Stakeholder pensions will flop, additional private pensions would stop and many occupational pensions would be scaled back. I just wonder whether the noble Lord and his honourable friend Mr Webb have considered the read-across and what it would mean to occupational pensions, many of which are funded, as he will know, by the contracted-out rebates which bear the read-across from SERPS, which would be abolished under his proposals to fund schemes which would not address poverty as he believes they would.
Although I accept the noble Lord's diagnosis of who the poor are, I would suggest that the MIG approach, which identifies poverty wherever it occurs—at 65, at 75, at 80, among women, among men, in London, in Lancaster—is a more decent way of responding to it than are any of the proxy poverty solutions, such as age-related rebates which, as I say, will not help the poorest but will give a lot of money to those who do not need it because income discrepancies are wider within each age band than between age bands. As a result, I hope that, on reflection, he will not wish to pursue this. What my noble friends have made clear tonight—and they are right—is that MIG is the right and decent way to identify poverty wherever it occurs, but we have an obligation to ensure it is claimed easily, transparently and simply so that every pensioner who is entitled to it receives it. In addition, we have a responsibility to those just above the MIG lines, whether through savings or modest earnings or income. That situation will be taken on board in our future proposals for pensioner credit. In that way, we will target poverty where it is, without stigma, without difficulty and without damage while not subverting the possibility of lifting future generations out of poverty, which is what our state second pension and our stakeholder pensions will do.
In the light of that additional information, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to pursue his amendments.
Lord Goodhart: The Minister has always been extremely eloquent on this matter. I welcome the support which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, gave to this amendment. I am disappointed, but not altogether surprised, at the lack of support from other
60
Benches. I entirely understand the position that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has taken. That is entirely consistent with the viewpoint which she has expressed throughout. So far as the position of my party is concerned, if the Government are unwilling to give any assistance on this particular point, it is very likely that we would—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I want to respect the courtesies of the House, but does the noble Lord accept anything that I have said tonight about the problems inherent in his amendment which show that his amendment will not do what he thinks it might do, which is tackle pensioner poverty? Does he accept that?
Lord Goodhart: I shall take this in order. The position that has been taken by the Minister is of course entirely consistent with the line that the Government have been running.
Baroness Greengross: I did not say that I supported the amendment. I said that it had a number of attractive elements and that some of those are already part of the Government's policy, but I do have concerns about it.
Lord Goodhart: What I meant to say in reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was that support meant support in principle rather than for the ideas behind these amendments, in particular for an age-related addition rather than for the specific details of this amendment. I understand, as I said, the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and have, as we may find when we reach later stages, some sympathy for it.
The position of the Government is that everything must be concentrated as much as possible on the minimum income guarantee as an attack on poverty among pensioners. I quite accept that—I think it is a matter of common sense—but the differences within the age cohorts is indeed wider than the differences between them, that is perfectly true. If the argument put forward by the Minister is taken to its logical extreme, you begin saying that you must rule out free television licences for all pensioners at the age of 75 and restrict them to those in receipt of the minimum income guarantee; you also have to say that you rule out the winter fuel allowance for all pensioners and restrict it to those in receipt of the minimum income guarantee; and indeed you go beyond that because ultimately that particular argument leads you to say that there will be no state pension at all and that all pensioner benefits will be provided through income support (under the minimum income guarantee) and will be limited to those pensioners who satisfy its income requirements. I believe that that would not be acceptable in this House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may make it clear that the Government have no such intention. The Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that the basic state pension is a building block within the overall prosperity of pensioners and will remain so.
Lord Goodhart: Of course I accept that. I was merely pointing out that this is the logical conclusion to which that particular argument leads. The question surely is: what is the right balance between means-tested benefit for pensioners through the minimum income guarantee and non-means-tested benefits? The Government have put forward what I certainly regard as being an interesting and in many ways excellent proposal for the state second pension, but surely the aim must be, among others, to provide people who have full contribution records with a pension that will enable them to get to the end of their lives without having to rely at some point on means-tested benefits. Means-tested benefits may be necessary and will be necessary no doubt for those without full contribution records, but the state second pension is designed—and, I think, designed quite effectively, at the beginning—to take people outside the need for MIGs. The problem is that as people get towards the end of their lives and find it more difficult to claim means-tested benefits, they will have to fall back on them. When the Minister says that only 40 per cent of those over 80 are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee, my reaction is that 40 per cent is an enormous figure. It is far larger than the proportion of people in the population as a whole who are reliant on income-related benefits. It seems to me that the case—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I also gave the noble Lord the figure that, for a single person over 80, the difference between MIG and the retirement pension was nearly £20. Under the noble Lord's proposals, that single person would get only £7, so he would still need to be topped up between £7 and £20. Anyone who would currently qualify for most of MIG would still need to qualify even under the noble Lord's proposals.
Lord Goodhart: The triggers I have in mind take into account the fact that people will be better off under the state second pension. That will mean that the difference should diminish. We need to ensure that pensions are set at a level which will make it unnecessary for people who have paid full contributions, including the contributions to the second pension, to rely on the minimum income guarantee. That is important. The Minister's argument, taken to its logical conclusion, means that all benefits for pensioners should be provided by the minimum income guarantee.
I shall take the amendment away and look at it again.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: How will the plan be funded?
Lord Goodhart: It will require only a relatively small addition. It is much less expensive than providing an earnings link for the whole of the pension.
Lord Higgins: That would make it cheap.
Lord Goodhart: Of course it makes it cheap. We regard this as being targeted on those who are in particular need. It will help a much higher proportion of those who are in particular need.
62
As I said, I shall take the amendment away and look at it again. However, it is very likely that, either in this form or in another, we will come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Earnings from which pension derived]:
[Amendment No. 110 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 111:
Page 27, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Baroness said: The intention of this amendment is to extend the categories of people who will be credited with benefits in the state second tier pension despite having insufficient earnings. The proposed amendment removes the reference to earnings over the lower earnings limit. It therefore gives deemed earnings to anyone with earnings under the lower earnings threshold. As I understand it, this would benefit principally the unemployed.
The real purpose of the second tier state pension is as much to fill the gap left by the erosion of the basic state pension as to provide a replacement for SERPS. In judging the adequacy of the Bills provision in respect of granting credits for non-earners, the yardstick therefore should be the groups who would now be credited for the basis state pension. People signing on as unemployed are credited with full NT contributions each week.
The Government may feel that to give credits to the unemployed would be a disincentive to work. However, we are not talking about immediate benefits but deferred benefits in retirement. For most people who are unemployed the idea of making pensions contributions is quite out of the question. I therefore hope that the Government will see that there is justification for this small amendment and respond positively to it. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I have pointed out on previous occasions that the Bill is very much a package, with virtually no connection between the child support part and the pensions part. I hope therefore that the Committee will allow me just a moment or two to elaborate on the point made by the noble Baroness in explaining her amendment.
As she rightly said, it relates to the state second pension and she wishes to extend the provision for deemed contributions to a wider group than those covered by the Bill as it stands. My understanding throughout has been that the Government's strategy is effectively to have three levels of pension: a second state pension for those earning less than, in broad terms, £9,500 a year; a stakeholder pension for those earning between £9,500 and £21,600; and either personal pensions or company pensions for those above; in other words, what one might reasonably describe as the middle and upper earnings levels. I was therefore surprised by the speech of the Secretary of

63
State, Mr Darling, to the National Association of Pension Funds. It may be helpful to quote a small passage in full and then, on the basis of what I have just said, ask the noble Baroness to clarify the position.
Mr Darling said:
"And from 2002, 18 million people will gain from the new State Second Pension … That's why we've introduced Stakeholder Pensions—to give more choice to 5 million people. We'll continue to work with you to make pension provision better".
Two points puzzle me. The first is the statement that from 2002,
"18 million people will gain from the new State Second Pension".
My understanding is that, even with the amendment we are now considering, no one will gain in the sense of receiving benefit from the state second pension in 2002, not least because we do not know when the state second pension will come in. The Government have said that it will come in when the stakeholder pension is established.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In stage 2.
Lord Higgins: In stage 2, yes. When will we know that the stakeholder pension has been established as far as concerns stage 2 of the second state pension and how are we to tell that that is so?
Another point puzzles me in Mr Darling's speech. He said:
"But we want moderate and higher earners to get into funded pensions. That's why we've introduced Stakeholder Pensions—to give more choice to 5 million people".
Apparently, Mr Darling is now saying that the stakeholder pension is for moderate and higher earners to get funded pensions. That is not what he intends.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know whether the speech was accurately reported. The noble Lord's original description was correct: the state second pension is for those earning—not those not earning—up to £9,500 and stakeholder pensions from £9,500 to £21,000. The issue of the debate between us may be merely at what point is moderate to high. But there has been no change in any of that.
Lord Higgins: But as I understand it, this was the information in the press release issued by the department. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Secretary of State that her understanding, if not his, is that stakeholder pensions are not for middle and higher earners.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But they are for moderate earners. The conjunction may be where someone is regarded as a higher earner or simply above the average or median earnings line. Let me give the reassurance that nothing has changed. The noble Lord's original description was exactly right. All we may be discussing is at what point we classify someone as being a higher earner as opposed to being a moderate earner.
Lord Higgins: That reply is helpful because the matter will arise in subsequent debates.
There is another problem directly related to a point made by the noble Baroness in moving the amendment. One of the main arguments put forward by the Minister in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, is that there is a huge advantage in the state second pension because people are deemed to have made contributions who were not able to do so under SERPS. The amendment seeks to extend that even further. But it still raises the question of whether, when the second state pension finally comes to fruition, we shall find that it is above the minimum income guarantee.
The state second pension will be a flat-rate pension. As I understand it, it will not be uprated in line with earnings. So the Government's apparent munificence in saying that they will give more for carers, the unemployed or whomsoever may turn out not to produce any real benefit at all at the end of the day. It could be purely a paper operation because of the interrelationship between the non-earnings related benefit and the earnings related minimum income guarantee. Some important issues arise in the context of the noble Baroness's amendment which we need to get clear in our minds. It may be that in reality her amendment costs the Government nothing, but in reality it is also the case that the people she wishes to help get nothing at the end of the day.
Perhaps I may make one other broad point. We do not know what the liability will be either of the noble Baroness's amendment or of what is proposed. I was going to say that I have been "lumbered"—I think that would be the right expression—with the Government Resources and Accounts Bill as well. The departments really ought to start working on estimates of the liabilities for the government as regards the state second pension. If we are to have a government balance sheet, it is not enough to have a marvellous document setting out the assets; we ought probably to have an equally thick document stating the liabilities which both the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and the Minister seem to be piling up for us in the future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 111 seeks to exclude the requirement for low earners to have earnings at or above the annual lower earnings limit to benefit from the low earner's boost to £9,500.
But the state second pension is a contributory benefit based on earnings factors. To have an earnings factor a person must have had earnings on which national insurance contributions have been paid or treated as paid. Therefore, the effect of the amendment would be to give the low earner's boost to anyone who had as little as one week's earnings in a year over the weekly lower earnings limit (£67 from 6th April).
The Government want to help the poorest pensioners. That is why we have introduced the minimum income guarantee and the rest of the package. The basic state retirement pension is a secure foundation but it was never meant to support the

65
lifestyle that most people want today. Most people have a second pension—60 per cent of pensioners have income from an occupational pension; others have income from savings.
The Government believe that the best way to have secure retirement is to use the basic retirement pension as a solid foundation on which to build a second pension. That is what this Government's policies will deliver for millions of pensioners.
Perhaps I may briefly explain how our proposals for the state second pension will benefit low earners. It will reform SERPS so that it refocuses help on those who need it most and who have the least opportunity to build up good second pensions themselves: 4.5 million low earners will get more than double what they would have received under SERPS; 2 million carers and a similar number of long-term disabled people will build up a second tier pension for the first time. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, felt able to welcome our proposals for the state second pension.
I should like to remind the Committee that, without our pension reforms, by 2050 around one in three pensioners would have to rely on the minimum income guarantee. Our reforms will reduce that proportion from one in three to one in five. We shall be lifting over 2 million pensioners off MIG, and people will remain above it for a considerable time.
Let us take, for example, someone who earned as little as £3,500 throughout their working life (£60 to £70 a week). That person will retire on a combined pension of £85 a week in today's earnings terms and will stay clear of the minimum income guarantee for nine years. Couples do even better. Their pension will keep them above MIG for 21 years. Most people over 65 are in couples; they are not single people. The reference will be to single people when the earnings period relates to the late 1970s and the 1980s.
Members of the Committee, and certainly my noble friend, will recognise that it is a fundamental principle that someone in an earnings related pension scheme cannot build up a pension which is more than his or her average weekly earnings. The amendment would give the low earner's boost to anyone who had as little as one week's earnings in a year over the weekly lower earnings limit (currently £67).
There would be every incentive for the economically inactive to find part-time work for a single week just to qualify for the state second pension. We should not forget that the retirement pension is a contributory benefit and that it is not possible to get a qualifying year for basic pension on the basis of one week's contributions alone. But this amendment would give a year's entitlement to the state second pension for precisely that—only one week's contributions. So someone who had only ever earned the equivalent of £67 for one week in a year (an average of £1.29 a week) would receive a state second pension of £54 a week. As well as being costly, that cannot be right in principle in an earnings related second pension scheme. Or, more typically, someone who earned £40 a week—for example, 10 hours at £4 an hour working in a café, and who worked a fortnight during the summer and
66
received £80 a week—would under my noble friend's amendment receive a state pension of £54, higher than her average earnings of just over £40 a week. It cannot be right to have a pension scheme which produces a higher pension than a person would have earned in earnings alone, when it is meant to be an earnings-related pension.
Perversely, the amendment would not include those who had earnings of less than £67 for every week of the year. So someone earning £50 a week, or £3,000 a year, would not benefit, but someone earning only £70 in one week and nothing for the rest of year would.
If the aim of the amendment is to target the poorest employees, regardless of the contributory principle, it is likely to be wide of the mark. Many of the lowest earners are to be found in households with another higher earner, or where there are other sources of income.
Indeed, many of the poorest pensioners would not benefit from the increase to their state pension income at all, particularly where they do not have entitlement to a full basic pension. That is because it is taken fully into account in assessing entitlement to income related benefits, so their overall income would not increase.
The basis for calculating the state second pension will be the same as that for SERPS; that is, the earnings factor—it is an earnings related pension. The amounts are all based on the earnings on which someone has paid national insurance contributions in the course of a year; they are calculated on an annual basis.
So to calculate entitlement to additional pension under state second pension on a weekly basis, we should need to revise the entire way we calculate additional pension. It would mean assessing pension entitlement on a weekly basis which would hugely complicate the assessment of entitlements and place an impossible burden both on employees and on our operational systems. For employers, the collection of information would be mind-boggling in its complexity. And it would require the Inland Revenue to record that information on every person's account. That is 52 times the amount of work involved in the current annual system.
We believe that our proposals for the state second pension strike the right balance in providing extra help for those who need it most and the prudent use of resources. It has been widely welcomed. It is the building block on top of the state retirement pension which in future will take so many of our older pensioners out of poverty. On the basis of my explanations, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Higgins: I have listened with care to what the Minister has said. However, if I understand it correctly, she has related the amendment entirely to stage 1 of the second state pension. She has not related it at all to stage 2, when it ceases to become earnings related, and much of the argument that she has advanced becomes irrelevant. I may have failed to understand the point, but that seems to be the case.

67
The noble Baroness referred to the second state pension as a contributory benefit. We have often discussed what that expression means. The noble Baroness must, surely, distinguish between a contributory benefit and a deemed contributory benefit. I am not sure how to word it. The Government have already gone down that road. However, it is still far from clear whether, even if the Government deem the contribution to be made, it will cost them any money because at the end of the day it is merely offset by the minimum income guarantee; or whether carers, who are to receive the marvellous help (as everybody describes it) from SERPS and so on, will benefit.
The noble Baroness put forward a number of figures to show the proportion of people who would fall outside the minimum income guarantee. I do not have the exact figures before me. I believe that reference was made to one in five. At all events, the Minister argued that there would be far fewer people subject to the minimum income guarantee. As to stage 2 of the second state pension, that depends on what assumptions are made about prices and earnings respectively. I am not clear what assumptions the Minister makes, and perhaps she can tell the Committee.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that that would entail another half-hour speech, which I am not sure the Committee would welcome. There may be some misunderstanding about what is entailed by stage 2. Under stage 1 anyone between the lower earnings limit and £9,500 will receive a state second pension as though he was earning £9,500. That is the low earnings boost. Although it is tapered, it continues for those between £9,500 and about £21,000. Therefore, there is still an incentive to remain within the scheme. We expect that under stage 2 there will be a flat rate beyond the £9,500 level which will not be earnings-related. Therefore, there will be greater attraction to move into a stakeholder pension or alternative vehicles for pension provision. It will not affect those who are under the £9,500 level. The basic thrust of the proposal, which is to use the state second pension at both stages 1 and 2 to address pensioner poverty for those with earnings of less than £9,500, remains unchanged. The change is related to what happens to those over £9,500. I hope that the noble Lord is content with that explanation.
As to the noble Lord's second point about the deemed contributory benefit, frankly, when we began to construct the contours of a pension arrangement of this kind the first option was to address only those in waged work. I recognise the work of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and that of the Carers National Association. The Government were persuaded that they should pay ICA precisely because they recognised that it was work, albeit unwaged. That is recognised by a substitute income. We believe that it is right, decent and proper to regard the receipt of ICA as a deemed payment, in the same way that disabled people with a
68
fairly close connection to the recent world of work should not be disqualified because they subsequently go on to IB.
My noble friend's amendment proposes in effect that everybody should get the state second pension, because a person gets it if he is also unemployed. In a rather subtle way my noble friend seeks to ensure that everybody has a basic state pension which is at least as generous as the basic state pension and the state second pension put together. At that point the connection between earnings, the world of work and the earnings-related principle goes out of the window. Perhaps that is what my noble friend seeks to establish, but that is not a principle which features in the Government's policy. We believe that the state second pension is for those who have been in the labour market but whose earnings are so low that, if they had the older style SERPS pension, their pension would still keep them in poverty for far too long. As a result of our changes, under SERPS someone who earned £6,500 would have received about £12 or £15, whereas under our proposals he will receive £54. I hope that as a result my noble friend will not pursue her amendment; otherwise, she will destroy, possibly quite deliberately, the whole purpose and thrust of the state second pension which has been so widely welcomed outside.
Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness still has not answered the point related to stage 2 of the state second pension. At that point it becomes flat rate. We do not want to perpetuate the argument. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be kind enough to drop me a line about the assumptions on which she bases her statement that that will be of benefit to carers because at the end of the day they will get more than the minimum income guarantee.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Basically, for every year of caring a carer will receive the equivalent of £1 of basic state second pension. I do not understand the noble Lord's bafflement. Up to £9,500 the position remains unchanged between stages 1 and 2. The flat rate element after stage 2 applies to those who would otherwise have received a state second pension if they had earnings of between £9,500 and £21,000 under stage 1, which is earnings- related. We seek to make it a flat rate for that group so that they are encouraged into stakeholder and funded schemes.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for the very extensive explanation that she gives of government policy. I am not entirely persuaded by my noble friend's response. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has referred to some of the points that I intended to raise. When moving the amendment I said I believed that the real purpose of the state second pension was as much to fill the gap left by the erosion of the basic state pension as to provide a replacement for SERPS. That remains my belief. My noble friend refers to the basic pension as the basic building block.

69
That building block will erode, and government policy is based on the assumption that that erosion will take place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: To continue the metaphor, it is a basic building block but the superstructure will become larger and larger.
Baroness Turner of Camden: But the superstructure is intended eventually not to be earnings-related but to be a flat rate. Having read fairly extensively the government papers on this matter, the idea of having a flat rate appears to be that that will persuade most people to look to the private market; in other words, the present 60:40 relationship between public and private provision will be reversed. In 10, 15 or 20 years the majority of the population will not look to public provision but to occupational or private pensions or stakeholder pensions; in other words, they will have recourse to the market. Therefore, I suggest that to credit people who are unemployed in the way proposed in the amendment is quite reasonable. There will not be a basic building block worth mentioning. People will already be credited in relation to the basic building block as it exists now. Since the second state pension and the basic building block are likely to develop eventually into low-grade public provision, I propose that the crediting should be against future public provision as far as concerns the unemployed. I shall not press the amendment this evening, but I am not terribly happy with the Government's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Castle of Blackburnmoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 27, line 23, leave out from ("year") to end of line 27.
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 112 is extremely simple. I would have thought that the point raised by the amendment would attract the sympathy of the whole Committee, perhaps even of the Minister. The amendment seeks to simplify the provisions for crediting-in. We all welcome the concept of crediting-in. We contemplated that enlargement of our policy in 1974, but we had taken such a giant leap forward in the provision of state insurance, SERPS and all the rest of it that we knew we could not do it all in one go.
If one has a provision for crediting-in carers it is only sensible to ensure that it is consistent throughout the whole area of pensions that we have been studying. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to provide the same criteria for crediting-in as exist in the basic state pension.
I should have thought that the Government would have been only too eager to do that; otherwise there is a grave disadvantage as between the treatment of carers in the Government's new proposals and those under the basic state pension. I refer, of course, to the definition of a "carer" as someone who is in charge of a child under six. That is whittling it down somewhat, is it not? Under the provisions of the previous Labour government, carers were defined as those looking after a child under 16.
70
Are the Government telling us that we shall be less humane to carers than we have been? When we discuss the great advantages of the government scheme over SERPS, for instance, we tend to forget that the Government are measuring themselves not against the original SERPS but the Thatcherite reduction of it. Under the original SERPS, the 20 best earning years was one of the greatest lifelines which could be thrown to carers and the disabled. We shall deal with the disabled a little more in the next group.
I urge the Committee to share the view of my noble friend Lady Turner and myself, and I am sure of other noble friends, that the crediting-in of carers should not be limited to those in charge of a child under six years, with the assumption that after that no real caring is needed for an older child who is probably going through some of the stormiest developments in his whole life.
It is a simple principle. I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 113 or 114.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: As the noble Baroness said, this is a relatively simple amendment compared with many before us. There is always argument as to whether it is best for mothers to stay at home or go out to work. The government provision seems to say that carers should go out to work after the child is six; they will no longer receive their deemed benefit contributions if they do not do so. On the other hand, it is probably true that if they go out to work at that stage, it may well be part-time rather than full-time work. Carers are more likely to work full time when their children are over the age of 11. It seems to me, therefore, that the noble Baroness's amendment has something to be said for it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the noble Lord accept that in part-time work someone needs to work only 18 hours at the minimum wage in order to qualify under the lower earnings limit? The assumption my noble friend Lady Castle made, echoed by the noble Lord, is that the carer either stays at home or goes into full-time work. But he or she qualifies by working 18 hours at the minimum wage and for considerably fewer hours if he or she has a higher rate of pay.
Lord Higgins: Clearly for carers with children between the lower and higher age, the work is more likely to be part time than full time. However, I am happy to listen to the Minister's reply to the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I speak to Amendment No. 114, grouped with the amendment. It differs from the noble Lord's amendment in only one respect. We propose that the crediting should extend to a carer who has care of a child under the age of 12, whereas in the noble Lord's amendment the age referred to is 11 years.

71
I have a great deal of sympathy with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. Any mother who decides to stay at home to look after her child makes a sacrifice in terms of the potential income that she forgoes. It is not right that on top of that she should also be asked to forgo her right to a pension. The idea of crediting as regards people with those responsibilities seems to us right. The question is where to draw the line.
The Government's view, here and elsewhere, seems to be that women should be given an incentive to go back to work as soon as possible. It seems perfectly legitimate for a woman with a child of six, seven or eight to decide to stay at home and concentrate on looking after her child or children. A child at primary school cannot be left to look after himself at home. In most cases, the child will have to be taken to school and picked up at three or half-past three in the afternoon. He will have to be looked after during the holidays. There are childcare facilities, but I do not think that mothers of primary school children should be required to make use of them or forgo their rights to the state second pension.
Once the youngest child reaches secondary school age, there seems a case for saying that a mother can take at least a part-time job without regarding herself as not handling her children properly. But up to that age it seems to me wholly legitimate for a mother to be able to say, "I wish to be a full-time mother. I do not wish to take even a part-time job, and my pension rights should not suffer because of it".
We have put the age at under 12 rather than under 11 because the child's first few weeks or months at secondary school may be a period of particular stress and difficulty for him or her, and it is appropriate that the mother, without loss of pension, should be able to stay at home as a full-time mother for that period. Nothing I have said is intended to indicate that mothers who prefer to go out to work are acting wrongly. But up to the age of 12 it should be for the mother to make the decision and she should not be put under any pressure by the threat of loss of pension rights.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Under our proposals, a person who earns less that the annual lower earnings limit (LEL) in a given year but who is looking after a child under the age of six and receiving child benefit will accrue entitlement to the state second pension in respect of that year. In effect, we are targeting extra help on people looking after children up to early primary school age. These amendments would extend that help to people looking after a child up to but less than age 11, 12 or 16 respectively.
Under SERPS, every year that someone was out of work and looking after a child meant they got a smaller pension when they retired. That is one of the reasons why women, who are most often affected, get less from SERPS on average than men. Our proposals for the state second pension will help to address that problem. Almost 1.5 million women will benefit under these proposals. Five years out of work looking after a
72
young child will be worth about £5 a week in state second pension when that woman comes to retire. Under SERPS, she would have got nothing for those years.
With the state second pension we are seeking to give help to those who are least able to make their own provision for a second tier pension; that is, people who either cannot work or who are in work but on low wages. The first group includes carers and often mothers of children below school age, who have the least opportunity to work and to earn above the lower earnings limit. That is why they are a key target group for our help.
As Members of the Committee will know, many mothers of school-age children—that is, children from the age of five—choose to combine their caring duties with part-time work. Many of those parents will benefit from the S2P low earner's boost, even though they earn as little as £3,500 a year. As a result of the minimum wage, someone will be required to work just over 18 hours a week in order to gain access to the state second pension boost. Those who earn above the minimum wage will, of course, gain access by working even fewer hours.
Some mothers may choose to stay at home, even when their children are older. Some may have no choice because of family or other circumstances. Our intention is certainly not to criticise or punish them for that, and we are not doing so. Indeed, we are doing a great deal to help those mothers who choose to stay at home. That help includes big increases in child benefit—£15 for the first child; £10 for the second—and income-related benefits for children under the age of 11. As I say, we shall have virtually doubled their allowances between April 1997 and October this year.
However, it is the case that three-quarters of all married women are in work and approximately two-thirds of all couple mothers are in work. My noble friend Lady Castle and other noble Lords are correct in saying that the employment rate of mothers who have a child under the age of six is lower than that of those who have children over the age of six. The employment rate of couple mothers who are in work, both part and full-time, with a youngest child below the age of six is about 54 per cent, whereas it is approximately 70 per cent when the child is aged six or older.
Therefore, leaving aside the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Castle, who would not qualify under the government scheme? So far as I can see, women with a youngest child over the age of six may not be in the labour market for one of three reasons. First, they may be women who would like to work but who have low employment prospects or other difficulties with finding employment; for example, they may have low skills. Certainly, the evidence from our New Deal is that that is the biggest obstacle to women—particularly lone parents—who want to enter the work market. We have developed the New Deal and its training facilities precisely to help people who wish to work but who currently cannot to join the labour market.

