Sitting of 5 July 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Ordered,
  That the Amendments to Standing Orders set out in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE
Standing Order 27,
Line 66, leave out from "Office" to "and" in line 68 and insert—
"and one copy at the Health and Safety Executive, the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the
Department for Transport, Local Government".
Standing Order 27A,
Line 24, leave out from "be" to first "and" in line 26 and insert—
"two in the case of a deposit at the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, Local Government".
Standing Order 29,
Line 8, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government".
Standing Order 30A,
Line 4, leave out "of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
Standing Order 31,
Line 6, leave out "of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
Standing Order 32,
Line 8, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
Standing Order 34,
Line 10, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert—
"for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government"
Standing Order 37,
Line 9, leave out from "Office" to "and" in line 10 and insert—
"the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, Local Government".
Line 14, leave out "a copy" and insert "two copies".
Line 17, leave out from "the" to "and" in line 19 and insert—
"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and one at the Department for Transport, Local Government".
Standing Order 39,
Line 3, leave out from "bill," to "three" in line 4.
Line 4, after "at" insert "the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
Line 5, after "Office" insert—
382
"and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions".
Line 6, leave out "the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".
Line 9, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills".
Line 10, leave out "of Social Security" and insert "for Work and Pensions".
Line 20, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills".
Line 23, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills".
Line 29, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
Standing Order 45,
Line 20, leave out from "Department" to "and" and insert—
"for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government".
Standing Order 47,
Line 10, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government".
Standing Order 101,
Line 4, leave out "Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert—
"Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
Standing Order 147,
Line 7, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government".*
Line 10, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government".*
Standing Order 154,
Line 12, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government".
Line 28, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government".—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
*refers to the Standing Order text as amended by the House on 28th February 2001.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Further Education Lecturers
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What recent discussions she has held with representatives of further education lecturers. [869]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): My right hon. Friend has not recently met representatives of further education lecturers. However, I met the general secretary of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education on Tuesday this week, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and I are due to meet representatives of NATFHE again on 18 July.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister share my deep concern that moderate and responsible further education lecturers are being driven to strike over pay? Does he agree that the underlying cause is a chaotic, inconsistent and unfair

    383
    system for financing further education, in which, for example, lecturers on £25,000 a year are being paid £5,000 a year less than A-level lecturers in schools doing an identical job a few hundred yards away? Does he further agree that there needs to be a radical overhaul of the whole system of funding for further education, without which the Government's programme for post-16 education will not be able to deliver?
    John Healey: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comparison between further education establishments and schools. In many ways, schools are different institutions with different problems, including many unqualified or part-time staff. Direct comparisons are, therefore, not appropriate. I share his concern over industrial relations in the field, but NATFHE's claim for an across-the-board £3,000 increase is simply not on the cards.
    What is in place this year, for the first time, is the teaching pay initiative, which provides money on top of the general funding for colleges. For the first time, this will give us the ability substantially to increase supplementary pay arrangements to reward better teachers, deal with recruitment and retention problems and recreate a proper career structure in further education. It will also allow us to create more funding for courses and colleges that are delivering the best training in the sector, and there will be extra funding this year, for the first time, for capital modernisation and information technology. In many ways, therefore, this year is the first year of a new era for further education, by contrast with the rather dispiriting and demoralising picture painted by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position on the Front Bench—a post that is fully deserved. I also welcome the last answer that he gave. I have two excellent sixth-form colleges in Cambridge, serving my constituency. However, representatives of the colleges tell me that they are under severe pressure owing to a 4 per cent. increase in staff salaries, inflation that has risen by 2.5 per cent. and only a 1 per cent. increase in their funding. Will my hon. Friend investigate the circumstances in Cambridge?
    John Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words of congratulation. I will certainly look into the position of the colleges in Cambridge that she has mentioned. I know that the colleges in her area are among the best and deserve support. She points out the need, and our plans, for rebuilding professionalism in further education and for rebuilding the resources available to the sector. There are still too many unqualified teachers, too many substandard courses and too many weak managers.
    This year, we have put in place—through the teaching pay initiative, the standards fund and the other money going into FE for specific purposes—rewards to encourage better teachers, backing for better training and professional qualifications, recognition for departments and colleges providing first-rate FE training and substantial support for colleges with special weaknesses that need special help.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the new Minister. whom I sincerely welcome to the Dispatch Box, appreciate that if—after what I understand was a somewhat extended departmental away-day which took
    384
    him out of town later on the day—he had been able to attend the meeting in the Palace of Westminster with NATFHE lecturers, he would have seen a very lively meeting, at which the concern expressed was entirely genuine and moderate, and in no sense politically motivated?
    In particular, does the Minister realise that the problems might possibly be due to bureaucratic problems in getting the money through the local learning and skills councils, rather than the colleges themselves, which have their own problems, particularly with core funding? Money earmarked under the teaching pay initiative for current-year pay improvements has not always got through. There are real worries about the recruitment and retention of lecturers, and there is a question mark over the possibility of fulfilling the Government's ambitious targets for enrolment and the development of the further education sector. This is not, essentially, a party political issue, but it is one that is giving rise to widespread concern.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am required to get through the Order Paper; therefore, questions and replies must be brief.
    John Healey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that guidance on my first outing at the Dispatch Box.
    I thank the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for his genuine congratulations. I respect his experience and knowledge of the field, but in this case he has got the wrong end of the stick. The learning and skills councils are ready, willing and able to provide money for the teaching pay initiative. Indeed, the provisional allocation has already been made to colleges. However, it is for colleges to conclude agreements with staff for the extra money, and they must provide the Learning and Skills Council with the simple assurance that it will be spent in line with the design of the scheme. It will be backdated to 1 April, so that no one loses out. My message to college managers and staff representatives is this: we have ensured that the money is available—get on with it.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: I remind my hon. Friend of the circumstances at Barnsley college, where, at the end of last month, 120 lecturers were released because of its particular problems. As he is aware, the difficulties resulted from the loss of courses through franchising, which has left it with a £2 million budget shortfall. Will he reconsider Barnsley's circumstances to establish whether any Government help could be given to those whose jobs are under threat?
    John Healey: I am well aware of the problems at Barnsley college, as some of my constituents are students there. One of my first actions in my first week in the job was to ask for an update on the situation. As my hon. Friend said, there have been serious problems and serious financial irregularities there. A full report is with the Learning and Skills Council and the local learning and skills council is developing, and will support, an action plan for the recovery of Barnsley college's position. In the meantime, we shall do all we can to ensure that courses, the position of lecturers and, above all, the provision of training for students at the college are not further damaged.

    Learning and Skills Councils
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the responsibilities of the learning and skills councils; and if she will make a statement. [870]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): We have received few representations on the responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council. I have had several meetings with its chairman and chief executive in the past three weeks, and I am confident that the council will make a genuine difference over the coming years to widening participation in learning, driving up standards and improving achievement.
    Miss McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister on retaining her post in the Government. I shall share with her some representations that I have received from local firms, which are confused about who is responsible under the new arrangements for the Investors in People initiative and want to know whether it is the Learning and Skills Council or the Small Business Service. Guidance would be most welcome. Can she assure me that businesses will continue to be involved in the delivery of training to young people, as they were so successfully under the training and enterprise councils?
    Margaret Hodge: On the hon. Lady's second point, I can assure her that businesses will continue to be involved. On the first, the Learning and Skills Council is responsible for ensuring than we meet our Investors in People target, extend the system and ensure that more people participate in it. However, there is nothing to prevent the Learning and Skills Council from negotiating and contracting with local business links or the Small Business Service to ensure that it delivers. I am pleased to tell the House that in North Yorkshire, which includes the hon. Lady's constituency. 43 per cent. of medium and large companies have attained the IiP standard, as have 132 small and medium-sized enterprises.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: How will the Learning and Skills Council increase participation in post-16 education? [Interruption.]
    Margaret Hodge: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said that I could write an essay on that. However, bearing in mind what you, Mr. Speaker, said about answers, I shall try to keep my response brief.
    The Learning and Skills Council will set a strategy and business plan that will be implemented by the 47 learning and skills councils, which will work through existing institutions such as the further education sector and private providers, among others, as well as sixth-form schools and colleges to ensure that we extend participation. Extending participation is an essential part of the Government's manifesto commitment and is not only good for individuals, but key to ensuring that we build economic prosperity.
    Mrs. Theresa May: One of the responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council is the funding of school sixth forms. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), said earlier that there was no
    386
    equivalence between schools and further education colleges, but the Government's funding arrangements are based on exactly that proposition. Many school sixth forms are under threat from the new funding arrangements under the Learning and Skills Council, which allow fees to be charged. Will the Minister give a pledge today that no school will face a reduction in its funding for pre-16 education as a result of the new arrangements, and that the funding allocated by the Learning and Skills Council to local education authorities for school sixth forms will all be passported to the schools?
    Margaret Hodge: In fact, there have been no closures of school sixth forms since the Labour Government were elected in 1997. Any such closures took place under the Conservative Government, pre-1997. We gave a real-terms guarantee of funding at 2000–01 levels to all sixth forms when the funding was transferred to the Learning and Skills Council, provided that they maintained their pupil numbers. That is an unprecedented guarantee. We have instructed the Learning and Skills Council to passport through the entire funding to the sixth forms that will receive funding from it.

    Specialist Schools
    Mr. Bill Rammell: What plans she has to increase the number of specialist schools. [873]
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many and what percentage of secondary schools in England are expected to have specialist school status by June 2005. [881]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I would not like Question Time to pass without extending the sympathy and thoughts of the House and the Department to those in Lambeth at the school with the child missing in the north of France. It is a difficult time for all concerned and it must be unutterably difficult for the parents and other members of the family who have to travelled to France this morning. I know that the whole House would wish to join me in sending them our best wishes and our thoughts. The Department will give whatever help might be appropriate in due course.
    From September 2001 there will be 684 specialist schools and we are working towards a target of 1,000 by September 2003. The Government's target of 1,500 specialist schools by September 2006 represents 46 per cent. of secondary schools in England.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Does she agree that eventually every school should have its own distinctive mission and ethos? In taking forward that agenda, should not the Government welcome associated bids from two or more schools, where such a bid can be shown to be in the interests of developing such an ethos within each of those schools? Were such a bid to be forthcoming from schools in my constituency of Harlow, would she consider it very seriously?
    Estelle Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. Schools do try to attain their own distinct ethos and we are working with the grain of schools in that respect. It is certainly our aim that all secondary schools develop their

    387
    own ethos and mission. Some will find their voice in the specialist school movement and others will do so through training schools, beacon schools or church schools. That is the nature of diversity. However, I strongly feel that schools improve their standards most when they have a feeling of being different, of being special, and when they are proud of their children and their communities are proud of them. We want to help them work towards that. Although I welcome joint applications, I have a cautious word of advice for my hon. Friend. To be honest with him, I do not think that the existing rules encourage joint applications and my best advice to schools in his constituency would be to wait a while and see whether that guidance changes.
    Mr. Prentice: If we are to have specialist schools, I am rather attracted by the Liberal Democrat policy, which is to make all schools special schools. We could then call them comprehensives. My attention was drawn to an article in the Financial Times yesterday stating that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards plans to put private companies in charge of state school departments—presumably that includes specialist schools. As a member of the Labour party's national policy forum, let me ask the Minister where that idea came from. It was never discussed in any of the Labour party's policy forums and, as the Minister will know, it was never discussed at the Labour party's annual conference last September. If we are going to have bizarre suggestions on a regular basis, the Government should at least honour us by telling us who was responsible for the idea in the first place.
    Estelle Morris: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I want all schools to have in place the key measures of improvement that will enable them to take up specialist status. This is about extra resources and the capacity to spend them effectively to bring about improvements.
    On my hon. Friend's second comment, there are no circumstances in which I or my Department would force a school to outsource one of its departments. However, some head teachers may choose to do that. I want to make it clear that it would be their choice, with no instructions from me about the break-up of the school.
    Mr. Phil Willis: I welcome the Secretary of State and her ministerial team to the Front Bench, and we wish them well in their short careers. We also welcome the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who will be the first Member to cross the Floor in this Parliament. Liberal Democrats will welcome his wise views.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that her policy on specialist schools is akin to creating a giant McDonald's-like franchise within our school system? The difference is that anyone can go into a McDonald's, but specialist schools will decide which students to take. Does she accept that by the end of the Government's second term in office, 60 per cent. of Britain's schools will remain bog standard—to use the phrase of the Prime Minister's press secretary? Given the failure of private
    388
    sector investment in education action zones, will she today rule out the involvement of private sector companies in future specialist schools?
    Estelle Morris: McDonald's restaurants are all the same, whereas our aspiration for the school system is that schools should have a common base but should be different, not the same. What upsets me most about the hon. Gentleman, who I know has education close to his heart, is that he has incredibly low aspirations for our school system. I believe that every school in the country can, with help and support, and with the will, passion and hard work of teachers, develop its own ethos. Schools try to do that, but in the past they have tried to do it by themselves. With our diversity agenda, we are bringing that approach into the national school system, so that we celebrate diversity. When schools are ready, we give them resources to help them to achieve that diversity. That is absolutely key.
    On private sector involvement, the hon. Gentleman may, on reflection, regret his slur on many education action zones. Children and teachers in some of the most disadvantaged areas have worked their socks off to raise standards, and in doing so have worked with the private sector. The improvement in attainment rates in those areas is a cause for celebration, and should not be knocked down. I welcome the private sector's involvement in those achievements. It has provided cash, but as the hon. Gentleman knows there have also been hours spent in schools reading with young children, mentoring head teachers, allowing access to places of work and raising children's vision so that they can aspire to work in business. I have no intention of turning my back on the contribution that the private sector can make to raising aspirations and delivering the world-class education system that we want.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady, whom I congratulate and welcome to her post, realise that in her pursuit of true excellence she is more likely to engage the hearts and minds of Conservative Members than of Labour Members? In that context, what plans does she have to encourage young people who want to follow a career in the crafts? Does she agree with me that craftsmanship is of supreme importance, and that not enough encouragement is given to such young people?
    Estelle Morris: I shall ignore the fact that, in 1997, six out of 10 children could not read properly at the age of 11. I do not know how that reflects on the Conservative Government's commitment to excellence in schools I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the importance of the range of subjects that are termed as crafts. Crafts have long been neglected and have been squeezed out of the education system. We want both to acknowledge and to promote them and give children who achieve in that regard the applause and credit they deserve.
    The Government desperately want to give vocational education the status that it needs and deserves. We believe that our plans relating to vocational GCSEs and A-levels,

    389
    and the policies that we are developing for 14 to 19-year-olds, will turn the tide that has been going in the wrong direction for the past 15 to 20 years.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position.
    Will the Department be publishing clear criteria for schools applying for special school status? Some schools experiencing serious weaknesses or special measures apply for such status, only for the applications to be turned down because the schools have not been given a clean bill of health by Her Majesty's inspectorate or Ofsted.
    Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Holmesdale community school, which was recently awarded special school status, and congratulating Ian Hobson—the head teacher—the governors and the entire Holmesdale team on their hard work?
    Estelle Morris: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the school. I believe that this is the eighth time he has mentioned it at Question Time; on seven of those occasions it had not yet achieved a special school status, so I am very pleased to be able to congratulate it today and to put on record my hon. Friend's contribution in supporting its application.
    If the guidance is not clear I shall, of course, want to clarify it. I take my hon. Friend's point about schools experiencing special measures and serious weaknesses. Sometimes a school starts to experience special measures and serious weaknesses while it is putting together and submitting its application. When a school is in that position, it is pretty tough to get out of it; all efforts must be focused on the basics—on good teaching and leadership. I genuinely wonder whether, at that point in a school's development, it is able to take on special school status. It can, however, aspire to such status, and the prospect of no longer being subject to special measures and being able to apply for it may spur schools on.
    I should be delighted to look at the guidance again. As I have said, if it is not as clear as it should be I will endeavour to remedy the problem.
    Mr. John Hayes: I welcome the new Secretary of State to her job. I know that she will bring her characteristic commitment and diligence to the task.
    Perhaps it was those qualities that encouraged the right hon. Lady to reverse the policy of exclusion targets that has been such a cause of dismay in schools throughout the country—special schools, schools experiencing special measures and other schools. She will know that heads, governors, teachers and, of course, the Opposition have mounted a vigorous campaign against the exclusion targets on which she has now performed a U-turn. However, uncertainty remains about the financial sanctions. The right hon. Lady will remember the punitive sanctions that the Government imposed on schools that did not meet those centrally defined targets. Will she confirm that, in that respect, DFEE circular 16/99 has been either rescinded or superseded by further guidance?
    Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.
    390
    The targets were reached, and we are not setting new ones. We have made that clear. I consider it cause for celebration that, under the present Government, schools have learning support units and learning mentors, and if they do exclude pupils they can be guaranteed a full-time education for those pupils to a greater extent than they ever were under the last Government. Schools have, however, reduced the number of exclusions from some 12,000 or 13,000, and rising, to about 8,600. I congratulate and thank them for that—and, as I have said, we are not setting new targets.
    As for the money that the hon. Gentleman describes as a fine, there are some tough decisions to be made. We did something that I would have expected him to welcome: we made local authorities delegate money to schools, so that the schools could use it to try to retain children. That, I think, is the place for the money. It is better for it to be used to help schools develop preventative treatment to stop exclusions than to sit with local education authorities.
    If a child is excluded after the money has been devolved to a school, I am adamant that that child will be given a full-time education and not left to roam the streets. Full-time education costs money, but the money has been delegated to schools, and must follow the child back to the local authority and then to the pupil referral unit. I think that that is right. It is delegated money to prevent exclusions, but if a child is excluded, the money guarantees full-time education. Again, I would have thought that the whole House welcomed that.

    Student Hardship
    Mr. David Rendel: What assessment he has made of reports from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in respect of alleviating student hardship. [875]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): Our objective is to break down the barriers to wider participation in higher education, so that 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds will enjoy the opportunity of higher education by 2010. Our system of student support provides targeted support for students most in need while balancing, overall, the costs between student, family and taxpayer, but we shall continue to keep that under review, bearing in mind our participation objective and different approaches elsewhere.
    Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware that, according to a recent Barclays report, the average level of student debt is £6,500 and that that is expected to rise to up to £12,000 within a few years? Given that both the Cubie and Rees reports recommended radical reform of student financing in order to relieve student hardship in Scotland and Wales, do the Government accept that similar radical reform is necessary for English students, so that student hardship can be relieved throughout the United Kingdom?
    Margaret Hodge: Many of the surveys that I have looked at since I have been a Minister make for a rather blurred understanding. The issue of student hardship is not as clear as the hon. Gentleman makes it out to be. For example, although students may incur a debt while at university, their earnings after university are 20 per cent. higher than those of people who did not go to university. That means that, over their lifetime, they are likely to earn

    391
    £400,000 more. If that is set against the potential debt, it is not a disincentive to participation. Most students recognise the benefit of higher education.
    Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the suggestion that my hon. Friend intends to keep the situation under review, but does she accept that there is growing evidence in constituencies such as mine that tuition fees are a disincentive to young people to go into higher education in the first place? In keeping the situation under review, will she at least keep her mind open to the possibility that there may be a case for reform in the near future?
    Margaret Hodge: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will keep the situation under review. I draw to his attention the fact that, at the start of this autumn term, we expect over 50 per cent. of students not to have to pay tuition fees. We have targeted support, particularly for poor students, by quadrupling the hardship and access fund and by introducing the excellence challenge: a total of £190 million will be available over three years.
    I wish that we could to reach our target of increased participation in higher education, which we know is of benefit to individuals, society and the economy, just by dealing with student hardship. The reality is that nine out of 10 young people who achieve two A-levels do participate in higher education. The real challenge is to increase the number of young people achieving two A-levels. That comes under our schools agenda—our 14 to 19 agenda. A particular problem is the haemorrhaging of young people, who achieve five A to Cs at GCSE level and then do not stay on to do further education full time.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal again. I wish no offence to Ministers, but the replies are far too long. I must get through the Order Paper.
    Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate the new Department for Education and Skills team and in particular the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who had an important part to play in my political career because I was a resident in Islington in the late 1980s when she was presiding over that shambles of a council. Indeed, it led to a legacy in education that resulted in none other than the Prime Minister ensuring that his own children no longer went to Islington schools—but I shall move to a serious point. We shall discuss in the House this afternoon the whole issue in relation to our allowances. [Interruption.]
    There is an implicit understanding that there are great costs involving staff in central London. May I ask the Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid I shall have to stop the hon. Gentleman.

    Adult Basic Skills
    Mr. David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on her plans to improve adult basic skills. [876]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): The Government are fully committed to helping the estimated one in five adults who do not have adequate literacy, language or numeracy skills. The Prime Minister launched our strategy for improving adult basic skills on 1 March, and our manifesto reaffirmed our intention to help 750,000 adults to achieve basic skills by 2004. We are now working to deliver on that commitment.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and add my congratulations on her well deserved appointment.
    May I remind her of the very interesting proposal in the national strategy for basic skills, which argues the case for a form of paid educational leave for low-paid workers with poor basic skills? Has there been any progress in implementing that proposal? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of paid educational leave could be considered more generally for groups of low-paid workers with poor basic skills?
    Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I share his concern and determination to ensure that low-paid workers can access training in basic skills. Indeed, it is a truism that such workers are probably low paid because they do not have the basic skills; that just makes sense. I should remind my hon. Friend and the House that, under our strategy, basic skills education is free to everybody, whether they are in work, in part-time work or seeking work. One of our biggest challenges is to identify who those people are.
    Such people are often not very confident about coming forward to say that they lack basic skills. As my hon. Friend knows, we shall be doing all that we can over the coming months both through pathfinder and through pilot projects to attack the problem at every level—when people turn up for interviews at jobcentres or apply for jobs in workplaces, and when they are not in work. I shall certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend says. As the strategy progresses, we shall no doubt want to return to the matter.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the new Department for Education and Skills team and the announcements on improving adult basic skills. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's major investment in nursery education will also help to prevent children leaving school and becoming young adults without basic skills, and that decisions that she has had to take in that area are a recognition of past failure to identify and address the specific needs of individuals?
    Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I disagree with him absolutely. Really tackling literacy and numeracy problems is about working with children before they start school. when their language is developing. If they are behind at the age of four or five, they often find it very difficult to catch up. Given our work in early-years education—not just on nursery places but on training staff so that they can teach what is appropriate at that age—together with our literacy and numeracy strategies, I would be immensely disappointed if the same number of adults had problems with basic skills in decades to come. It is a failure of the education

    393
    system if people leave school and are still not functionally literate. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—the question is very much one of remedial work.

    Educational Maintenance Allowances
    Mr. John Grogan: What plans she has to extend the geographical coverage of educational maintenance allowances. [877]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Education maintenance allowances are now available in about 30 per cent. of the country as a pilot scheme. Our manifesto said that we would build on that, drawing on the evidence of the pilots. Early results are very encouraging, and we will be considering the case for expansion in the next spending review.
    Mr. Grogan: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post, and urge him to consider extending the education maintenance allowance scheme to every local education authority in time. All evidence suggests that the scheme has been extremely effective in encouraging staying-on rates, particularly for young people from low-income families. If he is minded to have more pilot schemes, will a greater proportion be introduced in rural counties, where participation rates can be w, much of a problem as in urban areas? For example, staying-on rates in North Yorkshire declined by six percentage points in the five years to 1999.
    Mr. Lewis: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and others who have done so much to draw attention to the plight of coalfield communities, attracting the resources needed to rebuild them after the wanton destruction and neglect under the Conservatives.
    We made a conscious decision to pilot educational maintenance allowances, which now cover about 30 pet cent. of the country. Early evidence suggests that they are making a significant contribution to supporting young people so that they can stay in education. That is what they are for. We are anxious that, before we make a final decision on whether to extend the allowances throughout the country, we have qualitative evidence to show that they are the most effective way of delivering that objective. We believe that more and more such evidence will emerge. Early indications are indeed very positive, and when we make decisions about the future we will certainly consider the points that my hon. Friend has made.

    AS-Levels
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If she will make a statement about the AS-level courses. [878]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a review of the advanced level reforms. An interim report is due by the middle of July. My right hon. Friend will then consider carefully the next steps.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is it not now evident that the hasty reform of the A-level system was ill conceived and
    394
    not properly thought through? It has led to chaos in the curriculum in many schools. I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's first decision, I think, on taking office—in which I wish her well—which was to order the urgent review on 13 June. When will the review be completed?
    Mr. Lewis: My right hon. Friend did indeed act quickly to respond to the concerns that have been expressed both by young people and by teachers about some teething problems in the implementation of the new reforms. The report is being prepared by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, and an interim report will be available by the middle of July. My right hon. Friend intends to act on that report, so that we can put in place the necessary changes, where possible in time for September.
    Caroline Flint (Don Valley): Many parents hope that their children will have passed their GCSEs and will go on to A-levels in the autumn. I welcome the review, but I hope that it will consider extracurricular activities for such young people, as that is an important part of their development, and examine the difficulties of trying to create a hybrid of a baccalauréat and a gold-standard A-level system.
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the concerns that have been expressed. That is why my right hon. Friend commissioned the review, part of which will be about extra-curricular activities. We intend to make clear to schools in time for September what needs to be done to ensure that the implementation of the reforms runs far more smoothly in future.
    Mrs. Theresa May: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, but I have to tell him that parents, pupils and teachers will have been outraged by his complacent response in describing the difficulties that they have been suffering over AS-levels as "some teething problems". I can assure him that they feel that, over the past year, far from some teething problems, they have had every single tooth drawn slowly without anaesthetic. I hope that he will apologise to pupils, parents and teachers throughout the country for that remark, and join me in congratulating students and teachers on their hard work and perseverance. They now need the confidence and comfort of knowing that there will be no problems with their AS-level results. Will he guarantee that there are sufficient markers in place for the examinations and that all the results will be published on 16 August?
    Mr. Lewis: How can it be complacent to commission an urgent review of AS-levels, which was my right hon. Friend's first act immediately after the general election? Many people have said in recent weeks that the principles of the A-level reforms are absolutely right. In fact, they build on proposals that first emerged in 1996, when the hon. Lady's party was in government. With regard to A-level reforms and their effect, let me quote from a couple of school principals and head teachers. Peter Newcombe, principal of Franklin college, Grimsby, said:
    "Students at my college have responded magnificently to the challenge and range of opportunities. Most have successfully sustained four AS levels and they have chosen subjects that broaden and deepen their experience."

    395
    Chris Henstock, the head teacher at Lutterworth upper school in Leicestershire, said:
    "Fundamentally, I think the curriculum changes are a good thing. I have seen a lot more of my pupils doing a variety of subjects."
    There is no doubt that the vast majority of people believe that the principles behind the A-level reforms are absolutely right and that they are in the best interests of young people in this country. We are determined that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has made his point.