73
The second group of mothers with children over the age of six who may choose or wish to stay at home when their children are older, unlike the vast majority of couple mothers, are those who have a sick or disabled child. Of course, they would be entitled to the state second pension if they claimed ICA or HRP.
The third group of mothers who would not normally be in the labour market if their child is over six may be those from an affluent family who choose for the mother to remain at home until the children are older. Of course, where that degree of resource exists in the family, she could decide to maintain her second pension by means of a stakeholder pension scheme. In the case of a stakeholder pension, it will be necessary to save approximately £9 a week—that is all—in today's earning terms to provide the equivalent of the 10 years' cover, until the child is aged 16, that would be granted under S2P.
Therefore, we are focusing the state second pension on those who care for children under school age in a way which matches the choices that most mothers make. Those who choose not to do what most mothers do—that is, they stay at home because they can afford to—can receive coverage through a stakeholder pension. If they stay at home because they need to due to disability or dependency of a child, they are entitled to receive credits for the state second pension through other routes.
Most mothers take career breaks or periods away from work when their children are very young. Most mothers—70 per cent—return to work once their child goes to school. Such a decision is always a matter of individual choice. Entitlement to the state second pension would simply be one more factor for them to consider. As a result, we believe that we have the balance about right.
As I said, there is the basic pension, which covers all contingencies; the state second pension, which is work-related; and there are alternatives for those whose children are older than six where either the child is needy by virtue of disability or where the income is such that there is no financial pressure. If mothers want to return to work but are impeded by virtue of their relatively poor employment prospects, we can help them through the New Deal. We believe that that is working with the grain of people's choices while respecting the situation for the taxpayer. In the light of that, I hope that Members of the Committee will not pursue their amendments.
Baroness Wilcox: Perhaps I may ask for a point of clarification. I more than likely misheard the Minister. Did she say that two-thirds of married women are working?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I actually said that three-quarters of married women are working. Overall, approximately two-thirds of mothers who are married are working. Of that amount, 54 per cent of
74
those with a child under the age of six are working and approximately 70 per cent of mothers in a couple with a child over the age of six are working.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, intends to do with his amendment. However, when he made the point that he had worded the amendment so that it would cover children up to secondary school age, I would remind him that we are legislating for Scotland as well, where children go to secondary school a year later. Therefore, what he said did not apply to Scotland.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: As always, the Minister's flow of statistics requires careful analysis. I do not know about the rest of the Committee but I find that when she speaks I am almost carried away on a flood tide of protestations which are so convincing that I am immediately suspicious of them. Therefore, I am sure that she will understand and forgive me—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot resist. If my noble friend says that she is suspicious when she is almost persuaded, what happens when she is not?
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: "Almost persuaded"? I am sorry; I must be feeling rather stupid at this time of the day. I intend my remarks, as always, as a great compliment to the Minister. However, it means that I would like a little time to think through what she has said. Therefore, I withdraw my amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 117:
Page 27, line 29, leave out ("long-term").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 117, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Castle, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 118, 120 and 121, with which it is grouped.
Again, these amendments deal with the whole issue of credits. The Government propose that state second pension rights should be credited for a year, throughout which a person receives long-term incapacity benefit. That would exclude the first year of a spell of incapacity during which short-term incapacity benefit is paid. It would also exclude anyone who receives incapacity benefit for only part of the year. The first of the two amendments would result in the whole year of incapacity, including the first year, being taken into account. The second would mean that a person who received long-term incapacity benefit for at least 26 weeks in any year and did not have earnings above the lower earnings limit for the year as a whole would qualify for credits. It would also apply to a

75
person who receives short- term incapacity benefit for half the year and long-term incapacity benefit for the other half.
Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 relate to subsection (3) on page 27 of the Bill. That subsection appears to introduce the labour market attachment test. People who propose to obtain state second pension credits in respect of a period of incapacity benefit will have had to pay contributions as an employee for at least one-tenth of their working life. That seems a little unnecessary and unfairly restrictive, and the amendment would remove that test. Amendment No. 121 would enable periods of self-employment to count towards the labour market attachment test. So far as concerns that particular amendment, I must say that I am not quite certain whether it works in the way that I intended. However, as I said earlier, the intention was that periods of self-employment could count towards the labour market attachment test, which is contained in subsection (3) on page 27 of the Bill. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 117, 118, 120 and 121 all relate to disabled people and entitlement to State second pension. Amendment No. 117 would mean that people entitled to short-term incapacity benefit were brought into State second pension, whereas under our proposals access is limited people entitled to long-term incapacity benefit, as my noble friend clearly explained.
Amendment No. 118 would mean that people would accrue a year's worth of S2P where they had been entitled to long-term incapacity benefit for as little as half a year, whereas under our proposals people must have been entitled for a whole year.
Amendment No. 120 would remove the 10 per cent work test qualifying condition whereby disabled people with broken work records must have worked and paid class 1 contributions for at least one-tenth of their working lives since 1978 to qualify for S2P.
Finally, Amendment No. 121 is again about the 10 per cent work test and would mean that years of working and paying class 2 contributions would count towards the 10 per cent requirement, thereby bringing certain self-employed people into additional pension provision.
Disabled people with broken work records are one of our most disadvantaged groups in the labour market. Under SERPS, every single year out of the labour market meant a smaller pension on retirement. Many disabled people who had worked for significant periods of their lives ended up with little or no additional pension because of their periodic absence from the labour market. I do not think that that was fair.
Under our proposals, long-term disabled people who are out of the labour market for periods of time will be protected. If they are on low wages when working, they will receive the extra help that we are directing at the low paid as well. I will give an example. Take a disabled man in employment throughout his
76
working life, earning £9,500, apart from 10 years when he was unable to work: if he had retired in 2025 under SERPS, he would have received a total state pension of £64 a week in today's earning terms. Under S2P, he will receive £81, which is £17 a week more. That represents a real improvement for disabled people that is long overdue.
I turn to specific amendments. Clearly, disabled people who are out of work for long periods lose out most heavily under SERPS. That is why we are seeking extra help for those with long-term incapacity benefit, as they have the least opportunity to build up decent second pensions. Short-term incapacity benefit, to which this amendment applies, as the name suggests, covers short spells of illness and incapacity which are less likely to be disruptive to pension build-up.
Of course, there are some people who experience short but frequent spells of incapacity. They may have a fluctuating illness and may have a mental health illness and are therefore in and out of work. The linking rules in incapacity benefit mean that people in this position will eventually move on to long-term incapacity benefit. The spells of entitlement to short-term incapacity benefit can be added up until they reach 52 weeks, at which time long term IB becomes payable. Thereafter, a full year out of work will qualify for S2P.
Amendment No. 117 will bring people whose short-term periods of incapacity did not add up, in aggregate, to long periods out of work into S2P. I do not think that is appropriate because two-thirds of all IB claims which terminate are short term or, to put it another way, only two-thirds of those people who are on short-term IB do not go on to long-term IB. In other words, it is a natural break and there is a lot of "churning" at that point.
Amendment No. 118 raises the question of the need for a whole year's entitlement to long-term incapacity as a gateway to S2P. The principle underlying S2P is to look at someone's position over a complete tax year. SERPS operates on the same principle. I do not think that there is a compelling case for altering the whole-year principle, particularly since long-term IB is normally paid for long periods covering several years. Long-term IB is not a benefit which people move on to and off and on to and off. They do on short-term IB, but not once on IB long term.
There will be a question mark against the equity of introducing part-year rules for disabled people but not for carers, an issue to which we will return probably on the next amendment.
The remaining amendments, Amendments Nos. 120 and 121, relate to the 10 per cent work test. I will set out the principle. S2P will continue to be a contributory benefit. It is not aimed at permanently disabled people who have no contact with the labour market. They are covered by the non- contributory parts of the benefits system, both before and after retirement age.
One of our key aims is to ensure that disabled people with broken work records can still build good second pensions, saving where they can afford to do so, and

77
receiving extra state support where they cannot. This means maintaining a link between work and entitlement to additional pension. The test in question is designed to prove some work attachment. It is a fairly modest requirement; 10 per cent is equivalent to two years of working life at the outset of S2P, gradually increasing to a maximum of five years after 2024. We think that is about the right balance between encouraging work and saving, on the one hand, while at the same time protecting disabled people who cannot work for periods during their lives.
Amendment No. 120 would remove the test altogether, which I do not think would be right, for the reasons that I have explained.
Amendment No. 121 would enable periods of self-employment to count towards the 1[0 per cent work requirement. This brings in the wider question of pensions for the self-employed. We recognise that the nature of self-employment is changing. We recognise that there are real questions about which we have consulted as to how best to encourage the self-employed to save for their retirement. For example, there are questions about the provision and how compulsory it should be. The issue of whether they were brought into S2P was indeed part of our consultation exercise and we are still considering that. I think that there are arguments fairly finely balanced as 10 whether one should compel self-employed people—whose businesses they may regard as their pension—to be required instead to pay into a pension direct, with the problems that might produce for their cash flow. We do believe that as a result it would be premature to accept an amendment on the question of S2P and the self-employed at the moment. I am sure that we shall return to it in due course.
In conclusion, our proposals on the state second pension will do a great deal for disabled people with broken work records. Indeed, it brings them into additional pension provision for the first time. Of course we could go further, but I think that we have it about right. People will receive it if they are on long-term IB; they will receive it if they are in work—over £67 a week throughout the whole of the year; they will receive it if they have fluctuating conditions that have been covered by the linking rules. Given all that, the only year when someone would normally lose that benefit entitlement is the year one moves off short-term into long-term incapacity benefit. I think that we have it about right. I hope that, as a result, the Committee will not wish to pursue these amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for this very comprehensive explanation of the Government's policy. Of course, she has again referred to new SERPS rather than old SERPS, SERPS as it originally was. But I will let that go. The Minister knows that I supported old SERPS and was not very happy about what happened to it.
However, everybody would want to encourage disabled people to take up employment wherever they can. The problem is, as everybody knows, that it is not easy for many. It was because of that that it was felt necessary to look again at the provisions in the Bill in
78
relation to disabled people. I am not at all certain that I entirely accept everything that my noble friend has said, but certainly she said a lot and very fast. will look at it in detail in Hansard. If I think that I ought to return on the issue of disablement and rights for disabled people, I will do so, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.118 not moved.]
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No 119:
Page 27, line 39, at end insert—
("(e) the pensioner—

(i) did not have an earnings factor for the year equal to one greater than the qualifying earnings factor for the year; but

(ii) would have had such an earnings factor if he had earnings equal to the lower earnings limit in each week in which paragraph (b), (c) or (d) would have applied to him if the words "throughout the year" had been omitted.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment raises an issue on the same subject as the last group of amendments, but in a somewhat different form and it is concerned with a different problem.
Under the new Section 44A of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992 which is inserted by Clause 30 of this Bill, that section does two things. First, it effectively treats anyone with earnings below the lower earnings threshold, which is £9,500, but at or above the level that qualifies for contributory benefits, as having earnings equal to the lower earnings threshold. Secondly, it treats some people as having been credited with earnings that they did not actually have. Clause 44A(2)(a) deals with the former issue. Subsection (2)(b), (c) and (d) deal with the second aim—that is, the crediting.
People can apply for crediting for the state second pension if the invalid care allowance or incapacity benefit is payable or if they have home responsibilities of certain kinds which preclude them working. But in each case, that condition must be satisfied throughout the whole of the year. That may well disqualify a pensioner in respect of the year of entry and exit; that is, the year during which invalid care allowance or other benefits were first payable and the year in which they cease to be payable.
It is possible that in the year of entry or exit, someone may qualify under paragraph (a) because he has had an actual earnings factor above the qualifying earnings factor; in other words, because his earnings have been sufficient to qualify him for a pension in that year. But he is less likely to qualify under paragraph (a) if he gives up the job and transfers to, let us say, invalid care allowance or home responsibilities early in the year or if he is lower paid and, therefore, takes a longer time to reach the qualifying earnings factor. For pension rights to depend on the time of year at which the status changes from earnings to credited earnings creates wholly random anomalies.
Secondly, for pension rights to be more difficult to obtain for the poor than for those with higher earnings is plainly unjust. The purpose of this amendment is to

79
avoid the anomaly. It allows pensioners to claim an earnings factor for the entry or exit year by combining actual earnings under paragraph (a) for the period in work with notional weekly earnings for the period when they are entitled to invalid care allowance, incapacity benefit or have home responsibilities. Those notional weekly earnings are treated as equal to the lower earnings limit.
The potential exclusion of entry and exit years is plainly unfair. An answer along the lines of this amendment seems simple and would exclude most, although not all, of the unfairness. It may well be that the wording could be improved but the principle seems to me to be obviously correct. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I am happy to support this amendment to which I have added my name. That is because the contribution condition requiring receipt of invalid care allowance during the whole of a year causes problems for carers.
It causes problems for two groups of carers in particular: first, those who have lost ICA because the person being cared for has had one or more periods in hospital or in respite care, which in total amount to more than 28 days in six months. The second group comprises those who have lost ICA because they have earned more than £50 occasionally but whose earnings over the year do not reach the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.
On Second Reading, I gave your Lordships some examples from my personal experience and that of the Carers National Association.
I am absolutely certain that it is not the Government's intention to penalise carers either for taking advantage of a respite care break or for attempting to combine paid work with caring. On the contrary, I know that the Government's aim is the opposite of that. Evidence of that is given to us in the National Strategy for Carers which is working successfully. But penalising carers is what happens, however inadvertently, because of that throughout-the-year rule. Therefore, I urge the Minister to think again about this and to think about some small changes which may be made which would be of great benefit to carers.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 119 would allow people with an earnings factor below the qualifying earnings factor for the year to benefit from the low earner's boost in state second pension where they were entitled to invalid care allowance, home responsibilities protection, or long-term IB for part of a year. The amendment does not cover those receiving severe disablement allowance, but I suspect that that may be an oversight which the noble Lord would rectify were he to revisit this matter.
Our proposals for a state second pension will give carers and long-term disabled people the opportunity to build up entitlement to a second pension for the first time. From the outset, some 2 million carers, including
80
those caring for young children, and a similar number of disabled people, will begin to build up entitlement to the state second pension. Each qualifying year will be worth approximately £1 a week in additional pension in today's terms. There will be no limit to the number of years of caring which can count towards state second pension entitlement. Since the state second pension, like SERPS, is a contributory benefit, there will be a simple work attachment test for disabled people at the point of retirement.
Entitlement to the state second pension will be calculated on an annual basis on a person's surplus earnings, as is the case for SERPS. That is the amount by which someone's earnings exceed the annual lower earnings limit. That means that we need to look at someone's earnings over the whole of the tax year in question. That is consistent with the annual returns made by employers on each employee's earnings in the preceding year. For example, someone who has earnings between the annual lower earnings limit and the low earnings threshold for the year in question will benefit from the low earner's boost. Someone who has been entitled to invalid care allowance or long-term incapacity benefit throughout the year will be credited into the state second pension. We believe that in the interests of consistency, fairness and operational manageability, this is the right approach.
There are also some practical difficulties associated with the amendment. For example, HRP is not available for part years of caring activity. It would be quite difficult for employers or the department to move to a system which calculated entitlement on a weekly basis. That is why we believe that it is necessary to meet the qualifying criteria for the whole year.
It may be that this amendment confuses the two different ways of qualifying for the state second pension. It would allow someone who is entitled to ICA, HRP or long-term IB for part of a year to "top up" an earnings factor otherwise below the annual lower earnings limit, so that he could benefit from the low earner's boost. He would be mixing and matching the two qualifications which occur in the course of a year.
I understand the thinking behind this amendment. For example, someone may have six months on ICA which will qualify him and six months in work above £67 which, if it were for the whole of the year, would have qualified him. I can understand the argument that such a person should not lose a full year's entitlement. Interesting and important points have been raised. It is a very difficult issue both in terms of the read-across to other situations, particularly that of HRP, and in its practical implementation, as I have suggested. There would need to be a follow through of such a calculation for anyone with credits for a part-year. There would be a need to look at contracted-out cases and HRP. Employers would have to be asked to keep weekly records.
As the Minister handling the Bill in this House, I can say that we have already wrestled with that issue. There are very real difficulties in what the amendment seeks to achieve, even though I understand the

81
thinking behind it, which is well intentioned. In order to give the Committee some assurance, I am willing to take the amendment away to see whether we can meet the issues raised The amendment presents almost as many anomalies as it may solve at present. But that does not mean to say that we cannot look at it again. I am sure that the Committee will understand that I make no absolutely no commitment because if we could have found an easy solution to the problem, I like to think that we should have found it already. But I understand that the Committee may want us to reflect on what has been said this evening and, in that spirit, I suggest that the Committee allows me to do so.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for what is at least a moderately encouraging reply. I accept that there may be technical problems and that the amendment which I drafted is not necessarily the best way forward. But there is a serious problem with entry and exit years. Let us take the obvious case of someone in receipt of invalid care allowance. Let us imagine that the person who is being cared for dies during, let us say, the month of February, so there is not a complete year; but the period between the date of death and 5th April is insufficient to enable the carer to get a job and build up an adequate earnings factor in that job.
It seems to me that there needs to be some solution to that problem. I am greatly encouraged by the fact that the Minister has accepted that there is a problem. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 122 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Additional pension.]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 123:
Pa c 102, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph 1A,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 123 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 124. The purpose of these two amendments, particularly Amendment No. 124, is to accelerate the maturity of the state second pension. I believe I have already made clear that the S2P has a good deal to be said for it. However, one of the problems is that it will take a long time to deliver its benefits. Indeed, by 2047, which I think will be beyond the lifetime of any of us presently in this House, it will be quite generous.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I will be 98.
Lord Goodhart: I am not sure that my remark applies to everybody. Perhaps one or two of us may still be around.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord why he looked behind him instead of across the Chamber!
Lord Goodhart: I was not sure who was behind me. By the year 2025, the poorest 20 per cent of pensioners
82
will still be only £1.30 per week better off, according to a Written Answer given by the Government to my honourable—not yet right honourable-—friend in another place, Steve Webb.
All existing earners who are not contracted out have a SERPS entitlement. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, the S2P will be more generous than SERPS to lower earners. The amendment will enable lower earners to claim a full S2P in a shorter time by substituting a year of S2P for a year of SERPS. The amount of the S2P is calculated under Schedule 4 to the Bill which inserts a new Schedule 4A into the 1992 Act in its usual confusing way, which makes it almost impossible for anyone to understand what is wing on in the Bill. That starts on page 102.
The idea behind the amendment is that if, in any year after the S2P has been introduced (let us call that "Year X") the amount of the S2P earned in that year is larger than the amount of SERPS earned in any given year before the S2P is introduced (let us call that earlier year, "Year A") the contributor can give up his right to SERPS in respect of Year A and claim the S2P twice over in respect of Year X. The following year, Year Y, the contributor can do it again in respect of another SERPS year. The process can continue until the contributor reaches pensionable age or has used up and exchanged all the SERPS years which are worth exchanging. In some cases that means that the contributor could qualify for the full S2P in as little as 20 years.
I recognise fully that that is a complex idea. It emerges from the fertile brain of Professor Webb. It will need detailed information to be given to contributors. I am not sure that I have the formula quite right. Indeed, I believe that if one doubles the amount in any year under paragraph 1(1)(a). one also has to increase the number of relevant years by one, which I failed to do. If the Government can think of a simpler way to speed up access to S2P, I would, indeed, be glad to hear it.
However, I believe that much trouble arises from treating pay-as-you-go schemes as if they were funded. Under a funded scheme, it is obvious that you cannot pay a full benefit until the fund has fully built up. However, if you are making a pay-as-you-go scheme more generous, you can apply more generous treatment to past as well as future years.
The S2P will increase public spending. I understand why the Government do not want to bring in the full increase next year or in five years' time. The amendment does not do that. However, there s no need to delay the phasing in of the full increases over a period as long as 45 years. I believe that the Government should accept, if not this particular draft, at least the principle behind the amendment or come up with a better scheme for phasing in the full S2P more quickly than they propose now. Otherwise, the S2P will prove to be an extreme disappointment to any but the youngest of those presently in the employment market. I beg to move.
Baroness Greengross: I have one or two points to add on the state second pension in so far as it will affect

83
the income of tomorrow's pensioners. I welcome the fact that low income groups will be credited into this pension, especially carers, many of whom will be working-age people caring for elderly parents.
However, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it will be enough to give a decent income on retirement. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the S2P is expected to provide a maximum of around £50 per week in relation to today's earnings. The often-quoted example provided by the Government of a woman reaching 65 in the year 2051 who had spent her life earning under £9,500 or caring for young children was that she could expect to receive £84 per week income from the basic pension and her S2P together in relation to today's earnings, which is about £6 more than the level of today's income support. That is better than the current system. However, is it really adequate or something on which we should encourage such people to rely?
Currently, about one in five older people receive income support, the MIG. I was disturbed to learn that without any changes to the state pensions, one in three older people will be on means-tested support by 2050. As an aside, some older people, no doubt, will become eligible for MIG because they have lost half their husband's SERPS entitlement on his death; an issue we will discuss presently.
Part of the reason for the rise is the fact that the Government promised to increase the MIG by earnings which will make more and more older people eligible for it every year. However, even after the introduction of the S2P, one in four older people are forecast to be on means-tested benefits by 2050. Having checked with the DSS, I discovered that it is only when one assumes that people save an additional 5 per cent per year that we end up with the same proportion of older people on means-tested benefits in the year 2050 as now, one in five. Given that the savings ratio has fallen so much, is that realistic?
I find myself attracted to amendments such as these which seek to improve and enhance the S2P to ensure that it provides a decent income in retirement for tomorrow's pensioners, especially the low paid, the carers and those who are disabled.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I was trying hard to remember the quotation:
"O, what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practise to deceive!"
with reference to the honourable Member in the other place.
We await with interest the reply from the Minister. However, our concern is very much what has been said a moment or two ago. The system being introduced will not produce benefits for another 25 years or so. In particular, it is not a funded scheme. What we have here is the perpetuation of a situation whereby one generation pays for the retirement benefits of the previous generation. In effect, we should have a funded
84
scheme. With such a scheme, the people in this generation would pay for their own benefits in due course.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for elucidation on that point. He is the first person this evening to make that point. Is he arguing that people with an income of less than £9,500 should be paying into a funded scheme? If so, how could they afford to do so? If not, where would the money come from? If it were to come from the taxpayers, would it not be the case that the taxpayers on low earnings would be paying twice over, both for future generations and to go into a funded scheme of their own? I do not see how his sums even begin to add up.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I shall be taken a long way from the amendment in my response, but perhaps I may put briefly what seem to me to be the substantive issues here. The noble Baroness is saying in effect that certain people will be deemed to have made contributions, but that still remains simply a paper promise. In no sense is it backed up by real money. If one is to avoid a situation of continuing generational equity, we will find that we shall continue to deliver only paper promises.
For the reasons which I put to the Committee on an earlier amendment, the more that we can move towards a funded scheme—if the Government really are saying that they will deem these to be contributions—here the contributions are real rather than only notional contributions, the better. There is a danger that, although at this point the Government say that they will "deem" contributions to have been made, when it comes to the benefits covered by those "deemed" contributions to be made, we may well find that at that point there is no additional cost to the Government because the minimum income guarantee will have overtaken the second state pension.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am puzzled by the remarks of the noble Lord. Perhaps he could help me on this point. If he says that for those earning £9,500 we should move from a pay-as-you-go scheme to a funded scheme, how will he respond to the argument that that generation would then have to pay twice over, both for the pay-as-you-go scheme for older pensioners as well as the funded commitments for themselves? I do not see how this method will avoid the problem of double payments, in this case payments to be made by some of the poorest people in work in the country.
Lord Higgins: It would depend on what was done about debts. It is possible for the Government to incur debts and to project for them. However, I believe that I am moving far too wide of the amendment. Perhaps I may return to this matter on another occasion. Indeed, it may be more appropriate to address it when we come to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill rather than in the present context.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that is a very good idea.

85
Noble Lords have put forward these amendments which would boost some people's entitlement to the state second pension during the period when it is building up to maturity. They would provide an element of' retrospective entitlement to S2P for certain people for years prior to its introduction, based on years of entitlement after its implementation, in order that individuals could build up greater amounts of additional pension.
Under the amendments, for each year of entitlement to state second pension, someone could choose to gain retrospective entitlement to state second pension for a previous year under SERPS. This would be achieved by allowing people who have accumulated entitlement to additional pension under both schemes to trade one for the other; effectively, to choose the better buy by giving up a year's entitlement to SERPS in return for doubling the value of a year of their state second pension entitlement. I hope that I have understood the detail here.
Furthermore, in order to ensure that as many people as possible would benefit from this proposal, Amendment No. 124 also requires that anyone to whom it would apply should be identified and notified of how they could maximise their additional pension entitlement in this way; namely, by trading in low-earning SERPS years and replacing them with the low earners' boost, still related to low earnings but now related to the higher earning S2P years.
I shall not revisit the reasoning behind what we are trying to do with S2P except to remind the Committee that under SERPS it is possible for someone to pay contributions on earnings just above the lower earnings limit for the whole of their working lives yet still retire on a state pension which is below the level of the minimum income guarantee. This will not happen when the state second pension has built up. From 2038, anyone retiring with a full working life of employment behind them, or periods of caring or disability, will receive a total of basic pension and additional pension above the MIG.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said that she was dismayed to learn that under these proposals one in three would still be required to fall back on the MIG, perhaps I may tell her that that was a misguided assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The fact is that without the scheme in place it will be one in three; under the scheme it will be one in five. In part that is because of the greater generosity of the MIG at ages 75 or 80. Without that, even fewer people would fall back onto the MIG at those ages.
The state second pension will focus help on 4.5 million low earners and 2 million carers. Under our proposals, people will remain above the MIG for a considerable time. Someone who had earned as little as £3,500 throughout their working life will retire on a combined pension of £85 a week and they will stay clear of the MIG for nine years. Couples will do even better. A couple where both had lifetime earnings of £3,500 a year would receive a large enough pension to keep them both above the MIG for 21 years, which I believe is good news.
86
I acknowledge that the benefits in S2P take time to build up. Inevitably, that is a part of the long-term nature of pension provision. However, many of the lower paid can expect to see a significant boost to their pensions within 20 years or so. I believe that that improvement may have been rather underestimated by noble Lords when they made their contributions to these amendments.
For example, someone retiring in 2025— with earnings of just £6,500 for a full working life would get £76 per week under S2P; £18 a week more than they would have got under SERPS. Or to take a couple retiring in 2025—he earning £180 and she earning £120 a week but also caring for children for 20 years, 10 of which with carer's allowance—under SERPS they would receive £5 more than the MIG; under S2P they will have £35 more. That shows just how significant: and generous is the increase in terms of accrual rates and the low earnings boost that will come with S2P over SERPS. Perhaps I may give the Committee a third example. A woman retiring in 2051 would get £85 in today's earnings terms—£10 above the MIG levels in 2051.
I have tried to give examples to show that, although by definition this is a state second pension for those on lower earnings and therefore that pension is not as generous as many of us would wish if resources were unlimited, in comparison with having in place no state second pension, or in comparison with SERPS or the drop down onto income-related benefits, the long-term position of those who are poorer will be infinitely better than is currently the case.
We inherited a situation where a wide range of people—low earners, carers and the disabled— had no hope of a decent income in retirement. We are ensuring that we shall deliver help to those groups.
Under Amendments Nos. 123 and 124, for each year of entitlement to state second pension, someone could choose to gain retrospective entitlement to state second pension for a previous year under SERPS. That would represent a more generous increase for some, but it would do little to help those working as carers and the long-term disabled. Furthermore, it would be unfair to existing pensioners, who would not be able to benefit. Of those who would gain, people retiring in the short term would be helped least because they would have the smallest number of years entitlement under S2P to be increased.
Leaving aside arguments about unfairness, the additional complexity of the amendment would be huge, both for the department and for the individual. The Benefits Agency would be required to identify and notify anyone who might benefit from this measure and then explain how such a person might use it to maximise their entitlement to additional pension. The individual would then have to decide whether they wished to take advantage of the option and, if so, which years of SERPS they should give up and, conversely, which years of state second pension they should seek to increase, looking backwards over an earnings history of perhaps 40 years. Those with years of moderate earnings under S2P would benefit the

87
most, because they would have years of increased state second pension entitlement to swap for years of low SERPS entitlement, whereas those with a lifetime of low earnings would gain proportionately less.
The element of pick-and-mix, which would depend on records that may not be kept adequately, along with the potential for giving people the wrong information or mis-selling, seem to me to be mind-bogglingly complex. I believe that our previous decision was right. Not only is retrospective cover for certain groups unfair to others; it does not provide the help necessary for those who form our priority groups. Furthermore, the operational difficulties, disproportionate costs and dependence on records which may be 20, 30 or 40 years out of date or which may have disappeared would mean that the proposal is simply not viable.
For those reasons, we have chosen to direct resources to the most vulnerable through the MIG as well as other measures that we have already discussed. In the light of that response, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I recognise that this is an amendment of considerable complexity and that the noble Baroness's argument has some force. Nevertheless, this is undoubtedly a serious problem. The delay before the state second pension becomes fully operative will be a matter of concern and, indeed, threatens its future—one knows how short the life of the average pension arrangement is and we have seen the number of changes that have already taken place.
There is a problem in this area. The noble Baroness has shown that in a few cases there will be substantial benefits, even by 2025; nevertheless she has not attempted to dispute that, overall, the average benefit to the lowest 20 per cent of earners will be only around £1.30 in real terms. That arises because this is an average and the specific example, for instance, of somebody earning £6,500 a year depends on somebody earning that sort of figure every year over a lifetime of earnings. As we know, average earnings vary greatly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Lord will give way, this is a point I should have picked up and I apologise to the Committee for not doing so. The figure of £1.30 is the difference between the income of the bottom quartiles of pensioners in 2025 with or without the introduction of the state second pension. But this is across all pensioners—we accept that it is an average—including the poorest, oldest pensioners who retired before or shortly after the reduction of S2P and therefore have no benefit from it at all.
I have tried to argue for those who have any period in S2P by building up entitlement. They quite quickly will see an increase. But it is not reasonable to ask the Committee to talk about £1.30 which includes people who have already retired and therefore would never come within the S2P proposals.
Lord Goodhart: If we are talking about the year 2025, of course by that time the number of pensioners
88
who will have retired before the introduction of the state second pension, which is proposed in 2002, will be much reduced. So the figure of £ 1.30 may have to be increased somewhat if one is looking at the lowest 20 per cent of those who retired after 2002. But I doubt if it will be all that much larger.
We will take this amendment away; look at it, and consider whether or not we need to bring it back, either as it stands now or possibly in some more simplified form. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill begin again not before 8.42 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

NHS Infection Control
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Iltonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to ensure that the Government guidelines on infection control in hospitals are being implemented by National Health Service trusts.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in asking this Question tonight I bring to your Lordships a subject which is of immense importance, even though the debate is restricted to one hour. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, is making his maiden speech. Welcome.
I thank all those who are speaking this evening, which illustrates their enthusiasm and dedication in trying to help improve the current situation which is causing concern to many people throughout the country who may have to go into hospital for an operation or treatment, especially those patients who are vulnerable.
The House of Lords Select Committee report on Resistance to Antibiotics and other Antimicrobial Agents, identified the growing concern about the rise of MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus) and other hospital infections. It concluded that MRSA poses one of the biggest challenges to infection control and that in many hospitals it is now endemic. This is a world-wide problem. I had the privilege to be one of the Members of your Lordships' House who sat on that committee.
On 17th February 2000 the National Audit Office reported on the management and control of hospital-acquired infections in acute NHS trusts in England. It says that they are becoming harder to treat and hospital-acquired infection may be costing the NHS as much as £1 billion each year. In many NHS trusts, infection control may not have the profile it merits and

89
the relationship between health authorities and NHS trusts concerning infection control is not covered as well as it should be.
The Department of Health's 1995 guidance places responsibility for ensuring the provision of effective infection control arrangements on the hospital chief executive. It was also reinforced in the Government's response to our report. To obtain an overview of chief executives' direct involvement in infection control in NHS trusts, the National Audit Office analysed the responses to seven questions in its survey. Those questions, which were designed to test the chief executive's compliance with the department's guidance, were scored on a simple yes/no basis. Sixteen National Health Service trusts scored zero; while 87 (41 per cent) scored yes on four or more questions, only one scored yes on all seven questions. It suggests that chief executives of most trusts are not as directly involved as the guidance suggests they should be. Fifty-eight per cent of chief executives never receive an annual or more regular report on the amount spent on hospital-acquired infections.
The main factors contributing to the direct costs of treating hospital-acquired infections are increased length of stay and additional antibiotic therapy and, where necessary, the need for repeat surgery. Those costs require surveillance and with some infections wards have to be closed. Driving back from York two weeks ago I heard on the local radio that three wards had closed at the York Hospital Trust due to sickness and diarrhoea. Absence from work by staff colonised with MRSA also caused extra expenses.
Hospital infections cause waiting lists to lengthen. I have some questions for the Minister. Many people are very concerned about the cleanliness in hospitals. Why cannot the ward managers, the sisters or charge nurses be in charge of all domestics, even though they are contracted out? Have we got adequate hospital accommodation for patients with infections, including drug-resistant tuberculosis? Are wards designed correctly with enough basins and side wards? Is food poisoning increasing? Is the training of all medical and ancillary staff adequate when dealing with infections and the control of them within the hospitals and the community, including agency staff who move from place to place? Do staff always have enough changes of uniform and gowns when moving around hospitals? Are the changing and washing facilities adequate. The basic need to wash hands has been well publicised. But germs can hide under rings, so great thoroughness is needed.
Health regions have become very remote. There is no doubt that in some hospital trusts there is complacency towards infection control and interest in protecting resistance to antibiotics by careful prescribing. The Government sent out guidelines. They have done a great deal to raise infection control up the health agenda. But they need to do more. Drug resistance is a frightening prospect. Difficult viruses, pathogens, prions and numerous infections have already claimed the lives of many people. With modern travel, the world is small. We must be vigilant.
90
This is an extremely complex and difficult matter. It needs a dedicated general to lead the troops into combat against an army of very clever microbes.
The statement of the National Audit Office that 5,000 die annually from infections was queried by the Minister, as the noble Lord said that the figure was extrapolated from statistics in the United States. But this surely shows that we need far more information and surveillance; indeed, the figure may be higher. The Government have said:
"Infection control is a priority for the NHS and is a 'must do'",
in the Modernising Health and Social Services National Priorities Guidance 2000/01–2002/03. It was suggested to the Chief Executive of the National Health Service that the NHS does not monitor compliance with the guidance that it issues. He replied that enforcement was a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. Could this be passing the buck?
I suggest, to help the Government achieve their aim, that they should appoint a "Tsar of Infection Control", who would be similar to the Inspector of Prisons who is wholly independent. He would be a supremo over infections acquired in hospitals and the community and someone who could visit any place at any time.
I was interested to see on the Channel 4 news programme last Thursday a film about cleaning a ward at St. Thomas' Hospital, because of the manifestation of MRSA. Florence Nightingale may be looking down on your Lordships tonight. I think that she would say, "If you don't keep up high standards of care, hygiene and discipline on the wards and feed the patients with good nourishing food, the infections will take over and win the day".
If the Government will ensure that the correct resources are spent on those provisions, it will be an investment for the future and will save much unnecessary suffering to patients and their families. This is a matter that needs addressing urgently. I look forward to listening to the debate and the Minister's reply.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for tabling this Question tonight. We look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
This Question raises a very important issue. I am sure that the Minister will recall that I tabled a Question on this very matter quite recently, based on the report of the National Audit Office. I quoted then the figure mentioned in press reports of 5,000 people who die annually as a result of infections picked up while in hospital. Although I entirely accept that the Minister questioned that figure, he did accept that the number of infections caught while in hospital was unacceptably high. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could tell us what the correct figure is this evening. The report also said that, at any one time, 9 per cent of hospital patients are in hospital because of the infections that they have contracted while in

91
hospital. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, the cost to the NHS is enormous; indeed, perhaps as much as £1 billion annually.
It is a very sad fact today that it is not at all unusual to hear people saying that they are quite worried about going into hospital because they are afraid of contracting an infection during their stay. To the most casual observer, hospitals can look very dirty, especially, I am told, bathrooms and lavatories. Quite frequently, the most elementary practices of hygiene are not applied. I am sorry to say that the memorandum that I received from the Royal College of Nursing has not really encouraged me. I know that there are thousands of excellent nurses in the NHS who do a truly professional job. However, what is so frequently needed is not the very highly skilled nurse with technical qualifications, but simply that old quality of tender, loving care; that is, thinking about what the patient actually requires. That applies especially to elderly patients. There is no doubt that some are left to attempt to feed themselves and are unable to do so. One patient known to me actually died of starvation in a national health hospital.
The Royal College of Nursing memorandum talks about the "whole system" approach so that patients' needs are assessed on arrival and monitored during their stay in hospital; and says that stringent hygiene controls should be applied to staff. So far so good, as I am sure we would all agree. But who will see that all this is carried out? So much of the trouble seems to come from a lack of supervision and no one really being in charge. Who is actually responsible for the patient, for hygiene or for cleanliness?
Someone in hospital said to me, "Well, the trouble is that the cleaning has been contracted out". But that is simply not good enough. Whoever the company is, standards ought to be enforced; otherwise, the company should be changed. It is no use pretending that one can pass the buck to someone else. It seems to me that there should be a number of basic rules in hospital, many of which are quite simple and straightforward and could be put into practice immediately.
Many people believe that visiting hours should be looked into. Some patients have visitors all day long and they may bring in infections. I am not an expert, but, if that is the case, should it not be investigated? There should also be proper supervision of the cleaning. In that way, when someone inspects the ward every day, it will be seen to be clean; and that applies also to patients. Dirty cups and saucers should not be ignored; they should be removed. Such practices would be totally unacceptable in one's own home. Moreover, nurses should tie back their hair and wear a clean uniform each day. I understand that some nurses do not wear uniforms. Whatever the standards imposed, they should not be less good that those which would operate in a food factory where standards of cleanliness and hygiene are very high. Surely that is the very least that we can require of the National Health Service.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate provides for me to give my first, rather hesitant, speech. I should like to begin by expressing my deepest thanks for all the support and friendship shown to me by officials, Doorkeepers and noble Lords during this first, I have to admit, rather confusing week.
Tonight's debate is on a subject in which I have a keen interest. I should explain straightaway that my interest derives from a career as a hospital consultant physician and then as the president of a medical Royal College; but, more pertinently, because I am currently chairman of the board of the Public Health Laboratory Service (the PHLS). This is an organisation whose principal concern is to protect the public from infectious disease, including that acquired in hospital.
Noble Lords will understand why hospital-acquired infection is rearing its ugly head so dramatically of late. The rapid turnover of patients who are more sick and more vulnerable and who receive treatments which suppress their immune mechanisms and which may be given invasively by intravenous drips all increase the risk of infection. The use of antibiotics, although both necessary and widespread, increases the emergence of resistant organisms. All this has led to a situation in which almost 10 per cent of patients in hospital become infected at one time or another. This amounts to some 100,000 patients per annum.
There is relatively little that one can do about the fact that patients are very sick and need intensive treatment. After all, that is what hospitals are for. But there are other reasons for hospital-acquired infections that are much more amenable to prevention. As both noble Baronesses said, top of the list is the environment on the ward. It is quite clear that where dust collects, so infection is harboured. Good evidence exists that removing dust works.
In one hospital I know, an outbreak of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was aborted by an intensive cleaning programme, only for it to recur when the cleaning contract lapsed. A germ was found by the PHLS in the dust on the ward on both occasions—a nice but unfortunate demonstration of the impact of good versus poor cleaning practice.
We have known about the effects of washing hands between seeing patients since the time of Semmelweiss in the 1850s. His findings were neglected in his time, but we have no excuse now. The NHS action plan published last year was a move in the right direction on hand washing. We know that simple measures such as those—this is not rocket science—can reduce infection by as much as 30 per cent.
The last point I wish to make in the small amount of time that is allocated to me concerns the importance of constant monitoring and surveillance in hospitals. If we do not monitor and survey what infections exist and how often they occur, how can we hope to manage them? This surveillance is carried out at two levels: at the hospital trust level, where local infection control teams operate; and at national level, where the Public

93
Health Laboratory Service operates by collating data from hospitals across England and Wales so that each hospital can compare itself with others.
Noble Lords may not be surprised to hear me say that more could, and should, be done at both levels given sufficient encouragement and—dare I say it in a non-controversial speech—more resources. That point was emphasised in the National Audit Office report published earlier this year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned.
I finish by saying that I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I know that my noble friend Lord Hunt and the Government take the matter extremely seriously.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, it is a great pleasure on behalf of the whole House to congratulate my noble friend and colleague of many years, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, on his maiden speech. He speaks with both ability and knowledge. As someone who lists talking as one of his interests in Who's Who, he should quickly feel at home in this House! I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for initiating this debate. The subject is important and has serious implications for the NHS.
Resources put into improving care of patients with cancers and heart disease will not produce the desired outcome if we cannot reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired infections. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has already mentioned some of the statistics. Some 10 per cent of patients in hospital will acquire infection; 10 per cent of those infected will die of infection. Nearly 30 per cent of those infected may remain carriers. On average, the increase in hospital-acquired infection is 50 per cent every year, year on year. An acute hospital with 800 beds will at any given time have 80 patients infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria. These worrying figures may, if anything, be conservative.
Of course the service requires more resources to combat the problem—I hope that they will be forthcoming—particularly to strengthen microbiology departments. What is required is a commitment at trust level and at primary care level to implement many of the simple policies to contain the problem: training of staff, particularly junior doctors, or for that matter senior doctors; and adherence to hand-washing protocols, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Turn berg. But even these simple measures can take up much time—two hours in a nurse's 12-hour shift. Intensity of work, both for nurses and junior doctors, adds to the problem.
Other measures include meeting the standards of hospital cleanliness; reducing trafficking in hospital wards; the screening of risk patients; and adherence to hospital antibiotic policies, particularly making sure that the infection does not spread to other clean areas in the hospital. These measures in themselves will help to reduce the incidence and contain the problem.
94
I believe that we need a national infection manual which defines roles and responsibilities of health authorities and trusts and healthcare professionals, with advice on infection control in primary care and the acute sector, prevention of infection in patients, including high risk and vulnerable groups, such as the immuno-suppressed, the elderly and patients with indwelling catheters and other devices. Such patients are increasing in numbers. Appropriate disposal of clinical waste etc. will help and should be produced. I notice that the National Audit Office also recommended this. It should also help authorities and trusts to establish surveillance policies. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
I also hope that the establishment of clinical governance and inspection and visits of hospitals by the Commission for Health Improvement and the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland—here I declare an interest—to make sure that there is compliance with protocols will bring about further improvement.
Today I read in the local paper, the Dundee Courier, which is in the Library, a report of a family taking legal action following the death of a relative who died of MRSA following surgery. Increased litigation will follow and put further strains on scarce resources. The problem is serious and getting worse. It needs urgent attention. I hope that today's debate and recent reports will help to achieve that. I too look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow two professional colleagues who are former presidents of their colleges. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Turnberg on his maiden speech. Both noble Lords have been practical despite their former high office in their professions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, can be compared with a terrier; she will not drop a problem but shakes it until it is laid to rest! Like the noble Baroness, I was privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee which looked into resistance to antibiotics in 1997 and 1998. An important chapter of its report deals with infection control in both hospitals and the community. We spoke to many witnesses from the Department of Health, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Infection Control Nurses Association and to several experts in the United States, where the problem is equally bad, if not worse.
In four minutes it is impossible to do justice to more than a fraction of the evidence we heard. Running through the British evidence was frequent reference to the Cooke report, to which the noble Baroness refers in her Question. A central part of its guidelines is the setting up of an infection control team (ICT) in every acute NHS hospital trust. This recommendation had to a large extent been implemented by the time we held

95
our inquiry. Some of them, of course, had had these teams for many years before that. But not all the teams were functioning well. I quote from the evidence of the Infection Control Nurses Association:
"The vast majority of ICTs in acute hospital trusts have no budgets whatsoever"—
the service being funded as part of pathology services whose budgets were already overstretched—
"There are standard infection control measures …Unfortunately there is often a perception amongst senior clinical medical staff and trust managers that some of these measures are more disruptive than effective [this conception] arising as a result of increasing pressures on hospitals to admit and transfer patients rapidly, especially during the winter months".
If I were to attempt to sum up the problem and its solution in four minutes, it seems clear that, although the science of how to avoid and contain these outbreaks is well understood, action on the ground, both in hospitals and in the community, lags far behind. Chief executives of trusts and some senior clinicians need more compelling continuous data to convince them that they should channel resources into the system laid down in the guidelines, which could cut distressing and expensive outbreaks.
Both my noble friends referred to better surveillance systems which need to be established in hospitals and the community. Time does not allow me to expand on how that proposal should be implemented but the Public Health Laboratory Service was keen that that should be done. The Government have taken some steps to set up such systems.
Buttressing such services financially would be a sensible use of part of the extra funding promised from the National Health Service. It would repay itself quickly. It may save money not only directly—in terms of reducing hospital stays—but indirectly, by reducing litigation and possible expensive compensation, which account for far too high a proportion of the NHS budget.
8.11 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for introducing this topic and although it had to be brief, I much enjoyed the penetrating speech by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
Previous speakers ably demonstrated hazards and deficiencies in the observance of hospital infection control. I shall approach the question from a different angle. Many infections are caused by cross-examination, which usually occurs as a result of shoddy practice at the most basic level. As a specialist cheesemaker, I would not be allowed even to begin producing food in premises where dust was clearly visible, the paintwork was dirty and peeling from the walls, washing facilities were filthy or a mouse watched me from a hole in the ceiling—all experiences I have had in hospitals in the past few years.
Why are hospitals allowed to continue functioning under those circumstances? I acknowledge that my business activities must be regulated and that I must understand the need for hygiene to protect the most
96
vulnerable of my prospective customers. Hospital inpatients are by definition vulnerable, yet they are afforded little statutory protection.
We heard the figures for hospital-acquired infections. By contrast, each year fewer than 250 people in the entire population die from food poisoning from all sources—yet businesses can be closed and financial penalties imposed if the cause can be traced to failures by a food producer. Why is there is no public outcry about hospital conditions? Where is the accountability?
Slaughterhouses have to be licensed and are inspected by vets; food premises have to be registered and are inspected by environmental health officers. There is no equivalent independent hygiene inspectorate for hospitals. Individually developed hospital hygiene rules are not backed by law.
I ask the Minister to consider a statutory requirement that all hospital staff, including doctors, meet a required standard of understanding of basic hygiene principles and apply them; that practical infection control—I stress "practical", microbiology and general hygiene should be taught to nurses; that hospital-acquired infections should be formally defined; that all incidents and outbreaks should be notifiable, as are food poisoning cases; that there should be an independent inspectorate with statutory powers; and that an equivalent of HACCP should be developed for hospitals.
Finally, I ask the Minister why EUSOL—the acronym for Edinburgh University solution of lime, with its wonderful antiviral as well as antibiotic properties—has been withdrawn. How many patients or nurses have been poisoned by it?
8.14 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for her Unstarred Question. In common with her and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I served on the Select Committee which considered resistance to antibiotics two years ago. The noble Lord mentioned the evidence from the Infection Control Nurses Association, which was some of the most compelling we heard. The ICNA painted a picture of skilled and committed professionals battling against, at best, a lack of resources and, at worst, falling standards of hygiene—all against the background of an alarming rise in antibiotic resistance. Reading the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I am not clear that much, if anything, has changed.
The ICNA made this pertinent remark, at paragraph 4.31 of our report:
"It is difficult to justify the costs incurred from an intervention where the successful outcome measure is an event not occurring".
That profound statement lies at the heart of the difficulty of getting sufficient resources for infection control. The National Audit Office repeated what must be true in the management of a trust, at paragraph 6:
"It will be important for NHS trusts to justify existing and additional expenditure on infection control against other uses of health resources".

97
One in four service agreements with authorities do not cover infection control services at all. Three in four do not require trusts to calculate infection rates. One in three trusts had neither the chief executive nor his representative on the hospital infection control committee. Nearly three out of five chief executives never see reports on the resources spent on hospital-acquired infections; fewer than half receive reports on rates or numbers of hospital-acquired infections.
Contrary to departmental guidance, which requires that all chief executives should approve infection control programmes, the report indicates that only one in 10 do so. If the Audit Commission i s right that trusts must justify expenditure on infection control, how can a trust board—I have been chairman of one for six years—"justify" expenditure if our top executive managers do not know what is going on?
Although I have much sympathy with the noble Countess's argument for an external regulator, there is or should be in existence now sufficient management authority to make sure that the right things happen. The National Audit Office report makes it abundantly clear that they are not happening. Our Select Committee sounded a well-justified note of real alarm at the inexorable rise of drug-resistant bacteria. The report makes it depressingly clear that little has happened to implement our recommendations.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I was particularly delighted to hear the maiden contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Turn berg, who was effectively the man who saved Bart's—for which many of us will be grateful to him for a long time to come.
I shall not attempt to sum up this debate in four minutes but will make a few points. The anniversary of Florence Nightingale's birthday always coincides with International Nurses Day, which took place last Friday. As my honourable friend Dr Jenny Tonge reminded the other place last week, by tackling dirt and disorder in hospitals during the Crimean war, Florence Nightingale became, and still is, a national heroine. One of my treasured family possessions is a diary entry of a meeting between my great-great-grandfather and Florence Nightingale in 1856 in the hospital in Scutari, arranged by his mother who was worried that he was not telling her how ill he really was.
It is quite extraordinary that, a century and a half later, we are still arguing about the priority given to cleanliness and infection control in hospitals. Florence Nightingale's most quoted remark is,
"It may seem a strange principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a Hospital that it should do the sick no harm".
We still have a long way to go before that is true of many of our hospitals.
Your Lordships have clearly stated the conclusions of the Public Health Laboratory report published last December and of the National Audit Office report of February of this year. I do not propose to repeat them. But w hat have the Government done in response to
98
those reports? On 5th April, the Secretary of State promulgated a code of cleanliness to be sent to all hospitals, placing part responsibility for its implementation on hospitals' own infection control teams. I welcome this, but what evidence is there that this code will be enforced any more than is the NHS action plan issued last March?
Is not the key being absolutely clear about who is responsible for the implementation of guidelines? With no clear indication of where responsibility lies, no legal action is likely to be taken and standards will be allowed to slip further. In his evidence to the Health Select Committee, Sir Allan Langlands seemed to believe that the responsibility for enforcement was that of the Health and Safety Executive, not of the NHS Executive. Should it not be firmly with the latter? Should not the Commission for Health Improvement have a major role in this context?
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, who is responsible is even less clear at hospital level. In many instances, much of the responsibility for substandard levels of cleanliness in hospitals is placed on the cleaning and catering contractors, who are engaged at the lowest possible rates. Health managers argue that this has arisen from the imposition of so-called "efficiency savings" of 3 per cent year on year. It has clearly been a false economy. Cost savings from these contracts may be seriously outweighed by the additional financial burden generated by hospital-acquired infections.
Should not those responsible for the wards and for patient management have direct responsibility for cleanliness, with the budget to match? A recent article in the Health Service Journal stated that the answer was managerial leadership to solve the problem. Let us give those at ward level the opportunity to do so.
Furthermore, should we not be tracking the spread of infection and the quality of infection control much more carefully, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mash am, advocated? Should not infections such as MRSA be made notifiable, as recommended in the report of the House of Lords Select Committee which considered resistance to antibiotics, of which the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Jenkin, were such distinguished members? Will this be taken into account in the Chief Medical Officer's communicable disease strategy which is being developed by the working group on the subject? Should not there be at least a standard reporting system for these types of outbreaks?
I look forward to the Government's response. To date, they have clearly taken certain actions in response to the two reports, but further action needs to be taken. I am taken by the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for a head of infection control, but I agree with those noble Lords who have said that much of the answer lies directly at ward level in hospitals. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.23 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important

99
subject at greater length than was possible during Starred Questions on 8th March. Like her, I found the report by the National Audit Office a shocking read. It would appear that the postcode lottery in the NHS operates on more than one level. Even if one is lucky enough to live in an area where expensive treatments are routinely available, one may nevertheless find that the record of infection control in one's local hospital makes a visit there as an in-patient a more than usually hazardous enterprise. That is not something that we should tolerate in today's NHS, and the Government are right to have devoted considerable attention and energy to the issue.
What we should not do, it seems to me, is to fall victim to the temptation of trying to identify a single, golden prescription to cure the problem. The striking thing that emerges from successive NAO reports is that the deterioration in standards is not a simple matter. It results from a range of shortcomings, both clinical and managerial, that together give rise to the very worrying statistics to which the noble Baroness has referred.
Responsibility for the control of infection rests at a number of levels. Indeed, it is an issue that, perhaps par excellence, exemplifies the principles inherent in the term "clinical governance". In another place last week, during a debate on hospital hygiene, the Minister, Gisela Stuart, remarked that clinical governance is as important as corporate governance. I would not disagree with her. What I would add, though, is that on an issue such as hospital hygiene it is hard to separate the two. The fact is that a major outbreak of MRSA can deal a body blow not only to the health of patients but also to the budget of a hospital. Any responsible chief executive will wish to minimise that dual threat as far as humanly possible.
There is, however, a lack of clarity as to how the lines of accountability in the NHS really run in matters of health and safety. The noble Baroness asked what the role of the Health and Safety Executive is in the NHS. The question is by no means an abstract one. A clear theme permeating the recent NAO report is that hospital hygiene is a task that suffers from a failure of ownership. At trust level, many hospital chief executives are not taking their responsibilities seriously enough. Some hospitals seem to operate in a way that is positively dysfunctional; no link between infection control teams and cleaning staff; no consultation of infection control teams by the management when awarding contracts for cleaning, catering and laundry; no reporting of infection figures to the chief executive; no direct involvement by the chief executive in the hospital infection control committee. There are of course beacons of good practice, but it is perhaps no wonder that across the NHS as a whole, hard data on the incidence and effects of hospital infections are unavailable. We should have such data.
On 8th March the Minister expressed the view that much of the fault for poor standards of hygiene lies in the policy of contracting out cleaning services to the
100
private sector. I respectfully put it to him that the jury is still out on this. It is apparently not a theory which the NAO have thought fit to flag up.
The Minister in another place last Thursday was much more tentative about laying the blame at the door of compulsory market testing. If cleaning staff are failing to deliver a proper standard of cleaning, that is not just a reflection on them; it is a reflection on the way that the contract was awarded and on the standards set; on in-house training; on the monitoring systems within a hospital; on the competence of chief executives; and on clinical staff on the wards.
I wonder, though, whether the Minister has taken account of experience in the United States, where during the past decade there has been a marked decline in the number of patients who developed a bacterial infection while being treated in intensive care units. A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that since 1990 infection rates have declined by between 31 and 43 per cent in intensive care units at 285 hospitals in 42 states. One reason for this decline is better training programmes and better monitoring by hospitals to prevent infections from occurring. Does the Minister agree that such lessons could be usefully taken on board in the UK, and will he study them?
8.28 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for raising this issue. As she said, it is a subject of immense importance. My noble friend Lord Rea described the noble Baroness as a "terrier", who continually shakes things up to make things happen. As someone who is continually being shaken up by her, I know what my noble friend means.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Turnberg on his excellent maiden speech. He is a distinguished physician academic; he was an outstanding president of the Royal College of Physicians and is an enormously influential leader of his profession. He is most welcome to our debates on the health service.
I want to reassure all noble Lords who have spoken that the Government take the matter of infection control in hospitals very seriously indeed. It is a matter on which we are determined to continue the action that we have already taken to deal as effectively as we can with the problem.
We are now treating more patients than ever before, including many who, only a few years ago, could not have been treated at all because the technologies did not exist. As my noble friend Lord Turnberg said, these new treatments, while improving people's health, may present a greater opportunity than in the past for infections to get a foothold.
Not all hospital-acquired infection is preventable but undoubtedly a proportion is. The recent NAO report, to which many noble Lords referred, suggested that 15 per cent may be preventable.
It is clear that some people do die either as a direct result of a hospital-acquired infection or with the infection playing a substantial part. The noble