    Schools (Devon)
    Mr. Anthony Steen: What assessment she has made of the need to build new schools in Devon in the next five years. [882]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): It is not for the Government to dictate how schools are organised locally. It is the duty of local education authorities to ensure that there are sufficient school places. We believe that decisions on the organisation of school places are best taken at that local level, with the knowledge of local needs.
    Mr. Steen: First, may I congratulate the Minister on getting where he is? However, he can do better than that answer. Is he aware that secondary school children in my constituency are being bussed 40 miles a day? They are spending three to four hours a day in a bus because there are not sufficient school places near their homes. That is not acceptable to anyone. With 90,000 new homes being built in Devon, there will be even more bussing, which is expensive. We cannot have a bussing society such as exists in the United States. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that new schools are built before the new homes? There is no shortage of money, according to the Government. We need a system that ensures that new schools and infrastructure are in place before the new houses are built and people are allowed to live in them.
    John Healey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments, but I urge him to take this matter up with the Devon local education authority, whose school plan predicts a shortfall of secondary school places of about 2,000 by 2003–04. However, I repeat that it is not for Whitehall to work out where those school places should be provided, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would want that. We can—and will—contribute to the funding for those new school places, as we have done since the last election. In that time, Devon LEA has received more than £96 million in capital funding.

    City Secondary Schools (Standards)
    Valerie Davey: What further measures the Government plans to take to raise standards in city secondary schools. [883]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): We are committed to transforming secondary education in this country. Through the forthcoming education Bill, we will be putting in place legislation to
    396
    create a more diverse system that can provide high standards of education for all our children, and meet their individual needs in cities and in every part of the country.
    Valerie Davey: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his post, and thank him for his reply. In Bristol, the city council has depended on, and built on, the collaborative work of the excellence in schools initiative. However, Bristol's diverse nature has led the council to undertake a citywide review of secondary provision. Will my hon. Friend and his Department give the support and encouragement that this creative but demanding initiative requires?
    Mr. Timms: We are well aware of the developments in Bristol, and are very encouraged by the steps that have been taken to achieve improvements in the way that the LEA supports its schools. We are also very heartened by the progress of Excellence in Cities in Bristol, which has been involved in that initiative since September 2000. I know that 20 secondary schools are involved. In Bristol and elsewhere, we are detecting real progress being made in dealing with some of the long-standing problems that have faced secondary schooling our cities.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new Government position. He is one of the most courteous and caring of Ministers and I wish him well. Does he accept that one of the ways to raise standards in city secondary schools in particular would be to encourage firm discipline, because in a disciplined environment young people are much more inclined to learn and to gain the benefit of good teaching? Does he believe that discipline in city secondary schools is of the utmost importance in raising standards?
    Mr. Timms: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and agree that pupil behaviour is an important topic. We will address that in the White Paper, and we have taken some important steps to improve the position. This year, for example, we are providing £174 million to address poor behaviour in schools: 10 times the level of 1997. It is a matter that we will need to keep under close review.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Domestic Violence
    Judy Mallaber: If she will make a statement on the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service on prosecuting crimes of domestic violence. [909]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Crown Prosecution Service will publish new policy guidance for prosecutors on domestic violence this autumn. Further to the initial consultation, there will be extensive consultation on this guidance with the police, local government, voluntary organisations and the courts, and the Attorney-General and I will be consulting on domestic violence with our ministerial colleagues—

    397
    in particular with the Ministers with responsibility for women, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office.
    Judy Mallaber: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on her well deserved appointment and thank her for the urgency with which she is tackling a most traumatic and difficult issue in respect of which there are still low levels of successful prosecutions. On Friday, I attended a good multi-agency conference on domestic abuse at Derbyshire police headquarters. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take account of the point made to me there, which was that although dedicated domestic abuse police officers have been created over the past six years—encouraging the CPS to take a more proactive line—those involved are still frustrated at the cases that are dropped? In drawing up the guidance, will she urge the CPS to be prepared to use section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which allows the admission of written statements when witnesses feel that they cannot attend court because of a well founded terror of further reprisals by the perpetrators of their abuse?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues, and I thank her for her kind comments. I wish to take this opportunity to pay the warmest of tributes to my predecessor. I hope and expect that he will continue to play an important role in this House generally, and in relation to the legal issues on which he is most expert.
    My hon. Friend raises a number of issues, including the low level of prosecutions arising from domestic violence. We are not clear as to what the conviction rate is on domestic violence, the number of prosecutions that take place or the number that are discontinued half way through. The CPS is undergoing a review of the statistics, so that these issues, which are very important, can be monitored. My hon. Friend talked about the police in her county having a dedicated domestic violence officer who is responsible. That will happen also in the CPS, and will be in the guidance. The issue will be taken very seriously indeed.
    Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate the Solicitor-General on her return to the Government and on this particular and important appointment. In welcoming the multi-agency approach that she has just described, will she confirm that she intends to liaise closely with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and to ensure thereby that the CPS is well aware of the significance of the contents of the Homelessness Bill in terms of improving the treatment of and opportunities for women who have suffered domestic violence and are at risk of losing their homes?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are the obvious Departments that are involved in this issue, but many others are involved, including the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, which is concerned with
    398
    protecting children in households where there is domestic violence. The Attorney-General and I will take up the hon. Gentleman's important point.
    Joan Ryan: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to her new post. Is she aware of a successful initiative employed in Sweden in which the police, when called to a domestic violence incident, immediately video the victim and any injuries that she has sustained, and the surroundings in which the incident has taken place, and then use that in court? This has increased the number of perpetrators pleading guilty and the number of convictions. Are there any plans or pilots to employ such methods here, and would that evidence be admissible in court?
    The Solicitor-General: That is something that is being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is working closely with the police on this issue. It is possible to use in court photographs, including videos, of any injuries that have taken place, but it is also necessary to prove how those injuries were occasioned. Those issues will be addressed in the guidance.
    As hon. Members know, we must take domestic violence seriously. Yesterday, I visited the CPS in Hampshire and was told that a quarter of all the assaults in that area are domestic violence. It is an important issue and will be a priority for the CPS, working with the police.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What plans she has to reform the structure of the Crown Prosecution Service. [910]
    The Solicitor-General: The CPS is currently undertaking the restructuring proposed in the Glidewell report. As well as structural improvements, the CPS is recruiting more lawyers and administrative staff with the extra resources that have been allocated. The CPS is an important public service and a key part of the criminal justice system. It needs to be properly funded, properly structured and able to get on with its work.
    Mr. Swayne: Absolutely. Will the right hon. and learned Lady assure the House that the reforms that she will put in place will address the criticisms of many victims, and an increasing number of police officers, that the CPS has been fumbling its case load?
    The Solicitor-General: There have been several problems with organisation, and those are being addressed through closer work with the police; with understaffing, which has been a long-term problem both among lawyers and among administrative staff; and with low morale as a result of those problems. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that we need an effective, efficient and fair prosecution system as part of building confidence in the criminal justice process. The restructuring is under way and the resources are being put in, and we all want to be sure that we have the best possible outcome.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I shall not express my congratulations again to my right hon. and learned

    399
    Friend, because I did so in my maiden speech last week. What measures does she intend to take to tackle racism in the CPS? I hope that she, too, feels concern about what has been going on in the CPS, as reported in the media recently.
    The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General and I have a clear view on that matter: we must be certain that equality of opportunity operates in the CPS and that there is no tolerance of racial discrimination. That is important as a matter of principle in a public service employer, but it is also essential, for the CPS to be able to do its job, that people in local communities and from different ethnic minorities know that they can turn to the service if they are a victim and, if defendants, know that they will receive fair treatment. The Denman report on those issues is with the CPS now, and will be published shortly.
    Mr. Edward Gamier: May I join others in congratulating the Solicitor-General on her recent appointment? It marks her return to the Front Bench after four years and to the practice of law after 20. Her appointment to silk is probably unprecedented. Does she see her role as more than simply being politically accountable for the CPS and its budget, and if so, when does she expect to be in a position to appear in the higher courts here, and in the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the CPS or the Government?
    The Solicitor-General: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are different aspects to the jobs of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. In one dimension, the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct: the supervision of the CPS is like the supervision of the police by a Home Office Minister. The Attorney-General and I are also responsible for consents to prosecution and moving contempt, and in that respect we operate in the public interest. We also act as lawyer advisers to Government. None of those roles necessitates appearing in the higher courts or, indeed, any courts at all. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was shocked to discover that I was a Queen's counsel, he should imagine the surprise I felt on discovering myself in Lord Bingham's full-bottomed wig, dressed up as if I were appearing in a restoration comedy.
    Mr. John Burnett: I congratulate the new Solicitor-General on her appointment; I also pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), and put on record my thanks to him for his unfailing courtesy and conscientiousness. We now have a new Attorney-General. He is, I understand, an able lawyer, but he has, of course, failed the acid test: he has not been validated by a constituency of the British people, and is not accountable to this House.
    The Prime Minister has now appointed three Law Officers from the other House—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question to the Solicitor-General. I am not looking for a speech now.
    Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I have made my point about the appointment of the Attorney-General, and I shall now revert to the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). There was a report in The Independent two weeks ago about racism in the Crown Prosecution Service. Those are important allegations, and I would like to know where the report is, when it will be put into the public domain and what the Solicitor-General's views on it are.
    The Solicitor-General: The Denman report is completed; it is with the Crown Prosecution Service and will shortly be published. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is also a Commission for Racial Equality investigation into the Crown Prosecution Service in Croydon, and that, as a public service, we have the responsibility to implement the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Many issues need to be brought together into focus to ensure that, for the reasons that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), we go forward positively, with no discrimination, and with equality of opportunity.
    The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) also raised the issue of the accountability of the Law Officers. The Attorney-General is accountable to the House of Lords and I am accountable to the House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman has any points of substance to make about that, no doubt he will raise them. I think that it is important to have a Law Officer in each House, so that the Law Officers are accountable to both Houses.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House give the business for the coming week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JULY—Second Reading of the Export Control Bill.
TUESDAY 10 JULY—Second Reading of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill.
Motion to approve the draft special education needs code of practice.
WEDNESDAY 11 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (1st Day).
At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
THURSDAY 12 JULY—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]. Until about four o'clock, there will be a debate on post-16 education followed by a debate entitled "The Countryside in Crisis". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 13 JULY—Debate on small firms on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week is:
MONDAY 16 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Motions to approve the membership of Select Committees.
Motion to approve the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001.
TUESDAY 17 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (2nd Day).
WEDNESDAY 18 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (3rd Day).
THURSDAY 19 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
FRIDAY 20 JULY—Motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House. Can he tell us when the Home Secretary is likely to come to the Chamber, especially as Members will have questions for him about the announcement of the Government's response to the Halliday review on sentencing policy, which he will make today at a conference? In a written answer yesterday, he said that that was how he intended to put that information in the public domain. However, there is very limited time before the House rises for the summer recess, and this an important subject. The House deserves an opportunity to hear at first hand from the Home Secretary and to put questions to him.
Equally, we heard this week of the Government's intention to change the legislation in respect of entitlement to incapacity benefit. Before that is debated in the Chamber, will the Leader of the House arrange for consultation with Members of Parliament on both sides of
402
the House, as many of us are already receiving correspondence from concerned constituents about how this will affect them?
Is there any intention to ensure that the House receives a statement on the future of the tube and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman make it his personal business to ensure that that happens? Given that negotiations have broken down on how the reform of the tube is to be taken forward, which has caused great confusion, and given the high priority that the Government have placed on improving the tube, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the House can expect a statement on how this is to go forward?
Last Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) asked the Minister for Local Government about the timetable for bringing forward legislation to introduce regional government. We understand that the Government are to produce a White Paper, and the Minister indicated in his response to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool that consultation is currently taking place. Will the Leader of the House ensure that all Members of Parliament are privy to the consultation that is taking place prior to the White Paper, as many of us wish to make our views known in advance of its publication?
Finally, the Leader of the House announced that next Thursday the Conservative party has, yet again, chosen to allocate Opposition time to debating foot and mouth. The Government have yet to provide Government time for a full debate on foot and mouth. When the crisis started, the then Agriculture Minister stated that he could not participate in such a long debate because he was too busy dealing with the crisis. Now that we are told by the Government that we are on the home straight, perhaps the new Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs could honour the House with some time, in Government time, so that right hon. and hon. Members can ask their questions.
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Lady, and shall respond to her questions in the order in which she put them.
On the Home Secretary's statement in response to the Halliday report, the hon. Lady will be aware that there is a debate on youth justice in Westminster Hall on 19 July. That will be a perfectly appropriate opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to raise questions on the Halliday report and sentencing. Plainly, it must be right for the Government to act as quickly as they can on a report that spells out that prison sentences should be used and targeted on those who are severe repeat offenders and that shorter prison sentences should be combined with rehabilitation and community provision. There will, of course, be a consultation process on the Halliday report, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will wish to take part in it.
There will have to be legislation before any of the proposed changes on entitlement to incapacity benefit take place. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will have an extended period of consultation with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about those proposals.
It may help the hon. Lady and others in responding to the approaches to which she referred if I make it clear that any proposals that are made to change the rules on

403
incapacity benefit by legislation would apply only to new claimants subsequent to that legislation. Therefore, any change in legislation will not have an impact on current claimants. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend confirmed that to me this morning.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will be making a written statement to the House very shortly. We are looking for a way forward. There is an enormous sum of investment available for London Underground. The funds available from Treasury and private sources amount in total to some £13,000 million—that is £4,000 per household within the London region. It is deeply frustrating that we cannot secure the agreement that we need with London Transport and London Underground so that we can proceed with that massive investment, which many other parts of Britain would be very glad to receive.
The hon. Lady also asked about the timetable for publication of the forthcoming White Paper. I can assure her that all right hon. and hon. Members will know about the White Paper's publication and will be able to take part in consultation.
In conclusion, I thought that the hon. Lady was uncharacteristically ungenerous to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In the short space of time since the Queen's Speech, there may not have been an opportunity for a debate on foot and mouth in Government time, but the first statement to the House this Session was on foot and mouth and my right hon. Friend made it at the first available opportunity. I do not think that anybody can fairly accuse her of having failed to take every opportunity to keep the House informed of progress.
Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on early-day motion 60?
[That this House deplores the misleading television advertisements of loan consolidation companies who promise debt relief by combining debts into a single manageable payment; notes that they increase, usually by more than 15 per cent., the total debts of their clients and lengthen the period of indebtedness; and urges restrictions on their misleading claims and a wider understanding of the similar services provided at no charge by the Citizens Advice Bureau.]
The early-day motion refers to the activities of so-called loan consolidation companies that purport to solve debt problems by rolling up debts into a single manageable payment. The result of their activities is usually to drive their client into deeper debt and to give the impression to many others who might risk debt that there is an easy way out. Can we have a debate so that we can advertise the danger of the activities of these companies and the fact that citizens advice bureaux and the Consumer Credit Counselling Service offer the services entirely free?
Mr. Cook: I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about this issue. I have had distressing constituency cases of people being tempted into further debt and then discovering that the debt repayments greatly exceed anything that hon. Members would ever contemplate entering into. Those who have become caught in that way
404
feel unfairly trapped. I am pleased to say that the Director General of Fair Trading is consulting on the prospect of issuing guidelines to debt management companies. Those guidelines must highlight the importance of giving comprehensible and high-profile warning of what the debt repayment would be.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I warmly welcome the clarification that the Leader of the House has just given us on incapacity benefit. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would have benefited if the Prime Minister had made such a clear statement yesterday in answer to a question on the issue. It by no means seemed to be in his mind yesterday that the proposal would not apply to existing claimants. I hope that the Leader of the House will note how important it is for statements to be made to the House in full detail on issues of this sort. This is yet another illustration of that.
On sentencing policy, the Leader of the House should note that the Home Secretary's answer to a planted question last night was wholly inadequate—there was no detail whatsoever—yet the detail that the Home Secretary gave to the "Today" programme this morning was very full indeed.
Will the Leader of the House look again at the issue of making statements to this House? He will recall that you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessor on many occasions deprecated the practice of Ministers appearing on the "Today" programme and making detailed statements there, where they were subjected to the questioning of journalists only, while this House did not have an opportunity to put those questions. As Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has a right and a duty to defend the rights of this House. I ask him, as I did a fortnight ago, please to look particularly at this issue. If Ministers go on saying that Parliament has lost the respect of the public, they are simply contributing to it if they think that Mr. John Humphrys, Mr. Jim Naughtie or even Miss Sue MacGregor are more important than we are in this House.
Mr. Cook: I would disagree with the idea that I hold that view. If my right hon. Friend was able to give a full answer on the "Today" programme this morning, I congratulate him, because I could never get through a full answer on that programme.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important consideration. I draw attention to the fact that the Halliday report is now out for consultation. The Government are not taking a decision on it—it would be wrong to do so until consultation finishes. That consultation will continue until 31 October, by which time the House will have recommenced and there will be a fresh opportunity for Members to table questions and pursue the issue.
Mr. Mark Fisher: May I pursue the point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has just raised? Does the Leader of the House accept that there is an issue of principle here, in that we have been elected to the House to scrutinise Government actions, so Government initiatives and statements should come first to this House? Even though the paper is out for consultation, the House should have the opportunity to raise the first questions with the Government. That is what we have been elected to do. Does the Leader of the House accept that overall position? Will he do all he can to

405
persuade the Government in this Parliament to make a principled stand as a matter of course always to bring initiatives and statements to this Chamber first?
Mr. Cook: I am all in favour of principled stands and will certainly seek to ensure that, where appropriate, statements are made to the House. A balance has to be struck, however. The House has much business to commence with, and if my hon. Friend goes through the business that I have just announced he will see that on many of those occasions it would be inappropriate to make a statement before the House, because it would interfere either with a programme motion or with Opposition business. However, bearing in mind those constraints, I am of course always in favour of the House being fully informed and having as many statements as possible.
Sir George Young: Can we test the good will of the Leader of the House on the statement that he has just made? Will he give us an assurance that next week the Government will not make important announcements about their policy without first making a statement to the House of Commons?
Mr. Cook: If there are strategic statements that represent new policy, the House is the place that would hear of that first. In fairness, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he did that by way of a written statement—
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, come on!
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman groans, but to make a written statement is an entirely well trodden, well known and well accepted method of informing the House. If we allow Ministers to make only oral statements, with no written statements, there will be little time for other debate in the House.
Ms Diane Abbott: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 23 on missile defence?
[That this House expresses concern at President Bush's intention to move beyond the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in developing missile defence; and endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which recommended that the Government voice the grave doubts about NMD in the UK, questioned whether US plans to deploy NMD represent an appropriate response to the proliferation problems faced by the international community and recommended that the Government encourage the USA to explore all ways of reducing the threat it perceives.]
I urge the Leader of the House to make time for a debate on disarmament so that the House may examine President Bush's proposals for national missile defence. Among other things, the House should explore the fact that the technology is wholly unproven and that it is almost certainly in breach of existing disarmament treaties; that the threat posed to America by a nuclear strike from North Korea is risible; and that the proposals
406
have been opposed by Russia, China and most EU states. It is surely appropriate that the House has a chance to debate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the hon. Lady and to the House that business questions should be short and not statements of policy?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that there will be opportunities for hon. Members to raise the concerns articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Indeed, she and others have expressed those concerns on a number of occasions. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that although she refers to President Bush's proposals, we currently have no specific proposal—partly owing to the fact that, as she points out, the technology is still under examination and assessment. For instance, we do not know at present whether the system will be sea or land-based. Whether it is based on sea or on land will have a big impact on the extent—if any—to which facilities in the United Kingdom are required. It would be premature of the Government to make a hard and fast rule.
I advise my hon. Friend not to diminish the very real threat of nuclear missile proliferation—she understates the technological capacity of North Korea. However, the House would be right to be worried about the proliferation of ballistic missile technology.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House as a matter of urgency to make a statement on what is going on with regard to the redundancies at the Marconi companies that affect so many of our constituents? Is the Leader of the House aware that the company is releasing information in dribs and drabs? It is desperately unfair for constituents, such as mine in Chelmsford and in the constituencies of other hon. Members, that they have to go to work today not knowing whether they will be out of work by the end of the day or at some time early next week because the company will not make a full announcement.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the unease, concern and worry of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Having been through a similar experience with Motorola in my own area, I know how desperately unsettling it is for members of staff not to have full information on what may happen to their plant. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in contact with the company and are pressing for full details of its plans. We are also seeking contact with local partners, both from the Employment Service and local authorities, so that we are ready to respond once we are clearer about what precisely the company may propose for its British work force.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an inquiry is under way into very serious allegations about poor conditions and intimidation experienced by asylum seekers at the Landmark and the Inn on the Park tower blocks in Liverpool? Does he have any information on the progress of those inquiries and on when they are likely to be

407
concluded? Will he consider holding a debate on the treatment of vulnerable asylum seekers—a very important subject?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the complaints that a number of the asylum seekers at the Landmark facilities have made about their treatment. I am also aware of their threat to go on hunger strike if those issues are not addressed. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Home Office is conducting a thorough investigation. I assure her that it will be thorough and that we want to make clear what has happened in this case and to learn the lessons from it. My noble Friend Lord Rooker would be very willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case if she wished to pursue it with him.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the proposed business for next Tuesday—namely, the Second Reading of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill? In view of the talks on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly, decommissioning and the peace process, which will presumably involve the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland political parties on Monday, Tuesday and perhaps even Wednesday of next week, would it not be inappropriate to hold that important debate on that occasion, as, no doubt, Northern Ireland elected representatives would like to express their views on the issue? Will the Leader of the House consider deferring the debate for a week?
Mr. Cook: I have announced the business for next week, and I have announced that debate on Tuesday at the request of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is plainly confident that he can attend the debate and play his full part in it. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we ensure that the election system in Northern Ireland. and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is above reproach, fairly administered and cannot be abused. Whatever view people take on the peace process, it is important that such a Bill should be put in place, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is confident that he can accommodate it next week.
Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House next week to explain how increasing the anxiety and insecurity of those people who have had to pass a stringent personal capability test to receive a meagre £69-a-week incapacity benefit helps them to take advantage of the opportunities available through the new deal to help them to overcome the discrimination that they suffer in the labour market? Before he does so, will he reacquaint himself with what he and my right hon. Friend now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in opening and closing speeches in debates on social security legislation introduced when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister?
Mr. Cook: I remember that period well, and I am glad that it is behind us. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend
408
fully took in the point that I made earlier in my comment to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Repeat it.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend clamours for a repeat, and I am always happy to repeat it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions assured me this morning that the new legislation would, of course, apply only to new claimants, as is common with social security legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) can therefore provide reassurance to those who may be expressing unease to her.
On the issue of principle, I must say that my hon. Friend and I fought the election on a manifesto in which it was made quite explicit that we would help back into employment those who could work and who would prefer to work. We should not lose sight of the fact that 1 million people currently on disability benefits say, when asked, that they would prefer to be at work, and it should be the function of government to help them and support them in finding work.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has just said and what he said earlier are suspiciously like a definitive response to the pressure placed on the Prime Minister by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) yesterday? Can we have absolute clarification by having the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions come to the Dispatch Box next week to explain in detail to the House precisely what he has in mind?
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that a debate will start in Westminster Hall in an hour and a half on the role of the Department for Work and Pensions, to which a Minister from the Department will respond. If hon. Members wish to pursue clarification, they have plenty of opportunity to do so this afternoon, although I anticipate that many hon. Members will wish to be in their place for the full debate that we shall have in the Chamber.
Glenda Jackson: Despite his previous answers, could not the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on incapacity benefit to be made at the earliest opportunity by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so that the fears of some of my most vulnerable constituents—entirely justified fears, given the somewhat insensitive manner in which the issue has been introduced to the public arena—can be set to rest?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has expressed concerns that I hope the statement that I have just made will go some way to addressing. Hon. Members are now perfectly able to say to their constituents that any change in legislation will not alter the basis on which incapacity benefit is received by current claimants.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Leader of the House assist me? I was lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate yesterday in which the question was raised as to who has the power to close footpaths outside infected areas in counties such as North Yorkshire.

409
The point was made to the Minister for Rural Affairs that the Government should take such decisions. The Minister said that it was the responsibility of local authorities, but North Yorkshire county council is under the firm impression that this is the Government's responsibility. Will the Minister for Rural Affairs come to the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity to clarify the matter?
Mr. Cook: I am no legal expert, but my understanding has always been that it was the primary responsibility of the local authority. Indeed, local authorities across England have been acting on that assumption over the past three or four months. However, if there is any doubt about the matter, I shall arrange for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs to write to the hon. Lady to clarify it.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the shameless way in which the Conservative leadership and some Conservative candidates exploited the sensitive issues of immigration and asylum in the run-up to the general election?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I must remind him that these are business questions, and that he should be asking questions about the business for next week. If he has not a question on that, I shall move on.
Mr. Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on those issues, so that we can discuss the behaviour at the general election? Will he also take the opportunity to celebrate the fact that, last weekend, we celebrated our first-ever multicultural festival in the town square in Dover, and that a good time was had by one and all?
Mr. Cook:Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suspect that I should be in some trouble if I attempted to make the statement that my hon. Friend tempts me to make. I said what I wished to say on the matter at the time, and it was well reported. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action being taken in Dover to promote and celebrate the strength of Britain as a multicultural society.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Can we have a debate next week on the constitutional position of the Prime Minister? The Leader of the House will have noticed that, over the past few days, when the Prime Minister has talked about the privatisation of public services, about the star wars project, about taking money away from disabled people or about giving money to Railtrack executives, he has received no support whatsoever from the those on the Government Benches, but an enormous amount of support from the Tory Benches. Would it be constitutionally possible for the Prime Minister to cross the Floor? Could we have a debate about it?
Mr. Cook: More frequently, we are accused of using our record majority in a way that is inconsistent with parliamentary democracy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will notice that, even as I speak, Conservative Members are agreeing with that. They cannot have it both ways: they cannot simultaneously complain about a record majority and a lack of support for the Prime Minister.
410
Throughout this Parliament, we will carry through the programme on which we were elected. We will ensure that we improve public services in schools, hospitals and transport, and that we carry through a programme of welfare reform that helps those who want to work and can work, and protects those who are unable to work. On that, the Prime Minister has the full support of this side of the House.
Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Government's youth policy in general? Too often, we debate youth justice and other matters that paint a negative image of our young people. However, I know from campaigning recently that we need to look at the services that are available to those young people, including recreation and sports provision. I believe that we could devote more time in here to discussing matters that affect young people in general.
Mr. Cook: I very much share my hon. Friend's emphasis on ensuring that we provide properly targeted, sensitive policies for young people, and he will welcome the fact that that is reflected in the changes made to the machinery of government after the election. We now have a new Cabinet Committee on children and young people's services and, for the first time, a Minister with responsibility for young people—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs—has been appointed. That will enable us to focus and target our services and policies on young people. Just before the election, we set out a strategy for children and young people on which consultation is taking place, so my hon. Friend and others will have an opportunity to feed in their views.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House has had a long and distinguished career representing a Scottish constituency in this place. Will he arrange an urgent debate to give us the benefit of that experience and his wisdom, with particular regard to the West Lothian question? In the light of his new responsibilities and in respect of both his long experience and distinguished service here as a great parliamentarian and of any previous pronouncements he may have made on the subject, we would all find it very interesting to hear what he thinks about and what answer he or the Government have to the West Lothian question.
Mr. Cook: I very much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's observations on my experience, although when he makes such comments I wish that he would make them sound a little less like an obituary. On the question of the participation of Scottish Members in the House, as I said last week and the week before, this is a unitary Chamber. All Members have equal rights. I do not remember respect being paid to the sensitivity of Scottish political preferences when he was in government.
David Wright: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an early debate on housing and regeneration policy? The quality of some local housing estates was a key issue in the election campaign in my constituency. Many are still in local authority ownership, but some have transferred to other landlords. There is a clear difficulty in co-ordinating services on many such estates and the funding regimes that can regenerate them are often

411
difficult to assemble and labyrinthine in nature. May we have an early debate on simplifying funding regimes for housing estates to draw together a range of partners and make genuine improvements for local people?
On the Woodside estate in my constituency, local people—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will improve his chances of being called more frequently if he keeps his questions brief and concise. He has said enough to enable the Leader of the House to respond.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises serious issues and raises them—
Mr. Forth: At length.
Mr. Cook: No, in penetrating detail. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are conveyed to the appropriate Secretary of State. We began this Session with the Homelessness Bill and there will be further opportunities to legislate on housing. He and others will be welcome to express their views in those debates.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Why does the Leader of the House think it appropriate to announce in a written answer the fact that the Transport Commissioner for London finds unacceptable the future of the tube as set out in the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Does not that announcement represent a gross insult to the people of London, who have suffered for four long years and more from the unworkable proposals for London's transport system made by Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Cook: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the commissioner made his views clear earlier this week. There were exchanges about that at Prime Minister's questions yesterday, and a full statement has been made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I am bound to say that I think it appropriate that such a response has been made and I am not necessarily persuaded that I should accept the precedent that when the Transport Commissioner for London makes a statement, an oral statement should also be made to the House.
We are the ones who are looking for the way forward; the commissioner has said that he cannot see a way forward. I repeat that £13 billion of investment is available to Londoners to improve the underground, and it is regrettable that the commissioner cannot find a way to access and use the moneys available to him. Most other local authorities in Britain would find a way round the problem.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), my right hon. Friend will be aware that this week there have been a number of disturbing press reports on the recession in manufacturing industry and a downturn in the electronics industry. Given the importance of those industries to the UK economy, while
412
I welcome the debate on small businesses, when will the House have an opportunity to discuss the future of manufacturing per se in the UK?
Mr. Cook: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern about the present difficulties in the electronics industry. As I said earlier, I have personal experience of that with the Motorola closure in West Lothian. Manufacturing industry is continuing to perform well in terms of both output and productivity, but there are particular problems in the electronics sector. It is open to right hon. and hon. Members to raise these issues whenever we debate economics and industry, which we did only last week. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will draw her comments to the attention of my appropriate colleagues and we will consider having such a debate in future.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: When the Leader of the House makes his business statement next week, will he be in a position to indicate which, if any, Government Bills this year will be draft Bills published and subjected thereafter to pre-legislative scrutiny under the Select Committee system? May I suggest as an appropriate candidate the clauses on incapacity benefit in the welfare reform Bill?
Mr. Cook: On the general principle, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the Queen's Speech we announced four Bills for draft legislation, which will be brought before the House. I have said before that I would like the House to move towards a two-year rolling programme on legislation, with the opportunity for Members and outside bodies to comment on draft legislation in advance of it being included in the subsequent Queen's Speech. That would make for better legislation, and it would have a better passage through the House. We are already in the second year of what might some day be a two-year rolling programme. Therefore, unless we bring forward for Second Reading debate and legislation the current Bills in the Queen's Speech, we shall have a long delay in introducing some measures that are very important to Members and their constituents.
John Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on domestic energy prices? Many pensioners in my constituency are facing a 25 per cent. increase in their gas bills because they are supplied by a dedicated subsidiary of Eastern. Eastern is itself owned by Texas, so decisions that are made thousands of miles away affect people living in Havering. This is all entirely due to privatisation and deregulation, which was brought about by the previous lot, but now we have to deal with it. May we have a debate or a statement?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the problems of pensioners, and he will be aware that we have set out a strategy for tackling fuel poverty among pensioners and others. The primary impetus behind the current round of gas price increases from last April was the increase in the wholesale price of gas, which distributors can no longer avoid passing on to consumers. The average increase has been not 25 per cent., but 5 per cent. and my hon. Friend may wish to draw that to the attention of his local distributor; and gas prices overall in the United Kingdom are still 10 per cent.

413
down on what they were in May 1997. However, I fully appreciate that certain consumers such as pensioners are facing difficulties, which is why we are trying to target on them our strategy to try to end fuel poverty.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Would the Leader of the House consider an early debate on the state of industrial relations at the Post Office, because the other problems faced by that organisation affect us all and very few of them will be resolved until the underlying problems are tackled?
Mr. Cook: These are problems that must be addressed by the Post Office and its unions: it is for them to try to seek to find a way forward. I am not persuaded that a debate in the House would necessarily help either side find a solution.
Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the activities of cable companies and other utilities? They are causing huge unnecessary disruption to road users, and I recently learned of the disruption that they are causing to our environment. They are digging up grass verges and not putting them back properly, which means that they cannot be cut, and sometimes they leave equipment around, causing thousands of pounds worth of damage. They are preventing grass verges from being cut right across Swindon, so may we please find time for a debate on the wider issues arising from the activities of cable companies and other utilities?
Mr. Cook: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, as I almost missed the Cabinet meeting because of street works on my way there. Such works not only cause individuals enormous inconvenience, but are a big economic cost to the nation estimated at £2.5 billion a year. We have just taken legal powers for local authorities to enter into contracts and de deadlines with utilities carrying out street works, which provide for fines if the deadlines are not met. I am pleased to say that in the short time since those legal powers have been available, 100 local authorities have said that they intend to use them. I hope that that will result in an improvement, and will reduce disruption to the lives of constituents.
Mr. John Redwood: In view of the big climbdown on disability benefits that the Leader of the House has announced, cannot he see that there must be a ministerial statement to tell us why the Government trust existing but not future disability claimants? Will he give us an assurance that the Prime Minister will from now on visit the Terrace more often, in the hope that the Government's unpopular policies will be modified by such action?
Mr. Cook: I would encourage all Members to visit the Terrace, and I hope to do so when we manage to conclude the pressing business of the Leader of the House over the past two weeks. I stress that the proposal on incapacity benefit is intended not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to distress new claimants by putting them in a state of uncertainty, but to ensure that, if they wish and
414
are able to do so, they can open the door to employment. Those who cannot work and are incapacitated will continue to get benefit and have nothing to fear.
Mr. John Grogan: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 42, on television coverage of the British Lions tour?
[That this House notes that television viewers without access to subscription TV in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be unable to view even highlights of the Rugby Union test series between the British Lions and Australia; regrets the fact that BSkyB was prepared to do a deal involving highlights only with S4C and not the BBC; and urges the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to consider adding future test matches involving the British Lions to category B of the listed events which would mean highlights would be available to a wide audience.]
I am concerned that, although Australian terrestrial television viewers have been able to see live coverage of the opening overs of the Ashes test series in the past couple of hours, terrestrial viewers in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland cannot see even the highlights of the British Lions' games. If there is not time for a debate on this important issue, will my right hon. Friend at least draw the early-day motion to the attention of the Secretary of State?
Mr. Cook: I very much doubt whether a debate in the House would alter the grave situation to which my hon. Friend draws the House's attention. He has made his point, and I hope that it will be registered with the appropriate authorities.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Leader of the House find an early opportunity for a debate on policing in Northern Ireland? He will be aware of the demoralisation of the police force in Northern Ireland, which has been accentuated by the recent discussions between the Government and republicans with a view to making further concessions to them. Such a debate would provide an early opportunity for the Government to set the Royal Ulster Constabulary's mind at rest and to make a statement on the long-term future of the RUC reserve.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter has been much debated in the House. We set up an independent commission to review the RUC. It made its report, and we have acted to implement its recommendations. Those actions were taken to encourage consensus and support for the RUC. I fear that we will have a number of opportunities in the immediate future to return to Northern Irish politics and issues, during which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can make their comments on the police. As he will understand, the current priority of the Northern Ireland Office is to ensure that we cope with the difficult situation regarding the Good Friday agreement.
Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report published by Barnardo's yesterday called, "No son of mine! Children abused through prostitution"? It deals with the hidden problem of boys abused through prostitution. Many of those young people

415
have run away from difficult situations at home or in care. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that important subject?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important and sensitive report on the problem of child prostitution. She will be aware that last year we issued guidelines on the handling of sex prostitution of young people. We stressed that in child prostitution the child should be regarded as the victim and those who exploit child prostitutes as the criminals. It is important that we target those who abuse vulnerable young people, and that we provide every possible opportunity to protect young people from such exploitation, and to be rehabilitated and returned from it when we find them.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement on the alleged dumping of poisonous combination ash at the Pitsea tip? This serious issue came to light in last night's edition of "Newsnight". May we be told whether the ash contains dioxins and other poisonous substances, as has been claimed? May we be told when the ash was first deposited, what controls have been applied since, when concerns were first raised, what investigations have been carried out, when the dumping was stopped, what assessment has been made of the impact on public safety and the environment in the communities of Benfleet and Canvey Island, what is the radius within which the risk might arise, and what action will be taken to remove these dangerous materials?
Mr. Cook: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed when I say that I cannot answer each of his questions in full. I will, however, draw them to the attention of the Minister for the Environment, and encourage him to write fully to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Drew: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the refranchising of the railways, to establish what progress is being made? There is a particular problem with the Wessex franchise, which needs to be resolved quickly. I gather that the Secretary of State will make an announcement on 16 July; it would be very helpful if he also made a statement in the House.
Mr. Cook: I have noted my hon. Friend's comments carefully, and I will draw what he said about the Wessex franchise to my right hon. Friend's attention. I am aware—partly from my constituency work—of the difficulties regarding investment in and development of the service that can arise from uncertainty about the future of franchises, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government understand the importance of making as reasonable progress as possible in providing certainty.
Mr. David Heath: Next week, the House will deal with the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Does the Leader of the House think—particularly in the light of his previous experience—that there is a case for changing the way in which the House considers the ratification of
416
treaties? At present, we can consider only their legislative consequences. Should the House not have an opportunity to debate ratification on a substantive motion, which might give us more democratic legitimacy in the context of matters that are important to the country?
Mr. Cook: That point has been at the heart of the debate about the powers of the House ever since I became a Member of Parliament. We have made some improvements, in that Select Committees can now take more of an interest and more of a scrutinising role in regard to treaties that the Government have undertaken to ratify. I think it important that when legislative change is involved it should be fully debated, as the Nice treaty is being debated on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Gentleman invites me to reflect on the experience that I gained in my last post. I personally would regret it very much if the United Kingdom drifted into the situation in which the United States now finds itself. Treaties negotiated at length by the US Administration, and signed by them, are subsequently repudiated by Congress and Senate. I do not think that that has assisted the standing of the United States in international treaty negotiations, and I would not wish to put a British Prime Minister or Foreign Minister in the same position.
Shona McIsaac: Too many people are losing their homes, having made their mortgage repayments, because of our scandalously unfair and out-of-date leasehold laws. When will the leasehold reform Bill be put before us, so that we can protect and enhance the rights of home owners?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend knows that we committed ourselves to such legislation in the Queen's Speech. With respect, we have worked hard to ensure that we can deal with as many Bills as possible before the recess, but my hon. Friend will have to wait for this one until after it. I note what she has said about its being a priority, as, I am sure, has my noble Friend Lady Scotland, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.
Mr. John Hayes: Could the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the provision of beta interferon? As he will know, the issue affects many of my constituents and those of other Members. I believe that when the drug would have an efficacious effect for multiple sclerosis it should be prescribed, and I know that many others agree. The Prime Minister was asked about the matter on three occasions. Each time, his answer was characterised by spin and prevarication. Is it not now time for action? Should not a statement be made in the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Cook: I recall answering this question last week, or the week before.
Mr. John Bercow: Mine.
Mr. Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirms my memory, although it unaccountably slipped my mind that he had asked the question.
I do not think that even the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would say that my reply was characterised by spin. The fact is that the

417
National Institute for Clinical Excellence rejected the view that the drug could be provided on the basis of clinical excellence and value for money. Essentially, NICE judges whether the health service should provide the drug, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
In the past 50 minutes, there have been seven different requests for oral statements, which underlines the point that I made earlier: at some point, we have to strike a balance between oral statements and the business of the House.
Mr. David Chaytor: Two weeks ago, the Government announced a comprehensive review of energy policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is crucial to the future competitiveness of the economy and to the quality of the environment? Given that in the previous Parliament not a single debate, as I recall, was dedicated to energy policy. and given that there is a growing and urgent public debate about the future of nuclear energy, the need for investment in renewables and the Department of Trade and Industry's attitude to both forms of energy, does he agree that there should be a debate in Government time before the performance and innovation unit completes its report on energy policy?
Mr. Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the energy review and its fundamental significance to both our industrial strength and our environmental health. I would be surprised if the review could be concluded and announced without giving the House a full opportunity to consider it, but I would take a bit of persuading that the right time to debate it was before the review, rather than after.
Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House has already been questioned on the subject of Marconi and spoken about his experiences with Motorola, but is not a pattern developing: international companies are making more job cuts in the United Kingdom than in continental Europe and elsewhere? Is that not a reflection of our fall in the world competitiveness league from ninth to 19th? May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how she
418
intends to redress that balance and to return us to the position that we enjoyed in 1997, when we were in ninth, not 19th, place?
Mr. Cook: Those factors played no part in the decision of Motorola to locate in Germany. It did so because it had suffered large tax losses in Germany, which it wished to write off against future profits. That was its sole reason for going to Germany. Personally, I have always deprecated the fact that it took a decision affecting my constituents for reasons of tax management.
On Marconi, as far as I am aware, we do not yet know how the job cuts will be distributed, but the company has committed itself to shedding 4,000 jobs throughout the world, not within the UK.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Sadly, the Prime Minister's home straight appears to be stretching out without apparent end. Some estimates suggest that foot and mouth has cost the country £20 billion. As problems rise in the rural economy, the pressure for a full public inquiry mounts inexorably. Why are the Government so pig-headed about that? Why is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs not coming here next week to announce a full impartial inquiry, under the chairmanship of an independent judge?
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State did come here only the other week and she made a full statement on foot and mouth. In the course of that, she made it clear that there would have to be an inquiry and that its terms would be announced at the end of the outbreak. That position is fully shared by many people in the industry, including the vets. When the foot and mouth outbreak is over, that will be the time to ensure that we carry out a full inquiry.
Mr. Bercow: Given the welcome advances in medical science and the fact that, whenever a new cure is devised, a new queue is necessarily created, may we please have an urgent debate on the lessons that we can learn from our continental neighbours about the use of private resources to complement those of the public sector, in ensuring that we turn care from a word into a deed?
Mr. Cook: I very much welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is willing to learn lessons from our European partners—a breakthrough on which we must try to build. I should remind him and other Members that our continental partners also make a heavy investment in public health provision. We must match that, as well as anything that we do in the private sector.

Speaker's Statement.
Mr. Speaker: We have a complicated day's business before us, so before calling the Minister to move the motion on the business of the House it may be helpful if I indicate how I propose to proceed—assuming, of course, that the motion is agreed to. I propose that motions Nos. 2 to 6, on the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body and related issues, should be debated together.
At 4 o'clock, the question will be put on each motion in turn. Where I have selected an amendment to a motion, and the hon. Member proposing it wishes to press it to a vote, the House will vote first on the amendment and then on the motion, amended or not. A list of the selected amendments is available in the No Lobby and the Vote Office, in the normal way.
Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point order, Mr. Speaker, about today's Order Paper. On looking at it this morning, I expected to see my name on page 147 next to amendment (e) to the motion on the additional costs allowance, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), as I had agreed that it be added to the list of Members. It was not there. Instead, my name has been attributed to amendment (a) to the motion on pensions, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Under no circumstances did I ask for my name to be added to that list. I want to make it clear that there is a mistake on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that, because of a printing error, a number of Members' names were wrongly printed in support of Mr. Butterfill's amendment to motion No. 4, on parliamentary pensions. Those names should have been printed in support of Mr. Betts' amendment (e) to motion No. 2 on Members' allowances, insurance, and so on. The Table Office has copies of the corrected list.
Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not of course in any way consider questioning your selection of amendments, but in noting that two substantive amendments that I tabled were not selected, would it be sensible of me to assume that that might be because the issues with which they deal are expected to be covered by the Leader of the House in his opening remarks on the motion?
Mr. Speaker: That remains to be seen. The hon. Gentleman had best not assume anything—the amendments have not been selected.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance. My name appears next to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), in support of amendment (a) to motion No. 2. Even though the amendment has not been selected, will there be any opportunity to press the matter to which it relates to a Division this afternoon?
Mr. Speaker: No.

Business of the House
1.28 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting—
(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to—

(a) recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body and related issues not later than Four o'clock; and

(b) Select Committees and European Standing Committees not later than Seven o'clock; and

proceedings on the Motions referred to in sub-paragraph (b) above may be concluded, though opposed, after Seven o'clock.
(2) the Questions referred to in paragraph (1) shall include the questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.
I shall be very brief as I do not wish to reduce the time available for debate on the important substantive business before the House.
The motion on the Order Paper divides the day between two important matters. The time allocated should enable the House to give proper consideration to the motions. Both debates affect the working of the House and its Members. These are important debates, and they are being held in Government time. The business motion ensures that the House will resolve the issues today, so that any changes accepted by the House can be implemented quickly.
This is the earliest opportunity since the election for the debate on the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendations. Members have had the opportunity to study the SSRB report and the motions have been carefully prepared. Members have had the opportunity to study them and—as some have—to table amendments to them. This is a cross-party issue which affects not just Members but our staff, and therefore the efficient working of the House.
The further proposals regarding Select Committees reflect recent machinery of government changes, as well as extending new powers to the Committees. They pave the way for the Select Committees to be set up and to be up and running before the House rises for the summer recess. That will be the shortest period after an election in which the Committees have been established since the Select Committee system began.
I hope that hon. Members will now allow both debates to commence. I commend the motion to the House.
1.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: For future reference, given the number of amendments that have been tabled by Back Benchers, and selected by you, Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if such important matters were given more than just two and a half hours' debate on the Floor of the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Members' Allowances, Insurance &c.
[Relevant documents: Review Body on Senior Salaries, Report No. 47, Review of Parliamentary Pension Scheme, Cm 4996; Review Body on Senior Salaries, Report No. 48, Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances, Cm 4997–I; Review Body on Senior Salaries, Report No. 48, Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances—Volume 2: Independent study on pay and allowances, Cm 4997–II; The Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) (Pension Sharing) Regulations 2001; The Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2001; The Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 2001; Second Report from the Information Committee, Session 1999–2000, on Information Technology Provision for Members, HC 758.]
1.31 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House—

(1) Provision should be made, with effect from 5th July 2001, to implement Chapter 3 of the report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm 4997–1) a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, to establish a General Services Budget under the Members' Vote, and with regard to related matters;

(2) These provisions should be applied as follows (subject to transitional arrangements under (5) and (6) below, and any directions which may from time to time be given by Mr. Speaker with regard to their application):

(a) the salaries of staff employed by Members to help them in their duties as Members of Parliament, and pensions contributions equivalent to ten per cent. of each employee's salary, should be paid centrally by the Department of Finance and Administration;

(b) all such staff who become employed by a Member should be employed on pay rates to be linked to job descriptions and standard contracts prepared by the Department of Finance and Administration;

(c) the total costs of employing such staff, attributable to a particular Member, excluding the pension contribution outlined in (a) above should be limited to £60,000 a year (£70,000 a year where a Member represents a London constituency) these figures to be uprated annually to reflect changes in pay levels for equivalent jobs outside the House.

(d) a new provision called an Incidental Expenses Provision should be established (at a rate of £14,000 per year for each Member, and (prated annually in line with the Retail Prices Index), to meet any other expenditure which Members may incur wholly necessarily and exclusively in discharging their duties as Members.

(e) specific financial provisions should be made for the supply and maintenance of a standard package of information technology equipment and services for each Member to be used exclusively in discharging their duties as Members; and

(f) the Office Costs Allowance should be abolished after a transitional period ending on 31st March 2003.

Members' Allowances, Insurance &c.

  General Services Budget
  (3) Central funding by way of a General Services Budget should provide for:

  (a) relevant training of Members and Members' staff in connection with their parliamentary duties;

  (b) any appropriate insurance provision;

  422

  (c) any additional reimbursement of exceptional expenses incurred by Members who have constituencies with particular problems;

  (d) reasonable adjustments to the working conditions and equipment of Members with particular needs because of disability, and for necessary additional continuing costs;

  (e) any additional payments to Members in respect of safety precautions to safeguard their staff, their office equipment and themselves, where such safety precautions have been recommended by the police; and

  (f) other appropriate expenditure within the ambit of the Vote, under the authority of the Speaker.

  Advisory Panel
  (4)—

  (1) It should be the responsibility of a Panel appointed by Mr. Speaker to advise him on:

  (i) directions he may give as to the application of the provisions of this Resolution under paragraphs (2) and (3) above;

  (ii) his authorisation of expenditure not otherwise specified in this Resolution but within the ambit of the Vote, pursuant to paragraph (3)(f) thereof; and

  (iii) the application of the provisions of this Resolution to individual cases of difficulty.

  (2) The Panel should advise Mr. Speaker and the Leader of the House on the potential development of the arrangements made by or under the Resolutions in force from time to time regarding Members' allowances &c.

  Transitional Provisions
  (5) The following provisions should be made regarding the allowances of Members who, having sat in the previous Parliament, are returned to the present Parliament (subject to directions which may be given from time to time by Mr. Speaker with regard to application):

  (a) Members may, whether or not they take advantage of central Information Technology provision, opt to retain their entitlement to the Office Costs Allowance, payable at the level and subject to provisions for uprating in force at 1st April 2001;

  (b) Any reasonable contractual commitments entered into by Members who transfer to the new provisions in respect of staff and IT should be honoured through central funding until they can reasonably be terminated;

  But these provisions should cease to have effect from 1st April 2003.
  (6) Transitional provisions for all Members transferring to the new arrangements in 2001–02 should be determined by Mr. Speaker, having taken advice where appropriate from the Panel set up under paragraph (4) of this Resolution.

  Winding Up Allowance
  (7) In relation to the Winding Up Allowance, Subsection (3) of Part E of the Resolution of 13th July 1994 shall apply to Members who benefit from the provisions of paragraphs 2(a) to 2(d) of this Resolution as if for the words 'office costs allowance' there were substituted the words 'sum of the incidental Expenses Provision and the relevant staff employment cost limit in force at the time they ceased to be a Member'.

  Members with Disabilities
  (8) When provision is made in respect of any Members in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (3)(d) of this Resolution, any Resolution of this House entitling that Member to claim a multiple of the Office Costs Allowance shall cease to have effect.
  As Amendments to Mr. Robin Cook's Motion (Members' Allowances, Insurance &c.):
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:

  Member's Pay (Expression of Opinion)
  That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should he made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

  (1) In respect of service in the period starting with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st March 2002 the salary of a Member shall be increased by £2,000 per annum.

  (2) That salary shall be increased by a further £2,000 per annum from 1st April 2002.

  (3) The increases referred to above shall be additional to any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996.

  Parliamentary Pensions
  That this House endorses the proposals for changes to the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme to give effect to recommendations 1, 3, 5, and 7 contained in the SSRB Report on the Scheme laid on 16th March 2001 and calls on the Trustees of the Scheme to consider how best to implement recommendation 2 but at no additional cost to the Exchequer and to consider recommendations 4, 6 and 8.
  And that this House further endorses the proposals for changes in this scheme and the avc scheme pursuant to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 in relation to pension sharing on divorce.

  Members' Insurance: Reimbursement of Costs Incurred by the Right Honourable Member for Blackburn
  That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made to reimburse the Right honourable Member for Blackburn for reasonable legal expenditure including damages arising in consequence of an action brought against him alleging vicarious liability for an act of negligence committed in the course of his duties as a Member of this House.

  Members' Pay (Money Resolution)
  That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

  (1) In respect of service in the period starting with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st March 2002 the salary of a Member shall be increased by £2,000 per annum.

  (2) That salary shall be increased by a further £2,000 per annum from 1st April 2002.

  (3) The increases referred to above shall be additional to any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996.

  Mr. Cook: The motions are to give effect to the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on Members' pay, pensions and office costs allowance. They neither add to nor subtract in any substantial way from the totality of the SSRB recommendations. I have followed the principle that the Government should put before the House all the recommendations as proposed by the SSRB in order that the House itself can make a judgment on them. The large number of amendments tabled clearly demonstrates that the House is keenly interested in the matter and wants to come to a judgment on the recommendations.
  It is right that our salaries should be assessed independently. It must also be right that the independent assessment should generally be accepted by the House. The proposed increase is necessary to restore parity with the other posts in the public sector adopted in 1996 as the
  424
  comparators to ours: a director of a district general hospital, a head teacher of a secondary school or a chief superintendent of police.
  The proposed increase is wholly in line with the general principle set out by the previous Government, and entirely shared by this Government, that the pay of Members of Parliament should not be so high as to become the primary attraction of the job, nor so low as to deter suitable candidates from standing for election. I do not think that we impress the public if we set too low a value on our own worth. I would not go quite so far as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)'s famous observation that the
  "post of MP attracts the average pay of a saxophonist with the job security of a football manager",
  but I do believe that we should not sell ourselves too short. If we believe that our work here is important, we should not shrink from putting a proper value on it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has tabled an amendment proposing that our annual uprating be tied to the increases recommended for nurses, teachers and doctors. Since 1996, our salaries have been uprated in parallel with pay in the senior civil service. Had his formula applied since 1996, our current pay would be almost £2,000 a year higher. I am not sure whether it was his intention to secure an even higher rate of pay for Members of Parliament, and if it was not, he may wish to reconsider the terms of his amendment.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: My aim was to relate our pay to professions that are meaningful to our constituents. Had my formula applied before July 1996, when we awarded ourselves an outrageous 26 per cent. increase, our pay would now be significantly lower.
  Mr. Cook: The 1996 increase was the result of an independent assessment and reflected the fact that there had been no annual uprating by formula in the years preceding it. If my hon. Friend's intention is that we should be paid at the same rate as those in professions with which the public can identify, I am pleased to assure him that the logical step is to support the motion, which will give us precisely the 19 per cent. increase that nurses, teachers and doctors have enjoyed since 1996.
  I turn now to parliamentary pensions, on which the SSRB made eight recommendations. The motion before the House would implement all the recommendations on which a decision of the House is now possible, and it invites the trustees of the pension fund to consider the remaining matters on which further work is required. That further work will include consideration of recommendation 8, which covers the question of pensions for unmarried partners surviving Members of Parliament and to which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has tabled an amendment.
  I should say a word about the second recommendation of the SSRB, which proposed that we drop the provision in the pension scheme that the pension of widows or widowers is withdrawn in the event of their remarriage. The House will be aware that the Government announced in March that they could not accept that recommendation. In the light of representations that I have received, we have looked at the matter again.