101
Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the recent NAO report which quoted figures of 5,000 and 15,000 respectively. As I said in my answer to the noble Baroness's Starred Question a few weeks ago, we need to treat that figure with caution because it was based on a crude comparison drawing on old data from the US. Our recent estimate is that 1,200 deaths a year are caused by hospital-acquired infection and that HAI has contributed to a further 3,500 deaths. Those figures themselves are striking and underline the need for determined action.
As far as costs are concerned, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the NAO report estimated that HAI may be costing the NHS as much as é1 billion per year. Again, we have reservations about the accuracy of those costs because the figure was based on the experience of one hospital and it is simply not possible to derive an accurate estimate of the overall cost to the NHS on that basis.
'The total cost of all NHS activity to prevent HAI is almost impossible to assess also because much of this activity needs to be a fundamental, integral and incalculable part of the day-to-day work of doctors, nurses and other healthcare staff. That message was reinforced by many of the comments made by noble Lords tonight. Some estimates of the cost to the NHS of treating hospital-acquired infection have been made and, in 1988, this was estimated to be £111 million annually. Another study in 1993 put the cost in surgical patients at £170 million. Those are substantial figures.
Where infection is avoidable, it is unacceptable that action is not taken to avoid that infection. We have done much already to strengthen infection control. The Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service have jointly funded a national surveillance scheme for hospital-acquired infection which enables hospitals to compare their performance against the national data. I pay tribute here to the work of my noble friend Lord Turnberg as chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service. I also noted that he rather non-controversially mentioned the issue of resources for the laboratory service. I understand that discussions are ongoing between himself and my ministerial colleagues on that matter.
In 1998, in order to provide the National Health Service with tools to help with the improvement of infection control, the Department of Health commissioned Thames Valley University to develop national evidence-based guidelines for preventing hospital-acquired infection. The three component parts of this first phase will be completed by the end of July. They include general principles for preventing infections in hospitals, which crucially include hand hygiene—something that I will come to in a moment; universal infection control precautions and the isolation of patients with infections—in answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
In addition, in March 1999, following the Government's response to your Lordships' very important Select Committee report on antibiotic
102
resistance, the Department of Health issued an action plan on antibiotic resistance which included action to strengthen infection control processes.
Last November, the controls assurance programme was launched. It includes an infection control standard. This standard, which was developed in partnership with infection control specialists, requires acute NHS trusts to ensure that,
"there is a managed environment. which minimises the risk of infection, to patients, staff and visitors",
and NHS hospitals will be required to produce statements setting out their plans to implement all of the requirements by July 2000. I can assure the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that the progress made by trusts in meeting those plans will be assessed locally by auditors and nationally by the Commission for Health Improvement and the Audit Commission. I think those mechanisms are appropriate to a managed service which is a characteristic of the National Health Service.
To reinforce the work aimed at strengthening infection control, we have set out an action plan which we sent to trusts in February. The aim of this plan is to strengthen services to prevent and control communicable diseases, especially HAI, and to take action to reduce antimicrobial resistance including the particularly serious problem of MRSA. We are doing that by strengthening prevention and control of infections in hospitals; securing appropriate healthcare services for patients with infection; improving surveillance of hospital-acquired infection—here I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Lord, Lord Patel—and monitoring and optimising antimicrobial prescribing. The plan sets out a detailed timetable for specific actions to ensure that the criteria set out in the controls assurance standard on infection control are met. Early feedback suggests that solid improvements are already being made. I refer, for example, to the direct involvement of chief executives in infection control issues and to the securing of additional resources.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the work of the Chief Medical Officer in relation to communicable disease strategy. This is a major piece of work which is being led by the Chief Medical Officer. I can assure the noble Lords that infection control and surveillance will be identified as a priority for action.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, prayed in aid Florence Nightingale looking down on the standard of cleanliness in hospital wards and, more generally, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called it "tender loving care". I believe that there is no doubt that this represents a major challenge for the health service. Hand washing is one of the simplest yet one of the most important actions to help to prevent infection. I understand that this is not just an issue for the National Health Service; it is a challenge facing many other healthcare systems too. We gave clear guidance to the NHS a few months ago on this matter and the control assurance programme to which I have referred requires hand-washing policies to be in place and audit programmes to pick them up; but I accept the point

103
that, in all of this, particularly senior doctors and nurses have to lead by example. I shall not debate with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, his view of market testing and its impact on cleanliness, but I do believe that this is a major area which we have to target to improve the standard of cleanliness on the wards. I also very much accept that ward sisters have a crucial leadership role in this. That is why we are giving each ward £5,000 directly to empower ward sisters to improve the environment. Just a week ago, we sent out national standards for environmental cleanliness in hospitals. By issuing those national guidelines, we are giving ward sisters a key tool to bring about local improvements.
Tackling hospital-acquired infection is an area where action needs to be taken at local level. In that, collecting data is important to provide a national picture against which to monitor trends and performance. I very much accept the points that noble Lords have made concerning the issue of surveillance.
Time presses on and I think I ought to come to the issue around what I might describe as "performance management". I have listened very carefully to the comments of noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Rea talked about the need for senior management support for infection control teams. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, raised the issue of the commitment of the boards of NHS trusts to take effective action. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether clear accountability is in the system to ensure that the action required is taken. I am satisfied that we have the tools and the management processes to ensure that the appropriate action is taken.
There can be no running away from responsibility. I do not seek to take responsibility away from the department, the NHS Executive or senior managers at trust board level. I have noted carefully the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that a general or a tsar be appointed. I certainly understand the concerns that she and other noble Lords have raised about whether chief executives are sufficiently committed to driving and leading change and to the necessary procedures and monitoring in this area. I agree that the report of the National Audit Office was not at all positive or helpful in that respect. The lack of perceived control and involvement at chief executive level has to be seen against a background where, in the past, infection control and infectious diseases have been considered a rather unfashionable area. Sometimes the task was delegated to junior officers, and boards received reports on the matter of infection control.
In conclusion, I want to assure noble Lords that in the NHS action plan and through controls assurance chief executives of trusts have specifically been made personally accountable for hospital-acquired infection. It is a "must do" for the NHS, as set out in the national priorities guidance. Trust chief executives are personally accountable for dealing with this issue. In addition, regional directors of public health are working with regional directors of performance management and are charged with ensuring that the
104
NHS has robust infection control arrangements in place, including the implementation of clinical governance arrangements and the achievement of controls assurance standards within appropriate time-scales.
In this very short debate I have not been able to answer all the points put to me, but I hope that I have assured all noble Lords that the Government take this matter extremely seriously; that we have put in place a number of policies and procedures designed to reduce infection as much as it can be reduced; and that we have robust performance management measures in place to ensure that they are acted on.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
8.41 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 4.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 125:
Page 103, line 19, leave out from ("LET") to ("20") in line 21.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 126 with which Amendment No. 125 has been grouped. The Government propose that the state second pension, instead of being 20 per cent of earnings above the lower earnings level, should be 40 per cent of earnings up to £9,500 but only 10 per cent of earnings between £9,500 and £21,600. Raising the accrual rate to 40 per cent on the bottom slice of earnings is a positive step to help the low paid. In fact it would be even better if the Government would do what I should like them to do and restore the earnings link for basic pensions. That really would lift the low paid right out of poverty.
Nevertheless, I accept that what the Government are proposing is designed specifically to help the lowest paid and in that respect they are to be applauded. But reducing the accrual rate to 10 per cent on the middle slice of earnings is an unnecessary complication and perpetuates for all except the very low paid the cuts in SERPS which were made by previous governments. Do the Government think that people earning between £9,500 and £21,600 are somehow well off? I really do not think that that can be the case.
The effect of the amendment would be that the accrual rate on all earnings above £9,500 would remain, as now, at 25 reducing to 20 per cent over the next 10 years. That would be fairer to the bulk of people earning between £9,500 and £21,600 who are not well off and are very moderate earners by any criteria. I hope that the Government will be prepared to look with some favour on the proposed amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 seek to change the rates at which entitlement to state second pension will be accrued for different bands of earnings. The accrual rates are set out in

105
Schedule 4 to the Bill. These amendments would increase the accrual rate on all earnings above £9,500 from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. That would mean that not only would moderate earners be even better off under the state second pension than under our proposals—without the benefits tapering off as someone moves further up the earnings scale—but also higher earners would be considerably better off. Our proposals mean that those earning between the annual lower earnings limit and £9,500 will be treated as if they had earned £9,500. They will receive more than twice the amount that they would have received from SERPS.
Moderate earners—those earning up to £21,600 a year —will also receive more from the state second pension, despite the 10 per cent accrual rate on their second band of earnings. Those earning from £21,600 up to £26,000—the current upper earnings limit—will receive the same as they would have done from SERPS. The formulae for setting the two bands of earnings above £9,500 are designed to achieve this. In effect, the formulae work by clawing back the extra accrued on the first £9,500 of earnings from those who earn more. But it does this progressively on earnings in hand 2. So someone will need to earn £21,600 upwards before they cease to benefit from the boost of the lower earnings threshold—the boost from the accrual rate of 40 per cent on the first £9,500 of their earnings. The lower someone's earnings are, the more they will benefit proportionately. We believe that this is the right focus of resources.
The amendments would mean that everyone would be given more in state second pension than they would have received from SERPS. Moderate earners would further benefit from the higher accrual rate on earnings between £9,500 and £21,600. But also, because there would be no claw-hack to offset the doubling of the accrual rate on earnings up to £9,500, higher earners would also get more under state second pension than they currently do under SERPS, regardless of their earnings.
As a result of the amendments, someone earning over £26,000 would get 27 per cent more than under our proposals for state second pension while a moderate earner on £15,000 would get an extra 18.5 per cent. But low earners would not be any better off. In addition, any change to accrual rates would need to be reflected in the rebate arrangements, to prevent people from having an incentive to opt back into the state scheme. That further adds to the cost.
The formula is specifically intended to give a significant boost to low earners together with gains for all moderate earners while maintaining the position of higher earners. We believe that this strikes the right balance. As a result of that, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for her comprehensive explanation of the Government's position. However, she said that my amendment would not give extra benefit to higher earners. I thought t was the Government's intention that higher earners would not be in the second state
106
pension tier at all but would be encouraged on to the private market. In most cases, I would imagine, people earning over £21,500 would, when the pension package is fully operative, either be in stakeholder or in occupational pensions. We are talking only about people on very moderate earnings—between £9,500 and £21,600—since the others are most likely to be catered for by the private market. I do not entirely support what my noble friend has said but I do not intend to divide the Committee at this point. I shall look at the matter again when we come to the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 127:
Page 103. line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 129, 130 and 131. The December 1998 Green Paper proposed that the state second pension should become flat rate five years after the introduction of stakeholder schemes—that is, in around 2006. Clause 35(14) would allow the second appointed year to be any year from 2004 onwards. The amendment would ensure that it could not be earlier than 2006–07.
Amendment No. 131 would make an order providing that either the first or second appointed year would be subjected to the affirmative procedure in both Houses.
As I said earlier, in my view the flat-rate second tier pension is really just a top-up on an inadequate basic state pension. When it becomes flat-rate, people on very moderate incomes will be pushed towards the private sector. As we have heard earlier, that is the Government's real intention. This is no doubt part of the Government's desire to reverse the present 60:40 balance between state and private pension provision.
The Government are doing much to provide better value from private pensions. Arrangements are to be put in hand pushing down charges and setting standards. That is to be welcomed. But people still face the greater risks represented by money purchase arrangements available through stakeholder provision.
I am unhappy about the pressure that will be applied to people with very modest incomes to take the risk of going on to the private market. What about the position of people with earnings that vary up and down around the £9,500 threshold? Would it make sense for them to switch between the state second tier pension and the stakeholder pension each time one or the other seems to offer better value? Switching to a

107
flat-rate second tier pension needs careful consideration; it certainly needs scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 128.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This group of amendments concerns the introduction of the state second pension and movement to stage 2 of the scheme.
Amendment No. 127 would delete the power to bring in stage 2 of the state second pension and so would mean missing the opportunity to help moderate earners shift into funded schemes.
Amendment No. 129 would include on the face of the Bill an undertaking that the second stage would not be introduced before the 2006–07 tax year.
Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 would subject the order which will set the date of implementation for state second pension to parliamentary debate. It would also make the setting of the start date for the second stage of the state second pension automatically subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament.
It may be helpful if I remind the Committee about what we are seeking to do. We are trying to encourage those who can to make provision for their retirement through the introduction of stakeholder pension schemes. These are due to start in 2001. But we accept that it will take some time for these schemes to establish themselves and for people to move out of the state scheme into such funded pensions.
I do not believe that it is right to wait for that to happen before we start to help those for whom a funded scheme is not an option. That is why we are reforming SERPS by introducing the state second pension, which will provide help to low earners, carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records. We want to introduce that as soon as possible.
The introduction of the state second pension is at the heart of our pension reforms. As a result, it will help those who need it and reduce the number of people who are dependent on the minimum income guarantee. We want as many people as possible to retire on income above that, but it takes time to build it up. That is why it is important that the scheme is implemented as soon as is realistically possible.
Once we have parliamentary approval for the legislation underpinning these reforms to SERPS, we shall concentrate on ensuring that the necessary administrative procedures are in place to enable an early delivery date. As I have said, we believe it is right to encourage those who can to provide for their own pensions through stakeholder schemes. When stakeholder schemes have become established, we shall encourage those moderate to high earners who have a significant part of their working life ahead of them to contract out of the state scheme. We shall encourage
108
them to build up their own funded pension provision, perhaps through stakeholder schemes, for which they will receive an earnings related national insurance rebate paid into their pension fund.
We expect stakeholder pensions to be most suitable for people earning between £9,500 and £20,000 a year. However, carers and disabled people who are out of the labour market are unlikely to be in a position to invest in them, and most people earning less than £9,500 are likely to find that their income is too low for them to save more for their retirement, which is why we need S2P.
Stage 2 of S2P will provide that extra help by further focusing resources on those who need help most. The state second pension will become a flat-rate scheme in which anyone who remains within the scheme will be treated as if they earned £9,500 or whatever the lower earnings threshold is at that time. That means that low earners, carers and long-term disabled people will continue to be considerably better off than under SERPS, but it means that higher earners will no longer, as at present, get the earnings related advantage that they do in stage 1.
As I have explained, the scheme will continue to be earnings related for moderate and higher earners who are contracted out. That will encourage them to provide for their own retirement by means of a funded pension scheme but it will not be compulsory for anyone to opt out. We do not think it prudent to go on to a flat-rate state second pension scheme in one stage. It would cause significant disruption at a time when alternative forms of provision are still in their infancy. We believe that we need to be sure that stakeholder pension schemes have become well established and that moderate earners—that is, the group earning £9,500 to £20,000—have access to low-cost, flexible, funded, safe schemes before we make such a move. We do not believe that it would be responsible to set an arbitrary date now, as Amendment No. 129 would do. It is more prudent to wait and assess when the time is right to make the transition. That will be done in consultation with the organisations concerned. I cannot give the noble Lord any more information than that, but I shall no doubt try!
Lord Higgins: I hope that the noble Baroness can clarify one point. Is it the case that stage 1 of the state second pension could begin before the stakeholder scheme. Can it come in ahead of stakeholder pensions being introduced? If not, why not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not see how it could. The state second pension has already been carried by the Bill that we debated last summer. The provision is already 12 months ahead. Secondly, in consultation with the industry we have obtained very clear agreement as to how we should proceed. It would be quite wrong now to hold back stakeholder schemes for another year in order to bed down the state second

109
pension. It seems better to allow the arrangements negotiated with the industry to proceed. I believe that the noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord Higgins: I was not suggesting that the stakeholder scheme should be delayed. I was asking whether it would be possible for the state second pension to begin ahead of the stakeholder scheme. The noble Baroness said that that was clone in previous legislation. We are dealing with that legislation now. Why is it not possible to begin stage 1 of the stakeholder scheme immediately?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have never known any social security legislation in relation to which it was expected that the new scheme would be started the day after. For example, it is necessary to migrate current information, to make sure that the IT systems are robust, to do complicated assessments, particularly if we want to meet our undertakings to give out statements of information to people.
If the noble Lord is simply asking why we are waiting a year or so as opposed to introducing the scheme right away, it is a complex and important new scheme. We need to make sure that the IT arrangements, the calculations and the migration of clean data go through. I cannot conceive of any scheme, even a simple one, that one would expect to start the day after the Bill had received parliamentary approval.
Our difficulty, on which the noble Lord has pressed me and which is an honourable difficulty, is that we cannot give a precise timetable as to when we move from stage 1 to stage 2. That is precisely because we want to be sure that, if we are encouraging people to move into the private funded market, we want to make sure that good, safe, cheap private funded provisions—that is, the stakeholder provisions—are properly available and performing to their CAT benchmarks. That is why we do not want to be more precise and why I cannot help the noble Lord beyond that. Obviously, that will be done in discussion with the industry. We need to know the number of stakeholder pension providers. We need to look at the numbers taking out such a pension and the level of security provided. As a guide, we have said that we think it may be about five years after the introduction of stakeholder pension schemes, which, if they are introduced in April 2001 (10 months away) would be from April 2006.
Our proposal to move to the second stage when stakeholder pension schemes are established and conditions are right, is designed to give us the flexibility to make sure that we have a strong incentive to offer to moderate and higher earners a move to funded schemes while the state scheme focuses, as my noble friend recognised, on those least able to provide for themselves. Amendment No. 127 would deny the Government that flexibility.
Amendment No. 129 is in keeping with the Government's thinking on the timing of moving to the second stage of the state second pension. While I do not believe that the face of the Bill is the right place to
110
make such provision, I agree that noble Lords will require the necessary information to decide whether stakeholder pension schemes are properly established.
Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 would subject the commencement orders, which set the dates for the introduction of the first and second stages of the state second pension, to parliamentary debate. The Bill provides that the orders making these appointments should not be subject to parliamentary debate. The order-making procedure is very similar to commencement orders, which are not usually subject to the affirmative or negative procedures of Parliament. We have, however, said quite clearly that we shall not move to the second stage until we are sure that the time is right. Therefore, a decision will be taken later as to the date on which we shall move to the second stage. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that before we do that we shall supply the necessary information to both Houses when the time comes. If at that time your Lordships should seek further parliamentary debate or scrutiny, you will be free to do so. I hope that on that basis my noble friend is able to withdraw her amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for her response. I remain very concerned about the change to the flat rate provision. As I said earlier, it appears to be part of government policy—it has been confirmed by the response of my noble friend—to encourage people to move away from public and into private provision. When the Minister referred to the necessity to get people to provide for their retirement, she made it clear that that provision was in the view of government to be via the private market rather than contributions to any kind of public scheme. I am not happy with that. On the other hand, I am glad that my noble friend is able to give the Committee an assurance that there will be a full opportunity in both Houses for scrutiny when the Government decide eventually to move towards flat rate provision for the second stage pension. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 128:
Page 103, line 34, at end insert—
("(5A) Sub-paragraph (5) shall not apply to those working for companies with fewer than five employees.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 128 proposes that stage 1 of S2P be kept for those working for companies with fewer than five employees. This will ensure that in the event that they are missed by stakeholder pensions, they will have access to some earnings-related provision and will be less likely to be forced into reliance on the minimum income guarantee when they reach retirement. Under the current provisions such employees will be at risk from the gap in pensions coverage that arises from their exemption by the Government from stakeholder pensions. I recall this point being debated during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act last year which first introduced stakeholder pensions.

111
There must be a risk that an employee of a small company may be missed by stakeholder pension providers. In that case he would be in a bad position if he earned more than £9,500. He would be poorly rewarded by stage 2 of S2P and at some levels of income would be significantly worse off than would have been the case under SERPS. This affects a sizeable proportion of the population. Sole traders make up 64 per cent of all businesses and account for 12.7 per cent of employment. Those with one to four employees make up 25 per cent of all businesses and account for 10.9 per cent of employment. We on this side of the Committee believe that this is a measured and sensible amendment that understands the burdens on small business but also ensures that there is effective pension coverage for a large number of the working population who would be at some risk under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: We on these Benches co-operated with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, on restricting the burden of administration requirements when we dealt with the working families' tax credit. In that case we thought it quite right that the administrative burdens on employers should not apply to small ones. However, in this case it is proposed that pension rights should vary according to the number of people that an employer employs. We find that proposition completely unacceptable.
Lord Haskel: I wonder why the noble Lord wants small employers to be free from unnecessary bureaucracy but not to be good employers. Small companies are just as keen as large ones to be good employers, to retain their staff and to attract the best people, and part of that is to ensure that they make proper pension arrangements. To excuse small employers on the basis that there is more bureaucracy confuses two propositions. Small companies do not want to be involved in unnecessary bureaucratic procedures but they do want to be good employers, which means providing good pensions for their employees.
Lord Astor of Hever: Does the noble Lord accept that under this Government small businesses have suffered a continuous assault by red tape? We want to do everything possible to cut down that red tape.
Lord Haskel: I do not accept that. I accept that there are two kinds of red tape. There is unnecessary bureaucracy, and perhaps small companies have suffered from it. However, they have not suffered from bureaucracy which is designed to improve the wellbeing of their employees.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I agree with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Haskel have said. I am baffled by the push of the amendment. The amendment as tabled means that stage 2 of the state second pension will not
112
apply to people working in companies with fewer than five employees. Instead of moving to a flat rate scheme, stage 1 arrangements will continue to apply to them. There is less work involved in stage 2, which is a flat rate scheme, than in stage 1. I do not know whether the noble Lord believes that his amendment exempts all employers with fewer than five employees from the entire state pension scheme. What his amendment does is to stop people from moving from stage 1 to stage 2, which cannot be sensible.
We propose the lower earnings thrust in stage 1 because we do not have the stakeholder pension in place. When the stakeholder pension is in place and people are able to contract out to it, we propose that at the second stage S2P should become flat rate and everyone will be treated as if he has earnings of £9,500, or whatever is the lower earnings threshold at that time. If anything, I should have thought that that would have reduced rather than increased the burden on employers. Even if one accepts that the provision is about burdens, and my noble friend does not accept that—it is about rights to entitlement—staying with differential schemes according to incomes over £9,500, which is stage 1, would increase the employer's burden. Going to stage 2 with small employers should reduce it.
The key point is that those contracted out of the state scheme by funded alternatives will continue to receive the same level of help as under stage 1. Enhanced national insurance rebates and state scheme top-up payments will continue to be paid, thus providing earnings-related incentives for individuals to remain in or join a private pension scheme. This, in particular when coupled with an employer's contribution, should go a long way to ensuring that people with funded provision receive a decent income in retirement.
The exemption is modelled on the stakeholder pension. We provided it there in order to strike a sensible balance. Simply because, with stakeholder pensions, small employers are not required to offer access to a stakeholder scheme, this does not mean that they will not do so. In fact, we hope that many will. Equally, it does not prevent employees from taking out a stakeholder pension via another route. Many of those who work for small employers change jobs frequently and may prefer to choose their own stakeholder scheme.
We shall move on to the second stage of state second pension only once stakeholder pension schemes are established and we are convinced that all moderate earners will be able to join a low-cost, flexible scheme. So access to stakeholder schemes for all employees will be an important determinant of when we move to the second stage. It is important to differentiate between linking individual entitlement to a state benefit to the size of someone's employer and stakeholder access provisions, which are a requirement on the employer.
There are good reasons why operating two different forms of state second pension for employees, depending on the size of the employer they work for, would not be sensible. The decisions they have to make

113
about their pension provision would be made more difficult, not less. Some moderate earners would end up staying in the state scheme simply because they were confused by the conflicting messages being given, and so on.
I am puzzled by the amendment. It seems to add more complexity for employers and to encourage people from staying in a state scheme when they would be better off going into a stakeholder scheme. In the light of that reply, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It has reassured me. I understand the limitation of the amendment. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 129 to 131 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 132:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
INCREASE OF BASIC RETIREMENT PENSION
(". The Secretary of State shall each year increase the basic retirement pension by not less than an amount equivalent to —