  425
  Personally, I find the provision to withdraw pension from widows and widowers who remarry old fashioned, to put it mildly. The motion before the House therefore invites the trustees to consider making changes in line with the recommendation, but at no cost to the Treasury.
  As I am about to turn to one of the more controversial issues, may I, lest I lose my audience, first invite consensus from across the House in paying tribute to the trustees of our pension fund? All hon. Members owe a debt of gratitude to those of our number who are willing to serve as trustees. Under the leadership of John MacGregor, they have taken major steps to modernise the scheme in line with good practice, and have put it under proper professional management. I am pleased to report that the fund has been managed with a satisfactory surplus.
  In their submission to the SSRB, the trustees proposed that the accrual rate should cut from one fiftieth to one fortieth of the annual salary. I understand the reasoning that led them to propose a faster rate of accrual in the light of the unpredictability of a parliamentary career. At the present rate of accrual, fewer than 10 per cent. of hon. Members make it to the maximum pension before they retire from the House.
  Nevertheless, having considered the proposal, the SSRB explicitly rejected the submission by the trustees. In its report, it submits that the current accrual rate of one fiftieth of annual salary is already better than comparable private sector schemes, and significantly better than the overwhelming majority of public sector schemes, in which an accrual rate of better than one sixtieth is an exception.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend has already noted that the average career expectancy of Members of Parliament is about nine and a half years, so does he agree that the comparison with groups in the private or public sectors is therefore invalid?
  Mr. Cook: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is very close to the one that I made earlier to the House. At this point, I should declare an interest as, in the course of this Parliament, I will achieve qualification for the maximum pension.
  Mr. John Bercow: No.
  Mr. Cook: Indeed I will and the fact unfortunately confirms the suggestion that I am nearing my obituary. However, I shall be one of only 8 per cent. of hon. Members who make it to that qualification. I have achieved it only because I have been blessed with constituents of judicious judgment. That is not the experience of every Member of the House.
  The SSRB points out, however, that other profession also suffer from unpredictability and uncertainty. In the modern age, it felt unable to take that fact into account.
  Mr. Bill Etherington: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will give way on this occasion, but I have a number of matters to deal with.
  Mr. Etherington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the accrual rate for serving Members of Parliament in the Republic of Ireland is one fortieth of annual salary?
  Mr. Cook: I take note of w hat my hon. Friend has said, but I am not sure that I necessarily wish to accept the
  426
  principle that we should read across to our own package any particular element of the package in other Parliaments. If we did, we might well find ourselves to be disadvantaged in other respects.
  As I said, it is for the House to decide whether to accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point? I am one of the pension fund trustees.
  Mr. Cook: I shall certainly give way to one of the trustees, but then I must conclude on pensions.
  Mr. Martlew: The House passed a similar amendment in 1980 but, on that occasion, the Government came back and blocked it. What are the Government's intentions if the House passes the amendment today?
  Mr. Cook: This is a matter for the House to decide, and the House's decision will be one that I personally would take as binding on me as Leader of the House. I would not argue with that judgment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But—[Laughter]—since I have been generous in giving that assurance to the House as Leader, I would ask the House to consider the advice that I am about to offer it.
  We would ask hon. Members, before taking their decision, to reflect on whether Members of Parliament can accept an even wider gap than already exists in the rate of accrual between our pension scheme and the schemes of those who work in our hospitals, schools and local authorities. My colleagues at the Treasury attach particular weight to the public spending consequences if the accrual rate in the amendment were to become general across the public sector.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Could I say first that although the amendment stands in my name, it does so on behalf of all the trustees? Our soon to be ennobled Friend, Mr. MacGregor, is not able to attach his name, although he remains chairman of the trustees. All the other trustees of the fund support the amendment. As I wish to show later in the debate, ours is actually the meanest accrual rate of any assembly anywhere in the western world.
  Mr. Cook: I have noted that the trustees have all signed the amendment and that they made a submission to the SSRB precisely in the terms of the amendment. I spoke yesterday with John MacGregor and it is only fair to report to the House that he fully shares the views expressed in the amendment.
  Nevertheless, the fact remains that when that submission was put to the SSRB, it was not persuaded by the proposal and did not accept the basis of the argument put forward. The SSRB drew particular attention, as my right hon. Friends at the Treasury have done vigorously, to the fact that that would create a quite remarkable difference between our pension scheme and others in the public sector. Hon. Members have to reflect on whether they are willing to contemplate the public spending consequences of making a comparable change in those schemes.

  427
  There is no report before the House on the additional costs allowance. However, I recognise the widespread feeling among Members that the present allowance does not reflect the current realities of the London housing market. This is a particular problem for new Members seeking accommodation for the first time at current rates.
  An amendment has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), and many, many other Members. If I understood the point of order earlier, many other Members who have not yet got their name on to the Order Paper also support it. This, again, is a House of Commons matter on which the House must make its own decision. However, the terms of the amendment would result in a very large increase indeed and would produce a new ceiling of £19,300, an increase of 42 per cent.
  I fully understand why some Members demand parity with the new overnight allowance recommended for the House of Lords and define parity as 144 nights at £120. However, under the amendment as drafted, we would end up with £2,000 more a year than such parity with the House of Lords allowance would afford. This, I suspect, would be challenging to explain to Members of the House of Lords, let alone to justify to members of the public. But as I said, I recognise that there is a problem with the additional costs allowance. For some years, it has been uprated only in line with the retail prices index, while the London housing market has tended to uprate itself faster than RPI.
  Mr. Clive Betts: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the calculations for the last financial year, which show, essentially, that the House of Lords overnight allowance was £84. If one divided the additional costs allowance by the number of days Parliament sat, it came to about £83. Proposing the same proportionate increase would mean that when the total additional costs allowance is divided by the number of days Parliament sits, it comes out at the same figure.
  Page 44 of the second volume of the SSRB report states that three-star hotel accommodation has been the traditional way of judging both the overnight allowance for the Lords and the ACA for the Commons. There is the same basis for both schemes, but one is to get an increase this time while the other does not.
  Mr. Cook: The issue of principle does not turn the calculation, but the figure I have just mentioned would be the consequence of my hon. Friend's amendment. We would end up with an additional costs allowance of £19,300, which is well above what would be required to meet 144 nights at the overnight allowance of £120 for Members of the House of Lords.
  I understand the concern that lies behind my hon. Friend's amendment. I personally would regard it as unfortunate if the House were to depart from the principle that, before increasing our pay or personal allowances, we should first invite assessment by the independent review body. I give an undertaking to the House that, in the event of Members rejecting this amendment, the Government will refer the issue of the additional costs allowance to the SSRB and will invite it to report on an appropriate revised ceiling, as a matter of urgency. That will give us
  428
  a revised ceiling that will reflect reality and—as a result of independent assessment—will also be one that we can defend.
  I turn now to the resolution on Members' allowances and insurance. Let me dispose first of the provision for appropriate insurance. It is a matter of regret that we live in an age which is increasingly litigious, and I have to report that Members of Parliament also are victims of the increasing tendency to sue. Last year, the issue came before the House as the result of an action for defamation brought against an Opposition Member. The House then resolved to make general provision for insurance against action for defamation and to cover the Member for his costs.
  This year, the matter comes before the House again because of a legal action claiming negligence against my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I have set out some of the facts of that case in a written answer, and as a legal settlement of the action has yet to be reached, the House will understand if I cannot enlarge on that.
  In any case, the particular facts of the case are not the key issue. The central point is that what has happened to my right hon. Friend could have happened to many Members of the House. We all prize the hard work of our constituency staff, but with the best will in the world they can make mistakes under pressure. In today's litigious world we all face the risk of being sued for their mistakes. In most other professions, insurance cover against such a legal risk is routine and Members of Parliament should have the same protection.
  The resolution before the House will ensure that all Members are provided with insurance cover against claims for negligence, as well as claims for defamation. That will provide future cover for any Members who find themselves in the same position as my right hon. Friend. It would be unfair to leave my right hon. Friend with any liability that arose from the conduct of his constituency duties, and the separate resolution compensates him for any reasonable costs of the present action. I hope that this resolution will receive all-party support in the same spirit as the resolution compensating the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) last year.
  I turn now to the office costs allowance, on which the SSRB proposed sweeping changes. At the outset, I would ask the House to recognise that those changes are so sweeping that—unavoidably—issues will arise in the light of experience that will require adjustment. Indeed, some of the amendments on the Order Paper already highlight problems on which the SSRB report does not offer specific guidance. A good case in point is the amendment from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on the use of the staff element to pay for research on a consultancy basis.
  We therefore believe that it will be essential to provide more flexibility in the system in order that modest adjustments can be made without the cumbersome procedure of a further review by the SSRB. The resolution therefore proposes that there should be a Speaker's advisory panel to supervise the transition and to advise on the implementation of the new system. The panel will combine cross-party membership with senior officials who can advise on the practical implications of our conclusions.

  429
  The resolution also gives authority to the Speaker to make directions as necessary, and those will, of course, be published for Members of the House. That will assist the authorities in responding to the detailed problems that will inevitably occur in phasing in such a radically different system, and in resolving individual cases of difficulty.
  The new system represents a radical overhaul of the way in which we fund support for Members in pursuit of their constituency and parliamentary duties. Although it has been proposed by the SSRB, it follows from extensive evidence from Members of the House, and remedies much of the frustration that Members have expressed with the present system.
  The new package gives three major benefits. First, Members' staff will be put on a consistent and fair salary structure for the first time since Members started to hire staff.
  Secondly, all Members will have access to a standard package of IT equipment that will guarantee them access to the latest technology in a compatible format.
  Finally, the overall effect of the package will be a substantial increase in the resources available to Members.
  Michael Fabricant: While he is on the subject of IT equipment, will the Leader of the House give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall come to that later, and I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman then.
  The financial equivalent of the new package will total about £80,000 for most Members.
  The previous system needed fundamental reform. It was hard to justify a system which led some Members with heavy case loads to rely on volunteers and foreign interns because they could not afford enough permanent staff. It was even harder to justify a system that obliged a number of Members to dig into their own pockets to make up the pay of their staff. Nor can we justify trading on the high motivation of our staff by paying them at a lower rate.
  I am well aware that many Members, particularly new Members, face pressing decisions on the recruitment of staff. I have therefore tabled this resolution, and the other resolutions before the House, to have immediate effect. The result is that, from today, Members will be entitled to a pro rata share of the new annual allowances for staff pay.
  The resolution puts before the House the new ceilings proposed by the SSRB—an annual ceiling of up to £70,000 for Members with a London constituency, and £60,000 for Members with a constituency anywhere else. The differential is the sing le issue on which I have received most representations from hon. Members, and I am not in the least surprised that it has attracted an amendment. The Government are not offering any advice to the House in respect of the amendments to the resolution that have been tabled; they are matters for House to resolve.
  It is plainly right that the ceiling for London Members should reflect the higher staff costs that they must necessarily pay in the London labour market. However, many Members with constituencies outside London also
  430
  employ staff at Westminster. It is a fact of geography that Westminster is in inner London, and all members of staff employed at Westminster will be paid at the same higher London rate, whatever the constituency of their employer. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) therefore offers a pro rata increase in the ceiling for Members from outside London who employ staff at Westminster.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House comment on the two amendments that I tabled? They have not been selected for debate, but the right hon. Gentleman may be able to satisfy the House on their subject matter.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Leader of the House will not comment on amendments that have not been selected.
  Mr. Cook: I may be able to help the House—
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I understood that, although amendments that have not been selected cannot be pressed to a Division, they can be debated.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman changes his wording and talks about the substance of the matter, that might be better.
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Duncan: Will the Leader of the House give way so that I can ask him to comment on an issue that has arisen in the midst of the debate? The SSRB suggests a ceiling of £60,000, but it would appear that its arithmetic relates to the headline salaries, which when added together already reach that ceiling. National insurance contributions do not appear to be included. Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore consider allowing those contributions to be paid centrally?
  Secondly, given that the proposals may involve a number of Members shifting some of their staff and some of the functions of their staff from Westminster to their constituency, it is inevitable that some people may be made redundant. For the sake of our staff—not for us—will the right hon. Gentleman therefore contemplate making statutory redundancy pay provided for centrally?
  Mr. Cook: I may not be able to help the hon. Gentleman on his first point, but I can clarify matters. It is important that right hon. and hon. Members should understand what is proposed in the tables of the Senior Salaries Review Body's report. It sets out staff pay rates and makes it quite explicit that the employer's national insurance contribution should also fall to be paid out of the overall ceiling—in other words, the £60,000 for Members outside London and £70,000 for Members inside London must also provide the payment for national insurance contributions by employers. It is important for right hon. and hon. Members to reflect on this point. That 10 per cent. contribution can make quite a significant difference to the final year outturn, as I know to my cost from previous experience.

  431
  On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the standard position is quite clear and does not change with the SSRB report, as far as I understand it. If staff are faced with redundancy as a result of their Member losing his or her seat, redundancy payments will be met. If they are made redundant as a result of the Member restructuring the office—for example, moving it from the constituency to Westminster—that cost falls to be met out of the allowances.
  I appreciate that, in phasing in the new system, there will be particular cases to consider. That is why we have taken the power, through the Speaker's advisory panel, to make sure that we can be flexible, and that where there are bona fide cases, we can respond to individual difficulties. In addition, I stress that there is a transitional period. Until April 2003, right hon. and hon. Members can continue with the present arrangement before transferring, and that should help to ease some of the transition problems.
  I should like to move on from the ceilings to the new arrangements for incidental expenses.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend give way before he moves on?
  Mr. Cook: Of course.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It would help the House if he clarified how staff salaries can be protected in the future. We know what is on offer as of today, but can my right hon. Friend assure us that staff salaries will be protected throughout this Parliament and into the future?
  Mr. Cook: I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend an assurance if he is referring to future uprating. That lies in the hands of Hay Management Consultants, the SSRB and the authorities. However, it is not our intention to allow Members' staff to suffer. Indeed, my overall impression from the proposals is that the majority of staff will welcome the proposals and package, and will also, in many cases, benefit from the rates of pay set out in the appendix.
  If my hon. Friend means by his question to ensure that Members' staff will not face a decrease in pay, I draw his attention to that part of the SSRB report in which the point is made that some Members' staff may have a higher rate of pay at present than allowed for in the appendix. In such circumstances, the SSRB recommended that their pay should be frozen until such time as the pay levels caught up.
  As I stressed earlier, this is a radically different system. On balance, it will be better for Members and for their staff. There will be some awkward and difficult cases, which is why it is important that we provide ourselves with some flexibility to respond to individual circumstances.
  432
  I was about to turn to the incidental expenses allowance.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House give way?
  Mr. Cook: This must be the last time or else we will never finish, and I am conscious that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.
  Sir Michael Spicer: If salaries are to be decreased and there is a review clause in the contract, what will happen to the contract?
  Mr. Cook: The SSRB report contains a specific proposal that where there is any legal contractual responsibility, the Fees Office should be able to assist with it. However, I stress that I do not envisage the outcome of these changes to be that Members' staff face a decrease in pay. At most, there may be a necessary period of transition in which they wait until the pay scales catch up. For most Members' staff the rates set out will represent an increase, not a decrease.
  I must make progress if the House is to debate these motions. The incidental expenses allowance is set by the SSRB at £14,000. "Incidental" possibly does not do justice to the essential items which this budget must cover, including office rent and rates. The figure proposed by the SSRB incorporates an estimate of constituency spending as assessed by Hay Management Consultants. However, many Members, and if I am frank, my own constituency staff, have questioned whether this figure adequately provides for all the items that Members may have to meet in the course of a full and unpredictable financial year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush has an amendment to the ceiling on incidental expenses. It is for Members to reach their own judgment on that amendment in the light of their own practical experience of running constituency offices.
  One problem of the previous system, which Members will know from practical experience, was that a capital purchase could knock a big hole in that year's allowance. One major gain from the new package is that we will never again have to weigh the necessity of purchasing a new computer against the amount that would be left over for staff pay. The new package responds to frequent representations by Members that we should move to centrally funded and managed procurement of IT equipment. Under the terms of the resolution—
  Mr. Roger Gale: Will the Leader of the House give way?
  Mr. Cook: I have already given a commitment to make progress.
  Under the terms of the resolution every Member will be entitled to three personal computers, one laptop and two combined printer/scanner/copier/fax machines.
  Michael Fabricant: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the IT equipment will at all times be owned by the House of Commons authorities? He will be aware that at the time of the dissolution of Parliament for a general election former Members are not allowed access to House facilities. Does that mean that desktop

  433
  computers in one's constituency, and possibly one's laptop allocated by the House of Commons authority under the scheme would be repossessed for the duration of the general election, in which case we would have to buy ourselves a separate machine?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is correct on his first point: the equipment, having been purchased by the House, will belong to the House and not to individual Members. However, it will be at the disposal of the individual Member until the end of any general election. I stress that it is part of the provision that it should be used only for parliamentary functions, not party political purposes. While it may be right that a Member's staff should continue to deal with constituency correspondence during an election, equipment should not be used for election purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see that all Members of the House are nodding sagely in agreement.
  These items will be provided centrally by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, which will also provide free installation at Westminster or in the constituency, free training on the equipment and free maintenance.
  Mr. Peter Luff rose—
  Mr. Cook: I will give way, but this must be the last time because I have already taken up one fifth of the time available for debate.
  Mr. Luff: It is my understanding that the House authorities have anticipated the passage of this motion in relation to procurement and have already entered into a contract with Compaq. The Leader of the House knows that I have in my constituency a major computer manufacturer, evesham.com, which makes the Vale range of computers. It was excluded from bidding for the contract. Indeed, I think that ell other manufacturers were also excluded. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Government Members do not think that public procurement should be conducted openly. It should be, as an amendment on the Order Paper suggests. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment that next firm there will be a full, open advertisement for this procurement process and that all manufacturers will be able to bid for the right to supply the House?
  Mr. Cook: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that his constituents have heard it also. I assure the House that the arrangement has been made through standard public procurement rules, albeit by a process of negotiation, not necessarily open tender. If in future a better package becomes available, it must be considered. That stands to reason.
  I commend the Fees Office and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate on the work that they have already done to ensure that we can implement the plans once we have taken a decision. We are facing a massive new logistical exercise which will require the installation of possibly 4,000 items of kit in more than 600 locations. Hon. Members will be able to work out for themselves that that will not happen instantaneously, so I hope that the whole House will understand if we give preference to new Members who have come into the House with no office equipment.
  434
  Before concluding, may I say that I would regard it as wholly unfair if tomorrow the increases in our office costs were written up as some kind of perk? No other profession, even including—dare I say it?—newspaper editors would expect the reasonable costs of a secretary and a word processor to be treated as if they were part of their personal remuneration. Nor should MPs. Our staff are there not as a perk to us, but as a service to our constituents. We will be better able to provide that service to our constituents as a result of the proposals of the SSRB.
  Although Members may differ from the review body on a number of points of detail, I hope that, in the following debate, we shall not let that obscure the broad welcome for the major improvements of the new package. It represents a radical reform of the way in which our offices are supported. It will bring our offices up to date in access to modern technology. Furthermore, it will ensure that the staff who work hard for us and for our constituencies will get a fair rate for the job. The overhaul is long overdue and I commend it to the House.
  2.6 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall try not to detain the House unnecessarily, as the matter is one for the House and Back Benchers have tabled amendments to which they want to speak. However, it is important that I raise at the beginning of the debate the points to which I want the Leader of the House to respond at its conclusion, so that we have a record of answers on some unclear issues.
  In relation to the ring-fenced budget for staff employment, the Leader of the House referred to appendix E in the SSRB report. Paragraph 3.12 of the report describes that appendix as "a possible guide". Nothing in the motion suggests that the Government have adopted the guide printed in appendix E. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the pay rates attached to the job descriptions in the appendix are in fact the rates that the Government are recommending in the ring-fenced budgets of £60,000 and £70,000? If they are, the sums do not add up.
  Let us examine the recommended pay scales together with the review body's statement that such a level of staff remuneration would enable an MP to employ up to the equivalent of three full-time staff, who I accept may not all be London based. When the employer's national insurance contribution of 10 per cent. is subtracted from £60,000 gross, we are left with £54,000 net, which means that there is no way that a Member could employ two senior and one junior full-time members of staff as the report recommends. That is why I, like the Members who have tabled amendments, press the Leader of the House seriously to consider meeting centrally the deduction of £6,000 for the employer's national insurance contribution. If that is not done, the figures will not add up. I should be happy to go through the sums with the House, but if Members have a copy of the report, they will be able to see for themselves.
  I refer the Leader of the House to changes made to the arrangements in the Scottish Parliament last month whereby employers' national insurance contributions are

  435
  met centrally for staff employed by Members of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to follow that precedent.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the issue is complicated by the use of median rates, which represent the middle of the band? Some hon. Members have staff of long standing who have been in the House for many years, and they will be at the higher rates of pay, especially if the Member has been here for a long time, so the adding up becomes even worse at the higher end of the band. Furthermore, the rates of pay were assessed in October 2000, so a year will have passed by the time they are implemented, and they are out of date already.
  Mrs. Browning: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I want to pick up the issue that he has just raised, to which the Leader of the House referred in respect of existing contracts that are well above the rates recommended in appendix E. Although the Leader of the House rightly said that transitional arrangements would be available, I am not sure about the suggestion that, under an existing contract of employment, it would be possible to demand that staff accept a pay freeze until the rates equalise. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is sure about that either and if he is not, we need to take specific legal advice. An employer may not be able to honour annual increments as outlined in contracts of employment because of financial constraints, but I am not sure whether we can legally demand a pay freeze on existing contracts. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reassure the House that legal advice is being sought from employment lawyers on that very important point.
  In section 3.16, the report suggests that Members could also make ad hoc payments to cover research and staff absences from the gross figures of £60,000 and £70,000. Many Members use secretarial bureaux from time to time and have an ad hoc input from data processors, and even more pressure is put on the gross figure when that is taken into account. I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider whether we should have to accommodate the 10 per cent. employer's national insurance contribution in the gross figure.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I have been trying to follow the hon. Lady's figures, and I am a little puzzled by her statement that the review body's report does not envisage staffing arrangements that can be included in the £60,000 sum. In section 5.8 on page 29 of volume 2, the review body offers four different arrangements, all of which it suggests would be suitable.
  Mrs. Browning: I was referring to the appendix that the Leader of the House mentioned. I assumed that it was appendix E, which shows the Hay scale—six different job descriptions with separate London and regional rates. The SSRB recommends that a Member should be able to employ three full-time equivalent staff—two at a senior level and one at a more junior level.
  Let me use the inner London scales to make my point. The appendix suggests that it would cost £28,500 and £27,000 respectively to employ two people, one at the executive secretary/PA rate and a one at the research
  436
  assistant or constituency assistant rate, which are not the very highest rates. In other words, it would cost £55,500 to employ just those two people. That does not leave room for a full-time equivalent post, even at the bottom of the regional rate—a constituency assistant with a recommended salary of £12,500 on that scale. That is why I seek clarification.
  If we are working to the pay scales outlined in appendix E, it is very difficult, taking into account employer's NICs, to meet the SSRB's requirement that we should employ two full-time equivalent staff at a senior level and one at a more junior level. Even using the regional, outside London, rates, it is difficult to fulfil those criteria.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I shall give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I want Back Benchers to contribute to the debate and to have their say.
  If we are working to appendix E, the arithmetic is very simple. If we are working to a different scale, it is a different matter. There is reference to the fact that the SSRB also considered the rates recommended by the Transport and General Workers Union. When we talk about the gross sums and employing three full-time equivalent staff, we need to know which scales and which recommendations we are considering, especially as that is not made clear on the Order Paper. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that I have understood him correctly and that we are considering the pay scales as recommended in appendix E of the report. Does the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) still want to intervene?
  Dr. Palmer indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Moving on to the transitional arrangements, I have already mentioned the fact that some hon. Members are concerned about existing contracts and the recommended rates, but I wonder whether the Leader of the House will clarify what the position will be for existing shared staff. Sometimes a senior secretary will work part time for two Members, but the pro rata part-time rate is not exactly 50 per cent. of that for a full-time equivalent post. In most workplaces with jobs that command lower salaries, the pro rata rates for part-time staff are often exactly 50 per cent. if the job is done for exactly half the time. In more demanding jobs, often to attract part-time staff, more than 50 per cent. of the full-time equivalent rate has to be paid. That is already the case in some contracts where two Members share a secretary. For those people, the gross salary that the secretary receives from two Members is higher than the rates outlined in appendix E. Again, apart from the problem of hon. Members employing someone on much higher rates, hon. Members seek clarification of those shared arrangements, as well as the shared arrangements for equipment that also exist in some cases.
  I shall now deal with the incidental expenses provision. It is extremely good that the right hon. Gentleman has aggregated the £9,000 and the £5,000 sums and put more flexibility into the provision. I thoroughly support that proposal, and I am very much aware of the amendment under which that sum would be increased to £18,000. Every hon. Member's arrangements will be different,