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

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

whichever is the greater").
The noble Baroness said: I return again to the issue of indexing the basic state pension. It can be no surprise to the Government, I am sure, that their 75p increase has outraged most pensioners. MPs have encountered this anger in the recent elections, as have many party workers. The £150 fuel allowance has done nothing to assuage that anger. For most pensioners income is more important than what they regard as handouts. "If we were properly paid, we would not need handouts. We could pay our bills like people in employment". That sentiment has been expressed frequently to me.
As I said at Second Reading, I have yet to meet a rich pensioner. The reason advanced by the Government for their refusal to tackle the basic problem of the state pension is that to give everyone the increase we seek, and which was promised by the previous Labour government when the Castle plan was first implemented, is that it would mean that everyone would have the increase, including rich pensioners. I should like to spend some time dealing with the issue of rich pensioners because it is not
114
adequate for the Minister constantly to reiterate the statement that the majority of pensioners are rich without advancing any facts in support of it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In all fairness, I cannot let my noble friend get away with that. I have never said that most pensioners are rich. I have said that most pensioners are not poor. That is very different.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The noble Baroness has used occasionally the term "rich pensioners". Indeed, in the handout that I have, Mr Darling says that it shows that average pensioner incomes as a whole are rising faster than average earnings, and that some have done very well. Just because a few people, mostly recently retired, can afford a once-in-a-lifetime holiday in Florida does not mean that pensioners are well off but simply that some save up—something the Government are intent upon encouraging people to do.
I should like to explain why I am so sceptical about the Government's statement about well-off pensioners. I shall not use the term "rich". How are those figures arrived at? From what baseline? Does it include the value of various benefits paid to people on the basic pension who otherwise could not exist at all? If so, being on benefits scarcely constitutes wealth. Or is Mr Darling also referring to people who receive generous occupational pensions? If that is so, that is interesting. Most occupational pension schemes have been designed on the assumption that they will top up the basic state pension. Most occupational pensions are not fully index-linked to the retail prices index. Indeed, the usual formula, even in what is known as "good" schemes—and I have negotiated a good many of them in my time—allowed for annual increases in line with the retail prices index to a maximum figure of 5 per cent per annum. In the years—this has occurred sometimes in the past 20-odd years—when the R PI exceeded 5 per cent, the pension was nevertheless increased only by 5 per cent. Obviously, over time the value of the pension would erode, particularly in relation to the wages index.
Therefore, the argument that pensioner incomes have increased by more than the incomes of other people in the past 20-odd years cannot be right. The reason is that the structure was simply not in place for that to happen. Therefore, I return again to the matter of the basic pension. Quite simply, there was no structure whereby pensioners who received an occupational pension could have done better than everyone else in employment. There was provision under which pensions in very good pension schemes were increased in line with the retail prices index—never in line with the wages index—up to a maximum of 5 per cent per annum. That was the standard procedure throughout most of industry and commerce.
I return again to the matter of the basic pension. Even the promised £2 a week increase, to be put in place possibly next year, will not compensate for the amount that pensioners have lost. As we know—the figures have been quoted often enough—a single

115
pensioner would now be receiving approximately £97 a week. The MIG is now set at £78. Many pensioners who just fail to qualify for the MIG nevertheless are not at all well off. Everyone, including the tiny minority of very well-off pensioners, will have paid for their pensions.
That is what angers so many pensioners. They are the generation who went through the last world war. They believed that with the introduction of the welfare state they were helping to build a society where people would not be neglected, isolated and impoverished in old age. They resent being told that they are well off when their occupational pension is of the order of £7,000 a year, which is about average, and declining in value relative to earnings, without any improvement worth mentioning in the basic state pension.
The genuinely rich, for whom the basic state pension is just so much small change, will be taxed anyway. There is a wealth of information available about poverty among pensioners, and even the Government admit that that is the case, otherwise there would be no point in paying everyone the fuel allowance. Incidentally, that is paid to everyone and it is not means tested.
Further, the MIG will be indexed to earnings rather than prices, although that, of course, is to be means tested. It would be so much simpler if the Government would return to original Labour policy and increase the basic state pension in line with my amendment. There would be a saving in benefits and means testing, which, as we know, is difficult and expensive to administer. The older generation, which deserves better, would cease to feel resentful and excluded. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: My Amendment No. 133 has the same aim as that of Lady Turner, although it is worded slightly differently. The purpose behind our endless, continuous and continuing campaign to secure the restoration of the earnings link for the uprating of the basic state pension is based on our belief that in a civilised society no section of the community should have to depend on means-testing. The Government talk about social inclusion. What could be more divisive than to say, "Oh, we are going to be kind to the poorest pensioners. Now, madam, you're the poorest; you're all right"? People do not like to be classified as those who need handouts from the taxpayer.
I must drive home a fact which very few people seem to have grasped. The cost of the basic state pension comes out of the National Insurance Fund. All right, the Government like to pretend that it is not insurance any more, but that is what the fund is and what it is called, whereas minimum income guarantee comes out of the pockets of the taxpayer. I believe that it is odd that this Government do not realise that by insisting on the role of the means test of benefit for the poorest pensioner—the targeted benefit which was very much part of the Conservative philosophy under Lady
116
Thatcher—they are undermining the desire of so many pensioners to be independent of what they see as the dubious charity of the taxpayer. "Ah, but", said the Minister in our debate earlier this afternoon, "if we had not stepped in with our policy"—by, I forget the year, 2010 or 2015—"one-third of pensioners would be on means-tested supplements". Whose fault is that?
Of course they would continue to be on means-tested supplements while the Government uprate the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings but hold the basic State pension down to the cost of living index which gave us the disastrous 75 pence per week for those pensioners in the last uprating. If the Government hold out any hope of an increase next year, it is simply that they are praying that prices will go up, that the retail price index will save them from another sense of pensioners' outrage about another miserly increase. In any case, when one examines this Government's statistics—and one has to stand back, take a deep breath, put a wet towel around one's head and then the truth dawns—what are this Government expecting? They are expecting—and I think I am correct in saying that the Minister used this figure earlier—that, by the year 2000 and whatever, there will be one in five pensioners still on means-tested benefits. What percentage is there now? It is one in six. So there are going to be more people on means test—however much we argue about the exact figures—by the time the Government have done their pension building in complete form.
Another great statistic with which we are always dazzled is—I do not want to misquote the Minister that, by the end of this Parliament, the Government will have spent £6.5 billion more on pensioners. I think I am right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: £6.5 billion more.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: More than what?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: £6.5 billion more on pensioners than the forecast figures that we inherited and £2.5 billion more on pensioners than would have been the case had we restored the earnings-linked pensions.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I am coming to that with great relish. It is £6.5 billion more than Margaret Thatcher's lot. I would not expect it to be the same. Our policy manifesto did not promise no improvement on the present pattern. I do not think a Labour government should make great play with a figure like that. It should be contrasted with previous Labour administrations.
The Minister has just said it is £2.5 billion more than if they had restored the earnings link. It is fascinating, is it not? It does require a little careful study. One does have to keep a rather cool head when going through this minefield of pensions policies.
I am going to examine that figure. I think the important thing about the £6.5 billion is who receives the benefit. We are never asked to examine that. Let us

117
return to this point. They are going to spend by the end of this Parliament £2.5 billion. At one stage we heard a higher figure than that, so perhaps some statistical realism has been creeping into the Ministry, but £2.5 billion more than if they had restored the earnings link.
On whom is that £2½ billion to be spent? Let us have a look. My trouble is that I work all these figures out and then I cannot read them, so I am trying to do it, as best I can, from memory. By refusing to restore the earnings link which a previous Labour government had introduced for keeping the basic state pension in line with national prosperity, a single pensioner in the lifetime of this Government would have received £195 more than they are doing at present. A married couple would have received £312 per year more.
What have they got to offset that? The Minister talks about this £2½ billion. They should be rolling in it. Right, let us look. They both, single and married, receive the same fuel allowance because, remember, that does not go to the pensioner, the individual; it goes to the household. Therefore, they each receive £150. If they are over 75, then they will receive another £43 from the TV bonus, rebate, whatever it is called.
If you do some arithmetic, you will find that the single person's £195 has been replaced by £150 or, if he is over 75, £193, because he will receive the TV bonus on top. So it is pretty well level pegging, is it not? He is not receiving anything of that £2½ billion.
If we look at a married couple, we find a much more damaging picture. We find that married couples under 75 will receive £150 fuel allowance to offset the £312 that they have lost from the refusal to restore the earnings link. Why is that? It is because, of course, the fuel allowance is per household, not per pensioner. If they had been receiving a pensions increase—the earnings link that would have been per pension. Fuel allowance is per household and, of course, so is the £43 TV licence money which they will receive if they are over 75.
Therefore, that £195 is reduced, in the case of a single pensioner, to £150 or £ 193—you do the mental arithmetic. And the married couple's £312 is offset by a mere £150 a year or, if they are over 75, £193.
I shall be very interested to know whether the Minister challenges those figures, because, if she does not and she accepts them, then she is admitting that it is meaningless to say, "We are spending 2½ billion more on pensioners". It all depends on who is getting what.
There will clearly be losers among people of modest incomes, among people who may be just over their savings or occupational pension limit for the minimum income guarantee, which is not, after all, so very splendiferous.
I think that the Government should, at the very least, show a bit more honesty and humility. If they came to us and said, "Look, it costs too much and we are sorry, but we just can't take it on board for the moment", we might disagree and quarrel but we would respect them. However, to come along with figures such as £6.5 billion more than Margaret Thatcher
118
pent, which is not difficult, or to say, "We will be giving to pensioners £2.5 billion more than they would have received if we had restored the earnings link", is to discriminate, is it not? It is almost like the old days of the Poor Law and the deserving poor. People who have saved are not the deserving poor in this Government's estimation.
I ask the House most seriously to think about what it is doing. We shall go on fighting this battle. We shall go on meeting with pensioners who are 100 per cent behind us because one of the tragedies is that the Government would not listen. In 1996, when some of us were begging the government to include in the manifesto the pledge to restore the earnings link which had been so rudely abolished in 1980, we were told, "We're going to set up a pensions review body. Pensioners will have a voice". I know that I am an old cynic, but I said, "Yes, but who'll be listening?" and, of course, the Government did not listen. That pensions review body unanimously urged the Government to restore the earnings link. What on earth was the use of going through that charade? It reminds me of Glendower in Henry IV, who boasted,
"I can call spirits from the vasty deep",
and his companion said,
"Why, so can I, or so can any man.
But will they come when you do call for them?"
Will the Government do what the pensioners unanimously asked in the review body and are still asking? The Government have, of course spent money, but they have done so in a discriminatory way. I can assure the House that pensioners' dignity has never been more alert than it is today. Just like the disabled, they want to be treated as normal people in society, like everybody else, not labelled the poorest pensioner.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: We have all listened with great respect to the two noble Baronesses who have spoken from the Government Benches. They undoubtedly make a strong case.
As we made clear in the House of Commons, and as I tried to make clear earlier in the debate this evening, the position of my party is that we are particularly concerned with the position of the older pensioners. That is why we put forward our own proposals for the age additions. We see this as a problem not only with the basic state pension, but also, for reasons I explained, with the state second pension, which is targeted particularly at those on modest incomes but, as things are now, will end up leaving those who live long enough dependent upon the minimum income guarantee.
We would prefer the Government to act in that way to deal with the problem of the older pensioners. We see that as a better-targeted and a more cost-effective way of dealing with such problems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. We debated this point much earlier and I believe he accepted my figures. Though I have much sympathy with his analysis of the

119
problem, the statistics do not bear out his assertion that age-related rebates on the state pension, as he suggested, would meet the problems he identified. I had thought that perhaps the noble Lord had accepted that, unfortunately, the statistics do not support what he is seeking to do here. In the light of that, does he agree that it is better to examine the MIG and so forth as more responsive, sensitive and appropriate ways of addressing pensioner poverty?
Lord Goodhart: We have already argued that point. Our position remains clear on this. On these Benches we do not think it satisfactory that people who, when they first become pensioners, do not qualify for the minimum income guarantee, should be forced by a decline in the value of their pensions relative to the value of the MIG to become dependent on it at an advanced age. However, I do not want to reopen that argument because I was coming to the end of my remarks.
If the Government insist on operating solely through the MIG and will not move in the general direction of giving non-means-tested help even to the oldest pensioners, then, if these amendments are pressed to a vote, we are likely to support the amendments.
Lord Higgins: I cannot hope to match the eloquence or analytical capabilities of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and I shall not detain the Committee for more than a moment or two.
The noble Baroness has rightly drawn attention to the reaction of pensioners to the Government's proposals. That is not outside my own experience, having represented Worthing for a number of years. It was said of that town that people went there to die and forgot where they came from. It is worrying that against this background a huge amount of press publicity has been put out saying that people should not worry because matters will be put right next year, but no specific information has been issued.
Perhaps I may make three points. First, the policy of the Government is in total chaos as far as means-tested or non-means-tested benefits are concerned. On the one hand, the Government stress means testing, but, on the other hand, we have seen a series of gimmicks put in place for TV licences and winter fuel payments which are not means tested. To a considerable extent those benefits reach many who do not in fact need the help.
Secondly, the figure of £6.5 billion has been mentioned by the noble Baroness as representing the increase in the amount targeted for pensioners. Perhaps I may ask her a specific question. Does that £6.5 billion take account of the changes in advance corporation tax that have removed roughly the same amount from private pension schemes?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The figure represents the extra spend by government. It not a consequence
120
of any alterations in tax regimes which "de-formed" the spending and investment patterns of private pension schemes.
Lord Higgins: We say simply that there is £6.5 billion of extra spend and that £6.5 billion, roughly speaking, has been taken away from private pension schemes, which are suffering as a result. So, apparently, no net change has taken place at all.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord has far more experience of Treasury matters than I, but he will know that changes in taxation, such as whether taxes such as ACT are changed or abolished, or whether corporation tax is reduced, do not make his argument any more valid than if he were to say that extra moneys gained from reductions in corporation tax, making our corporation tax lower than anywhere else in Europe, are ploughed back to employers and thus "stolen" from pensioners. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that it is not possible to make an argument for read-across of that kind.
Lord Higgins: I do not accept that for one moment. The reality is that the effects of the changes in the tax regime by this Government have reduced the available funds which private pension schemes previously enjoyed by roughly the same amount as that by which the noble Baroness has told us that the Government have increased payments to pensioners. People in occupational schemes are just as much pensioners as people in state schemes.
I have only one final point, and it is the only one the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, omitted; that is, we have this huge government windfall of £22 billion from mobile phone licences; what are the Government intending to do with it? They intend to reduce borrowing. That will hit annuity rates still further and have an even more adverse effect on pensioners.
Baroness Greengross: Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Baronesses, Lady Castle and Lady Turner, for giving us another opportunity to debate state pensions. Again, I must still declare an interest in that I work for Age Concern.
First, I recognise that the Government have introduced measures which help people. They are very welcome and have made a big difference to the poorest pensioners. The rise in capital limits for income support from April of next year will especially benefit those with a small amount of savings. In fact, every year since 1988 when the current limits were set, I have written to successive Chancellors suggesting that they do this. So I am pleased that the Treasury listened, even though it took a long time.
However, time and again people say to Age Concern that what they really want is a decent level of state pension and the choice as to how to spend their money. We know now about the anger and disappointment people felt at the 75p increase this year. That is why I agree with the noble Baronesses that both the level of the basic pension and the current uprating system are unacceptable.

121
Older people were promised that they would share in the rising prosperity of our nation. Not everyone is, despite the good things the Government have done. The poorest benefit from above-inflation increases in means-tested help, and the minimum income guarantee, but only if they claim it. It is good that the Government are launching a take-up campaign to find the 750,000-odd people who are missing out. But if the pension had been raised last year to £75, the same as the MIG level then, a take-up campaign would not have been required.
Restoring the link with earnings would be one popular way of addressing the problem. But I am the first to recognise that it is difficult to turn back the clock. There may be other ways of assessing overall increases in living standards, particularly for the poorest pensioners. Last month, Age Concern published a new report from the Family Budget Unit arguing cogently for minimum income standards for older people and, despite the difficulties, I should like to see the Government investigate the use of budget standards to establish what income levels people need to achieve an adequate standard of living. Such assessments, regularly updated, could provide an important guide as to how much pensions and benefits should be uprated. They could include all types of income as I realise that although the state pension may be £67.50, many pensioners receive more income from additional pensions, savings, the MIG, winter payments, rebates on council tax and so forth. But for working families and single-parent families, and even for older workers, figures are now quoted for their minimum, taking account of the working families' tax credit, the New Deal and so on.
Can the Minister give that idea some thought for those who are already retired? I know she will say that the MIG is one part of an older person's minimum income standard, but this year it starts at just over £78 a week. That is just £4,000 a year. The research by the Family Budget Unit suggested that an older person aged 65 to 74 needed between £99 and £125 a week, which is why Age Concern suggested that the state pension should be at least £90 a week now.
Another way forward might be to link future increases in the pension more realistically to the cost of living increases for older people. If the RPI as a way of determining the pension rise does not work—it patently does not for older people—perhaps we need to think of another way. Over the years there has been much talk of a pensioner index. Could the Minister ask her officials seriously to consider something that gave greater weighting to council tax, utility costs or transport costs, things which form such a large part of older people's outgoings, or perhaps the link to GDP, which is one idea on which Age Concern published a report a couple of years ago?
I know that the Minister will refer in her response to the pensioner's credit, which is very good news. It is intended to help those with modest savings and, in particular, those with small occupational pensions, many of whom miss out at the moment. I very much
122
welcome this aim, though I am unsure as to why it cannot be implemented in April 2001. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me in that respect.
I, along with the vast majority of Britain's older people, believe that an improved basic pension is the most effective way of achieving the goal. As I said, a higher pension is also the best way to improve the income of the very poorest pensioners; namely, those entitled to income support who do not claim. Finally, a commitment to maintaining and improving the basic pension—if one of those ways could be chosen to do so—would give a firm foundation on which future pensioners could build up a decent income in retirement, together with state second pensions and stakeholder pensions. If we could achieve one of these aims, I think that we could say in this country that there is a standard of living for pensioners which we can, if not take pride in, at least be satisfied is really fair.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brett: I listened to those who have spoken thus far and some points have been made with which I have more than a little sympathy. I agree with my noble friend Lady Turner. Under our arrangements for capping increases in pensions in relation to private sector schemes, I fail to see how it is possible for pensioners to have done so much better than people on average earnings. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Castle. Many pensioners felt insulted by the 75p increase.
I was "on the knocker" in local elections, which was not a pleasant experience when I met anyone who was pensionable. However, it was not a case of people saying, "Oh, this should be related to earnings", or, "We don't like it related to prices"; it was simply the fact that the amount of money produced by the formula was deemed to be insulting. That was the real issue, which never got beyond an argument.
It seems to me that my noble friend Lady Castle was a little unfair in her use of statistics. She did not seem to include other factors that the Government have taken into account during the past three years to assist pensioners; for example, concessionary fares, the change in taxation policy, free eye tests, and so on. Indeed, there is a whole series of things that cannot be left out of the equation.
Going back some years, I remember when the Secretary of State was my noble friend Lady Castle and the earnings related link was introduced. It made every kind of sense then because at that stage the vast majority of people had no provision other than the state pension. Indeed, it was something like two to one in favour of people having a state pension and only one-third—a minority, a privileged élite—having a scheme that was organised through the employer or in some other way. That situation has just about reversed itself now: 25 years later, we have two-thirds of people in occupational pension schemes.
We are not looking at pension policy revision for tomorrow; we are doing so for 25 and 30 years hence. Therefore, it would be wrong to ignore those features.

123
In that sense, it is a question of asking ourselves what we will be doing in 30 or 40 years' time in a globalised economy as regards ensuring that everyone has an adequate pension. Therefore, in much of what the Government are seeking to do, I can see that they are endeavouring to protect pensioners with lower incomes. I do not want to get into a rich versus poor argument as regards pensionable income over the past 20 years. But, because we have paid people better at the higher levels of our society than those in basic employment, there has been a much greater extension, a stretching, of pensionable pay between those who are more than adequately pensioned (I include myself among them) to those who have a real need. The question we should be considering is: how can we best assist those in need? It seems to me that we should see such features as the minimum income guarantee, the working families' tax credit and, indeed, a number of these other measures as a package.
Although I should like to see the satisfaction on many people's faces if we were to restore an earnings link, we must ask ourselves whether that is the best policy in the long term; in other words, is it a policy that we can sustain? Moreover, is it one that the pensioner of 2020 will actually need? All those considerations lead me to believe that, if we were reinventing pensions, we would not be looking for an earnings link. We would be looking for a portfolio of pensions, somewhat similar to that being put forward now, with a degree of state provision and a greater degree of private provision.
Earl Russell: I wish to add a few points to the debate. First, if the Minister will forgive me, I wish to comment briefly on age-related additions. I want to borrow a point which the Minister herself contributed to our debates a couple of years back. She argued that the extent of poverty on benefit depended in large measure on how long you had been on benefit; that things wore out and they needed to be replaced.
If you are an 80 year-old pensioner, you have been on benefit for quite a long time. Your overcoat is probably worn out and you probably need new shoes. The carpets are probably threadbare. The car probably needs replacing, if, indeed you can still keep your insurance. You may have costs which are a great deal higher than those of a younger pensioner on the same income.
The point about the car insurance draws attention to the fact that in many ways older pensioners may have higher costs than younger ones. My father-in-law, to his utter fury, has just had his car insurance withdrawn at the age of 90, although his previous motoring offence was in 1941 when he was discovered to have only one of his headlamps covered with brown paper during the blackout!—which he still wakes up hot at night about. If you lose your car insurance—he fortunately got his back from another firm almost instantly—if you want to shop you have to spend money on taxis. If you want to go to the doctor, you have to get someone else to take you. These things add considerably to costs. Therefore the expense of being
124
an older pensioner may be a great deal greater than the expense of being a younger pensioner on the same income. These things might perhaps be taken into account.
My second point follows the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn: "More than what?" The Minister gave a figure of £6.5 billion more than the previous government. First, is that calculated over three years since the comprehensive spending review, or over five years as the period of the Parliament? Secondly, is it calculated in money terms or in real terms? Thirdly, does it or does it not take account of the £3 billion undershoot in public spending in the first year of this Government? That is £3 billion under the Conservative targets to which they pledged themselves. These things are, I think, material.
The next matter I want to ask about is the minimum income guarantee in which the Minister has placed a great deal of faith in the course of these exchanges. I am not used to trusting in MIGs so I am perhaps entitled to ask for some clarification. First, what are the means of delivery of the minimum income guarantee? What methods do the Government suggest to ensure that this guarantee is made effective? How is the money to be got to the people who are entitled to it? Secondly, how many people have actually been helped by the minimum income guarantee since this Government first announced it? Is it any more than were getting means-tested help on top of the state pension before the guarantee was announced? In fact, has the minimum income guarantee made any practical difference and, if so, how can we quantify it and how is it visible?
I have one final point. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brett, I have been listening to voters recently. I know that the points the noble Lord makes about the other things which have been done for pensioners are true. However, these things carry with the voters no weight whatsoever. What is more, they blame not only the government but the whole profession of politics. A great many of them told me not merely that they would not vote for the governing party again but that they would never vote again for any party whatsoever. This is a dangerous disconnection between politicians and public. For good or ill, we live in a democracy. According to The Times today, in some constituencies among those who actually cast their votes as many as one in three may be pensioners. They have, or they did have, a high marginal propensity to vote. So we ignore them at our peril. The Government might be wise to listen. Whatever The Times today may suggest, I do not think that an extra increase next year will come in time. As my honourable friend Mr. Foster once told the then Mr. John Patten, the Minister should not think that jam tomorrow will get them out of a pickle today.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The purpose of the amendments is to provide for uprating of the basic retirement pension by at least the growth in general earnings or retail prices—whichever is the greater—during the preceding year. I say more in sorrow than

125
anger to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I thought that was a valiant rally by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I hoped for a debate in which we could show through information that I could share with the Corn rnittee—and information which I imagine the noble Lord would not dream of disputing—that age-related rebates would not serve to reduce poverty in the way that the noble Lord suggested. I take the points about expenditure. We are not arguing that aspect at the moment. Income is the main push, in the sense that there remains greater inequality within each age band rather than between age bands. It is the same problem as more people living in poverty outside poor areas than there are in poor areas.
The noble Lord admits his proposal is an ineffective way to proceed but says that unless we accept it, he will go for an earnings link—which is something with which he has disagreed for all his time in your Lordships' House. I wonder about the grounds on which the noble Lord can justify pursuing a policy that statistics show will not achieve what he wants.
Earl Russell: The Minister could show that the suggested measure was imprecisely targeted but she could do that with a great many other benefits. There is a case for arguing that imprecise targeting is better than no targeting at all.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If only 40 per cent of 80-plus pensioners are on MIG, which is relatively generous in offering high earnings-related sums, the noble Earl would have us target a lot of resources at less than half the population in the age cohort who, as defined by income support eligibility, are not poor. Apart from being imprecise, the benefit would miss 60 per cent of the target.
Lord Goodhart: The logical conclusion of the Minister's argument is that everything would be shifted onto MIG and there would be no basic pension. What is the correct level at which to preserve the value of the basic pension and state second pension? We feel that a proper age addition is required even if it is not targeted as precisely as MIG would be. The fact that 40 per cent of 80-year-olds qualify for MIG is a sign that the pensions of S0-year-olds are too low.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Although one would end up with an unacceptable situation—reductio ad absurdwn—that is not an assertion that one would go down that path. The more absurd it is, the less likely that is to happen. II do not accept the thin end of the wedge argument.
Under the proposal, age-related rebates would give money to people who, in the top quintile, are enjoying household incomes of more than £400 per week simply because they are over 80—but would not offer similar support to people under 75 whose income might be one quarter of that sum. That is what I find objectionable about it. It is not that it targets imprecisely; unlike MIG, it does not target at all.
126
That is why I find it odd—I shall not put it otherwise—that the noble Earl says that we should go down a path that at best, in his words, targets imprecisely and, on my account, does not target at all. If we do not, he will support something that he has always persistently—and in my view properly—described as "inappropriate"; that is, the earnings link. The noble Earl has ended up in a very odd position: he is saying that we must accept something that does not work, otherwise he will force on us—or seek to force on us through any support that he can give—something that, up to now, he has always said would not work and should not be done. I find that an undesirable position for Front Bench spokesmen to find themselves in. I am happy to give way, if the noble Earl wishes.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: It is only fair that the Minister should have her own proposals subjected to the same scrutiny as ours. No doubt MIG would be precisely targeted if it were ever delivered, but it does not matter how well something is targeted if it is not delivered. What are the means of delivery of MIG?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I fully take the noble Earl's point. He is right. My noble friend Lord Brett and other noble Lords have made exactly that point. We know that MIG can identify those most in need and concentrate help on them, but, unless we can deliver the money to them, I agree that it will be ineffective and inappropriate for what we need to do.
That is why we shall be writing to the 2 million pensioners whom we think are eligible; why we shall promote a massive advertising campaign, both nationally and locally, through Dame Thora Hird; why we shall encourage all the voluntary organisations, from the CABs to local authorities and so on, to work with us in a campaign over the summer; and why we shall spread the information through local housing offices and through leaflets that I hope local authorities will send out. This is to ensure that elderly people are aware that this is their right and their entitlement. To get that right and that entitlement, they can complete the forms in the privacy of their own home. They do not need to go into benefits offices; they do not need to queue; and they do not need to stand in a line with unemployed youngsters in front of them and other people behind them. They can do it all over the telephone in their own home, or in their son's or daughter's homes if their son or daughter is on the phone.
We have to make sure that people know about MIG; that, once they know about it, they seek to claim it; and that when they seek to claim it, they do so in a way that is as automatic and stigma-free as we can make it. We believe that we have achieved that. As I said, we are working with local authorities, and I have been talking to them; we are working with CABs, and I have been talking to them. I am very happy to take on board any of your Lordships' experiences of even more effective ways of getting automatic delivery. We do not have all the answers on this.