  437
  but there is concern about those who may have a set up a constituency parliamentary office from scratch, or who do riot have the opportunity to share such a facility, perhaps with an existing association office.
  Taking out a lease and all that goes with it can be quite challenging for anyone in business, but from our point of view, taking on a lease on premises out of that budget could cause some problems. For example, full-repairing leases are often used. In other words, at some time during the tenancy, one must carry out repairs to the roof or overall decoration inside and outside the premises. The normal running costs may be deemed to be £14,000—or perhaps the House will agree to £18,000 today. Bearing in mind the fact that I believe that we still cannot carry forward surpluses year on year to budget for a bill that we know comes up every four or five years—for example, to fulfil the requirements of a full-repairing lease—I wonder how hon. Members might meet those obligations under normal commercial leasing conditions.
  Mr. Gale: The Leader of the House said in his opening remarks that he had effectively been subsidising his constituency operation out of his own income. That is probably true for very many hon. Members. The provisions before the House distinguish between those Members with staff in London and those outside London, but no provision is made for those Members who choose—it is a choice—to hive their offices outside the House of Commons and who do not therefore benefit from the space, heating, lighting, telephones or any of the other equipment provided in the House. I have chosen to subsidise my constituency office to the tune of about £10,000 a year for the past 15 years. I wonder whether there should be some flexibility in the arrangements to make provision for those who choose to have their entire operation outside the House rather than in it.
  Mrs. Browning: I am sure the Leader of the House will respond to that point. I understand that the flexibility built into the general services budget would allow for that. It is based on the fact that people need a constituency base, whether it is physically in the constituency or not. That sum has been identified by the SSRB as meeting some of the costs that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  I have raised the matter of insurance privately with the Leader of the House, and I would like his reassurance on the record. He mentioned insurance in relation to indemnity for MPs, and I totally agree with the proposal on the Order Paper, particularly in respect of the Foreign Secretary. However, if one sets up an office in a constituency, one requires employers' insurance to cover employees and public liability insurance for people coming into the premises.
  Are all those costs to be met centrally on behalf of all Members, regardless of the location of their offices, or would such insurance have to be purchased separately out of the incidental expenses provision? If it were provided centrally, it would clearly not be such a liability and the House could presumably negotiate a good deal because the contract would be large. If MPs had to purchase insurance policies individually, they would represent a charge on the incidental expenses provision.
  Mr. James Paice: Will my hon. Friend also impress on the right hon. Gentleman the anomaly that, despite the proposals providing for up
  438
  to three full-time staff and the equipment for them, many of us do not have the space in this building in which to put them? Parts of the new buildings provide suitable facilities for more than one member of staff for most Members, but Members who are in this building are entitled to only one desk. That is not adequate for the secretaries and equipment with which the motion seeks to provide us.
  Mrs. Browning: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the Leader of the House has taken his concerns on board. We are all concerned about that. After nine years in Parliament, I do not think the problem of how and where staff are accommodated is getting any easier, despite the fact that we now have Portcullis House.
  The Leader of the House will be aware of the amendments tabled by many hon. Members relating to the information technology package. I am concerned about the public tendering procedure that has been used. I am even more concerned that the equipment has been procured with, as I understand it, no reference to the needs of Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament, the users—the customers, as it were—have not been consulted on the package.
  Mr. Richard Allan: For the hon. Lady's information, there was very close co-operation on these proposals throughout the previous Parliament between the Officers of the House and the members of the Information Committee. The Committee—working on a cross-party basis and including the former Member for South Dorset, Ian Bruce—was fully behind the proposals. The Officers were very careful to ask Members, as representatives of that Committee, what they wanted.
  Mrs. Browning: The package of kit might have been the subject of consultation, but the procurement of specific brands was certainly not. As I understand it, the report that the Information Committee produced, which was considered by the SSRB, says quite clearly that Members sought a choice. Members have not had a choice, particularly in relation to branding. We had hoped for a menu of brands from which Members could choose. In fact, that did not happen. I raise that matter with the Leader of the House because that is not the way to procure such equipment in future. We are all, as end users, entitled to a say in what our preferences and needs are.
  The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the work done by the Parliamentary Data and Video Network in trying to procure the information technology package. However, in response to many Conservative Back Benchers' comments, I must say to him that if PDVN is to have such an executive role in the procurement and management of IT in the House, it will have to raise its game in terms of consumer service and consumer awareness. It must provide a flexible, high-quality service to Members. The Leader of the House might wish to consider this matter separately and take soundings from Members across the House about the level of service that we get. All too often we are greeted by answerphones, and it often takes a long time for phone calls to be returned when there is a problem. If this were a commercial environment, customers would be leaving in their droves. I hope that

  439
  the Leader of the House will now guarantee to do something about the service; it has to become customer-oriented.
  Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the House is still sitting after 6 o'clock, there is only one person on the Parliamentary Communications Directorate helpdesk because adequate funds are not being made available by the House authorities to the PCD? I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that, as we have an almost 24-hour job, the PCD will be able to provide an almost 24-hour service.
  Mrs. Browning: I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that it will be a high priority for him personally to ensure that this matter of great concern to Members will be dealt with as effectively and quickly as possible.
  2.26 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am aware of the constraints—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I must say to the House that we must deal with the motions before us, and not other matters that have been raised during interventions. Also, I am keen to call as many hon. Members as possible to speak. For that, I need the co-operation of the House, and I would expect brief contributions.
  Mr. Soley: I was about to say that I was very aware of the constraints of time. It will be very difficult to fit everyone in, so I shall focus most of my comments on the amendments tabled in my name. However, if I may, I shall also make a couple of opening comments.
  First, I welcome the latest report from the SSRB and thank the board for it. I felt that it had got the previous one wrong, but it has got this one largely right. Perhaps I would say that, because the report largely follows the evidence that I gave on behalf of the parliamentary Labour party. It also represents a radical break from the past, gives a far better service to MPs and enables them to serve their constituents better, while entrenching the rights and privileges of our staff, on whom we depend so much and who have been seriously undervalued, underestimated and under-protected in the past.
  Secondly, measures of this nature are inevitably extremely complicated, especially when making a change of the kind that I recommended and that the SSRB is following. We shall not be able to cross all the t's or dot all the i's in this debate, and one of the things that I most welcome—perhaps we can refer to this on other occasions—is the setting up of a Speaker's advisory panel to include Members of Parliament. We shall then be able to iron out many of the problems as we proceed over the next year or two. I will mention one of those problems in a moment—the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has already mentioned one or two—but we should not try to solve them all here now, because we shall not be able to. If I had been able to do so in my evidence, I would have done so, but because of the radical changes that we are making, we need to get this right.
  440
  I shall make a brief comment on overall pay. I have always taken the view that we are too shy and retiring on this subject. People recognise that MPs need a proper rate of pay for the job. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put it correctly when he said that a balance must be struck between not underpaying and not overpaying. My experience is that when we ask the public what they think about politicians generally, they have a low opinion of us, but if we ask them about their individual MP, they speak highly of the amount of work and commitment that that MP puts in, even if they do not agree with him or her politically.
  We therefore make a serious mistake if we buy the newspaper line that all politicians are hopeless. Indeed, if my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) had his amendment adopted, I would have said to him that he had chosen exactly the wrong group—the way to deal with this matter would have been to link MPs' pay to that of senior journalists and editors. That would fundamentally have changed the nature of the debate. Indeed, if we had linked our pay to that of editors, we would all be being driven home in limousines at the end of the day.
  Journalists and MPs have a special relationship and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said, it is important to recognise that MPs must be properly resourced if we are to make our democracy work. That means being able to respond appropriately and fully to the needs of our constituents. It also requires us to be able to hold the Government to account and undertake the other tasks that we want to fulfil in Parliament. For that, we must have the appropriate research back-up.
  Mr. Martin Salter: Few Members here would disagree that MPs should be properly rewarded, but are we not forgetting that if we are to be paid the proper rate for the job, and I suggest that we are, it would be right and proper to take a fresh look at whether we should be able to engage in outside business interests? If we are being paid a full-time rate for a full-time job, what on earth are we doing moonlighting?
  Mr. Soley: I am pleased to say that there are far fewer moonlighters than there used to be. Having said that, as one who does not have an outside job, I take the view that we must acknowledge that MPs need a proper rate of pay for the job. If they do their job, I am not so worried about what they do at other times. However, I would be extremely worried if Members frequently earned large sums in other jobs, and I am glad that we have rowed back on that. We must be careful about where we draw the line, because any of us might earn money by writing an article or writing a book, which seems to be popular from time to time.
  I must move on to discuss my amendments, but I should first refer to our staff. Most MPs think that they are good employers, but in my experience many of us, even with the best of intentions, are not. That is one reason why I argued so strongly that MPs should have the right to hire and fire, but that the general administration and servicing of staff should be done by the Fees Office. That would have two enormous advantages, and the first is that it would create transparency for the public.
  Our old system was faulty because people could not see the money going straight to our staff, even though that was where it went. In many cases, Members had to put

  441
  their hand in their own pocket to pay staff. However, some staff got a poor deal, so we must act. The report provides appropriately for that, which is the second advantage, and I hope that our vote today will make the position solid.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Why should maximum salaries be set in the context that the hon. Gentleman has just described?
  Mr. Soley: We have to set a maximum value for the pay of our staff, and the judgment is how many staff a Member needs. When I gave evidence, I said that, in my judgment, an MP needs between three and a half and four staff. The SSRB said three. It then produced a salary scale, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred. We may want to revisit the issue through the Speaker's advisory panel, because we do not have it quite right.
  I would be reluctant to table detailed amendments before we have had time to see how the proposal works, and I ask Members to bear in mind the fact that it represents a radical improvement. We are moving in the right direction and setting up the structures to deal with these matters, which is the important point.
  Mr. Etherington: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Soley: Briefly.
  Mr. Etherington: I am al ways brief, so that is not a problem. Can my hon. Friend explain why no consideration was given to setting minimum rates? MPs have been left in an open position. We should avoid the problems of pay freezes and reductions, which are endemic in the proposal.
  Mr. Soley: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right to use the word "endemic". What are proposed are pay scales that, contrary to rumours going around the House, are set not by the Transport and General Workers Union but by Hay Management Consultants, which has considered the pay range. He will be able to appoint his staff at any point on the scale and there is an uprating procedure, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred. We mum consider certain specific problems, however, and, in the light of my hon. Friend's intervention, I shall deal with them now, beginning with a classic example.
  We may need to revisit and refer back to the SSRB the circumstances of a highly skilled, highly qualified secretary who has been employed by an MP for a long time. I employ such a person. If such secretaries went to work outside the House, they would earn considerably more than they are paid here. We need a means to pay a person with specialist experience, knowledge and long service, so I hope that the matter is referred back to the SSRB through the Speaker's panel. I shall work to achieve that, because we do not have the answer at the moment.
  Joan Ruddock rose—
  Mr. Soley: I am conscious of the fact that many Back Benchers want to speak, but I shall take a final intervention.
  Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he take it from me—or perhaps he already knows—
  442
  that a person employed by a Greater London Authority Member would start at close on £25,000 as a caseworker and researcher? For many of us who represent inner-London constituencies, that is the yardstick to which we have to work.
  Mr. Soley: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot add to what I have said. However, I remind Members that the proposal represents a radical improvement and a big step in the right direction. We must build on it, pick out the anomalies and deal with them over the next year or two.
  The safety of our staff is incredibly important. The Liberal party suffered a tragic experience in that respect and, although we all think of it as a special case, we know that we sometimes ask our staff to deal with disturbed people. Over the years, Members have done research on their surgeries and I have to tell the House that people with severe paranoid disorders often visit MPs. After all, if a submarine is interfering with a person's brainwaves, who else can that person go to but his MP, who can get the Secretary of State for Defence to make it stop? We sometimes ask our staff to deal with seriously disturbed people and we should not underestimate the demands involved in such a request. That is why I am pleased about the recommendation on safety.
  Amendment (o) is straightforward and Members will understand it, but there is a complication that I want to point out. I am aware that many Members employ their staff in London even though they are not London MPs, and my amendment addresses that. When I read the SSRB report, I realised that we had to make a change, but there is a difficulty which I ask Members to bear in mind.
  I have taken helpful advice from the Fees Office on the wording of the amendment in order to get it right. A Member who represents a seat outside London but who employs someone here will be able to get the extra £3,500. However, matters will get very complicated for Members if they attempt to break the work up. Staff may be employed part time and I know that it is common for Members to employ someone in London when the House is sitting, but in the constituency when the House is not sitting. I strongly advise Members to talk through such an arrangement with the Fees Office first; otherwise, in certain limited cases, they will run out of money before the end of the year. We must monitor the situation closely and, if necessary, ask the Speaker's panel to address it.
  I have already referred to the long-service award, so I shall pass over it. Amendment (d), which is also straightforward, would move the incidental expenses allowance up from £14,000 to £18,000. The SSRB set the figure too low. The media may want to pick up that point and say, "They are giving themselves £4,000 over and above the SSRB recommendation", so let me spell out the importance of the amendment.
  Every Member is like a small company. I have tried several times to get a feel for the way in which MPs operate and almost every one operates differently. The amendment would take payment of staff out of the office costs allowance and enable us to deal with it separately. We should establish a pot of money that Members could use flexibly and, within the constraints of parliamentary duties, in any way they liked. The report makes clear how the SSRB reached the sum of £14,000, made up of the rental of accommodation plus a pot of £5,000 for

  443
  incidentals. That pot is interchangeable and remains so in my amendment which would increase the allowance to £18,000. Members may use it as they like so long as it is for parliamentary duties.
  I should like to conclude by giving the House a few examples as it is a matter that has frustrated me for many years. I suspect that our constituents want their Members of Parliament to be innovative and develop new ways of working.
  Soon after I was first elected, I got involved in Northern Ireland issues. During the dirty protest and what became the hunger strike, I visited some of the prisons. I wanted to visit a prison in southern Ireland which was experiencing similar problems, of which, as a former probation officer, I had some knowledge. We bent the rules slightly inasmuch as my fare was paid even though I was not on a Select Committee and I was on the Front Bench for only part of that period. However, I could not go to Dublin and visit the prison there, so we did daft things like buying a return ticket to Belfast, converting it to one that came back from Dublin and paying the difference or getting the train from Belfast to Dublin and paying the fare ourselves.
  The problem has not gone away. If Members representing southern constituencies go to visit the new Parliament in Edinburgh, they can get their ticket paid, but if they stay overnight and make it a two-day visit they will have to pay the difference themselves. It is ludicrous. German Members of Parliament have all their travel paid. One of the recommendations of the Fees Office to the SSRB was that about £4,000 should be set aside for that type of travel. I have tried to deal with the issue by putting the money into a general pot. Many hon. Members have pointed out that £14,000 is not sufficient to pay for the rental of a constituency office and the telephone bill. That has been one of the biggest complaints, so rather than propose an amendment that would allow for the payment of telephone calls, as that would cause many complications, I simply proposed increasing the allowance.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman think that his amendment deals adequately with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—that those of us who seek to provide office accommodation in our constituencies are meeting a huge range of costs that would otherwise be met in this building, which means that we will not have the resources for journeys and overnight stays in Dublin such as the hon. Gentleman has described?
  Mr. Soley: The answer is that some people will and others will not. Some Members spend £10,000 or more a year on rent. Others are paying only £2,000 or £3,000 a year, often because they are in substandard accommodation and, for a variety of reasons, are paying below the market rent. We cannot get a typical picture, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the proposals are a great step forward.
  I have often been praised for setting up the evidence-taking sessions. I thought that there should be more such sessions in the House of Commons. The ones on the press Bill were largely paid for, but the ones on
  444
  the working of the family and on family policy in the country at large were not, so I ended up paying for them myself and getting outside organisations to contribute. If we want Members of Parliament to work innovatively, we ought to be able to carry out such research. In the long run, through the Speaker's panel and perhaps by referral back to the SSRB, we will need to find other ways to improve and expand on this package.
  If people want good representation—I know that they do—and if they want their Parliament to be more effective, we have to pay for it. Democracy does not come cheap and if we want good-quality democracy and good-quality Members of Parliament who are well resourced, we are taking a big step in the right direction. We have not got it all right today, but I ask hon. Members to vote for my amendments and for the proposals we are considering today.
  2.44 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am sure that all parties are having a free vote today, so it follows that what I have to say today is in no way a party line. I have consulted my 51 right hon. and hon. Friends and have had conversations with a great many other Members, so I hope that my speech will at least be reasonably well informed.
  From the previous debate on salaries and allowances recall several high-minded speeches in which Members said that they would vote against the increases for various reasons and, no doubt, with good motives. With that in mind, when the SSRB report became available earlier this year I asked the then Leader of the House how many hon. Members, in the current financial year, voluntarily elected to forgo any or all of their parliamentary salary. I wonder whether anyone can tell what the answer was: it was, of course, a resounding nought.
  Mr. Mullin: I can assist the hon. Gentleman. I took the view that I could give away the proceeds of that last outrageous salary increase more effectively than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor could. I have been taking the increase for the past five years and diverting all but 3 per cent. of it to a donations account, which I give away to good causes of my choice.
  Mr. Tyler: That is admirable, but my next point follows precisely from that. I have given away between 15 and 20 per cent. of my salary to my staff. I have had to do that because, as the Leader of the House said, to do a good job of work we have needed staff to provide a service to our constituents and to the nation. We are here not only as constituency Members; as Edmund Burke said, we also represent the whole nation. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) obviously has a very large majority and perhaps he does not have to provide quite the service that I have to provide in North Cornwall, but I can assure him that in a very scattered rural area the staffing required demands a level of resources that has not been available in the past. That is why I entirely endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley).
  I understood the points that were made in the previous debate, but all right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that what we are doing today is not voting ourselves increases in salaries and allowances but trying to ensure

  445
  that we properly resource the services that we provide to our constituents and to the nation as its representatives. Surely that must be what it is all about.
  As I said in a previous debate, there are opportunities for humbug, but there are more opportunities for humbug among the media. I recall that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was a professional journalist before he entered politics, so the proposal by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush is entirely right. If we tied our increases to the remuneration of senior journalists, I suspect that we would have less humbug from the fourth estate. They do not provide their own staff, equipment or offices. Frankly, they do not have a clue about the costs that we have to incur.
  Timing is an issue. I very much regret the fact that we are debating this now rather than before the general election. I said publicly and privately to the previous Leader of the House that we should take the matter to the electorate to see what they had to say. Interestingly, despite the fact that all the proposals were in the public domain and were well publicised by the newspapers, I do not recall a single comment from any member of the public during the recent general election. That entirely endorses the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush: that although respect for the reputation of Parliament as an institution is pretty low, individual Members representing all parties have a high rating when it comes to serving their constituents. There is growing recognition of that, on which I hope the media will reflect in future.
  There are still some important teething problems in the package before us, but that should not obscure the fact that we now have a mechanism by which others outside this place look at the work that we do, provide appropriate comparators and seek to make an objective assessment of what we and our services are worth. We would break that tradition at our peril. That is why I oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South; as soon as we bring in different comparators, everyone will come up with something that is thought to be more appropriate. The SSRB may not be perfect, but it is certainly a great deal better than the House, in effect, contemplating its navel and trying to decide in a very unfortunate way how we should deal with these matters.
  Mr. Steve Webb: The SSRB asked what a person in a comparator job would be paid. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in determining what we should be paid, that is only half the question? Unlike an NHS manager, we are expected to be representatives and to understand the living standards of our constituents. If we merely say that we do the same sort of job as a senior civil servant and so should be paid the same, there is a danger that we will lose touch with our constituents.
  Mr. Tyler: I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to develop that interesting argument. The problem is that, although we look for comparators, the job of a representative of the nation in this place is unique, so it is extremely difficult to find a completely relevant comparator. I take my hon. Friend's point, but I think that he is asking for perfection.
  Reference has been made to the role of the Department of Finance and Administration in developing the package of proposals. It will have an extremely difficult task
  446
  precisely because this is such a unique institution and our job is so unusual. The role of the Speaker's advisory panel will be very important, especially in the transitional phase. It is unfair on Officers of the House to ask them to make political judgments—these are policy issues. The advisory panel will have an important role to play. Mr. Speaker, you and your staff will have to bear a significant added work load, especially in the new system as it develops. We who put that load on you and your staff must be conscious of that.
  I do not want to say anything more about salary, because I accept the SSRB recommendation. Although many of us may have concerns about some of the proposals at the fringes, we must maintain the integrity of the package if we can—on that, I am with the Leader of the House. If we ask people outside to make a careful assessment of what is right but then start to play with that assessment, we will open a can of worms.
  It is important to remember that the allowances are ceilings; they are not recommended expenditure or perks. We are not being given some money and told to take it. Whatever the allowance may be, individual Members of Parliament may go up to that ceiling for that purpose. Not every Member must go up to the ceiling or feel that that is necessary. I am full of admiration for Members who are able to provide a service to their constituents at a lower rate; that is fine.
  It is important that we do not accept the whole of the SSRB report, and the appendices produced by the consultants, as though they were written in stone. It is clear from the table to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred that Hay did not really get under the skin of Members of Parliament. There is no reference to a case worker. Most Members of Parliament have someone who does case work as a key function in their constituency office. Similarly, it is clear from the job descriptions in that appendix that there will be mixes of different types of operation, and every Member may have a different mix. The motion is not saying that that is how it will be done: it is merely an illustration, and the figures given are median figures.
  In addition to the point about national insurance contributions and redundancy figures, there is the extremely important issue of whether these are salary ranges or salary scales. I know from my business experience as well as from my experience in the House that those two things are very different. People on salary ranges may be told, "You'll start there and we'll see how you go." Salary ranges have the important function of ensuring that there is not a glass ceiling on which people soon bang their heads, and are quite different from salary scales. I am sure that the Fees Office will be alive to that.
  I understand that we shall be given some salary ranges before the recess, so it will be much easier to see how the issues to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred can be dealt with. The onus will still be on Members of Parliament to ensure that we remunerate our staff sensibly and properly, and that we devise realistic rather than artificial job specifications. It would be absurd if we accepted Hay's descriptions, which are not appropriate.
  I take the points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about flexibility and about the fact that great care needs to be taken during the transition.

  447
  We might have to come back to this issue in future, but the present motions offer helpful guidance without being too prescriptive.
  I welcome the provision for security. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) knows only too well how inadequately and disgracefully we have protected our staff and our voluntary assistants in the past, because we have not had the resources to do so. I am sure that we all remember the tragic result of that failure.
  I endorse the principle behind the special motion relating to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It is important to note that it does not refer to him as the Foreign Secretary. We are not indemnifying an officer of the Crown. All Members of Parliament and their staff must be protected against the litigious actions of the public in the work we do on their behalf. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said on the insurance that is built into the package.
  As I said at the outset, the Liberal Democrats have a free vote, so my advice is purely that and no stronger. I am worried by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). Although I recognise their force, I think I am right in saying that they would negate the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush on the differential between London-based staff and the staff of London Members of Parliament. The logic of the report is that London-based staff will want London rates to apply. I am concerned that if we accepted the amendment of the hon. Member for Beckenham we could not incorporate amendment (o) tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman here and now that my amendment was not drafted with that in mind: it was drafted to build in flexibility. If the amendment is likely to be accepted, I am happy to redraft it.
  Mr. Tyler: I do not know whether that is possible, but whoever replies to the debate may deal with that point. As I read the amendment, and according to advice I have received from the Clerks Department, it would negate amendment (o).
  I confess that I have some difficulty with the issue of incidental expenses and the ceiling of £14,000 or £18,000. My parliamentary constituency office is not subsidised, but it has been located in its present premises for some time and the rent is relatively low. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who is newly elected to the House, faces a different rental market. She is an example of a Member who will find it difficult to rent reasonable accommodation that provides safety and security for her staff.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: The important point to make is that it is possible to claim the allowance only if the Member has spent it.
  Mr. Tyler: I entirely agree. As I said earlier, these allowances are not automatic—they are ceilings.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham has also tabled an amendment on IT equipment and procurement. I listened carefully to the advice given by my hon. Friend the
  448
  Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Information. We must recognise that the procurement of IT is complicated and difficult. It is not brand choice, but specification choice that is of concern. It is what computers will do that concerns us, not who provides them. The Information Committee has done a very good job in that respect.
  I have great sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on the additional costs allowance—the costs that those of us with constituents in other parts of the country incur when travelling to and spending time in London. I hope that he will explain the logic of his amendment. After all, the SSRB identified this as a real problem, but it was not asked to do so in relation to the House of Commons; it was asked to do so in relation to our noble Friends. The timing was unfortunate, in that when the inquiry was set up the board was not asked to consider the problem on our behalf. It is a particularly serious problem given the cost of finding accommodation in London, which affects all Members but especially new Members.
  It is always tempting to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, who is very persuasive, but I think that to tear up the arrangement we have reached with the SSRB and find a completely new comparator would be entirely misguided at this stage, and would open a Pandora's box.
  When it comes to parliamentary pensions I take the advice of the trustees very seriously, as I think many Members will. None of us is here for ever, and although I have not yet reached the point of having a special interest—unlike the Leader of the House—I remember only too well, when I first arrived here many years ago, seeing some Members retire on derisory pensions. I therefore hope that Members will listen carefully to what is said by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) asks for only one of the SSRB's recommendations to be put to the House for comment, at this stage, rather than being kicked into what may be rather longer grass than we intended.
  The debate is important and many wish to speak, but let me reiterate one major point: if we decide to tear up the recommendations of those who have been asked to advise us on an objective basis, we shall become involved in some very invidious discussions in this place. I hope we shall not do that.
  3.2 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I support all that was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  Many voices are missing from today's debate, because those involved cannot be here. I refer to the voices of our staff. I hope that at 4 pm we shall agree to move towards the proposed new system, but I also hope that members of all parties will fast admit that we have been among both the best and the worst employers in the United Kingdom. I can confirm that from my experience as chairman of the staff liaison committee of the parliamentary Labour party, and from our association with the secretaries council.
  Over the years Members have had the best staff they could wish for, both here and in their constituencies; yet we have consistently failed to support them by providing

  449
  either proper equipment or proper salaries and conditions. The Transport and General Workers Union is on the staff liaison committee—representing staff of all political parties, not just Labour—and we have had to deal with cases of people whose salaries would shock most people outside.
  Just before the SSRB's report, the TGWU conducted a survey whose findings are worth reading. Some staff salaries are shocking—regardless of the party for whom those people work—and bear no relation to the amount that we can claim in office allowances. As I have said, we are among both the best and the worst employers, but we certainly would not stand for some of these employment practices if we discovered them in our constituencies.
  The debate gives us an opportunity to make progress. On behalf of the parliamentary Labour party, I and successive chairs of the PLP, dating back to the chairmanship of Lord Orme, have given evidence to the SSRB. At that time, in the first evidence we gave, we argued for a division between our responsibilities—a division between the way in which we hired and fired staff, and the way they were treated as individuals and employees. We argued for the establishment of a personnel department. Although that is not included in this recommendation, I feel that it is one of the issues that your advisory panel should consider, Mr. Speaker. We do need a proper personnel service to ensure that our staff are treated like normal human beings.
  We also need to consider, as a separate issue, the equipment that our staff need in order to do their jobs. It has taken us a long time to reach the stage at which that distinction can be made. Many staff work, or at least did work, with obsolete equipment, because the Members for whom they worked could not afford to pay for new equipment. Conversely, many staff did not receive wage increases because the Member involved had bought some equipment instead.
  All sorts of peculiar practices have gone on over the years. The review gives us an opportunity to proceed to a system that is fair to our staff, and makes us more accountable to those whom we seek to serve. As I have said, weaknesses remain; I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will soon appoint your advisory panel, and that it will take account of some of the issues raised today.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned public liability. Following an incident when parts of this building fell down and almost killed members of our staff, the Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—who was a member of the PLP staff liaison committee—argued for the provision of public liability cover for every staff member. Each of us should have a public liability certificate displayed wherever we employ staff, both here and in our constituencies.
  There are further outstanding problems that your advisory panel should consider, Mr. Speaker. For instance, our staff still do not enjoy superannuation conditions similar to those of other employees of the House or, indeed, of Members themselves. Under the current system, staff can qualify for a payment—we can claim on their behalf, but they cannot claim themselves—of 10 per cent. into a pension of their choice. That is ridiculous. If we do as most Members should do and increase the salaries of our staff each year, we must then
  450
  increase their pensions as well—and the pension company, whichever it is, rips off the public purse by taking a percentage of the increase as a service charge. The sooner our staff are on a proper superannuation scheme, the better.
  I do not want to labour the point, as I think it important for us to reach 4 pm very quickly. [Interruption.] I want to allow others a chance to speak. Let me say, however, that the voice of staff has been kept quiet too long here. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that your panel will provide room for representatives of both the TGWU and the secretaries council, to ensure that staff interests are looked after properly.
  I entirely support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). As I have said, we have waited many years for this day, and on behalf of our staff I thank Members in advance for voting for a proper structure for them.
  3.9 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: I rise on behalf of fellow trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and in my capacity as chairman of the parliamentary Members fund, the hardship fund set up to look after Members who fall into financial difficulties, or whose widows and children do so. That gives me a perspective on these issues that perhaps not all right hon. and hon. Members enjoy.
  I was disappointed that the Government did not make their own submission on the issue of pensions to the review body. We fully expected that they would; I am puzzled as to why they did not. I understand that the only representation that was made was an oral one by a senior Treasury official. Hon. Members will not be surprised to know that that submission concentrated on the additional costs that would be involved if the amendment standing in my name and that of my fellow trustees were accepted. That may have been one of the things that influenced the recommendation that, sadly, the review body has made.
  The review body and those who have taken part in successive debates on the issue have failed to recognise the fundamental difference between employment in this place and employment anywhere else. We try to encourage into this place people of the highest quality, from all walks of life, preferably people who have been successful in other careers, so that they can bring their expertise and make a valuable contribution to debates in this place. In doing so, we often ask them to give up extremely successful careers outside.
  It is probably true that the majority of Members have taken a reduction in their income in order to be here. We all knew what we were in for, so there is no complaint about that, but the problem is that, on average, Members serve less than 10 years in this place. They have to pick up careers after they leave. Often, they serve the prime 10 years of their working lives in this place. I, as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and as chairman of the parliamentary Members fund, have seen what the impact is on many Members who leave this place. They often do so involuntarily: they may be defeated at an election, the boundaries of their constituency may change, or they may suffer ill health.
  After leaving, at least half of all Members are worse off than they were as Members. Probably many more are worse than they were before they became Members. Some

  451
  are seriously worse off. There are still hon. Members who lost their seats in 1997 who remain unemployed. Many Members, particularly those who are older, in their 50s, found it very difficult to get decent full-time re-employment elsewhere, and have had to take part-time jobs or part-time consultancies—they have become supply teachers, for example—and are on much lower incomes than they were on when they were here. Those Members are not able to top up their pension fund to keep it at the level that they would have enjoyed had they remained Members. It is those Members whom I am particularly concerned about. They will and do suffer severe hardship.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Butterfill: I would like to make some progress because many other hon. Members want to speak and we do not have a long time. If the hon. Lady will allow, I shall continue.
  It is those Members whom I am concerned about. It is that interrupted service that is not recognised in any way by the present arrangements.
  Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Butterfill: I shall.
  Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman must surely agree that many women who have children are in exactly the same position.
  Mr. Butterfill: Of course, one accepts that that is true, but we are comparing the parliamentary career with the situation of people outside. If someone in employment as an accountant or a lawyer—a large proportion of Members are lawyers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too many."] Still, if an accountant or lawyer loses his job, he can get employment again.
  Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Butterfill: No, I will not give way again to the hon. Lady. I am already regretting having done so in the first place.
  The Leader of the House said that we must look at the impact of the proposal on other public sector employment and at its costs. Almost uniquely in the public sector, our pension scheme is a funded scheme. Almost all other public sector pensions are unfunded. They operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Government do not provide a fund of money in order to pay them. They pay them out of current taxation.
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) may not remember it, but at one time, hon. Members were paying 9 per cent. of their salary towards their pensions. As a result of that and of the prudent management of funds by the trustees, the pension scheme is and has been in substantial surplus for some years. The consequence has been that the Government contribution has been well below that recommended by the Government Actuary over many years.
  452
  The Government Actuary recommends how much should be paid if the scheme were unfunded. He deducts from that what Members are contributing and then arrives at the figure that the Government would need to pay. I will quote the amounts that the Government have saved over the past few years. In 1990, the Government paid 6.6 per cent. less than the Government Actuary recommended; in 1992, 10.2 per cent. less than recommended; in 1995, 9.9 per cent. less; in 1996, 7.9 per cent. less; in 1999, 8.1 per cent. less; and in 2001, 11 per cent. less than recommended. The proposal would mean a 6 per cent. increase in cost—about £28 million. Even if the Government were to accept that, because of the scheme surplus they would still pay significantly less than the Government Actuary recommends they should, so we do not need crocodile tears from the Treasury telling us that the proposal cannot be afforded.
  The House voted on the matter in 1980 and recommended that we should increase the accrual rate to one fortieth, which is what the trustees recommend at the moment. Unfortunately, that was not implemented, but it represents the very least that is being obtained in comparable countries.
  Mr. Mark Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman let me continue for a just a bit longer?
  We are probably the meanest democracy in the western world in the way that we treat our Members of Parliament in terms of pensions. I will demonstrate that with facts and figures, but first I shall give some other public sector comparisons. Only one other public sector involves the principle of interrupted service: when the legal profession moves into the judiciary, sometimes temporarily. The judges' scheme is complicated. They used to receive a full pension after 15 or 20 years, depending on the rank of judge they were, but they are now on an accrual rate of one fortieth, which is what we are asking for.
  The police have a complicated accrual rate. The rate is one sixtieth for the first 20 years and two sixtieths for each year thereafter, up to a maximum of forty sixtieths, which means that they receive, effectively, an accrual rate of one fortieth. They achieve a maximum pension of two thirds after 30 years of service. Of course, their retirement age is very much lower than ours. We retire at 65, although it is possible to retire at 60 if one is willing to take a substantially reduced pension. In the police service, however, the pension is payable from the age of 50. Normal retirement age in the police is 55, and 60 for inspectors and superintendents, except in the Metropolitan police, for whom it is 55.
  Similarly, in the armed forces, to which reference has been made, the scheme grants a full pension after 34 years' service. That is similar to our scheme, but the armed forces' retirement age is 55 and they can retire after 16 years' reckonable service. Unlike our scheme, theirs is non-contributory.
  Mr. Todd: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the comparison made by the trustees in their evidence. They regarded the range and diversity of a Member of Parliament's job as comparable to that of directors and senior executives in the private sector. Having left such a

  453
  role to come to this place, I have no pension from that period of service that is comparable to what he is proposing. Moreover, I fail to see any justifiable comparison with the responsibilities.
  Mr. Butterfill: All I can say is that the review body thought that MPs were comparable with senior management and junior directors. The hon. Gentleman might have forgotten that it was making a comparison with the ordinary duties of a Back Bencher, and perhaps overlooked the fact that Members undertake considerable additional and onerous unpaid appointments, whether as Parliamentary Private Secretaries, members or Chairmen of Select Committees, members of the Chairmen's Panel, or Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. A large number of the appointments that the majority of Members undertake substantially increase their work load. So the hon. Gentleman's comparison is not terribly accurate.
  I want to make a comparison with what happens in other Parliaments. In Australia, pensions are payable after 12 years or four parliamentary terms in the case of voluntary retirement, and after eight years or three parliamentary terms in the case of involuntary retirement. The scheme provides for a maximum pension of 75 per cent. of basic salary after only 18 years.
  In Denmark, pensions are linked to civil service grade No. 49, and are payable in full after 20 years' membership of the Danish House.
  In Finland, the full pension is payable after 15 years as an MP. Those born before 1940 get 66 per cent. of MPs' pay from the age of 60. Those born after 1940 are eligible for 60 per cent. at 65. However, Members who are defeated receive what is called an "adjustment pension" for the rest of their lives, at the current rate of 1,250 ecu a month. When an MP die his spouse and children receive his full pension.
  In France, Members can accrue a maximum pension of 84.375 per cent. of final salary after twenty-two and a half years. In Germany, the maximum pension is 75 per cent. of final salary after seventeen and a half years.
  In the Republic of Ireland, the accrual rate is one fortieth and Members receive two thirds of their pay after twenty-six and two thirds years. That is in line with our suggestion, and is one of the less generous overseas schemes.
  In the Isle of Man, the accrual rate is one fortieth, but the maximum pension payable after 30 years' service is 75 per cent. of final salary. In the United States of America, the maximum pension is 80 per cent. of final salary, with an accrual rate of one fortieth.
  The combined resources of the Fees Office and the House of Commons Library have not enabled me to find a single other western country that pays such a mean rate of pension as we do, and it is about time we put that right.
  3.24 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I have a feeling that my contribution to today's proceedings may prove a mite less popular with my colleagues than my speech yesterday. Indeed, colleagues whose judgment I respect have advised me that it is rot a wise career move for someone like me—young, ambitious, upwardly mobile—to table such amendments. Well, that is something I shall just have to live with. I came to this place to do what I
  454
  believe to be right, not to bask in the warm glow of colleagues' approbation, pleasant though that is. Whatever view they take, I hope that hon. Members will at least accept the spirit in which I speak.
  I should say at the outset that I am strongly in favour of the motion on Members' allowances, which will place the employment of our staff on a proper footing. That is long overdue, and I congratulate those responsible, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who played a leading part in achieving the reform.
  I turn to the amendment that is in my name and those of several other hon. Members. I do not believe that there is any justification for awarding ourselves an extra £4,000 over the next two years, and my amendment would rescind that. Nor should we be in the invidious position of having to vote on our own pay, and my amendment would put an end to that embarrassment once and for all. It would do so by linking our fortunes not to those of some anonymous civil servant, as we have attempted to do in the past, but to a cross-section of public servants—nurses, teachers, doctors and dentists—with whom our constituents can readily identify.
  If the amendment is accepted, our pay will rise each year by the average of the increase received by those professions. The figure for last year would have been about 3.7 per cent., and for the previous year about 3.3 per cent. That is not very different from the increases that we received. We would not, however, receive the extra £4,000.
  There is a view that certain so-called top people should be immune from the laws of the market—in which, in all other respects, they usually believe strongly—that apply to ordinary mortals. I do not share that view. So far as possible, elected representatives should share the same sunshine and rainfall as those whom they represent. I do not accept that £49,000 a year is an inadequate salary. We are in the top 10 per cent. of income earners. We earn more than the overwhelming majority of our constituents, although I appreciate that that is less true of those who represent the more prosperous areas. However, the fact remains that £49,000 a year is a good salary, even in the most prosperous areas. I agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in opening the debate: we should not undervalue our work, and our present salary does not do so.
  It might be possible to justify an increase this time if we could argue that ours is a profession that finds it difficult to attract candidates of the right caliber, or if seats were left unfilled owing to a lack of applications. The truth, however, is that all parties are heavily oversubscribed with applicants for winnable seats. Perhaps it has escaped my attention, but I have not noticed any unfilled vacancies. Unlike nurses, teachers and doctors, there is no shortage of people wanting to become Members of Parliament.
  It is a tribute to the fact that the public service ethic is not entirely dead, and to the undoubted attractions of the job, that there are individuals who are prepared to give up

  455
  highly paid jobs in business or the professions to seek election to Parliament. As long as that remains the case, there is no justification for a large salary increase.
  Mr. Tyler: As a former Minister, does the hon. Gentleman think that the same principle applies to the recent increase in ministerial salaries?
  Mr. Mullin: We are not debating ministerial salaries. Should the hon. Gentleman's talents come to the attention of the Prime Minister and in due course he becomes a Minister, I assure him that I, for one, will not resent whatever salary happens to be paid for that job.
  It cannot have escaped our attention that Members' standing in the esteem of the public is not all that high at present. No doubt there are a variety of reasons for that, many of them unfair, but we are not in such a strong position that we can afford to take even a little gamble with public opinion. I know that there is a view that this is a small storm and it will all blow over in a few days, but I do not agree: every time we do something like this, it adds to the great ocean of cynicism lapping at the foundations of the democratic process. Nor will it be forgotten as quickly as some Members think. Even now, after five years, people still raise with me the last outrageous salary increase that we voted ourselves, in July 1996.
  Over the past four weeks, I have participated in various discussions about the urgent need to restore respect for politicians and the political process. I am not clear how awarding ourselves a large increase in salary will help to achieve that. I look forward to hearing from anyone who thinks that it will.
  Andrew Bennett: There is a strong case for awarding nurses and others in this category a large increase. Suppose that my hon. Friend's amendment were accepted and that those people then got the pay increase they deserved. Would it not increase people's cynicism, and would they not say, "Ah, they only got the extra money because MPs' salaries are now linked to theirs."
  Mr. Mullin: I have to accept that some people are capable of finding cynical motives anywhere, but linking our salaries to professions with which our constituents could readily identify would be easier to defend than the present situation.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mullin: I would like to get on.
  Mr. Butterfill: But you asked for people to comment.
  Mr. Mullin: Oh, well then—please be my guest.
  Mr. Butterfill: Of course there continue to be many people who are prepared to give up high salaries to come here for a lower one. The question is whether there are as many as there used to be. If we are to believe the media, the quality of people coming here is getting poorer and poorer. If they are right, that may be a reason.
  Mr. Mullin: I do not want to get involved in discussing the quality of my colleagues, other than to say that,
  456
  in 14 years in this place, I have found people of an amazing range of talents and abilities. I have already done enough to hone down my vote in any internal party elections without commenting further.
  If this is such a good idea, why did we not vote on it before the general election? The report has been around for some time and could easily have been dealt with before 7 June. We all know why it was not.
  I tabled my amendment to give those who are against the proposed salary increase, be they ever so few, an opportunity to place their opposition on the record.
  3.33 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: In both constituencies that I have represented here, I have become well known, if not notorious, for believing that our remuneration package needs to be improved, so I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will not complain if I do not follow down his path.
  My points are based on my experience of having to think flexibly and laterally about how to manage on the limited resources provided by the office costs allowance. I acknowledge that the total has increased, but we need to build in much more flexibility than is found in either the report or the Government's recommendations. I was glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) recognised that.
  The report seemed to be pervaded by the belief that we are all dreadful employers. There have been conflicting comments about how good or bad we are, but if we are to enhance our abilities, it would be better for us to get training on how to be a good employer rather than to inflict inflexible regimes on everybody, regardless of their qualities as an employer. If we had such training, we might be able to use our resources more flexibly.
  In employing my staff, I have found that the draft, and very brief, job description, as outlined in the report, and the salary allied to it, do not fit with what I expect to need. We are all being dragooned into going down a route that may not be the most effective way of delivering services to our constituents and to the House. I would like the Leader of the House to clarify whether there is flexibility in our discussions with the Fees Office about both the contract and the pay that goes with it.
  The Leader of the House referred to the use of consultants. In order to provide the best possible service with the limited sum available, I have used consultants in various areas, and not only in research. The right hon. Gentleman said that he believed that such a practice should be allowed to continue. Does he believe that we should be able to continue to use consultants within our staff budget from 5 July, or does he want to refer the matter to the Speaker's panel?
  I know that there are various views on how information technology needs would best be provided. I use IT extensively, although anyone who knows me is aware that I am not a specialist in it. I already use three desktops and two laptops, across two staff, so the recommended package does not even meet my current needs. I have two combined fax, copiers, scanners and printers, plus one very robust printer for the vast volume of letters that my secretary has to print off. That, again, is not covered.
  I understand that it has been mooted that we should be able to buy the extra equipment that we need through our discretionary allowance, but given the speed of

  457
  technological change, upgrading every four years is not good enough. I am concerned that, because of the IT budget, our IT will go the way of our internal telephone system, which it took 20 years to upgrade. I fear that we will not only not upgrade as often as we should but find ourselves sliding back into using the equivalent of the old manual typewriters.
  In order to keep my equipment going, I have my own computer consultants who provide me not only with training but with instant back-up, whenever I need it, including weekends and evenings. I am a great believer in avoiding having a monopoly provider. I hope that, out of our increased expenses, we will be allowed to keep our own computer support staff.
  If the Leader of the House can give me assurances on all those points, I will be most grateful. If not, I will want to take the necessary action.
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I rise to speak to amendment (e) on the additional costs allowance. I thank those hon. Members who have supported my proposal. I should add that I will be supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), and the amendment tabled collectively and unanimously by our pension trustees, who belong to parties on both sides of the House.
  We all wish that the question of additional costs had been referred to the SSRB when the other allowances were, but it was not. That is unique. The SSRB last looked at these matters in 1996, when the overnight allowances for Members of the House of Lords and the additional costs allowance for hon. Members were considered at the same time.
  It may be contended that the two allowances are not exactly comparable, and that is true. One is an overnight allowance, and the other is a yearly allowance. However, the SSRB concluded that they existed for the same purposes, and made a direct comparison between those allowances and allowances elsewhere in the public and private sectors.
  That comparison can be found on page 93 of the 1996 report, which was report No. 38. The SSRB concluded that the two allowances were roughly similar, as the overnight allowance for Members of the House of Lords was £74 per night, and the additional costs allowance for hon. Members, when divided by that Session's 159 sitting days, came to £76.86 per night.
  The figures for the most recent year go up to March 2001, and show that the House of Lords allowance was £84 per night. I had an exchange earlier on this matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and the information that I have obtained from the House of Commons Library is that there were 159 sitting days last year. Dividing hon. Members' additional costs allowance of £13,322 by that figure puts our nightly rate at £83.79. The two figures are therefore very similar indeed.
  The two allowances have the same purpose, as the SSRB has decided in the past. It has also decided that they should be calculated on essentially the same basis. I therefore conclude that the same percentage increase—of 42 per cent.—should apply.
  In fact, the House of Lords has done a little better than that. The SSRB said that, in future, Members of the House of Lords can claim for the nights on which they sit and
  458
  for the Sunday night before a sitting week. In the coming Session, therefore, it is recommended that, if the Lords sits for four days, the maximum allowance for that week will rise not by 42 per cent. but by 78 per cent.
  Before my right hon. Friend has a slight heart attack at that, I assure him that I shall not press an increase of 78 per cent. However, there is strong evidence that the percentage increase should be the same for both allowances, as historically they have been calculated on the same basis. The current report is No. 48, and paragraph 4.4 of section IV of part 3 of volume 2 states that
  "there is no doubt that the cost of accommodation in central London has in recent years risen faster than the overnight allowance. So have rents and the price of properties. In the past. the SSRB has assumed that accommodation in a 3-star hotel would be a broadly appropriate benchmark for both MPs and peers."
  It adds that, on that basis, a House of Lords overnight allowance
  "of at least £110 and preferably £120 now seems appropriate. This seems a reasonable estimate."
  The SSRB accepts that both hon. Members' additional costs allowance and peers' overnight allowance have been calculated in the past on the basis of the cost of a three-star hotel. It concludes that a 42 per cent. increase in the House of Lords allowance—from £84 to £120—is right.
  Hon. Members may consider that using the cost of a three-star hotel as the basis for calculation might have been appropriate in the past but that a better indication of how our allowance is spent should nōw be the change in rents or property prices over the years. If, over the past few years, those increases had been substantially lower than increases in the cost of three-star hotels, I might concede that my amendment was too generous. Figures from the Library show that the average rent in the fourth quarter of last year for a one-bedroom flat in inner London was £275 a week. By itself, that would come to more than the current allowance.
  The increase in central-London rent levels from the fourth quarter of 1995 to the fourth quarter of 2000 amounts to 39.36 per cent. That is a period of five years, and the rise is only fractionally lower than the proposed 42 per cent. rise in the House of Lords overnight allowance, which is based on a seven-year period. In general, London property prices rose by 130 per cent. between 1994 and 2001, and prices for flats rose by 152 per cent.
  Even if the SSRB were to abandon the three-star hotel basis for calculation of these allowances, and move to a calculation based on rents or property prices, there is no evidence that what they would find would force them to conclude that a rise of 42 per cent. was over-generous, given the increase in costs over the past few years.
  We must get away from the idea that any increase in the maximum figure is necessarily applicable to everyone. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a telling point when he said that we are talking about allowances. The maximum figure is the limit up to which a claim can be made, not an automatic payment made to everyone.
  Some hon. Members may not claim the maximum figure for the current additional costs allowance, and they would not be affected. Others may claim up to the maximum and have no further expense, and they will not

  459
  be affected either. However, I already know that some hon. Members spend more on these costs than they can claim. Some hon. Members will find that their rents will go up so much in the next few years, given the current rising trend, that they will go beyond the amount contained in the proposal. Certainly, some new Members of Parliament will find that property prices have doubled in the past few years. They will face a difficult problem if we do not resolve this matter.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a very interesting offer earlier when he said that we could always refer this matter to the SSRB now. As I said then, I should have been much happier had the additional costs allowance been so referred a few months ago, along with all the other allowances.
  I could have plucked a figure out of thin air for the amount by which hon. Members' additional costs should be increased, referred that number to the SSRB and delayed matters for a while. However, I think that I have been able to show that the amendment is based on what the SSRB has done in the past. Its direct comparisons have caused it to determine that peers' overnight allowance and hon. Members' additional costs allowance existed for the same purpose. In its most recent report, the SSRB states that, traditionally, it has used the same basis to calculate both allowances. My conclusion, therefore, is that it is fair to say that the same percentage increase should apply to both now.
  My right hon. Friend might suggest that, if the matter were to be referred back to the SSRB, that body might find a different comparator based on rents or property prices. I think that I have drawn a fair and reasonable comparison between the allowances that I have described.
  Delay in implementation of the proposal in the amendment could cause considerable problems for many hon. Members. Traditionally, new hon. Members go looking for property to rent or buy in the summer period, when returning hon. Members consider their accommodation arrangements for the next five years. It would place an unfair burden on hon. Members to tell them that nothing can be done over the summer, that the proposal has had to be referred to the SSRB and will not come back until the autumn, and that Christmas is the earliest date by which we might know what the increase is to be.
  It would be unfair to delay, especially as I think that I have shown that the comparison proposed in the amendment is one that the SSRB has made in the past. My amendment is based on the information that that body has used to calculate the overnight allowance for Members of the House of Lords.
  3.48 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: I rise to speak briefly to amendment (b) on parliamentary pensions, which is tabled in my name and the names of many other hon. Members from all parties. I am grateful to those who have signed it and to those who have indicated that they would have signed it if they had had more time.
  I stress that I have no particular vested interest in the proposal. The records show that I am the marrying kind, and that as a result no one with whom I am connected would benefit from the change.
  460
  Recommendation 8 of the report states that trustees should canvass the views of members of the parliamentary contributory pension fund on the issue of survivors pensions for unmarried partners, but what will happen after views have been canvassed? The motion merely calls on trustees to consider recommendation 8, together with recommendations 4 and 6. It does not speak about how best to implement the recommendation, as it does with recommendation 2. Opinion in this House would invite the trustees to go further and to act. That is why I thought it appropriate to give the House an opportunity, through a Division or by general assent, to give a view on the matter.
  This proposal relates to the domestic arrangements of hon. Members in this day and age and is a reflection of current society. Also, we should be cautious not to penalise those who are bereaved, those who are the partners of a member who has died but do not happen to be married to them. By passing the amendment, we will indicate our wish to see our own practice reflect best practice in the private sector and the aspirations of those in the public sector.
  There is a long-term TUC campaign that the House of Commons Library note describes as a pension provision for unmarried partners. A document, "Pensions and prejudice—how public sector pension schemes discriminate against non-married partners", argues for the introduction of benefits for non-married adult survivors in public sector pensions schemes. For those who feel it important to see that the Government do not oppose such proposals, it should be noted that the Government's own Green Paper—called, interestingly, "Partnerships in pensions"—states that the Government would be prepared to consider how practical arrangements can be devised for achieving the extension of eligibility for survivors' pensions to unmarried partners in the context of a statutory scheme.
  The Government, in their evidence, indicated that they are prepared to consider extending eligibility for survivors' pensions to unmarried partners of members of statutory schemes, provided that the members are prepared to meet the additional costs. I believe that we should indicate that we are prepared to meet those small additional costs.
  This proposal will not benefit the majority of Members; I accept that. This will be, in effect, an altruistic act by many current contributors to a minority, but a minority that exists in all parties and whose domestic arrangements, which reflect a significant proportion of current society, are not those of living with a married partner. It would not come at a cost to the Exchequer and it would satisfy those who worship private sector practice—as, now, probably a majority of private sector schemes have such a measure—and those who seek common cause with public sector workers.
  In conclusion, the key question is the existence of a committed relationship and the financial dependence and/or interdependence of that partner; the key factor is not the presence or absence of a marriage certificate or the sexuality of the bereaved person. We have an opportunity to indicate that we want to go down a non-discriminatory path, which is in keeping with best practice in the private and public sectors in this day and age. I warmly commend amendment (b) to motion No. 4 to the House.
  3.52 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: We have had a very good debate and I am glad that the time allowed for the debate has permitted all those with selected amendments to speak to them.
  I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I am unable to respond to all the questions that were put to me in the time available. However, I shall endeavour to respond in writing to all Members who put questions to me. I shall try to respond to some of the questions from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who asked one or two questions of detail.
  First—I appreciate that this is important in terms of how Members may approach the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)—the hon. Lady asked about the rates of pay and the job descriptions. It would be our understanding that the Department of Finance and Administration would implement, broadly speaking, the rates of pay as set out in appendix E. We would envisage that being done within the range of a band of, perhaps, £2,000 above to £2,000 below the median point set out in appendix E, so there would be some flexibility for Members to nominate the particular figure for a member of staff.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked also about insurance. I reassure her that employer's liability and personal accident will continue to be centrally covered. Of course local matters, such as insurance cover for the structure and contents of a constituency office, will be for Members to find out of the incidental expenses provision, which, again, is a matter to bear in mind when considering the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
  I say to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and others who took part in the debate, that I very much welcome the support that has been shown for the Speaker's advisory panel and the recognition that that will provide us with a degree of flexibility to look at some of the difficult questions that arise in the process of transition. I welcome also the maturity shown in the debate and the recognition that there are bound to be teething problems. Inevitably, there will be difficult cases and it is right that, through the advisory panel, we should have the mechanism to consider these and, through the Speaker, the ability to assist in putting them right and providing a remedy.
  In terms of the first two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), on consultancies, I say that, in the event that she does not press them, I will undertake that they are considered early within the advisory panel to consider what remedy is available to us. Her amendments, and the others before the House, are House matters.
  Mrs. Lait: Will the Leader of the House give way?
  Mr. Cook: If the hon. Lady will be very brief, I will give way, but I only have five minutes.
  Mrs. Lait: That is absolutely understood and I will be brief. What about the contracts that we already have with consultants? If we move immediately to the new pay scale, will we have to break those contracts?
  Mr. Cook: There is specific provision in the SSRB report for central assistance to Members who find that
  462
  they have legally binding contractual commitments, be it with an IT provider, a member of staff or a consultancy. Those individual cases will be considered to see if we can find a way forward.
  The amendments are, of course, for the House to decide. On a number of them, I offer no view to the House. However, there are some on which I would invite the House to reflect before supporting them. I must say to the hon. Member for Beckenham that that applies very strongly to her amendment (1) on the IT package. It would be impractical for us to enter into the individual commitments that she wants. If we are to have a centrally funded and managed procurement system, we cannot at the same time, in practical terms, provide that degree of individual response. I hope that she will not press that amendment.
  On the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, we take no view. It is for the House to decide and for Members to judge in the light of their experience.
  I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that I am willing to put the additional cost to the SSRB and to invite them to respond urgently. I am pleased that he regards that as a tempting offer; I hope that I can tempt him further. [Laughter.] I hope that I can prove more tempting to my hon. Friend than the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. If he does push his amendment, we will have to explain and justify to the public a 42 per cent. increase that does not proceed from any independent assessment. Personally, I would feel much more comfortable if we first went through such a process.
  I invite other Members to join me in resisting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). As I understood his speech, he believes that we are paid too much and should be paid less. The effect of the amendment, of course, would be to pay us more. This is what, in an earlier phase of his career, he would have described as an inherent contradiction in the system. I would strongly suggest that he not press his amendment; otherwise we may be obliged to advise the electors of Sunderland, South that he believes that Members of Parliament should be paid more.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) spoke with authority as a trustee, and I fully respect that, but the SSRB considered and rejected the course of action that he proposed, and the Government have grave concerns about the impact on public spending if the proposal were to become a bargaining point across the public sector.
  Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that the overall package is a dramatic change for the better. It involves higher ceilings for our staff costs, it involves better pay for the great majority of Members' staff and it gives a sound basis for access to modern technology. Whatever view hon. Members may form on the amendments, I very much hope that they will support the proposals, so that we can bring the support services of the House into the 21st century and enable us to serve our constituents better.