127
A year or two down the line, it would be reasonable for noble Lords to hold us to account on how effective we have been in achieving the delivery of MIG to the poorest pensioners, but this is the only way in today's society that we can address need—not by age-related rebates; not by giving more money to women or to single pensioners; not by an earnings link to state pensions. The only way we can really address poverty, target it and ensure that every pound goes to those who need it and not to those who do not, is through the minimum income guarantee. If the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee know of ways of helping us to do that, I shall be delighted to receive help.
Before I address my noble friend's points about the earnings link, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me about the pension being index-linked. There is a pensioners' RPI, which is based on the expenditure habits of the poorest one-third of pensioners. Historically, it has not increased by any more than the main RPI. I do not think there would be any advantage to pensioners in that. We track it, but it makes very little difference.
The basic issue is whether it is right to go for the earnings link as a way of addressing pensioner poverty. The earnings link was in place for only four years between 1975 and 1979. As my noble friend Lord Brett rightly said, that was at a time when few people had a second pension. Had I been a junior Member of either House back in 1978 and my noble friend was introducing the earnings link combined with SERPS, I would have been cheering her on because, on the facts as they were then, it was a decent and proper response to the situation of pensioner poverty. That is no longer the case. In all honesty, I suggest to my noble friend that she is simply and resolutely refusing to take on board all the changes that have happened to pensioners' income in the last 20 to 25 years. It as though none of the changes that my noble friend Lord Brett mentioned has occurred. They have and we must deal with the world as we find it, not with the world that my friend was dealing with, properly as she did—and I would be one of her greatest fans in that respect—back in 1978. The reason is that over the 20 years or so since then, the impact of SERPS and occupational pensions on pensioners' income has been substantial.
I repeat, the real growth in average earnings for all of us since 1979 has been 38 per cent. Average pensioner incomes grew from their base by 64 per cent in real terms between 1979 and 1996/97. In other words, pensioner incomes have grown from their base by nearly double the amount of the rest of us from our base. The noble Lord asked, what sort of figures we were talking about in terms of 6.5 billion. It is at today's prices; it is over the whole Parliament; it is calculated on the basis of discretionary policy changes like MIGs, earnings upgrade, winter fuel payment, TV licences, no allowances for forecasting undershoot. I hope that addresses the point that I was asked. It
128
remains the case that many pensioners now have incomes which are substantially above minimum income guarantees.
Most pensioners are not poor. A few pensioners are rich. A significant number, 20 to 30 per cent, are poor and those are the pensioners who have missed out from the growth in rise of pension incomes that we have seen since 1978, 1979 and onwards. In other words, what we have seen is that the growth in pensioner incomes has widened and there has been more inequality within pensioner incomes, with medium income pensions too, than most of the rest of us have experienced.
The gap between rich and poor pensioners has increased substantially since 1979. The median net income of the top fifth has grown by 80 per cent. The median net income of the bottom fifth has grown by only 34 per cent. If you take single pensioners, the gap is even wider. For example, 28 per cent for the bottom fifth—much less than for the rest of us—but 76 per cent, much more than double, for the top fifth.
Faced with that situation, taking single pensioners where the income of the bottom fifth has grown by 28 per cent and the top fifth by 76 per cent, is it right, is it decent and is it proper that the same increase should go to all of them even though some of those pensioners, a fifth, have fallen behind the rest of us proportionately to their base and the top fifth have exceeded the base compared to the rest of us by double? Is it right that we should treat them all the same? Should we give a little to everyone or should we say, what has happened since 1978–79 is that pension incomes have grown substantially for the great majority of pensioners but the 20 to 30 per cent who are on income related benefits have been left behind? I ask my friends in the name of socialism, what should you do? Give a little to everyone, irrespective of their financial need, or concentrate the help on those who need it most.
Baroness Turner of Camden: This is not a charity.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, it is not charity. This is an income related benefit which goes to those who need it and it has come from the rest of us through taxation which is also income related. It is from those of us who can afford to pay through a means-tested tax system to those who need it through a means-tested income support system. I think that is a decent and proper way to help those most in need. Give to those who need it. Not a little to everyone, but focus it on those who need that help who otherwise will linger in poverty. I give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I think it is a little mean to harangue us when we are not as accustomed, as the Minister is, to jumping up to answer every point as it is made. That reduces a debate in this House to chaos. We shall wait for our next turn, do not worry.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I am sure my noble friend knows, one of the differences between Committee stage and Report stage is that there is a debate and therefore noble Lords may intervene freely.

129
I am disappointed in my noble friend if she feels restrained from doing so on the assumption that this is not Committee stage but Report stage. We have such procedures at Report stage. At the Committee stage we do our best to have a debate and if it is helpful to intervene all of us are happy to give way. That is the difference in the way we handle our procedures in this House compared perhaps with the Commons.
As I said, some have missed out. Therefore, the Government have a clear choice. There can be a little to everyone, which is what my noble friend is proposing, or, as the Government are doing, a focusing of help on the poorest. My noble friend said—I wrote down her words—that it all depends on who benefits. Yes, precisely. It all depends on who benefits. My noble friend wants Members of your Lordships' House—all of us—to benefit, whether our income is £20,000 or £100,000 a year. Frankly, that is not what I am in the game for. I am in the game for those who do not have those levels of income and who would otherwise be dependent on very low levels of income.
To increase the basic pension in line with average earnings would cost an extra £1 billion in 2000, an extra £7.5 billion in 2010 and would rise to an extra £24 billion in 2025. My noble friend said that I do not talk figures and that if I did she would respect me. Well, I am telling her now—that is what the cost would be. I am talking figures—an extra £24 billion in 2025. But, more importantly, that would not increase the overall income of the poorest pensioners—it would merely come off their MIG—and it would spend money on the rest of us, who do not need it, to help ourselves in retirement. I say to my noble friend—
Lord Goodhart: The noble Baroness is being extremely eloquent at the moment. How does she think that this will go down with the 80 year-old pensioner on, let us say, £110 a week who says, "Why is it that I am getting nothing whereas someone who has a few pounds a week less than I do is getting the substantial increase from the minimum income guarantee?"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a perfectly fair point. That is exactly why we are proposing to introduce a pensioner's credit. It is going out to consultation. We are targeting help on the poorest. We still want to retain the incentive for people to save and to build for their retirement. Therefore, you must not penalise people just above the income receiving limits. The noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why in the Budget the Chancellor raised the capital limits to increase eligibility for MIG and its pass ported benefits from £3,000 to £8,000 and from to £6,000 to £12,000. That is a substantial increase as they had not been raised since 1988 and 1990 respectively. It is why the Chancellor has taken on board that entirely legitimate criticism that we need also to consider the equivalent of a disregard for modest income—just above the benefit line. That is precisely why the pensioner credit is being developed and will go out to consultation in the usual way. The noble Lord is exactly right.
130
To go back to the basic choice facing all of us, if for a poorer couple over 75—people on benefit levels—you linked their pension to earnings, as my noble friend proposes, this year they would get £6. Or you can make them eligible for MIG. That same poorer pensioner couple of 75 would get £18. So £6 or £18? You cannot do it all. You cannot give £18 to everyone. If you give £6 to everyone you still have to help the poorest pensioner more or alternatively they fall behind the rest of us, while others of us enjoy £6 extra that we do not need.
The basic retirement pension alone cannot provide, and was never intended to provide, a complete income in retirement. It is a key building block and that is why we are uprating it with RPI. We are trying to see this as the first step and then put in place the second tier of the state second pension, the stakeholder or the occupation pension; and for those in the meanwhile who fall between the net, to support them with the minimum income guarantee. Through the minimum income guarantee we increased income support for pensioners last year by three times the rate of inflation. This April it was increased in line with earnings.
My noble friend Lady Castle said that one in six was currently on MIG and all that would happen under our proposals in 2050 is that one in five would be. I am sorry. She is incorrect on that. One in three pensioners is currently now on MIG and that will fall to one in five as a result of our proposals. If we did not intervene, that one in three would remain. So we are bringing about a substantial improvement in the lot of pensioners—not, as my noble friend argued, a serious deterioration.
We have not forgotten our manifesto. We are spending £2.05 billion extra on pensioners. They will have, for example, special winter fuel payments. That is a form of hypothecated contribution to fuel costs, because pensioners spend longer at home, they need higher levels of heat, and they are living in houses that are more poorly insulated. We are introducing free television licences, there are free eye tests, as well as tax reductions which mean that two-thirds of pensioners do not pay income tax. As a result, as I have said, an extra £6.5 billion will be spent on pensioner incomes in this Parliament. We are spending £2.05 billion more than would be the cost of uprating the basic state pension in line with earnings, and in an effective and balanced way.
To put it another way, all pensioner households will enjoy the equivalent of a tax-free £3 per week hypothecated winter fuel allowance, and all pensioner families over 75 will enjoy a free TV licence worth an equivalent of £2 a week, making a tax-free £5 a week. So for all pensioner households over 75 the Government are offering the equivalent of £5 extra tax-free a week. The poorest 30 per cent who are broadly eligible for MIG will, on top, receive a further £10 to £20 a week. In other words, under the earnings-related uprating, the bottom 20 per cent would see their incomes improve by around 15 per cent. Under government policies, their income will improve by double that.

131
So we are helping all pensioners with winter fuel, and those over 75 with television licences, by virtually as much as the earnings link would have provided. But for the poorest we are offering double what my noble friend's proposals would offer. That is where the need is. Given everything the Committee knows about what has happened to the growing stretch of pensioner incomes, in which two-thirds of pensioners do not need our help in this way but one-third do, I hope that my noble friends behind me will recognise and respect the fact that what was right in 1978 is not right now, because the world has changed. If we are to meet pensioner poverty, this is the best way forward. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for her eloquent response to the debate, which has been a very good one. She will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with her. I still believe in the earnings-related concept. My reason is that I am a firm and committed believer in a system of social insurance.
I interrupted my noble friend to point out that the basic state pension was not a charity. It is not. People have contributed to this pension during their working lives, through the tax system and through national insurance. When they arrive at the age when they are due for retirement, many look to that as a basic building block, as my noble friend rightly says, of pension provision.
Indeed, my noble friend talks about the basic building block, but that is beginning to crumble, and has been crumbling for some time. It will continue to do so unless the Government do something about improving it. There does not seem to be any indication that they want to do that. The concept is that increased pension provision is paid out only on the basis of people in actual need.
My noble friend has repeatedly said, as has my noble friend Lord Brett, that we are not in 1978 any more. But since 1978 matters have got rather worse than was intended then. SERPS has been substantially diminished. Moreover, as a result of previous government policies, the numbers of final salary schemes have diminished. Indeed, such schemes have hardly been introduced in the past 20 years. What we have instead are money purchase schemes, with the inevitable lack of security that goes with money purchase provision. That now applies right across the occupational pension scene, instead of the much better final salary provision that existed well before 1978. Things have not improved marvellously since then.
I have said repeatedly that much occupational pension provision is based on the assumption that it tops up the basic pension. The pension package in 1978 had two tiers: the basic building block, as it has been described, and an occupational pension or SERPS on top. Part of that package, the basic building block, was to be increased in line with the wages index. The failure to do that produces a situation in which even
132
occupational pensioners are not as well off as they expected because the basic pension has not kept pace with the earnings index.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her support. Her observations deserve consideration. Even if this amendment is not accepted I hope that the Government will think very seriously about making a substantial improvement in the basic state pension. As has been pointed out by every noble Lord on this side of the Committee who has spoken this evening, the increase of 75p has resulted in considerable resentment among pensioners which has been made manifest in recent election campaigns. I have a good deal of contact with pensioners. My union has a section for the retired with its own organisation and annual meeting. A large number of people are in receipt of an occupational pension which is not usually generous. The pension has not been increased in line with the wages index. Pensioners are lucky if they have received retail price indexation. Therefore, even though they have an occupational pension the basic state pension is a matter of great concern to them.
Although I shall not press my amendment at this time of night, I ask the Government to think very seriously about the whole issue of the basic state pension. We have reached a stage where, even if the amendment is not accepted—I remain wedded to the notion of earnings-related indexing—it is essential that the basic state pension is examined carefully in light of very widely expressed dissatisfaction by the electorate who are pensioners. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Castle of Blackburnhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 133:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL UP-RATING OF PENSIONS
(" . In section 150(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, in paragraph (a), after "beginning" there shall be inserted the words "and, in the case of the weekly rate of the basic pension specified in section 44(4) of the Contributions and Benefits Act and the category B retirement pension specified in Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act, by not less than the percentage by which the general level of earnings is greater at the end of the period than it was at the beginning".").
The noble Baroness said: I do not intend to move the amendment for the time being.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Preservation of rights in respect of additional pensions]:
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page34, line 22, at end insert—
(""(4B) The regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important amendment which arises from so-called inherited SERPS. We had a Statement on this subject earlier this

133
year. There are other amendments on the same subject in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I concentrate on Amendment No. 135 in my name and those of my noble friends. The amendment provides that the regulations with regard to compensation for inherited SERPS,
"shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete".
When the Statement was made on 15th March, both the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I had difficulty in ascertaining the precise recommendations of the ombudsman on this subject. We quoted paragraphs 32 and 41 of his report, which we understood to be his recommendation to the Government. Unfortunately, the ombudsman decided, strangely, to express his views by reference to a letter that he had written to the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Social Security rather than to recommend in terms that, given the situation, the Government should do this and that.
On that occasion I asked the Minister:
"As there is confusion perhaps we could ask the ombudsman what he meant".
The noble Baroness replied, somewhat unhelpfully, I thought,
"The noble Lord is entitled to ask the ombudsman whatever he wishes"".—[Official Report, 15/3/00: col. 1617.]
So I did, and received a courteous reply from the ombudsman.
I fear that it is still not clear in my mind what he recommends. He seems to feel that he should wait until he receives the detailed eligibility criteria under the scheme and he will then say whether they meet the views he expressed. I always hesitate to criticise officials who cannot answer back, but there again seems a degree of obscurity.
None the less, crucially, there are two points which anyone claiming that he should be compensated because of the sad history of widows' SERPS needs to establish: first, that he was misled; and, secondly, having been misled he took action, or failed to take action, which resulted in his being unable to make adequate provision for his widow at such time as she became bereaved. My amendment seeks to deal with the first of those propositions; namely, whether it is necessary for anyone claiming compensation to establish that he had been misled.
On that subject, the ombudsman's views are clear. He says:
"In the course of my investigations I suggested to the Department that the onus of proof"—
as to whether one had been misled—
"was therefore reversed. It was for the Department to prove that someone would have acted differently if they had not been misinformed. It seemed to me that the normal rules of the Department's non-statutory scheme for financial redress for maladministration would be inappropriate".
He continues in the letter:
"The presumption had to be that anyone who could reasonably claim to be misled and in consequence to have acted, or failed to act, to their detriment had a prima facie case for redress".
134
The situation seems clear. Either people did not read the leaflets, in which case they would have assumed that the entitlement to the widows' pension was unchanged. Alternatively, they read the leaflets, in which case they were misled. Therefore we should not go along the route we discussed last year when debating the matter. We should not ask: did an individual telephone the department on a specific date? What did the department say? Alternatively, did he write to the department and receive the wrong answer? Was he merely having a discussion at the local social security office? For the reason I have stated, that should not be required of someone making a claim for compensation. I hope that that is common ground. While we shall not reach a final decision today, I hope that at later stages the Minister will accept that position, or accept my amendment today.
The letter continues:
"The Secretary of State for Social Security has said that he accepts that where there is no documentary evidence it will be for the Department to challenge or disprove a claim".
That is to say, a claim that the individual was misled. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is so. If so, I imagine that she will be able to accept my amendment.
The second leg of the argument is whether an individual can claim that, as a result of having been misled, he took action which resulted in detriment to him; or did not take action in particular to make provision for a widow's pension. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, refer to aspects of that problem.
My impression is that the ombudsman also takes the view that, so far as that is concerned, it is for the department to prove that the individual concerned took some action which protected the position of his widow. I am not entirely clear about that. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says at this stage in the proceedings. However, so far as concerns the first point, it seems to me that my amendment is very important. I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister can accept it. However, no doubt we shall not reach the final conclusion this evening and shall have to see how we proceed at later stages.
This is a long and sorry tale. It is maladministration on a totally unprecedented scale and, as a House, we need to put the matter right. I am bound to say that the Government have not been unforthcoming on this matter. None the less, it seems to me that the details need to be spelt out in primary legislation. That is why my amendment is worded in the way that it is. I do not believe that it would be satisfactory to leave the matter to regulations at a later stage. That may have been appropriate earlier. However, I believe that by Report stage or, at any rate, Third Reading, we need to be absolutely clear about exactly what the Government propose and, if necessary, vote to establish the right position. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: At the Second Reading of this Bill, I said that I would be putting forward a simple amendment

135
to address the ambiguities inherent in Clause 38 as at present it appears on the face of the Bill. Other Members of the Committee have had the same notion and we are now presented with three further options for change and, may I say, improvement. Therefore, I hope that the eventual outcome will be something better than the Government's proposals, welcome though those proposals are.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which he explained so clearly to the Committee, reverses the burden of proof as regards information received, although not as regards action taken. It requires the Secretary of State to show that his department provided the kind of information which, we know, in general it failed to provide. My noble friend Lady Greengross, whose amendment follows mine, takes certain key categories of likely sufferers from duff information, or no information at all, and protects their survivors without any requirement to claim under the compensation scheme. In other respects, her amendment and mine are very much alike. That reflects a unanimity of purpose, if not of belief, as to how far the Government may be persuaded to go.
According to this morning's edition of The Times— we have already heard this article quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—the former deputy Labour leader of Plymouth Council, David Millar, blamed his loss of office as a result of the recent local elections by saying:
"If there was one single issue which did us more harm than any other it was pensions".
As we all know, SERPS is described as an "additional pension", and any confused, retired pensioners who are worried about their surviving spouse's inherited benefits must surely be included among those absentee voters. My amendment both helps the Government out of that particular hole (dug, I may say, by an earlier administration) and operates within the compass of the Government's compensation scheme. However, it reverses the burden of proof—and here it differs from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—for those most likely to have suffered irremediable disadvantage.
I am seeking to write on the face of the Bill necessary concessions which the Government might be minded to put into regulations under the broad and nonspecific powers of Clause 38(5). The history of the amputation of SERPS rights is such that I make no apology for opting for a little more certainty and a little less trust. We all remember Virgil's stricture about,
"fearing the Greeks even when they bring gifts".
or Juvenal's question:
"Who is to guard the guards themselves?".
Such classic doubts could be put to rest by the adoption of my amendment, which is supported also by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lady Greengross, for I believe that it encompasses reasonable simplicity and relative justice.
136
An injustice having been done, and, to their great credit, recognised by this Government, that injustice needs to be remedied. I believe that my amendment has the virtue of providing that those who have most palpably suffered injustice do not have to stretch their memories, and perhaps their imaginations, in order to reclaim justice.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Rix has said, a number of options are now before this House. Although different, each seeks to find a better solution to the inherited SERPS problem than the proposals put forward by the Government. I rise to speak to my amendment, No. 139, but I would also wish to refer to the other amendments tabled by noble Lords.
The proposed protected rights scheme has few supporters. While we welcome the seriousness with which the Government have treated this very big problem, including delaying the change to October 2002, I wonder whether the protected scheme will work. I understand that in another place both the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration Select Committee have expressed grave reservations on its practical operation.
At Second Reading I raised some of my concerns regarding the need to make an application to the scheme and the information people will have to provide. I see two key problems. First, many people who contact Age Concern and other organisations echo the statement of one man who wrote:
"I was not misinformed. I was not informed. How will I be able to present my case".
I gather that the Secretary of State has admitted that in future better information will have to be given when changes are made to state pensions, as finally government have recognised that changes to pensions law are different from most other changes to law, which do not involve planning for one's retirement income.
Although the Minister said that the Government have no legal obligation to tell people of changes, surely the solution should take into account the moral obligation. I might add that, as the Minister knows, we have sought alternative legal advice that is contrary to hers. I believe that the Government did have an obligation to inform SERPS contributors, especially those who had paid into SERPS before the law changed in 1986 and 1995, of the changes made.
Secondly, as the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, David Davis, said in another place, the protected rights scheme as announced could be good for the dishonest and bad for the honest. Others have suggested that a cottage industry is going to develop to show people how to claim successfully, which might put the cost to the Government much much higher. This puts responsible organisations in an invidious position. We would of course provide information about making a claim but would never urge people to be dishonest.
But what message does this send out to older people, especially to today's older wartime generation? Someone is going to suggest before long a campaign

137
called "Lie before you die". This whole sorry story has been dubbed in the media as the "SERPS mis-selling scandal". Many people have contrasted the way that private companies have been obliged to seek out people who may have been mis-sold a personal pension. Therefore, I still believe that the simplest and fairest way to deal with this problem would be to abandon the change altogether for SERPS contributors. This is the only way to reassure everyone who paid contributions in the expectation that their spouse, if widowed, would inherit their full SERPS.
I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. I am also attracted by the ingenious amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, although it does not necessarily protect those who are already or almost retired.
It is in a spirit of compromise that I have put forward my amendment, which is fairly modest. It falls short of reversing the change but aims to ensure that the reduction will not apply to the widow or widower of certain people who would now find it difficult or impossible to make alternative arrangements.
Like my noble friend Lord Rix, I wish in particular to protect those who will have already reached pension age or who will have retired due to ill health on 6th October 2002 and people for whom a claim to the protected rights scheme would be impossible due to mental disability. Others, such as younger people who have been misinformed, would still need to rely on the protected rights scheme for protection, which would become a much smaller and more robust scheme and far less costly.
It is likely that a major reason for the Government not going further in addressing this problem is the potential cost. But the cost of the two-and-a-half-year delay and the current protected rights scheme is estimated at £8.2 billion if there are successful claims covering 30 per cent of expenditure. If 50 per cent successfully claim, then the cost will be another £3.8 billion.
However, the costs must not be overemphasised, nor should we be confused by them. The figures are spread over a 50-year period. When else is expenditure totalled up over such a long period? The £10 Christmas bonus costs the Government around £100 million per year in today's prices. Over 50 years, that is £5 billion. Are we suggesting that that is too much? Far from it: most older people rightly say it is not enough. The winter fuel payment is now £150, at a cost to the Government of some £1.25 billion per year. Over the next 50 years that is £85 billion.
It might be expected that exempting certain groups, including all over pension age, would increase costs considerably. Yet in another place the Minister stated that the cost of exempting all who had reached pension age by April 2000 would cost £7.1 billion. While my amendment covers more people and would therefore involve somewhat higher expenditure, above all it must he remembered that what is described as a "cost" must also be considered in terms of the losses that individual older widows and widowers would otherwise face. It is not the Government who lose but future widows.
138
In effect, I think that both the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rix and my amendment spend the £8.2 billion which the Government think they might have to spend over the next 50 years in a far more sensible way. My amendment differs from that of my noble friend in that none of the categories I list would have to claim to the protected rights scheme. They would be automatically exempted. But either amendment would greatly lessen the worry and potential financial losses of many older people and would lighten the administrative burden on the DSS by reducing the numbers needed to apply to a protected rights scheme.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: In the other place, the representatives of my party moved an amendment to require the Government to pay out to everybody who has retired by 5th April of this year a full widow's SERPS and with a phased reduction for those who are retiring at a later date.
In your Lordships' House, we have not tabled our own amendment. That is in recognition of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, led the battle over the inherited SERPS rights last year in the debate on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and we thought that, in tribute to him, he should continue to lead the battle in your Lordships' House.
That said, it seems to me that there is a strong case indeed for the Government to do a good deal more than they have already done or have undertaken to do. As regards the burden of proof on being misled, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was right to say that in this case there was an absolute duty on the Government—more on the previous government than on the present one as most of the time concerned was during the period of office of the previous government—to disclose the change in SERPS. Therefore, the absence of information is, in itself, misleading. It should not in any way be necessary to show that anybody asked for information and was given misleading information.
Inevitably, the Government must accept that virtually everybody in this country was misled in the sense of not being informed of the 50 per cent reduction in widows' SERPS. Therefore, there can be no question of the burden of proof resting anywhere but on the Government.
Perhaps slightly more difficult is the burden of proof on the question, "If you were misled, did that make any difference to what you would have done, or would it have made no difference to you if you had known that if you had died after April 2000, your widow's SERPS would be reduced?" I imagine that in the great majority of cases, the only honest answer would be, "I don't really know. This happened some years ago. I never really thought of the matter at the time. I can guess what I might have done but I really cannot say anything definite".
To require people to prove that they acted to the detriment of the future of their spouse because of the misleading information they received or failed to

139
receive would be, in effect, a cheat's charter. It would open the whole field to dishonesty and to those who say, "Yes, I definitely would have done something different. I would have made better provision for my widow than I did". There would be no way to disprove that. They are the people who will do well out of this. In some cases, that may be correct. I believe that in the great majority of cases, it probably will not be. But for the people who are honest and say, "I can't say that I would have done something different. I might have done; I really don't know", if the burden of proof is on them, they would get nothing.
Ultimately, if one is to be fair, one has to go down the line of saying that everybody who is not now in a position to see that their surviving spouse is adequately provided for will not suffer from the spouse reduction. The only fair thing to do would be for the Government to accept that as the general position and act accordingly. I know that it will be expensive. However, in fairness to people who have been the victim of this problem, it is the only thing to be done.
Lord Higgins: I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. It would seem that the ombudsman is of the view that the burden of proof is reversed both as regards whether people were misled and whether they lost out as a result of that. Again, perhaps I may quote from the letter which I believe is not out of context:
"It was for the Department to prove that someone would not have acted differently if they had not been misinformed".
The ombudsman appears to take both points.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I would strongly support his proposals, as I support the proposals of the amendments to which I have added my name. I hope that the Government will move further on this, at least in the sense of telling us what will be laid down in the regulations and that those regulations will recognise that the burden of proof on either issue cannot fairly rest on those who wish to claim.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All these amendments refer to the proposals made by the Government to address the problems of inherited SERPS, both for widows and widowers, and of course a problem that has also been inherited by the Government. We have debated this subject before and, once the regulations have been drafted, no doubt we shall debate it again.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 124 which seeks to overturn completely the change that would halve the amount of SERPS that can be inherited. We believe the policy to be essentially sound, bringing state provision more closely into line with that required of private pension schemes. Our clearly stated aim for pensions is to reverse the current position where 60 per cent of expenditure is provided by the state and 40 per cent by the private sector. It would not be in keeping with that aim to create incentives to stay in the state scheme.
140
The cost of not implementing the change is estimated to be £23 billion over a 50-year period. The sums are enormous. That would represent a huge burden for future contributors on expenditure that is not well targeted as the poorest widowed pensioners would see no gain at all.
Lord Higgins: The figure mentioned by the noble Baroness is almost exactly the same as that for the proceeds from the mobile phone licences, only that receipt was instantaneous rather than spread over 50 years.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is also almost the same, although not quite the same, as the sum spent on retirement pensions and SERPS put together, which runs at a little over £32 billion. In terms of proportion, over 50 years this amendment would almost double the sum of money spent on pensions. That puts into proportion what it will cost to rectify a mistake that we inherited.
Earl Russell: Can the Minister tell us when was the last time she heard a Minister calculate expenditure over 50 years?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that happened on the last occasion that I made a speech on this subject. However, whether that speech was made on this Bill or on a Statement, I should not like to say.
The inherited SERPS figures are discounted over 50 years; namely, they return to today's prices. However, the effect over 50 years seemed to be the most helpful way of passing the information to noble Lords. It is a huge burden for future contributors and it is not well targeted.
Furthermore, those people who did receive the correct information and have spent money buying alternative arrangements would rightly feel aggrieved if it turned out that they need not have done so. As we have said on previous occasions, the change to 50 per cent inheritance will happen, but not until October 2002. People who have been mis-advised will be able to apply to the inherited SERPS scheme for further protection. Those who have not been mis-advised will have two and a half years in which to reconsider their financial arrangements. We think that the scheme we have proposed represents a fair balance between the interests of pensioners and contributors.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Can she explain the position for those who are retired and unable to make what is considered to be a legitimate claim, who have received no information and who have made no alternative arrangements? How can they do so between now and October 2002 if they are already retired? Obviously, the majority of them will have no capital available with which to buy extra insurance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope to deal with that. If those pensioners—I am now anticipating what I was about to go on to say—received information that was