  463
  It being Four o'clock, MR. SPEAKER pursuant to Order [this day], put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) wish to press amendment (j)?
  Mrs. Lait: I am minded to do so.
  Mr. Speaker: I should mention that if her amendment were agreed, I would not be able to put the question on amendment (o). Does the hon. Lady realise that?
  Mrs. Lait: I have had no discussions with the mover of amendment (o).
  Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not approached by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). If I had been, I would certainly have recommended that she did not press her amendment to a vote, because then the other amendments will fall and that is not—I believe—the feeling of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Having heard the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), what is the hon. Lady's intention?
  Mrs. Lait: Having heard the hon. Gentleman's comment, I shall not press the amendment, but I hope that its substance will be addressed by the Leader of the House.
  Amendments made: (o) to the motion on members' allowances, insurance, &c in paragraph (2)(c), leave out from 'above' to 'these' and insert:
  'should not in any financial year exceed—

  (i) £70,000 in the case of a Member representing a London constituency; and

  (ii) £60,000 in the case of any other Member, plus £3,500 in respect of each full-time (or full-time equivalent) staff person employed by that Member whose duties are wholly or mainly required to be performed within Greater London, provided that the aggregate sum payable in respect of any Member shall not exceed £70,000.'.

  (d) in paragraph (2)(d), leave out '£1.4,000' and insert £ l 8,000'.—[Mr. Soley.]
  Amendment proposed: (1), at end of paragraph (f), insert—
  '(h) that Members should be consulted on their IT needs and requirements before any contracts are let centrally; that the central purchase of any IT equipment should be subject to public procurement requirements; that a wide range of provision is offered and updated as required by each Member and that Members should have access to more than one IT support service of their own choosing.'.—[Mrs. Lait.]
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
  464
  Amendment proposed: (e) in paragraph (2), at end insert—
  '(2A) The House of Commons Additional Costs Allowance should be increased by the same proportion as that proposed for the House of Lords Overnight Allowance under Recommendation 16 of the Review Body on Senior Salaries Report No. 48.'.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 117.

  Division No. 11]

  [4.2 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Alexander, Douglas

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fallon, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Baldry, Tony

  Flight, Howard

  Banks, Tony

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Barker, Greg

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Barrett, John

  Francois, Mark

  Beard, Nigel

  Gale, Roger

  Bell, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Bennett, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Bercow, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Best, Harold

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Betts, Clive

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gilroy, Linda

  Blunt, Crispin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Borrow, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Brake, Tom

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hayes, John

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Burgon, Colin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Burns, Simon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Burt, Alistair

  Heyes, David

  Butterfill, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hope, Phil

  Casale, Roger

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cash, William

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Caton, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Challen, Colin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Chaytor, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Connarty, Michael

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Joyce, Eric

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Doran, Frank

  Lamb, Norman

  Doughty, Sue

  Laxton, Bob

  Duncan, Alan

  Levitt, Tom

  Duncan, Smith, Iain

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lidington, David

  465

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Loughton, Tim

  Salter, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  Luff, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Luke, Iain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lyons, John

  Selous, Andrew

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCafferty, Chris

  Simon, Siôn

  McIsaac, Shona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Spring, Richard

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mann, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Syms, Robert

  Merron, Gillian

  Tami, Mark

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morgan, Julie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mudie, George

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tipping, Paddy

  Oaten, Mark

  Tredinnick, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  O'Hara Edward

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Paice, James

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Paterson, Owen

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Perham, Linda

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Picking, Anne

  Walter, Robert

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Plaskitt, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pollard, Kerry

  Watkinson, Angela

  Pope, Greg

  White, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Rammell, Bill

  Wilshire, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Rendel, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ross, Ernie

  Roy, Frank

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruane, Chris

  Mr. Andrew Miller and

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. Kevin Barron.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brooke, Annette

  Ainger, Nick

  Bryant, Chris

  Allan, Richard

  Burnside, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Calton, Patsy

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Baker, Norman

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beggs, Roy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  David, Wayne

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brazier, Julian

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dodds, Nigel

  466

  Drew, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Duncan, Peter

  Pearson, Ian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Pond, Chris

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Randall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Hancock, Mike

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Hanson, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Havard, Dai

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Healey, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Heath, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Hermon, Lady

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Hill, Keith

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

  Hoban, Mark

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Hodge, Margaret

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Stunell, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Kelly, Ruth

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kemp, Fraser

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Thurso, John

  Kidney, David

  Timms, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Todd, Mark

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Lepper, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tynan, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Watts, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Webb, Steve

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Weir, Michael

  Mallaber, Judy

  Willis, Phil

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Martlew, Eric

  Woolas, Phil

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Öpik, Lembit

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, agreed to,

  MEMBERS' PAY (EXPRESSION OF OPINION)
  Amendment proposed: (a), to leave out from the second 'House' to end and insert—

  '(1) the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' salaries be rescinded; and

  (2) for each year starting with 1st April from 2002 onwards, the salary of a Member shall be increased by the average of the percentage increase recommended in that year by the Nurses', School Teachers', and Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Bodies.'—[Mr. Mullin.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 260.

  Division No. 12]

  [4.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bryant, Chris

  Allan, Richard

  Burden, Richard

  Austin, John

  Caims, David

  Berry, Roger

  Calton, Patsy

  Best, Harold

  Challen, Colin

  Brennan, Kevin

  Chaytor, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Clarke, Tony (Northmpton S)

  Brooke, Annette

  Coleman, Iain

  467

  Collins, Tim

  Pollard, Kerry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Randall, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Drew, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Salter, Martin

  Efford, Clive

  Sawford, Phil

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Simon, Siôn

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Skinner, Dennis

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Southworth, Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gidley, Sandra

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Todd, Mark

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Holmes, Paul

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Webb, Steve

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Weir, Michael

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Wishart, Pete

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Mrs. Anne Campbell.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corston, Jean

  Baker, Norman

  Cotter, Brian

  Baldry, Tony

  Cranston, Ross

  Barrett, John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Barron, Kevin

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beggs, Roy

  David, Wayne

  Bell, Stuart

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bercow, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Dodds, Nigel

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Doran, Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doughty, Sue

  Blunt, Crispin

  Dowd, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brake, Tom

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Etherington, Bill

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burgon, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burnett, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Burnham, Andy

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Burnside, David

  Flight, Howard

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Butterfill, John

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Foulkes, George

  Caplin, Ivor

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Francois, Mark

  Casale, Roger

  Gale, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian

  Galloway, George

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gapes, Mike

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Goodman, Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Grogan, John

  468

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mudie, George

  Hancock, Mike

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Oaten, Mark

  Havard, Dai

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hendrick, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hermon, Lady

  Öpik, Lembit

  Heyes, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Hill, Keith

  Pace, James

  Hoban, Mark

  Pearson, Ian

  Hope, Phil

  Picking, Anne

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Pond, Chris

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pumell, James

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mendel, David

  Joyce, Eric

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Kelly, Ruth

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Kidney, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rooney, Terry

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Ross, Ernie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roy, Frank

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lamb, Norman

  Ryan, Joan

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Laxton, Bob

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Sheerman, Barry

  Levitt Tom

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Lidington, David

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

  Linton, Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Lloyd, Tony

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Love, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Luff, Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Luke, Iain

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Lyons, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Stunell, Andrew

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McKechin, Ann

  Syms, Robert

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Tami, Mark

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mann, John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thurso, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Timms, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tredinnick, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Trend, Michael

  Miliband, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Miller, Andrew

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Moore, Michael

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Morgan, Julie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfold)

  469

  Tyler, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tynan, Bill

  Willis, Phil

  Walter, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Winnick, David

  Wareing, Robert N

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Worthington, Tony

  Watts, David

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Whittingdale, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House devided: Ayes 276, Noes 42.

  Division No. 13]

  [4.24 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Baker, Norman

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Banks, Tony

  Corston, Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cotter, Brian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Cruddas, Jon

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beggs, Roy

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bell, Stuart

  David, Wayne

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bercow, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Betts, Clive

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blunt, Crispin

  Doran, Frank

  Borrow, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Boswell, Tim

  Dowd, Jim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brake, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Burnett, John

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Burnham, Andy

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burnside, David

  Foulkes, George

  Burt, Alistair

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Butterfill, John

  Francois, Mark

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Caplin, Ivor

  Garnier, Edward

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gidley, Sandra

  Casale, Roger

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cash, William

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Caton, Martin

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hancock, Mike

  470

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Julie

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Havard, Dai

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Oaten, Mark

  Hermon, Lady

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Heyes, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hill, Keith

  Olner, Bill

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hope, Phil

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Paterson, Owen

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Perham, Linda

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Picking, Anne

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pond, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pumell, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Joyce, Eric

  Rammell, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rapson, Syd

  Kelly, Ruth

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kidney, David

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Rooney, Terry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Roy, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lammy, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ryan, Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Selous, Andrew

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sheerman, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lloyd, Tony

  Simon, Siôn

  Loughton, Tim

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Luke, Iain

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

  Lyons, John

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Southworth, Helen

  McCabe, Stephen

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McKechin, Ann

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stunell, Andrew

  McNulty, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Tami, Mark

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mann, John

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thurso, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Merron, Gillian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Miliband, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Miller, Andrew

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Tyler, Paul

  Moore, Michael

  Tynan, Bill

  471

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wilshire, David

  Wareing, Robert N

  Winnick, David

  Watts, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Allan, Richard

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Austin, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Pollard, Kerry

  Brennan, Kevin

  Rendel, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Salmond, Alex

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Salter, Martin

  Drew, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duncan, Peter

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Swayne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Webb, Steve

  Holmes, Paul

  Weir, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Wishart, Pete

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Woolas, Phil

  Khabra, Piara S

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Mullin, Chris

  Mr. Mark Todd.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

  (1) In respect of service in the period starting with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st March 2002 the salary of a Member shall be increased by £2,000 per annum.

  (2) That salary shall be increased by a further £2,000 per annum from 1st April 2002.

  (3) The increases referred to above shall be additional to any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996.

  PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS
  Amendment proposed: (a), at end to add—
  "And that this House further endorses the recommendation of the Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund that the accrual rate be increased to 1/40th and that the additional cost be borne by the Exchequer".—[Mr. Butterfill.]
  The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 172.

  Division No. 14]

  [4.37 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Best, Harold

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Betts, Clive

  Austin, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Banks, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Barker, Greg

  Boswell, Tim

  Barron, Kevin

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Beggs, Roy

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Bell, Stuart

  Brady, Graham

  472

  Brake, Tom

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bryant, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Burgon, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Burnett, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Burns, Simon

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Burnside, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Butterfill, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Casale, Roger

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cash, William

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Caton, Martin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cawsey, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Challen, Colin

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chaytor, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lidington, David

  Lloyd, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Luff, Peter

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Lyons, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McCabe, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  McCafferty, Chris

  Connarty, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McIsaac, Shona

  Corston, Jean

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cousins, Jim

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Cran, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cranston, Ross

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mann, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  David, Wayne

  Martlew, Eric

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Meale, Alan

  Doran, Frank

  Miller, Andrew

  Doughty, Sue

  Morgan, Julie

  Dowd, Jim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Oaten, Mark

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Etherington, Bill

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  O'Hara, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Olner, Bill

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Right, Howard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Galloway, George

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Garnier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Picking, Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Pollard, Kerry

  Gray, James

  Pope, Greg

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Grieve, Dominic

  Randall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Rapson, Syd

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Hancock, Mike

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hayes, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Roy, Frank

  Hendrick, Mark

  Ruane, Chris

  Hermon, Lady

  Ruddock, Joan

  Holmes, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Salmond, Alex

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Sawford, Phil

  Horam, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  473

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tynan, Bill

  Selous, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Watts, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Weir, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Spring, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Syms, Robert

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wishart, Pete

  Tipping, Paddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Tredinntek, David

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Trend, Michael

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. George Mudie.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Farrelly, Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Alexander, Douglas

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Allan, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Foulkes, George

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Bailey, Adrian

  Francois, Mark

  Baker, Norman

  Gapes, Mike

  Barnes, Harry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Barrett, John

  Goodman, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hanson, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Havard, Dai

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Healey, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Heath, David

  Brennan, Kevin

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Annette

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Burnham, Andy

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hill, Keith

  Cairns, David

  Hoban, Mark

  Calton, Patsy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hope, Phil

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Joyce, Eric

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Coleman, Iain

  Kelly, Ruth

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cooper, Yvette

  Khabra, Piara S

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kidney, David

  Cotter, Brian

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lamb, Norman

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Lammy, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  Laxton, Bob

  Drew, David

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Leslie, Christopher

  Duncan, Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Efford, Clive

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  474

  Linton, Martin

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Love, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn

  Luke, Iain

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

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

  McKechin, Ann

  Southworth, Helen

  McNulty, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Merron, Gillian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Miliband, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Moffatt, Laura

  Tami, Mark

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thurso, John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Timms, Stephen

  Norris, Dan

  Todd, Mark

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Perham, Linda

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pende)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pumell, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Watts, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Webb, Steve

  Rammell, Bill

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rendel, David

  Wills, Michael

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ryan, Joan

  Salter, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. Graham Stringer and

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mr. John Heppell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: (b), at end to add—
  "And that this House believes that survivors' benefits could apply to unmarried partners as well as spouses"—[Dr. Harris.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 33.

  Division No. 15]

  [4.48 pm

  AYES

  Abbott Ms Diane

  Bercow, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Berry, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Best, Harold

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Betts, Clive

  Allan, Richard

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Borrow, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Austin, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brake, Tom

  Baird, Vera

  Brennan, Kevin

  Baker, Norman

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Banks, Tony

  Brooke, Annette

  Barnes, Harry

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Barrett, John

  Bryant Chris

  Barren, Kevin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beard, Nigel

  Burden, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Burgon, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burnham, Andy

  Bell, Stuart

  Burstow, Paul

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  475

  Cairns, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Calton, Patsy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoban, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Holmes, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hood, Jimmy

  Casale, Roger

  Hope, Phil

  Caton, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cawsey, Ian

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Challen, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Coaker, Vernon

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Joyce, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cranston, Ross

  Keen, Alan (Fettham & Heston)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Khabra, Piara S

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  David, Wayne

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Lamb, Norman

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lammy, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Laxton, Bob

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Doran, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dowd, Jim

  Levitt, Tom

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Duncan, Peter

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Love, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  Luke, Iain

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lyons, John

  Etherington, Bill

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ewing, Annabelle

  McCafferty, Chris

  Fabricant, Michael

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Farrelly, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fieid, Mark (Cities of London)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McKechin, Ann

  Foulkes, George

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  McNulty, Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McWalter, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mann, John

  Goodman, Paul

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miliband, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hancock, Mike

  Moore, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Julie

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mudie, George

  Havard, Dai

  Mullin, Chris

  Heath, David

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  476

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Oaten, Mark

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Syms, Robert

  Perham, Linda

  Tami, Mark

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pond, Chris

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pope, Greg

  Thurso, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Todd, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pumell, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rammell, Bill

  Tyler, Paul

  Rapson, Syd

  Tynan, Bill

  Rendel, David

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooney, Terry

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie

  Webb, Steve

  Roy, Frank

  Weir, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Joan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Willis, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simon, Siô

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mr. John Heppell and

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

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  NOES

  Baldry, Tony

  Luff, Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Paterson, Owen

  Blunt, Crispin

  Robathan, Andrew

  Botlomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Brazier, Julian

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Burnside, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Thurso, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Trend, Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Cran, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Francois, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

  Hayes, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hermon, Lady

  Kidney, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Letwin, Oliver

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Gerald Howarth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

  MEMBERS' INSURANCE: REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR BLACKBURN
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made to reimburse the Right honourable Member for Blackburn for reasonable legal expenditure including damages arising in consequence of an action brought against him alleging vicarious liability for an act of negligence committed in the course of his duties as a Member of this House.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

  MEMBERS' PAY (MONEY RESOLUTION)
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

  (1) In respect of service in the period starting with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st March 2002 the salary of a Member shall be increased by £2,000 per annum.

  (2) That salary shall be increased by a further £2,000 per annum from 1st April 2002.

  (3) The increases referred to above shall be additional to any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

Select Committees
5 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:

Select Committees

  A. Select Committee Quorums
  S.O. No. 124 (Quorum of Select Committees):
  in line 1, at the beginning, insert—

  '(A) Except as otherwise provided, the quorum of a select committee shall be three or a quarter of the number of its members, whichever is the greater; and in calculating the quorum fractions shall be counted as one.

  (B) Where more than two select committees or sub-committees thereof meet concurrently for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, pursuant to Standing Order (Select Committees: power to work with other committees), the quorum of each shall be two.'.

  S.O. No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting):
  in line 5, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 6.
  S.O. No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee):
  leave out paragraph (10).
  S.O. No. 142 (Domestic Committees):
  in line 9, leave out from 'Members' to end of the line.
  S.O. No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee):
  in line 19, leave out from 'Members' to end of the line.
  S.O. No. 145 (Liaison Committee):
  leave out paragraph (5).
  S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
  in line 10, leave out from 'Members' to end of line II.
  S.O. No. 147 (Procedure Committee):
  leave out paragraph (3).
  S.O. No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts):
  in line 7, leave out from 'Members' to 'The' in line 8.
  S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
  in line 7, after 'concerned', insert 'and'.
  in line 8, leave out from 'committee' to 'shall'.
  in the table in paragraph (2), leave out the fourth column ('Quorum').
  leave out paragraph (5).
  S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
  in line 9, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 10.

  B. Select Committees (Power to Work with Other Committees)
  That—
  (1) The following Standing Order (Select Committees: power to work with other committees) be made:
  '(1) Any select committee or sub-committee with power to send for persons, papers and records shall have power—

  (a) to communicate its evidence to any other select committee or sub-committee of either House of Parliament; provided that evidence from the National Audit Office shall first have been agreed between that Office and the government department or departments concerned;

  (b) to meet concurrently with any such committee or sub-committee for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence; and

  (c) to meet concurrently with any other select committee of this House for the purpose of considering a draft report.

  479
  (2) Where two or more select committees have agreed reports to the House in identical terms, those reports may be published as a joint report; and
  (2) That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:'
  S.O. No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting):
  in line 16, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 33, and insert `its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
  S.O. No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee):
  leave out lines 116 to 126.
  S.O. No. 142 (Domestic Committees):
  in line 23, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 40, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
  S.O. No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee):
  leave out paragraphs (12) and (13).
  S.O. No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee):
  in line 28, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 45, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
  S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
  leave out lines 21 to 26.
  S.O. No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts):
  leave out paragraphs (3) and (4).
  S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
  leave out lines 29 to 42.
  in line 47, leave out from 'proceedings' to 'and' in line 52.
  S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
  leave out lines 23 to 34.

  C. Select Committees Related to Government Departments
  That Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) be amended, by leaving out items 1, 4, 5 and 13 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following items at the appropriate places:
  'Education and Skills/Department for Education and Skills/11';
  'Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/l7';
  'Transport, Local Government and the Regions/Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions/17'; and
  'Work and Pensions/Department for Work and Pensions/11'.

  D. Select Committees (Power to Appoint Sub-Committees)
  That the following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
  S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
  in line 29, at end add the following words:

  '(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

  (6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.

  (7) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.

  S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
  leave out lines 9 to 14, and insert the following words:
  480
  '(3) Each select committee appointed under this order shall have the power to appoint a sub-committee, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee shall have power to appoint two sub-committees.'.
  S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
  in line 34, at end, add the following words:

  '(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

  (6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.

  (7) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.

  Mr. Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss motion No. 8:

  European Standing Committees
  That the following amendments be made to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees):
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Agriculture, Fisheries and Food', and insert 'Environment, Food and Rural Affairs'.
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Environment, Transport and the Regions', and insert 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions'.
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Scottish, Welsh', and insert 'Scotland, Wales'.
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Social Security', and insert 'Work and Pensions'.
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Education and Employment', and insert 'Education and Skills'.
  Mr. Cook: It may be convenient for the House, especially as so many hon. Members are heading in that direction, if I say that an explanatory memorandum is available in the Vote Office that details the terms and significance of the motion. During last Thursday's debate on programming, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested that an explanatory memorandum would have been valuable. I am pleased to say that we have been able to respond, and I hope that colleagues who read that testimonial to him will appreciate it. For technical and legal reasons, we have not yet resolved whether we can put it on the Order Paper, but we shall continue to consider that.
  I can be brief, because I believe that the motion reflects a broad consensus in many quarters of the House, although I may not carry everyone with me on that. I discussed the motion with the three senior Members appointed by the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament to continue the work of preparing for the Select Committees and, save for one modest change of detail, the motion fully implements the table and schedule that they presented to me. I hope that the motion will achieve consensus and gain the support of the House.
  The motion has two main consequences. First, it will reconfigure the departmental Select Committees so that they track the departmental changes in Whitehall. I anticipate no disagreement with that, especially given the modest attendance. Plainly, those who remain fully understand such matters and know perfectly well that there is no point in having departmental Select Committees that reflect the Departments of the previous Parliament rather than those of this. I hope that hon. Members will support that.