141
incorrect and would have done something different, then their rights will continue to be protected. If they received the correct information and did something about it as a result, they would not need any action to follow. What is being proposed is a broad-brush solution which will benefit those who have already taken some protection and not actually help the poorest pensioners who would still have recourse to MIG.
But let me continue, and, if the noble Lord is not satisfied with my reply, by all means he can come back to me or invite me to write to him.
We repeated in March the Government's Statement about inherited SERPS. In the subsequent debate, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was quick to highlight the issue of where the burden of proof should lie in a person's application for redress under the scheme. Along with the ombudsman, he urged that it should lie with the department. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, then followed, quoting from the ombudsman's report and urging the Government to accept that people who took no action and who would have difficulty in demonstrating that they would have acted differently if correctly advised, should be catered for under the scheme.
The amendments reflect both those points but I hope Members of the Committee will agree with me that they are largely unnecessary. Let me refer the Committee to words used both in another place and by myself in the Statement to this House:
"I intend to accept all the recommendations made by the NAO and the ombudsman".
That means—and If cannot be clearer than this—that the Government accept that the burden of proof lies with the department. We also accept the ombudsman's point that the inherited SERPS scheme must be capable of a global solution—the noble Lord pressed me on that fairly recently in this Chamber—which includes providing redress to those who were misled and who took no action as a result.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that the ombudsman said that the department must prove that the individual was misled. Not quite. The ombudsman said that the burden of proof on the department would mean that, where an individual maintained that he had been misled, it would be for the department to produce proof to the contrary. I suggest it would be wrong not to expect people to answer any questions about the nature of the advice they received. However, I repeat that the Government accept that the burden of proof lies with the department.
Amendment No. 135 would require us to presume that all applicants under the scheme received incorrect or incomplete information. It does not allow for the situation which I have already bounced to and fro with the noble Lord, Lord Rix; that is, a situation in which a person neither received nor requested any information.
Amendment No. 138 takes a similar line, but only in respect of certain groups of people—those who are already pensioners or incapable of work when the change is due to take effect in October 2002, and those
142
who are unable to pursue a claim under the inherited SERPS scheme because of mental disability. Everyone potentially affected would still have to apply to the scheme, but only those contributors of working age who are fully fit would have to satisfy the criteria for the scheme as intended. Amendment No. 139 goes even further and automatically exempts the spouses of all those in the same specified groups from the change in the rules.
It is the Government's wish to provide redress to those who were misinformed. In other words, the protected rights scheme rights the wrong that was done to people from 1988 onwards. It does not right a different wrong; that people would like to have 100 per cent pensions even though in fact all private schemes are 50 per cent. It does not right the wrong that they were in ignorance of the law because in all areas of life people may be in ignorance of the law and that is no excuse. It rights the wrong that people were given misleading advice and as a result either did, or might have, acted to their detriment or failed to act to correct that problem.
We simply cannot accept that those who were not misinformed because they never asked for any information should be included. That is tantamount to saying that any citizen claiming ignorance of any new law should be given exemption from it. That clearly cannot be right, whether it is about the law on seatbelts, which are now compulsory, including rear seat belts, TV licences or the like. We have to make the assumption for all of us that ignorance is no excuse in terms of an apology for failing to observe the law. We expect that to be a general convention in our behaviour.
I take the point that we want people to be aware of policy changes, particularly on pensions because it is a long-term investment. And at some point in the future we hope to be able to send people a regular statement of their likely state pension entitlement on retirement, and we could look at the possibility of including information about future policy changes with such statements. We have no wish to withhold information from people, but we are not liable if, in that sense, people have not familiarised themselves with it.
I have already repeated the Government's acceptance of the recommendations made by the NAO and the ombudsman. In addition, I can reassure noble Lords that the department will be consulting widely on how to bring them into effect. We have already begun that process and, through that, I am aware of the proposals made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, concerning people who will be unable to pursue a claim to the scheme because of mental disability. We intend that the appointee procedures that apply to benefit claims where a person cannot act for himself or herself will be a feature of the scheme. However, in this situation, I can appreciate that a successful claim will turn on past events and so appointee action may be limited.
I have, therefore, agreed to look carefully into the problem for the regulations. I am grateful to noble Lords for their assistance in this respect. We shall be

143
putting the resulting regulations before the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Public Administration Select Committee and the ombudsman, to name but three. Then, as a final stage, they will come before both Houses of Parliament, where they will need noble Lords' approval. So never will regulations have been scrutinised by so many for the benefit of even more people.
The inherited SERPS scheme must and will provide redress to individuals who have received incorrect or incomplete information and relied upon it. The regulations which establish it will be extensively consulted on and debated. But the kernel of the problems of the inherited SERPS scheme was misinformation by the department: for that, the department is to blame. That is why our solution addresses that problem. Those who were misinformed and who suffered, or might have suffered, a loss will have their former rights fully protected. On that basis, I urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
11 p.m.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to explain what she means by "incomplete information". I am not quite sure what it means. For example, does it mean that the phone went dead in the middle of the conversation? Alternatively, does it mean that the typewriter ribbon ran out? I am not quite certain as to the meaning of the phrase "incomplete information".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have to say that I have not, in my own mind, gone into such mechanistic versions of what the phrase might mean. However, I think it means that the information was not sufficiently full to allow someone to make an informed decision. It is too late at night for me to think of an obvious example but, let us say, if someone received information which said, "Yes, you will be getting half a widow's pension", but did not give any indication as to when that might take effect, thus causing the person to believe that it would be 25 rather than 14 years on, that might be the sort of circumstance envisaged here. In other words, what was said was not untruthful but, by its lack of completeness, it did not give a full picture on the basis of which people could make a reasonable decision. If I have unintentionally misled the noble Lord, I will of course give him some further examples. But that is the sort of thing that I believe is meant by the phrase rather than situations involving typewriters and phones.
Lord Rix: I have one other example for the Minister. If someone looked through the leaflet that is issued every year with the pension statement and, up to 1996, that presented no alternative—no change—to SERPS, could that not be construed as "incomplete information"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If, for example, someone received a leaflet in 1996 which clearly led him to believe that, as a result, he would continue to
144
enjoy 100 per cent SERPS pension, that would be inaccurate, incomplete or misleading—however you may wish to describe it.
Lord Higgins: In the light of the Minister's response, I am absolutely clear in one respect; namely, that to deal with this matter by regulations would not be a satisfactory arrangement because regulations are not amendable. Indeed, this place may well take a different view from the view which the Government eventually feel they want to take. Given the scale of the problem and the public interest in it, it would not be right to say that the matter will be dealt with by regulation, where it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As draft regulations, so to speak, they would be going before the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Public Administration Select Committee and the ombudsman. If points were made by those three separate bodies that ought to be borne in mind, the regulations would be modified before they came to this as well as the other place.
Lord Higgins: It does not necessarily follow that the Government will accept all the recommendations that those bodies make—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: They may disagree.
Lord Higgins: Indeed, they may disagree. In my view, it is for this Chamber and the other place to decide the appropriate way to handle the matter.
I turn to my other point. My amendment—I believe that it helps those who have already retired as well as others—seeks to move the burden of proof on to the Government. I thought that that was accepted by the Government. However, that burden of proof does not constitute simply a case of being rung up on the wrong day or being sent the incorrect letter, or whatever it may be. The starting point—this is my understanding of the ombudsman's position—is that men were told that their wives would receive a full widow's pension. Unless they were subsequently told that that was not the position, they were misled. There was another category of people who were, so to speak, specifically misled. To say that it is a case of ignorance of the law when people are told one thing, the law changes and they assume that the original situation still exists, is to stretch the point too far.
However, no doubt we shall read carefully what the Minister has said and return to this matter at successive stages of the Bill. However, it is a matter on which Members will need to exercise a degree of discretion. I hope that rather than deal with the matter in regulations the Government will include it on the face of the Bill. We can then consider whether to accept it in that form.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What does the noble Lord mean by putting it on the face of the Bill? We are still in the process of consultation. Is the noble Lord saying that we should not continue to consult but

145
should include the measure on the face of the Bill even though we do not expect to see the introduction of the scheme for two-and-a-half years and even though the consultation is extensive and detailed and, as a result, we shall need to put proposals to the other bodies involved? I do not understand where the noble Lord is coming from. Is he saying that there should be a separate Bill or is he saying that the measure should be included in this Bill?—because, if so, it is a case of saying goodbye to consultation now.
Lord Higgins: This matter has been going on for a long while. Last year we had another I believe that the views of the House were clear. We were told that the measure would be dealt with in this Bill, which it is. However, the crucial point is that at the end of the day the House should be able to amend measures. It is not acceptable that the matter should be dealt with by regulations. It needs to be dealt with by primary legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 139 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Home responsibilities protection]:
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 142A:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
CONCURRENT HOLDING OF PENSIONS
(" . A person shall be able to hold both a stakeholder pension and an occupational pension concurrently and without financial penalty.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would introduce concurrent scheme membership of stakeholder pension schemes and also all forms of occupational and individual pension schemes. The Government have already announced that they will permit individuals to contribute both to a stakeholder pension scheme and to a money purchase occupational scheme which opts to be covered by the new unified defined contributions regime. An individual will be able to contribute up to £3,600 in total to such schemes irrespective of level of earnings. Over earnings of £3,600, existing limits will apply.
However, many experts in the pensions industry argue that concurrency is vital. Indeed, it is widely considered to be the most important pensions issue at present. If concurrency were to be accepted, it would transform the whole pensions world for the better. These experts believe that members of all occupational pensions schemes should be able at the same time to contribute to a stakeholder pension or to a personal pension, as this would have a number of important benefits for pension provision in the United Kingdom. It would simplify the increasingly complex framework of pension provision, which works against the best interests of people joining pensions schemes. We are convinced that further simplification of the pension
146
regime is vital, as many people have a limited understanding of pensions and may make inadequate provision.
The introduction of concurrent scheme membership would have the important benefit of enabling individuals to use their stakeholder pension as an additional voluntary contribution vehicle if they belong to an occupational pension scheme. It would increase the likely take-up of stakeholder pensions, so the cost of provision may be reduced. Concurrency would also avoid the possibility of another pension mis-selling or mis-buying scandal. There would be less risk that individuals would remain in a stakeholder pension rather than choose simply to join their employer's occupational pension scheme.
If the Government are serious about supporting occupational pension schemes, this is an important and tangible way of demonstrating their seriousness. The Government have hinted that they wish to address the issue. If so, could the Minister be more specific tonight, because companies will have to plan ahead? I urge the Government to reconsider concurrency, so that as many people as possible take up as much of their pension entitlement as they can. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: It is obviously much easier to combine a stakeholder pension with a money purchase scheme—whether it is an occupational or personal pension. The fact that there may be difficulty, in respect of the rules, in combining a stakeholder pension with a final salary occupational scheme is no reason for not changing the rules to make that possible.
Stakeholder pensions are of considerable benefit to many employees. It would be of great advantage if employees would not be required to give up their stakeholder pension simply because they move to a company with an occupational scheme. Equally, it would be highly undesirable if they came under pressure to opt out of an employer's occupational scheme to preserve their stakeholder pension. Concurrency is of considerable importance.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord said about the desirability of encouraging people to maximise their pensions within the permissible limits.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am inclined to agree with what has been said by both noble Lords. The proposal would involve a kind of AVC scheme. I agree that people should be encouraged to maximise their pension provision. People move in and out of employment. They may spend some time in an occupational scheme but want to switch to a stakeholder scheme. If they could have both, that would simplify matters for them. This is a sensible proposal and I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment seeks to permit concurrent membership of an occupational scheme and stakeholder pension scheme, thus enabling individuals to make tax-privileged contributions to each scheme at the same time. We

147
have already announced our intention to permit simultaneous membership of stakeholder and money purchase arrangements. An individual will be able to contribute within existing limits to both an employer-run money purchase scheme and a stakeholder pension scheme. This new clause would take that a step further and allow concurrent membership of a defined benefit scheme, a final salary scheme, and a stakeholder pension scheme.
I have some sympathy with the points raised, as my noble friend said, but we need to consider whether allowing a person to make extra contributions of up to £3,600 per year into a stakeholder scheme when they may already be making the maximum permitted tax-privileged contributions into their employer's scheme, really represents the best use of public money. If such full concurrency were to be permitted, we estimate that this would cost the taxpayer around £400 million a year, much of which—if not most of which—would go to those who are already building up large pension rights through defined benefit schemes.
However, we have not ruled out allowing people on low or modest earnings—many of whom do not in any case make full use of the contribution limits for their employer's scheme (in other words, where there is "headroom")—to make further concurrent contributions into a stakeholder scheme. This is a so-called "partial concurrency".
Under the existing system, members of an employer's defined benefit scheme can make additional AVCs on a money purchase basis to a separate AVC fund. Various checks have to be carried out, however, to estimate how much can be contributed to the AVC fund without risking the eventual aggregate pension benefits exceeding the defined benefit tax limits. These procedures cause extra administrative effort and expense for schemes, but it is difficult to avoid this entirely when applying aggregate limits to pension rights accruing under the two different principles, defined benefit and money purchase.
I had exactly this problem when I came with a modest defined benefit scheme from my university and I was entitled to join a scheme here. I should emphasise to the Committee that the work required in the pensions department in order to calculate the headroom and what I might be allowed to pay in AVCs to top it up, was extraordinarily complex and very complicated.
The pensions industry has told us that a partial concurrency scheme based on estimating headroom, operating in a similar way to the current AVC arrangements, would seriously jeopardise its ability to develop good value stakeholder pensions within the 1 per cent cost limit. In other words, it is the pensions industry which is saying that it has real worries about some of the proposals mentioned today.
I accept many of the arguments made today. We are therefore keen to find a way forward which will accept partial concurrency without imposing significant administrative burdens on schemes, which the
148
industry itself is worried about. We are currently consulting with the industry to find a practicable system which will achieve this.
To summarise, we estimate that full concurrency would cost around £400 million in extra tax relief, much of which would go to high earners who are already contributing to defined benefit schemes at the maximum allowable level. I cannot believe that the noble Lord is asking us to allow, effectively, a £400 million increase for those already endowed with good pension schemes.
We have, however, already signalled our willingness to allow partial concurrency, as long as this can be done in a way which will avoid the imposition of unacceptable administrative burdens, and therefore costs, on schemes. We are working with the pensions industry to achieve this.
I hope that the Committee will agree that we are working with the industry and trying to meet the substance of what the noble Lord has said. Obviously, we shall come forward with proposals in due course—should we be able to deliver them—in consultation with the industry. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for their support. I am disappointed with the Minister's response. Certainly from my discussions with the industry I have gained a very different impression from hers. I think that the industry would dispute her figures.
There has been so much debate on concurrency that one would have thought that the Government would have by now reached a final conclusion. Many companies are reviewing their pension arrangements in the light of the introduction of both stakeholder pensions and the state second pension. There are many arguments in favour of this; it would simplify the pensions regime. Despite what the Minister said, the industry is behind us and, I believe, so is the Committee. Accordingly, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
11.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 142A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 11.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Goodhart, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Astor of Hever, L.[Teller]

Higgins, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Buscombe, B.

Luke, L.

Byford, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Fookes, B.

Northbrook, L.

149

Northesk, E.

Turner of Gamden, B.

Russell, E.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Crawley, B.

Gale, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L [Teller]

Greengross, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.28 p.m.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Member-nominated trustees]:
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 144:
Page 38, line 23, at end insert ("; and
(c) in paragraph (a), after the words "are made," there shall he inserted—
"(aa) that in the case of schemes which fall in a prescribed class, that such arrangements for the selection of persons nominated by pensioner members and deferred members of the scheme to be trustees of the scheme as are required by this section are made."").
The noble Baroness said: We now enter an entirely different territory, that concerned with trustees. The intention of this amendment is to impose a requirement to have pensioner nominated trustees in larger, more mature schemes, leaving the definition of the schemes to which this requirement will apply to be prescribed in regulations. The nominations are to be drawn from all former members.
It must be said that whenever one meets pensioners, as I frequently do since my union, as I have said before, has a retired members section which holds an annual meeting, the absence of pensioner members among trustees causes a great deal of resentment. Of course, decisions can be taken by people in employment, but they can be to the disadvantage of those who have left but who have nevertheless contributed, sometimes for a working lifetime, to the fund.
It has been argued that pensioner trustees would not be representative of, or accountable to, pensioner members given the absence in the majority of cases of any organised pensioner body. However, there are large companies, and I am well aware of some, where retired members do keep in touch with their former company. Sometimes there is an organisational structure for them to do so.
Nothing will give more encouragement to the formation of pensioner bodies of that kind than giving them a focus and purpose and recognising their legitimate interest in the governance of schemes. This is a reasonable suggestion. I hope that the Government will be prepared to look upon it with favour. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to support Amendment No. 144 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 148 and
150
152 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell. I must apologise for an error in Amendment No. 152. Line 3 refers to "trustee" when it should refer to "director".
I believe that, wherever possible, both active and pensioner members should be represented on a board of trustees or on a board of directors of the trustee company. Current employees and pensioners have different interests. At its simplest, for example, employees have an interest in the continuance of the company that employs them, whereas pensioners do not—assuming, as is usually the case, that the pension fund is properly funded. Employees might, therefore, accept steps to save the company from liquidation at the cost of some damage to the pension scheme. Pensioners would have no such interest. Again, pensioners might want a more cautious investment policy than current members. I do not say that in taking those decisions the pensioners would necessarily be right, but the arguments need to be presented on their behalf. Therefore, I believe that they need separate representation.
The Government have said that a specific pensioner trustee or a specific employee trustee would regard himself or herself as a speaker for his or her constituency. But if that was a ground for refusing separate constituencies for employees and for pensioners, why have member nominated trustees at all, since the constituency differences between employer and member nominated trustees are much greater than between employee and pensioner trustees?
In those circumstances, I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and I commend my amendment to the Committee.
Lord Hoyle: I rise briefly to support the amendment, which stands in my name as well as that of my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. I do so because, as she rightly said, there is a strong feeling among retired people who have contributed to a pension all their life that they also want to he represented in order to safeguard their pension interest. As a member of MSF, I have received a large number of letters from other members signalling the need for that, and also from members of other pension funds. As has rightly been said, there is an attempt on the part of some large companies to keep in touch with pensioners so that they are aware of what is going on. It would be even better if they were represented on the boards of the pension funds. As has been pointed out, their interests may not be the same as those of other members, but their interest is to ensure a valid pension and adequate funds to pay not only their pensions but the pensions of those who will benefit in the future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The combined effects of Amendments Nos. 144 and 147 would be to pro vide for an additional member-nominated trustee in prescribed schemas over and above the minimum one-third to be nominated by the pensioner and deferred members. Similarly, Amendments Nos. 148 and 152

151
would mean that schemes with at least two member-nominated trustees or directors must have one who is appointed by active members and one appointed by pensioner members. Currently, schemes with a minimum of 100 members must have at least two member-nominated trustees. Schemes with fewer than 100 members need have only one. In both cases, the scheme is subject to the requirement that at least one-third of the trustees are nominated by members. The revised provisions do not change this.
It may be helpful if I explain how we see the new provisions working and why they are devised as they are. First and most importantly, the new provisions will ensure that there are member-nominated trustees or directors in every scheme. Our most important priority is to get members on to boards. Beyond that, we are also mindful of concerns that the present legislation is too complex and difficult to operate. Equally, we have to consider the costs associated with forcing schemes to change their existing arrangements.
To satisfy the new requirements there will be two routes, which for convenience we have labelled the "trustee route" and the "employer route". Under the trustee route, trustees will implement nomination and selection procedures using a framework set out in regulations. They will have some flexibility; for example, they can divide the membership into constituencies and there will be scope to use selection panels and so on. All active, deferred and pensioner members will be free to stand for selection. All active and pensioner members, and such deferred members as the trustees decide to include, will have to be invited to make nominations. The statutory framework will ensure that members are treated fairly. Therefore, unlike the current provisions, there will be no need for consultation or member approval. As a result, the whole process will be simpler and cheaper, which we believe will be widely welcomed.
Giving schemes flexibility is important. That is why, under the employer route, employers will have the right to propose bespoke nomination and selection arrangements for their schemes. The proposal must provide for a minimum of one-third member-nominated trustees, but the provisions are more flexible and for that reason must be approved by the members. We do not want to disrupt existing arrangements, which is why for many schemes the employer route will be the only way to do this. There will be more scope for the employer to determine the selection arrangements under this route. But the final choice will be made from individuals who have been nominated by scheme members, and the proposal will be adopted only if the members agree. The employer will be required to consult scheme members under a statutory consultation procedure similar to that currently in force. However, we need to look carefully at the matter to see whether it can be improved in any way. Under the new provisions, employers will no longer be able to opt out altogether. Therefore, every scheme will have member trustees, whichever route is used. Our first priority is to get member trustees in every scheme.
152
We thought long and hard about whether we should make a special case for pensioner trustees. In the consultation paper Strengthening the Pensions Framework we proposed that there should be a pensioner trustee in large, mature schemes. This generated a good number of responses, some supportive but most not. Most concern centred on the fact that in law all trustees have the same roles and responsibilities in respect of all the members. There was a real danger that we would have been seen to suggest something different. On balance, we decided not to do anything which suggested that any trustee had a representative role, and to focus on our main priority of ensuring that every scheme had members on the trustee board. Who those members should be, and whether they should be active, pensioner or deferred members, is something that is best left to the trustees and scheme members to determine. They know the scheme better than anyone; it is not for government to decide. I do not know what kind of schemes my noble friend has in mind for inclusion within a "prescribed class", but I suspect that it may be the larger, more mature schemes where there is a significant proportion of deferred and pensioner members.
Amendments Nos. 144 and 147 go further and make special provision for deferred members as well as pensioners. I am aware of concerns that sometimes deferred members are overlooked. This concern is highlighted by the fact that changes in the labour market mean that there are increasing numbers of deferred members with significant stakes in the scheme. But we also have to think about the practical consequences. Many deferred members have simply lost touch with their scheme or have only limited rights under it. We believe that the trustees are in the best position to determine the matter. I doubt that those responsible for running pension schemes would thank us for the consequences of Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. They make no allowance for the membership profile; they could have very few pensioner members or active members.
I remind the Committee that the Government have worked very closely with the pensions industry and other groups, including OPRA and the TUC, to produce these changes which will give members greater participation and confidence in their pension schemes and, at the same time, will make arrangements for the nomination and selection of member-nominated trustees easier to operate. These proposals, which we believe are a sensible and measured response, have been widely welcomed and represent a real strengthening of the pensions industry.
Under the trustee route, the new provisions would provide equal status for active and pensioner members. Under the employer route, the employer will be able to propose his own nomination selection arrangements to suit the circumstances of the scheme. The price of additional flexibility is that the proposal has to be put to the members for approval. If pensioner members feel that they are being treated badly, they will have the opportunity to voice their objection.

153
In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. It is plain that the Government have given serious consideration to the issue of pensioner trustees. I am sorry that, nevertheless, they have come to the view on balance that it is probably not a good idea. I am not sure that I agree. Although I accept that trustees do not have a specifically representative role, nevertheless it appears to employees and to members of the scheme that they have put forward individuals who, without being specifically representative, would bear in mind the concerns of the people who put them there.
However, it is not my intention at this point in the proceedings to test the feeling of the Committee. I shall consider carefully what the Minister said. I am glad that the Government have given serious consideration to the issue and probably continue to do so. I hope that their minds will change in the future and, perhaps through general good practice, and so on, large schemes will be persuaded that it is in their interests ultimately to have representatives of pensioners on their board. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Harptreemoved Amendment No. 144A:
Page 38, line 23, at end insert ("; and
() after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted ", and
(c) that those arrangements provide for all members of the scheme, that is to say, active, deferred and pensioner members, lo have equal rights of nomination and selection for member-nominated trustee seats."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is similar to Amendment No. 144 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I agree with everything she said. My amendment goes a little further, but the principle is the same. I am indebted to the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners for the amendment. I declare an interest. I am an unpaid pension trustee and an occupational pensioner.
The Pensions Act 1995 introduced the requirement for member nominated pension trustees for occupational pension schemes. However, in practice there have proved to be too many opt-out provisions. The Government deserve great credit for pushing forward the frontier in the Bill, but I agree with the noble Baroness that they do not push it forward adequately enough as regards pension trustees.
The Minister, as I expected, argued that pensioners should not be trustees because they are pensioners. I agree that it is the job of pensioners to look after the interests of everyone concerned and not just one particular group. It is their job to look after all interests and not just the group to which they belong.
However, that argument could apply equally to employee pensioners. So I do not regard that argument as having much validity. The principle that we should apply here is that all those involved in pension
154
schemes—employers, employees, pensioners and deferred pensioners—should have a say in the running of their schemes. As the noble Baroness also said, pensioners should also have equal rights of nomination and selection with active members. I say that for two reasons. Pensioners are out of sight and therefore can be easily out of mind. Employee trustees are on the spot. They can make their personal representations. They are often represented by professional organisations or trade unions. In many cases, pensioners have no organisation for themselves and, even if they do, their members will be scattered about the country. Therefore, they would be at a big disadvantage if a Bill allowed trustees to establish constituencies of members for nomination and selection procedures. In those circumstances, it would be very difficult for pensioners to organise the nomination and selection.
I know that the Minister's heart is in the right place on this matter. I hope that she will consider again those practical points and will recognise that there could he a big loophole so far as concerns effective representation for pensioners. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: For some reason, Amendment No. 144A has been grouped with Amendment No. 145, which is similar to an amendment that I drafted. I believe that Amendment No. 145 should have had my name to it, and perhaps I may say a few words about it.
The purpose of the current legislation is to ensure that members' views are represented on trustee boards and that not all trustees are appointed by the employer. The whole purpose of legislation could be undermined by leaving the door open to an employer to have a say on the selection of member trustees. The legislation addresses those employers who have been most determined to resist members having even a minority say in the running of their schemes. The next line of defence for employers who wish to resist having member-nominated trustees would be to try to get member trustees of their own choosing rather than those chosen by the scheme members.
Even under the proposed statutory route, the outline proposal allows an option under which employers can be represented on a selection panel for member trustees provided that they are in a minority. The presence of a senior company figure and the control of proceedings by the company-appointed pensions manager clearly has the potential to allow an employer considerable influence over the outcome. Amendment No. 145 makes it clear that member-nominated trustees must be selected only by the members, without influence by the employers.
Earl Russell: I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, says about independence from the employers. It is a key point. I can remember one or two cases that we discussed in this Chamber where that independence had not in practice appeared completely obvious. I hear also what the noble Lord, Lord Dean

155
of Harptree, says about constituencies. However, a trustee should, by definition, be trusted. One way or another we must ensure that.
Lord Hoyle: I shall be brief in my support of Amendment No. 145. I believe that it would be totally wrong if the employer had any part whatever in the selection of member-nominated trustees. Certainly, I believe that they should be selected only by the members. As has been said quite rightly, if they did have any say, it would not be long before they nominated the trustees themselves. It would remove the rights of the members. Much pressure is already put on trustees at the moment. It is certainly true that sometimes they are intimidated by the presence of senior employers who also sit on the board of trustees. Therefore, I feel that it is only right that the members, and the members alone, should have the right to select member-nominated trustees.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This group of amendments covers some of the more detailed aspects of the new member-nominated trustee selection provisions. Amendment No. 144A would provide that all active, deferred and pensioner members are given equal rights in the nomination of member-nominated trustees and directors. That would apply equally to the trustee route and the employer route.
Perhaps I may recap briefly. Under the trustee route, all active, deferred and pensioner members will be able to stand for nomination. All active and pensioner members will be guaranteed the right to make nominations. Deferred members will be invited to make nominations if the trustees so decide.
I believe that I explained in a previous amendment why we consider that trustees are in the best position to decide the extent to which deferred members should be involved. Under the trustee route, trustees will have some flexibility to determine the selection process. This will include the possibility of using selection panels to make the final choice if there are more nominations than vacancies. This amendment will effectively outlaw the use of selection panels.
As I said before, and I think we should take it seriously, we do not want to disrupt existing arrangements unnecessarily. At the moment where there are more nominations than vacancies, many schemes use selection panels to make the final choice and it works very well. It means a group of individuals with a good understanding of the circumstances of a particular scheme can come to a view on the best person for the job. We do not see any reason to put schemes to the trouble and expense of changing their existing arrangements unnecessarily.
The second route is the employer's own scheme route. This amendment would severely limit the scope for an employer to propose the nomination and selection arrangements of his choosing. Our proposals already make the most important limitations. They insist that they must provide for at least one-third member-nominated trustees, and they require the
156
proposals to be put to the members for approval. They also provide for all active, pensioner and deferred members to be eligible to stand for nomination.
Further restrictions are, I believe, unnecessary. Indeed, the flexibility that is such an important feature of the "employer route"—so that, for example, a trade union might be able to nominate people, as opposed to the trustee route where it would have been appropriate—would be completely lost. This is something we do not want to do, nor should we do. We want flexible arrangements here. I know that the Committee will appreciate that.
Amendment No. 145 would prevent anyone other than members or their representatives from being involved in the selection of member-nominated trustees.
Under the trustee route which I have already described our provisions are not very different from the amendment. However, they are more flexible and less disruptive. As I have already said, they will provide for the final selection to be made either by means of a ballot of the members or by a selection panel. We will be consulting on the details of the regulations in due course, but the intention is that if selection panels are used, they must comprise a majority of scheme members or their representatives. That seems to be the crucial safeguard. One either goes to a full ballot of all members or one goes to a selection panel in which the majority of the members on that panel are scheme members or the representatives and not the employers.
This amendment, on the other hand, would require that all the members of the selection panel must be member representatives. We see no reason to be quite so prescriptive.
Under the employer route, employers will have the right to propose bespoke nomination and selection arrangements for their scheme. The proposal must provide for a minimum of one-third member-nominated trustees, but the provisions are more flexible and for that reason must be approved by the members. It is certainly the case that there will be more scope for the employer to determine the selection under this route. The final choice will be from individuals who have been nominated by scheme members. Most importantly, the proposal will be adopted only if the members have agreed to it.
Although the amendment would have much the same effect as our proposal, it would force many schemes to change their arrangements for no good reason. We think we achieve the flexibility without undermining the key aim of getting member trustees on to the boards.
Amendment No. 149 is about informing and consulting members. It would introduce a regulation-making power requiring trustees to inform and consult members and former members in a prescribed manner about the effect of the arrangements they are required to make under Section 16 of the Pensions Act as revised by Clause 42.

157
As the amendment points out, it will be relevant only if the employer is not making a proposal under Section 18A. As I have already made clear, employers will no longer be able to opt out from having member-nominated trustees. Every scheme will have member trustees. That is our main priority. We are trying to keep down complexity and cost. That is why we have provided the two routes, the trustee route and the employer route, for putting member-nominated trustees into place. Schemes using the trustee route will have to follow a statutory framework that will ensure that all are treated fairly and, as a result, the whole process will be significantly cheaper and simpler than the employer route. However, the employer route has the greater flexibility. So, as it does not give the same guarantees, it is only right that proposals should be put to the members for approval.
However, I do not want to misrepresent the amendment. I do not believe it is asking for member approval in the way I have described for the "employer route". I think the intention is simply to make sure that members are given the opportunity to have a say and to be kept properly informed. We have no argument about that. I am a little concerned about putting a requirement on the face of the Bill.
The trustee route meets two important aims. It is fair to members and it is simple to devise, and I do not want us to stray from that if I can avoid it. We intend to make regulations that will require schemes to document their member-nominated trustee procedures to make them available to members. We are also planning to require trustees to set out the procedures in the Annual Report. It will be an unnecessary burden to insist on member consultation on something that is bound by a statutory framework.
I turn now to Amendment No. 153. This amendment inserts the words,
"in relation to that company",
into Section 18(8) of the Pensions Act. Perhaps I may explain exactly what that is all about. In a situation where a company is trustee for more than one scheme—for example, where an employer runs two pension schemes, but uses the same trustee company for both—the member-nominated director provisions would require that the members of each scheme would be entitled to nominate one-third of the directors of the trustee company.
Clearly that would not work well if we left it alone. For example, how would a company that is trustee for, for example, four schemes be able to have four-thirds of its directors nominated by the members? The only practical way to deal with this in legislation is to add the memberships of the various schemes together so that they get to nominate one-third of the directors collectively.
Having said that, we also recognise that there will be situations where the company wants to keep the memberships separate. So what we have effectively done is leave the choice to the trustee company. The default is to aggregate, but the option is there not to.
158
Where the trustee is a professional trustee company acting for several different schemes run by different employers, I suspect that they choose to avoid the situation altogether by setting up separate companies for each scheme. That seems to me to be a very sensible approach.
My legal advisers tell me that the amendment will not have any material effect on the clause as drafted and I hope this brief explanation will reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not necessary.
Finally, Amendment No. 154 would introduce a new regulation-making power into Section 125 which would determine who is to be treated as a qualifying member. The expression "qualifying member" appears throughout the revised member-nominated trustee provisions as amended by Clauses 42 to 45 as a result of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. We are simply carrying these changes through into the new member-nominated trustee provisions.
The reason for replacing "member" with "qualifying member" is to provide a legal mechanism whereby only active, pensioner and deferred members are involved in the member-nominated trustee process. Members whose only rights derive from a pension share on divorce will not be included. 'This maintains the existing policy that only members with a connection to the scheme through employment should be involved in the nomination and selection of member-nominated trustees. Therefore, we do not need separate regulations to deal with that point.
In the light of those explanations of what are really very technical amendments, although it seemed important to put those explanations into Hansard so that companies could see what we are determining or proposing, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment this evening.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I greatly admire the stamina of the noble Baroness, although I do not quite go as far as that in relation to the arguments that she has used.
I do not intend to argue the toss at this hour of the night, nearly midnight. I shall study carefully what the noble Baroness said and, if necessary, return to this very important subject. I believe that she has underestimated the practical difficulties involved for pensioners in achieving effective representation. I may well return to this matter at a later stage, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 146:
Page 38, line 33, at end insert—
("(5A) In subsection (6)(b) for "one-third" there shall be substituted "one-half."").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that at least 50 per cent of trustee boards are member-nominated trustees rat her than the one-third currently in legislation.

159
The general conclusion on member-trustees is that they improve the working of trustee boards, both by their input and by ensuring that trustee boards conduct their business in accordance with pensions legislation. They also add to employee confidence in pension schemes, which was, of course, rather badly shaken by the Maxwell scandal.
Many large firms have operated for years with a 50 per cent member trustee board; for example, British Aerospace, Prudential, Rolls Royce, Shell, Unilever and many others. I understand that the Government themselves—and we heard something about that this evening—favour 50 per cent, as does the NAPF, but there is a reluctance to make it a statutory obligation.
I believe that the main concern expressed about giving member trustees parity is that employers fear that they will lose control of the cost of their schemes. But, of course, trustees can normally improve member benefits only if the employer agrees. Moreover, unions have long understood the difference between negotiating terms and conditions, including pensions, and representing beneficiaries' interests in a pension scheme. They are quite different functions.
It is true that trustees control investment policy but they must, in any event, act in accordance with the best professional advice available. I think that the time has come to make 50 per cent a statutory requirement. I hope that the Government will move towards that this evening. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Hoyle: I too support the amendment which is extremely sensible. If large companies do not fear 50 per cent of the members of the board being employee trustees, I do not see why the Government are so fearful of making it a statutory requirement. As has rightly been said, particularly after Maxwell, many employees have little confidence that schemes will be administered sensibly and in the interests of employees. In many cases, employees regard pensions as salaries that have been rightly deferred for the benefit of members. I believe that the way to ensure that their confidence is retained is by way of a statutory 50 per cent membership. I cannot see why the Government are hesitating when so many large firms find this to be a practical and reasonable proposition.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I believe that this is a good advance on the present practice. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am intrigued by all this support for proposals which, as I recall, were bitterly opposed when we debated the 1995 Act, when my noble friend, with support from me, tried to press many of these points.
I sympathise with the amendment. However, our priority is to get members on the trustee boards of all occupational pension schemes. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle stated, some schemes already have 50 per
160
cent member-nominated trustees, and I applaud that. However, I do not believe that the exact proportion is as important as getting some members on to every board. The schemes we are proposing will have at least one-third.
Having ordinary members on the board is not about having individuals to represent the interests of scheme members; nor is it about creating a voting block to balance the power of employers. It is about bringing a different set of skills and experiences to bear and about providing board discussions with a different perspective.
All trustees have the same responsibilities to run the scheme in the interests of the beneficiaries; a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I believe the overwhelming majority of trustee boards work together in that way for the interests of members as a whole. Indeed, I believe that trustee decisions are rarely made by anything other than complete consensus.
I have no issue with the principle of 50 per cent member-nominated trustees, but I think it would be an unfair burden on business to require it now. I hope that my noble friend will agree that it is important to work with the industry, particularly after we have gone against the wishes of the industry earlier tonight, at least temporarily. We may therefore need to do even greater work with industry in order to overcome some of the problems we dumped on it in an unfriendly way tonight. I hope that we shall work with the pensions industry and sponsor employers to continue to encourage good quality occupational pension schemes.
Like my noble friend, we believe that ordinary scheme members add real value to trustee boards and we want to see more of them. We have worked with the industry to develop these new arrangements. We believe that they represent a real step forward. With that in mind, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Government's policy as regards statutory requirement. However, I had the impression that she was sympathetic to the points put in our argument.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Absolutely.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Nevertheless, there is no point in prolonging the argument at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147 to 149 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 150 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 151:
Page 39, line 24, at end insert—
("(10) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing that all trustees should be required to have attended an approved training course explaining the role and responsibilities of trustees

161
within six months of being either elected as a member-nominated trustee or appointed as a trustee by the scheme's sponsoring employer.
(11) These regulations shall also prescribe the content of such an approved training course.
(12) The failure of a trustee to attend such a course within six months of being either elected or appointed as a trustee shall nullify the trustee's election or appointment.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 151 stands in my name, that of my noble friend Lord Hoyle, and other noble Lords.
The amendment concerns the training of trustees. As we all know, pension provision has become a rather complicated matter. Successive governments have introduced legislation with the laudable aim of protecting beneficiaries, but the result has often been to add to the complication. Owing to the reforms introduced by the previous government in the wake of the Maxwell scandal, there is now an obligation for occupational pension schemes to make provision for employee trustees. We discussed that earlier this evening.
Pension fund trustees are expected by the employees who elect them to look after the interests of beneficiaries. They will be held responsible in the eyes of employees for anything that goes wrong. The trustees will be held to be accountable and they must also ensure that—to use another frequently used term—there is transparency. So trustees need to be familiar not only with their own scheme rules but also with the legal requirements. They must know when to seek advice and where to get it.
Employees must have confidence in their scheme and the way in which it is administered. Unfortunately, despite the very good record of occupational pension schemes—they are the reason why many pensioners are able to live in rather more comfort than they might otherwise be able to do—that trust has been sorely dented by scandals such as the Maxwell affair. The recent legislation has been designed to try to restore confidence and employee trustees play an important role in that regard.
The idea that trustees should be trained has the support of unions and employers. The text of this amendment has been supported by unions, in particular my own, MSF, and also by the Engineering Employers Federation. Many organisations offer courses of a high standard. Unions do so as well. My union has its own residential college at Bishops Stortford and training courses have been available there for some time.
Furthermore, it is not only employee trustees who need to be trained. Management normally nominates trustees, and they may well be people who hitherto have had little to do with pension provision. It is therefore necessary for them to be trained as well.
Unions well understand the difference in function between those nominated and elected as trustees and union representatives with the duty of negotiating terms and conditions. Our training course makes this difference quite clear. Trustees have an obligation to
162
act for all beneficiaries and are not concerned with negotiating terms and conditions. They are quite separate functions.
I hope that the Government will feel disposed to accept this amendment. If for any reason the wording is not acceptable, perhaps the Minister will accept the principle here and come back with an alternative form of words on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Hoyle: Again I shall be extremely brief, since it is now past midnight. The amendment is also tabled in my name, along with those of my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Astor.
I wish to support the amendment because training is absolutely necessary. Pension provision is a difficult and complex matter and, as has rightly been said, to perform properly as a trustee you must understand the workings not only of your own pension fund but of others. You need to understand its aims and how investments work. It is vital that training is given not only to those nominated by members but also to those representing employers, so that all concerned will have the necessary expertise and skill to administer pension funds in the interests of all their members.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am happy to support the amendment moved so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The role and responsibilities of the trustees of occupational pension schemes are becoming increasingly onerous. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, rightly pointed out, their work is increasingly complicated.
There is a danger that enthusiastic amateurs could be elected without being fully aware of their wider responsibilities as trustees. It is therefore critically important that they understand their role in sufficient depth. Members of occupational pension schemes should not be expected to hand over the future security of their pensions, which are probably one of the most important financial investments that individuals will ever make, to those who have not been properly trained to deliver with due care. The members of occupational pension schemes should have the same guarantee of customer care and a proper understanding of the issues as they would expect and demand from every other part of the financial services industry.
For those reasons, we add our full support to this amendment.
Lord Dean of Harptree: Those of us who have been pension scheme trustees for some years will recognise the enormous additional responsibilities and financial obligations which are now to be placed on pension trustees. Those of us involved in the last amendments, from all sides of the Chamber, are anxious that those on pension trustee boards should be more widely representative than they are at the present moment.

163
This conveys to me clearly that training is not only advisable but also necessary. So I am glad to support the noble Baroness in her amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I too support the principle behind the amendment. I am a little concerned with the form of the drafting because some employers have a number of different trust funds and may wish to appoint the same individual successively as a trustee of a number of those funds. It might in that case be inappropriate to require somebody who has already been on a training course to go on a further one. Subject to that point, the principle is absolutely right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Almost everybody in the Chamber spoke in favour of the amendment tonight except, alas, myself.
Amendment No. 151 would require all trustees to attend an approved training course within six months of being appointed or face removal. It would also require the Government to prescribe in regulations the content of such training. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment. I accept that trustees have the job of the proper running of the scheme. It is vital that they have a full knowledge of what is expected of them and for that they need to be trained. In that regard we are at one with the amendment; that is, we all agree that trustees need adequate training to carry out their responsibilities. The question is whether, from what we currently know, given the wording of the 1995 Act, that training should be compulsory and what form it should take.
The present law stops short of making training compulsory, but it does make it a requirement that employee trustees are given paid time off to undertake training. Trustees who are employees of the sponsoring employer, that is the majority, have the right to that paid time off and it is important that they exercise that right and obtain the training that they need. If they do not, they will not be serving the best interests of their scheme, the employers, the members, or anyone involved in the scheme. So it is in everyone's interests to make sure that they are properly trained, and the substantive proposal in the 1995 Act was that they should have paid time off to receive that training. So there is no bar to that.
Whether it is appropriate to go to the lengths proposed by these amendments is another matter. There is already a great deal of quality training available for trustees. Many trustees take advantage of that training. The Pensions Management Institute holds a list of 38 providers of trustee training and so forth. The Pensions World magazine listed 27 providers who last year provided training for over 3,700 trustees. There has been an increase in demand for training since 1998.
Those not trained, or who are not coming forward, so far as the research suggests, are those who have already been a trustee for a long period of time and are very experienced; they already have relevant experience in being a trustee; or they are essentially
164
trustees for a scheme managed by a professional insurance company and only in a few cases would they appear to be under pressure of time or lack of interest.
I could go on. As I say, it is clear that many schemes already have a good record on trustee training. There are encouraging signs that further progress is being made and more training is being made available. As I say, the Committee made it clear that there is agreement throughout the Chamber and I am willing to take the amendment away and consult further with the industry. My advice is that employers will oppose the extra costs and are hostile to it. It may be that the industry has a different view. If it feels it is appropriate to explore this further, I am willing to do so. I entirely accept the spirit of the amendment.
As I say, when I come back I may say that we have taken advice, that we have consulted but do not feel, to use the old-fashioned phrase, that the time is right to make it compulsory. But I am willing to ask the officials to explore this further, given the opinions throughout the Chamber tonight.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that response; it is one of our victories this evening.
I am pleased that my noble friend is going to consult. The text of my amendment—I obtained it from my union—was originally drafted by the Engineering Employers' Federation so I imagine that some employers will be quite amenable to the suggestions made in the amendment. I am grateful for my noble friend's assurance this evening and, with pleasure, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 a.m.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Corporate trustees]:
[Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Information to be given to the Authority]:
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Reports about winding-up]:
[Amendments Nos. 156 to 160 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Directions for facilitating winding-up]:
[Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Restriction on index-linking where annuity tied to investments]:
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 162A:
Page 54, line 40, after ("satisfies") insert ("the conditions mentioned in subsection (1A) and").

165
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend Lady Dean, I have undertaken to ensure that this amendment is moved. The proposal to raise the age at which pensioners are obliged to use their pension funds to buy an annuity from 75 to 80 has to be welcomed as indicating that the Government are aware there is a problem surrounding annuity purchase, but it does not solve it. It can only help pensioners with very large funds, who can use the income drawdown arrangements. But they still have to hand over the remaining pension fund to the life office to buy an annuity, perhaps shortly before death. Most pensioners cannot afford to delay annuity purchase, so postponing the decision until 80 does nothing to help them.
The problem with annuity purchase is not just low annuity rates. That might change in the future. The obligation to purchase an annuity locks an individual into a lifelong and unchangeable contract at a particular point in time. With increased longevity, funding the annuity is increasingly difficult for life offices and reduces the returns on annuities. It is also far too inflexible because annuitants are required to use all of their pension fund for this purpose.
In view of the Government's desire to encourage more people to save for their own retirement, the Government should seek to provide potential savers with a much more attractive prospect—retaining control over at least a portion of their pensions funds. On retirement, the individual should only be obliged to purchase an annuity which will provide him with sufficient income to avoid state support until the end of his life, thus fulfilling his obligation to the state. The Retirement Income Working Party suggested that the level of weekly income should be set at £140 a week, including the basic state pension for a single person. For a man aged 65, the annuity purchase for an index-linked pension of about £70 a week would cost about £55,000.
Under this text, pensioners would be free to invest the remainder of their funds, subject to the appropriate tax regulations, bearing in mind that tax relief has been provided to enable them to save. The financial services industry would have an incentive to develop new products to provide income in retirement. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: The reason for my not pursuing this point is that it seemed to me to be very late at night to engage in a discussion on an amendment of such importance. However, the views on this side of the Committee are well known; indeed, new developments in this field need to be taken into account. For example, the £55 billion windfall that has come into the Government's hands as a result of the mobile phone situation may alter the position in financial markets quite considerably. It remains to be seen whether, on the one hand, the Government use that money for debt repayment. That would obviously affect annuity rates, which would not be to the advantage of pensioners. On the other hand, given the increasing trend in pension funds to include in their portfolio corporate as well as government bonds, it
166
remains to be seen whether that £55 billion will anyway be offset by the phone companies themselves having to raise the finance in the form of corporate bonds. These are complex issues.
I imagine that the noble Baroness is not proposing to press the amendment to a vote at this stage, even if she might win! It seems to me that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are, in many respects, rather more sophisticated than that which I, being a simple soul, had tabled. It is important to maintain people's ability to keep their incomes as pensioners above income support level. However, I hope that, subject to what the Minister says, we might return to this important matter at a later stage.
Lord Goodhart: I hesitate to become involved in a discussion about the philosophy behind tax relief on pensions at this stage of the night. However, I am somewhat concerned about the matter. It has always seemed to me that the purpose of tax relief on pensions is to provide a fund which is basically for the benefit of the pensioner and the pensioner's widow or widower. Once the pensioner—whatever age he or she reaches—is not required to use the whole of the fund for his or her own consumption, there is considerable scope for tax avoidance, particularly in the case of wealthier pensioners. One obtains the benefit of the funds and one can hand them onto other members of one's family with the benefit of the tax relief which one has not used oneself.
The amount of tax relief that is available on pensions contributions in this country is extremely large, compared with tax relief in other countries, or indeed compared with tax reliefs available in this country on ISAs. As I say, I am somewhat concerned about this matter. I can see that other measures could be taken, such as allowing funds to be invested in something other than strictly an annuity. I shall not go into the matter any further tonight but I am somewhat concerned about the amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am tempted to ask whether I can support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and sit down again. I thought that he expressed admirably the concerns about this matter.
Clause 50 gives members of defined contribution occupational pension schemes the option of using the non-protected rights element of their accumulated pension fund accrued from April 1997 to buy an investment-linked annuity instead of an index-linked annuity. The clause also provides for a power to prescribe the conditions which investment-linked annuity products must satisfy.
I feel that I cannot deal with this matter quickly as it is such a substantive item. If we do it at all, I have to spell out the reasons for the Government's position. I had hoped that we might defer the matter to Report stage, but the Committee has decided otherwise.
We issued a public consultation document seeking views on whether greater flexibility should be allowed so that members of money purchase schemes could choose to buy either an investment-linked annuity or

167
a traditional index-linked annuity to satisfy the indexation requirements. Forty responses were received, of which, 34 supported the proposal for change and welcomed the Government's willingness to recognise innovative annuity products.
The amendments have a number of intentions aimed at changing the current rules on annuity purchase for tax-approved pension schemes. Amendment No. 163 is intended to remove the existing requirement for pension funds to be used to purchase an annuity by the time of the member's 75th birthday at the latest.
Amendment No. 162A seeks to specify on the face of the Pensions Act 1995 as to the type of investment linked annuity products which may be purchased and is directly linked to Amendment No. 162B. Amendment No. 162B seeks to require that money purchase pension funds should be used to provide only an annuity of £70 per week and that figure would be subject to annual increases in an attempt to ensure that the annuitant would not qualify for income support. The balance of the pension fund would be invested so that it was not subject to income tax, and any withdrawal of capital or income from the fund would be subject to income tax at the highest marginal rate of the fund holder.
Defined contribution pension schemes, such as personal pensions and the new stakeholder pensions—money purchase— are based on the idea of building up a fund from contributions made while the member is working. The fund can then be used to provide a pension income in retirement. Annuities convert capital into an income guaranteed to continue in payment for life. They are the only product that can do this. However, there is a wide range of annuity products available on the market to suit individual needs— including investment-linked annuities, which allow annuitants to benefit from possible investment growth in the future. I stress that lifelong payment is a feature of all types of pension annuity. That is an important point.
Annuities pool risk. Those who die younger are, by definition, cross-subsidising those who live longer. As those who, for whatever reason, suspect that they may die younger and avoid annuities, the average age of those who remain lengthens and annuity rates have to fall to cover them. An annuity then becomes a less attractive buy for persons with average life expectancy, so the non-virtuous spiral continues.
The income draw-down facility allows members to defer annuity purchase if they wish, while drawing an income from the capital of the fund, which can remain invested in stocks and shares, but which must stop at the age of 75. It is high risk and high cost. We calculate that it works only if one has a fund of at least £200,000 per year. Some experts give a slightly lower figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was absolutely right. Tax-approved pension funds benefit from valuable tax privileges at substantial cost to the Exchequer. Those incentives are designed to help people to obtain an adequate pension in retirement, not to provide a highly tax-privileged way to make
168
investments of a general nature to produce a highly privileged way of producing an inheritance for others subsequently to enjoy. It is right for the Government to have an interest in the use of pension funds after retirement to ensure that they do provide a pension through retirement as intended.
We have heard much about the apparently poor value that annuities represent. I accept that rates have fallen in recent years but that is partly due to the money illusion. The stable economy provides scope for sustained growth in pension funds, and lower inflation means that an annuity will buy more. Since 1990, annuity rates have fallen by just over one-third. Inflation has fallen by well over two-thirds, while the FT30 has doubled. We are experiencing a lower return on a double-sized fund to meet an even lower level of inflation. Explained that way, people would be hard-pushed to argue that an annuity currently at around 9 per cent for a single male age to 65 with a five-year guarantee is unacceptable.
Amendments Nos. 162A and 162B seek to remove the current requirement to use the whole of a tax-approved defined contribution fund to buy an annuity. The amendments would require that an income of only £70 per week should be purchased as an annuity, subject to annual increases. That appears to be to prevent the pensioner having to fall back on income support.
The amendments have a similar objective to the proposals in the Retirement Income Working Party report. We are considering those points, but we need to assess the full implications of requiring people to buy an indexed annuity from their personal pension fund. Many factors need to be taken into account. We are giving serious consideration to whether that is a useful approach. Those are not empty words. Treasury, Inland Revenue and DSS officials are reviewing the Government's position but we need to be sure that any change is an improvement on the present position.
Annuities provide a guaranteed income for life. They are by no means poor-value products, as some people like to suggest—especially in the low-inflation environment that we are committed to maintain. The annuity purchase rules, as they relate to tax approval, are contained in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Amendments to that legislation would fall outside the scope of the current Bill. The Government are actively considering the rules in question, and in light of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that lengthy explanation. It has fulfilled the requirements of myself and my noble friend Lady Dean. She has not been able to be in her place this evening and I promised that I would move the amendment. We were anxious to get on record the view of the Government on what we consider to be a serious matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, it is inappropriate to start discussing a matter of such complexity at this hour of the morning. We shall examine in detail what has been said and consider

169
whether or not it is worth raising the whole issue yet again on Report. In the meantime, having thanked the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 162B not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 164 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 51 [Information for members of schemes etc]:
[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Investigations by the Pensions Ombudsman]:
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Pensions: miscellaneous amendments and alternative to anti franking rules]:
[Amendment No. 166A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 167 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before one o'clock.

  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  The Elgin Marbles
  The Elgin Marbles
  Bovine and Ovine Tissues: Use in Nutritional Supplements
  Bovine and Ovine Tissues: Use in Nutritional Supplements
  New-variant CJD
  New-variant CJD
  On Track Crime Reduction Programme
  On Track Crime Reduction Programme
  Landmines Act 1998
  Landmines Act 1998
  Demonstrations in Central London, 1 May
  Demonstrations in Central London, 1 May