  481
  The motion's second main consequence is several modest but important steps that will give Select Committees more freedom and flexibility over their arrangements in two principal ways. First, Select Committees will have the freedom to appoint Sub-Committees. Until now, we have specified by a decision of the House which departmental Select Committees can form a Sub-Committee. Given the importance and stability of Select Committees, that is now unnecessary and old fashioned. We are leaving it to Select Committees to decide for themselves whether forming a Sub-Committee at a particular time and on a particular issue would be of value. That must be right.
  Secondly, we are giving every Select Committee the right to form a Joint Committee with any other Select Committee. Again, hitherto, a specific decision of the House was required to enable a Select Committee to form a Joint Committee. Last year, Liaison Committee reports drew attention to the fact that the evolution of government towards joined-up government had created crosscutting initiatives that were difficult for a Select Committee to track in isolation. They advocated more flexibility in enabling Select Committees to track joined-up government through Joint Committees. The motion gives Select Committees the freedom to form Joint Committees.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend referred to the Liaison Committee report and said quite rightly that these welcome reforms will have wide support within the House. Will he also reflect on the fact that many hon. Members representing all parties have subscribed to early-day motion 50—and many more will—which calls on the Government to reconsider the Liaison Committee report, particularly those parts of it that deal with the selection of Select Committees? Will he use this opportunity to give the House an undertaking that those matters will be seriously considered and brought back to the House for debate as a matter of urgency?
  Mr. Cook: I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that I look at the Order Paper first thing every day and have noted with interest the number of names attached to the early-day motion. I have said to my hon. and learned Friend privately and on the record at business questions that I am willing to look again at some of the issues and some of the recommendations made by the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament and will want to return to that in the autumn, perhaps through the Modernisation Committee and through other channels. However, as I have always stressed, the important and urgent business is to get the Select Committees started and to get them under way. Therefore, I have to do so under the existing process of selection and approval. I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient on further changes until we resume after the summer recess.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. He has just talked about Joint Committees and greater flexibility. Will he share with the House whether he has in mind a Joint Committee of the Procedure Committee, which I had the honour to chair in the previous Parliament, and the Modernisation Committee, which he will chair in this Parliament and of
  482
  which I was a member in the previous Parliament, because quite clearly there is a lot of common ground between the two Select Committees?
  Mr. Cook: As I understand the motion, there is nothing to prevent those two Select Committees, should they choose to do so, from examining some work together. I look forward very much to working with the hon. Gentleman on some of these issues. I hope that he will return to the Modernisation Committee in which he played a distinguished and very creative role in the previous Parliament—[Interruption.] I hope that I have not done the hon. Gentleman any damage by that comment. If it is helpful, I will now attack him in order to restore his standing with his party.
  I should refer to one other consequence of the motion before I turn to the amendments. The opening passage of the motion addresses in some detail the quorums of Select Committees. The broad effect of that passage is to place the quorums of all Select Committees on a consistent basis, set, broadly speaking, at a quarter of the membership. That will be helpful in a number of Select Committees that have had to struggle with a rather larger quorum, which sometimes has not been realistic in terms of the attendance. In particular, the proposed changes on quorums will be of great value to the Joint Committees, which under the present rules have to produce the full quorum of each of the Select Committees from which they are drawn. The proposed provision creates a new quorum for a Joint Committee in its own right, which will enable it to get on with its work with confidence.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. If Select Committees are as important as Members like to claim, how is it that the Leader of the House can find himself using the phrase that Select Committees struggle to get a quorum? Does he not find it strange that these very important Committees of the House that do very important work, often in far-flung parts of the world, struggle to make a quorum? Would people not be entitled to be slightly suspicious that if we cannot even make a quorum in those Committees, Members themselves do not value their work very much?
  Mr. Cook: I do not think that the problem of making a quorum arises very much for departmental Select Committees, but the House appoints a large number of Select Committees, not every meeting of which is fascinating to every Member and most of which are not held in far-flung places. However, I would not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's central point, if I can refashion it in a slightly more diplomatic way, that right hon. and hon. Members also have to accept their responsibility for ensuring the status and the good work of Select Committees. In its report last year, the Liaison Committee had some strong words to say about the importance of attendance at Select Committees.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has tabled two amendments, the second of which proposes that every Sub-Committee should contain a member of the Liberal Democrat party or another minority party. I submit that the trend of the motion that I have put before the House is to give Select Committees more discretion, more flexibility and more freedom. It is for them to decide whom to put on a Sub-Committee. As a generality, I hope and expect that they would include a representative of the

  483
  minority parties in any such Sub-Committee, but it would be wrong in principle and inconsistent with the trend of the motion if we were to make it a blanket prescription by the House.
  The hon. Gentleman's other amendment calls for an increase in the membership of Select Committees, typically from 11 to 13. I understand the broad, general case for an increase in the membership of Select Committees, which was argued with vigour by the Hansard Society in its recent report. As I said, I shall want to return to and consult on a number of such issues in the autumn through the work of the Modernisation Committee. In considering further reforms, I shall be happy to examine whether there is a case for larger numbers on Select Committees, as was advocated by the Hansard Society, although we must bear in mind the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and ensure that we appoint willing members who will attend the Committees.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to reconsider the membership of Select Committees with a view to increasing the numbers, is it proper now to reduce the quorum?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. The quorum is typically set at a quarter of the membership, so if we increased the numbers, the quorum would automatically rise. The hon. Gentleman can set his mind at rest on that difficulty.
  If we are to return to some of these matters and to consult on and discuss them, I hope that we can reserve the larger question of the size of Select Committees until then. I am keen to get the Select Committees started in the next two weeks, so I am anxious that there is no unnecessary controversy in the way.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: What time scale does the Leader of the House have for this further review? He may agree with me that reviews have often been promised but seldom delivered.
  Mr. Cook: We have gone at a fairly cracking pace on some of these issues in the past three weeks, especially on how to proceed with Select Committees. If no progress is made, it will not be for want of trying or for lack of intention on our part, but I cannot offer a major change in Select Committees without consultation and without broad consensus.
  The size of a Select Committee could be contentious. I do not want to reduce what I hope will be a pleasant House of Commons debate to a partisan affair, but I cannot resist pointing out that a membership of 13 is the figure that most benefits the Liberal Democrats. Under the present distribution of seats in the House, 13 is the first point at which the Liberal Democrats become entitled to two seats, not one. That figure applies until we reach Select Committees with a membership of 21. Some hon. Members may think that if we are going to go for 13, we might as well go for 15 or 17, which would provide added
  484
  seats for members of other parties, including the large number of Back Benchers in my party who may not otherwise secure a place on a Select Committee.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, and there may be strong pressure for that from Labour Members. The trigger of 13 enables us to include a Liberal Democrat as well as a member of one of the minority parties. Up to that point, it is impossible for both groups to be represented, and that is a real difficulty.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I think he may share my view that if we are to have a membership of 13 to accommodate that problem, the view in other quarters may be that we should have up to 15 or 17 members to resolve other under-representations. I ask that we reserve this surprisingly contentious question until we can consider Select Committees in the round. In the meantime, I hope that the House will approve the motions that I have submitted to it.
  Mr. William Cash (Stone): Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at an essay by Sir Edward Fellowes? It appears in a book to which Bernard Crick and others have contributed, entitled "The Commons in Transition", and was written in about 1970. I will not go into the details but Sir Edward said that in 1886—that may seem a long time ago, but the consequences are still with us—the power of the Whips, in other words the handing over of control of Standing Orders to the Executive rather than the Speaker, had left the House of Commons in a parlous condition. I paraphrase Sir Edward, but that is what he said.
  Would the right hon. Gentleman consider this possibility? Might it not be highly desirable, in the interest of the independence of Back Benchers, to reach a decision enabling them—in consultation with the Government—to ensure the provision of more of that independence? That would be in line with the general principles of the Liaison Committee, but would apply to all Select Committee matters.
  Mr. Cook: I am even now compiling my reading list for my summer holiday. I shall ensure that Sir Edward's article is included.
  Many complex and thoughtful proposals have of course been presented by the Liaison Committee, the Hansard Society and the Norton commission, which was established by the hon. Gentleman's party. We should reflect on many of those proposals, and see whether we can find ways of making incremental improvements to the system. I certainly agree that we should obtain the right balance between the Government's ability to secure the legislation on the basis of which they were elected, and the House's right to scrutinise that and other Government legislation.
  I believe that the timetable for Select Committees with which we are pressing ahead demonstrates our good faith in that regard. As I announced earlier today, we intend to confirm nominations on Monday week, which will enable the Committees to meet before the House rises on 20 July.

  485
  That will be the greatest speed at which any Government have set up Select Committees following the commencement of a new Parliament.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will, but then I must allow the debate to proceed.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: My intervention will be very brief.
  We are delighted by my right hon. Friend's clear indication that he appreciates the importance of Select Committees. He will understand that we also place much reliance on his undertaking to examine some of the other aspects of the Liaison Committee's report, to which the House will wish to return in due course.
  Mr. Cook: I am delighted that I gave way to my hon. Friend. I hope that I shall have her support, as well as that of others, when we return from the recess.
  The commitment that we have made in regard to Select Committees reflects the importance we attach to scrutiny. It also reflects my own view that scrutiny of Government does not necessarily constitute an adversarial relationship between Executive and Parliament—certainly not through the Select Committee system.
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned Bernard Crick. Some time ago, Bernard Crick said that parliamentary control of the Executive was not the enemy of effective government, but the condition of effective government. I believe that we have a common interest in ensuring that we arrive at a proper, effective system of scrutiny through Select Committees, and it is in that spirit that I commend the motion. I hope that it will command consensus support.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: The last words of the Leader of the House were attractive, if I may put it that way. I was happy to heal them, and happy to note the spirit in which I believe they were uttered.
  All I can say on behalf of the official Opposition is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will indeed go away and consider that reading list. I remind him that it was suggested not just by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) but by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who, I seem to recall, quoted the same source in an earlier debate on programme motions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do that reading, because he has an opportunity to provide leadership, and because he could gain the appreciation of members of all parties for his work.
  I do not want to take up a lot of the House's time. It is clear that the measures that have been proposed are very sensible. They all appear to be minor improvements on the way in which the Select Committee system runs. The measure on quorums is exceptionally sensible in enabling one to avoid making some recondite calculations, which seems to have occurred on previous occasions. Another measure may be the chrysalis of a better future for Select Committees, enabling them to link up with others and to set up Sub-Committee structures. That is a real improvement. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for having taken that on.
  486
  I was slightly amused by the Leader of the House's comments about the need for Members to attend Select Committees. I agree, but I am sure that he will agree that people attend Select Committees in measure of their relevance and, as he rightly said, the interest that is generated. On the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, we were amused to study the way in which certain Cabinet sub-committees worked under the previous Government. One was about greening government and brought the Ministers of various Departments—the green Ministers—together. It was trumpeted as an important organ of government. We discovered after a certain amount of questioning that, although some 14 out of 16 departmental Ministers charged with responsibilities in the committee had turned up on the first day for the group photograph, thereafter they had sent along permanent officials and had not turned up. Presumably, that was a reflection of the effectiveness that they perceived the committee to have.
  It must be the same thing with Select Committees. We may trumpet them as important. They may look important on paper, but if their recommendations are routinely placed in the lower tray and not looked at, if their work is not recognised, and if on top of that they are perceived ultimately to be under enormous Government control—subtle but real—they will not succeed in evolving further. After a commendable period when Norman St. John-Stevas was Leader of the House and Select Committees took off, one has the impression that they have to an extent stagnated, except perhaps in so far as the work of Committees has been extended: they can look across different Government Departments.
  If things are to progress along the lines that the Leader of the House mentioned, the Liaison Committee's report of 2000 and its further report of 2001, in which it reviewed the progress of Select Committees, need to be given proper consideration. Part I, the introduction, of the report of 8 March 2001 deals with the point about Select Committee membership being under Government and Executive control. It says:
  "We felt the time was right. Improvements could be based upon twenty years of practical experience. The Government was committed to a programme of constitutional change, including modernisation of the House. With a sharp decline in attendance in the Chamber, it was all the more important to stress an area of the House's work that is seen by the general public as valuable and constructive."
  Paragraph 6 says:
  "the Government's response was disappointing."
  Paragraph 21 states:
  "It is clear that the system for nominating members of select committees must be changed. It is also clear that there is widespread support for such a change."
  I am sure that the Leader of the House will have to acknowledge that there is no suggestion that that support has in any way eroded. I welcome the measures that he has introduced, but they should be the first building block towards some sensible changes.
  I fully appreciate that the Executive and Government are bound to be wary of measures that give an impression that they might lose control. However, there is much good will towards looking constructively at those matters—if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government wish to do so. We are in the Government's hands, and it would be very nice if there were an opportunity for debate in the next 12 months—and not just in Opposition time, as on

  487
  the previous occasion—in which we could start sensibly to make progress. If we do, I am convinced that the Government will ultimately benefit. As Lord Norton said, if scrutiny and transparency are improved, a good Government are the ultimate winners. Without such improvement, and however much I might welcome today's proposals, we are just tinkering at the edges.
  5.25 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I shall not detain the House for long, as I welcome the motions.
  The House of Commons does itself real credit when it takes its work seriously, but sometimes we are not perceived as doing so. There are all sorts of reasons why people outside the House do not know what goes on here. They know little about our procedures and there is no particular reason why they should. In some instances, they interpret our role as consisting solely of the work that we are seen to do in our constituencies.
  The reality is that, if one makes laws, this is the place to make them. If one scrutinises the work of the Executive, this is the place to do so. It is absolutely essential that any self-confident Government should be prepared to allow that scrutiny in Select Committees, by people who have a vested interest not in causing unnecessary difficulty, but in ensuring that the truth and the responsible decisions of Government are fully and closely examined.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—it is very good that we as a Government have been prepared to support the rapid setting up of the Select Committees. It is precisely because people outside see the movement away from the Chamber and into Select Committees that the Select Committee on Liaison decided that it was time to produce a report. The report is important, and I hope that we shall return to it and examine it closely.
  This is one of the few Parliaments in the world in which close examination of the Executive is carried out by people selected by their own Government. We can argue about the niceties of how people become members of Select Committees, but a great deal of control is still exercised over who is selected for which role and when.
  I happen to think that the House of Commons is now quite a grown-up institution, and can trust all its Back Benchers. It is the consensus at which they arrive, the work that they do together and the evidence that they take which inform their Select Committee reports. That is absolutely essential to the good working of the Government. A good Government are confident enough to answer for their decisions in public and to trust Members of Parliament to say things that are not always comfortable or flattering. A good Government are determined enough to ensure that their work can be examined with care, because they know that they have taken the right decisions to protect the rights and interests of the electorate.
  This Government can set an important precedent by giving the House of Commons such trust. I and my colleagues on the previous Liaison Committee were privileged to serve, and to have the chance to talk to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whips about what we
  488
  wanted to achieve. Only when such scrutiny is available, and there is such confidence between the Executive and individual Members, will we get change.
  This place evolves—it changes all the time—from a position of confidence. I know that Her Majesty's Government will allow us to return to this matter in the autumn.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: In many ways, this is a more important topic than the one on which we spent the earlier part of the day, even though there may be less excitement and Member interest in the question of how the House is to come to terms with an ever stronger Executive—that is not a party political point, and the process has been going on for decades—and a Parliament that finds it more and more difficult to hold them to account. I agree with the Leader of the House that a good Government have nothing to fear, and in fact a great deal to gain, from close examination.
  I am not speaking on behalf of a party, as this is a matter for Members at large, but there are issues that directly affect the capacity of certain Members to participate in such holding to account. We warmly welcome the motions and we are delighted at the rapid pace of bringing the Select Committees back into full use, but we think that there is scope to go further. My amendments set out how that might be achieved.
  We agree that the reconfiguration of Select Committees to match Departments is right, and that there should be some Committees with a membership of 17. We welcome the capacity for all the Committees to have Sub-Committees and believe that increasing the use of Joint Committees is very worth while. Now, however, I come to the need for the amendments. I apologise for the length of one and the brevity of the other. The complexity of our Standing Orders means that it is hard to express one's intention in plain words.
  The intention is that the smaller variety of Select Committee should be increased in size so as to have two representatives from third and minority parties. The purpose is not to seek a benefit for the Liberal Democrats—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of course not."] Hon. Members are clearly sceptical, but we could equally have tabled amendments that directly paralleled the proposals of the Hansard Society or the alternative laid out by the Leader of the House—that all Select Committees should consist of 17. One reason for not doing that was the caution shown by Conservative Front Benchers in discussions about increasing the number of Select Committees in the previous Parliament.
  When the Modernisation Committee was considering ways of improving the scrutiny of European legislation, and was minded to propose that there should be five European Scrutiny Committees, to try to get to grips with the great volume of legislation coming from Europe, the Conservative party argued for a lesser growth in Select Committees, and said that it would not be able to provide the additional members.
  Perhaps in a new Parliament the Conservatives are more willing, or perhaps more able, to participate in Select Committee proceedings, but one reason for our proposals was to save them the embarrassment of being unable to provide the additional members. I would not be

  489
  concerned should the House decide that a larger size of Select Committee, with a greater representation from the Conservatives, was appropriate.
  Mr. Grieve: There was no embarrassment on the part of the official Opposition in making the points that we did. Our points reflected the reality of staffing Select Committees, participating in Standing Committees and ensuring representation in the Chamber. It would have been irresponsible to say that we could do more. My recollection of the Select Committee on which I served is that the attendance of members of the hon. Gentleman's party tended to be rather less regular, and more a la carte, than ours.
  Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me, confirming my assertion that Conservative Members in the previous Parliament had difficulty servicing Select Committees and that that was the main reason for their objection to increased European scrutiny and the creation of two additional Committees. I simply pray that in aid of a proposal that would leave Conservative representation on Select Committees at its current level. However, if alternative proposals are introduced that would increase the level of Conservative representation, I shall be happy to hear the arguments.
  Mr. Tyler: It is true that for a long time the Conservative party found it difficult to get former Ministers and senior members to serve on these Committees. It is understandable that hon. Members who have held great offices of state might find it difficult to serve in that rather menial capacity, but if they now take a different view, we must welcome it.
  Mr. Stunell: The point being debated is not the substantive point of the amendments, but hon. Members seem to consider that this is in some way a self-serving amendment. It is not: we should be very willing to have the representation on Select Committees of Opposition parties increased. I take the point made by the Leader of the House, which was that Labour Back Benchers might be just as effective at providing opposition on occasions. One hopes that they might be more effective than they were in the previous Parliament, but such things change.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) noted, the representation secured for third and minority parties covers nine political parties in this House. It is therefore necessary for consideration to be given to the cause of all those parties, and as result, smaller Committees contain no Liberal Democrat Members.
  Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the House would be more persuaded of the enthusiasm of his party and other Opposition parties if there were more evidence of their attendance at this debate? I find it difficult to believe what the lion. Gentleman says about the enthusiasm of his and other parties when I see the empty Benches surrounding him. Moreover, if he raises once more the alleged differential in attendance between his colleagues and mine, I shall invite him to examine the public record of attendance at all Select Committees. I think that that would leave him very embarrassed.
  Mr. Stunell: It is always as well to do the sums before making such an intervention. In fact, a higher proportion
  490
  of Liberal Democrat Members than Conservatives is now present in the Chamber. I am not sure that the argument is won entirely on statistics. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. This argument is getting slightly circular. Perhaps we can get back to the important business before the House.
  Mr. Stunell: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and apologise if I have led the House in an inappropriate direction.
  Amendment (b) deals with the membership of Sub-Committees. I understand the reluctance of the Leader of the House to give instructions to Select Committees on how to form Sub-Committees. When Sub-Committees are established—I hope they will be—to deal with specific tasks or responsibilities in the Select Committee's overall remit, they will contain a sub-set of members of the Select Committee. However, if the membership of Select Committees is maintained at 11, the difficulty will arise that, if two or more Sub-Committees are established—and hon. Members are not entitled to serve on more than one of those Committees—it is axiomatic that one of them will contain only Labour and Conservative Members. That would weaken the accountability and effectiveness not only of the Select Committee, but of the Government, who must be challenged at every point.
  We welcome the speed with which the Government have tabled the motion, and its intention. We shall certainly support it, but there is also legitimate interest in getting improved accountability, and support for our amendments will achieve that.
  5.40 pm
  Andrew Bennett: I am pleased to have the chance to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on getting the motion before the House so quickly, and I hope that we can have the Committees in being in the last week before the recess.
  On the question of the quorum, I welcome the fact that that has been made flexible, but there are two sides to the question. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that if a Select Committee is usually well attended, the quorum should not be a problem. That is correct, but I can remember two occasions in the last Parliament when there might have been a difficulty with the quorum.
  On one occasion, a Wednesday morning, there was the funeral of an ex-Member, and clearly a lot of members of the Select Committee wanted to attend that. On the other hand, witnesses had travelled a considerable distance and it would also have been unfair to cancel the Committee at that point; but there was a chance of not having a quorum in that Select Committee.
  The other problem is when a Select Committee meets at the same time in the afternoon as a Government statement takes place on the Floor of the House. On those occasions, it seems to me that having a low quorum may avoid embarrassment. However, if we are to have a low quorum, the other side is that there is a responsibility on Members who put their names forward to serve on a Select Committee that they intend to attend.
  There is a spat among Opposition Members to do with looking at the record to see whose people turned up most frequently. Sadly, the record is pretty appalling, because

  491
  all it shows is whether someone was in a Select Committee for a few seconds, just to get the Clerk to recognise that they were there. We have all come across people who nip in, get their mark and disappear. We should spell out to Members who put their names forward to go on a Select Committee that they are committing themselves to doing a piece of work and that they are not just going to get their mark and disappear.
  Mr. Forth: It occurs to me that one of the problems—I recognise that there are two sides to this matter—is that once a colleague is made a member of a Select Committee, he or she is effectively irremovable, and colleagues may trade on that. It might be worth our considering the possibility of attaching the privilege of membership to the responsibility to turn up; that might concentrate some minds effectively.
  Andrew Bennett: There are arguments along that line. The problem is actually measuring how people turn up.
  The second point is that there are people who turn up fairly regularly but then dodge in and out of the Committee, spending more time on the telephone in the Corridor. We should spell it out to Members that if a Committee sits for two hours, they should be there and participating for those two hours.
  That brings me to the question of the size of a Select Committee. I can understand the argument that the more members a Committee has, the more useful things there are for Members of Parliament to do. However, the House also needs to think about the way in which a Select Committee works. My experience is that, in a Committee of 11 members, having eight or so present is about right, from the point of view of chairing the Committee and feeling that everyone is participating.
  When there is a larger Committee—I chaired a previous Environment Committee and a Transport Committee that had 17 members—there can be a lot of people there. If 15 or 16 turn up, there can be very little opportunity to participate and it becomes difficult for the Committee to be spontaneous. One cannot let people just jump in with a question when they want to push the questioning in a particular direction. One has to plan the questions formally, and allocate time or take other measures. We should not rush to make the Committees larger, if we want them to be effective and people to attend most of the time. It is not necessarily a good idea to make the Committees larger if we want them to work more effectively.
  The motion proposes the creation of two large Committees, one for environment, food and rural affairs and the other for transport, local government and the regions. If we are to have two such big Committees, a strong case may be made for having joint Chairs of those Committees. In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee was jointly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and me.
  Some unease was felt about whether the joint chairing would work. People asked, for example, from whom the Clerks would take instruction. However, I believe that we managed to make it work, and I plead with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider having joint Chairs for those two large Committees. In that way,
  492
  we would have more participation in the management of the Committees than would be possible if they had only one Chair.
  The strength of Select Committees' reports is that they are based on the evidence heard and on the reaction of Members who heard it. One of the difficulties for a Sub-Committee is that it hears the evidence but does not have ownership of the report. It reports to the main Committee, which then reports to the House. Members on the main Committee who were not on the Sub-Committee may wish to go back through the evidence and alter the report, without having heard the evidence. It could be argued that the Sub-Committee should be able to report to the House, instead of to the main Committee, and that point should be considered.
  If the Select Committees are to work effectively, they must be properly staffed. It is important that when they are set up a little more time is spent on ensuring that they have the right resources. I do not ask for large resources, but there is a shortage of Clerks to cover the Select Committees proposed in the motion. The issue of specialist assistance and secretarial back-up is yet another question.
  We must also make much better use of new technology. It is welcome that Select Committee reports now appear on the web, but it is important to examine how we can get the evidence on to the web quickly, so that the Select Committee process can become more of a dialogue. People could read what had been said in evidence to the Select Committee and then send in supplementary evidence.
  I welcome the fact that the Government are getting on with making the changes. I look forward to seeing the names down on the Order Paper late next week, and I hope that the Select Committees will be up and running, and effectively scrutinising the Government, when we come back in October.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. William Cash (Stone): I welcome the appointment of the Leader of the House. Over the years I have been in the House, I have developed not only an affection for him, which he may not have understood, but considerable respect for his ability and skill in the conduct of the various positions that he has held, even though I have recently had reason to disagree with him on matters that I need not mention tonight. Having said that, the issue before us is enormously important and I am glad to hear that the Leader of the House intends to review the situation in the autumn.
  It is a complex task to get the balance right between the conduct of business on the Floor of the House and the important matter of the hearing of evidence.
  On the Floor of the House we deal with things in a fairly broad fashion. However, the absolute requirement of a Select Committee is that it operate on the basis of evidence and analysis. There is therefore one essential requirement for any great reformer of the House—and there is no doubt that we need one. The "Parliament First" early-day motion is supported by some very distinguished Members in all parts of the House, because it is clear that among the fundamental issues that faced us at the general election were apathy, Parliament's failure to connect with people, and the need to restore both faith in politics and an understanding that what we say and do in the House is at the heart of what the voters want.

  493
  When we are dealing with matters of great importance, whatever the subject matter investigated by any Select Committee may be, it is essential not only that the evidence be properly evaluated but that the Government take it seriously and do not simply, as a knee-jerk reaction, give a short response that effectively ditches the Select Committee's proposals. The Government should give Select Committee recommendations the kind of weight that will enable the members of Select Committees—and the public as a whole, which is what this is all about—to have confidence in the Committees and in the parliamentary process.
  We have much to learn from those such as Bernard Crick and others who have studied those questions. I have no doubt that, given the seriousness with which the right hon. Gentleman is taking his new role, he could turn out to be a great reforming Leader of the House.
  I can skip over several points quite quickly, because I gave evidence to the Norton committee, and the simplest way of dealing with those subjects, rather than going into them all now, is to send the right hon. Gentleman the evidence that I submitted to that committee, and also to put it in the Library.
  I also spoke on the constitutional issues in the debate on the Queen's Speech. The first part of my speech dealt with the reform of Parliament, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read that, because it contains a lot of the points that I want to make.
  There are still a number of issues that I would like to draw attention to now. First, in the interests of freedom of information, we need to think about the difficult subject of the advice given by civil servants to Ministers, and the extent to which Select Committees can have the opportunity to look at what was going on behind the scenes. There has to be a degree of sensitivity, there are parameters, and it is not an easy area—I do understand that—but there is a serious case, which should be carefully considered.
  There is also a case for suggesting that the House should have a free vote on Select Committee reports. That brings me back to a bigger question, to which I am returning, I believe, for the fourth time in a year—the question of amending Standing Orders to reduce the power of the Whips. I do not say that because I do not like the whipping system; after all, I have lived with it for some time. I am happy with the idea, in so far as it is connected with the need for parties to be able to deliver their policies.
  However, we are Members of Parliament, and there is an important feature that distinguishes the United Kingdom Parliament from many others that operate list systems, whereby recalcitrant Members—I shall not mention them by name—can simply be struck off the list by the party leaders. That is not in the interests of democracy, because Members of Parliament who have stood out have often eventually managed to convince not only their own party, but the parliamentary process and the electorate as a whole of the wisdom of their views.
  There is also the question of the chairmanship of scrutiny Committees. In a sense all Select Committees are scrutiny Committees, but we know what that phrase really means, and there are, I think, only three such Committees in the House—the Public Accounts Committee,
  494
  the Modernisation Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee. There is a powerful case for the chairmanship of those committees to be in the hands of the Opposition.
  Mr. Tyler: Two other Committees fall into that category. The Select Committee on Environmental Audit is very much on a par with the Public Accounts Committee, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which Members of both Houses of Parliament serve, is also very germane to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  Mr. Cash: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman because I was looking for guidance. I think that the principle is right. To put it bluntly, it does not look good for the membership of Committees to be based on party proportionality of the House so that the majority and the chairmanship are automatically with the Government. The status quo does not provide sufficient balance in the interests of democracy and accountability or in the information that comes out of the deliberations of the Committee for the benefit of the electorate—which is what this is all about.
  Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a contradiction in what he says? He wants to reduce the power of the Whips. Surely if we do that we should be conferring power on each individual. Any individual in the House should be entitled to chair one of these Committees, not necessarily an Opposition Member.
  Mr. Cash: I am prepared to concede that. I would have agreed with Martin Bell chairing a Committee, for example, had he been provided with the opportunity to do so. I do not think that there is any inconsistency in my argument. By Opposition, I mean non-government. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a serious point. It is essential that the Government be seen to have the confidence to deal with effective, serious and reasoned opposition.
  The media are often the interviewers of the nation. I think that that is entirely wrong. I have great respect for people such as John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman, but they are not elected and do not have the exclusive right to be the nation's arbiters. They do their job well—I have been at the receiving end of quite a lot of their interviews. However, it is not their prerogative, on behalf of the nation—through the taxpayers' licence fee—to be the only people determining exchanges between Members of Parliament and the Government. It is an enormously important subject which needs to be considered.
  Over the past few months, I have corresponded and had several meetings with Greg Dyke, Tony Hall—before he went to the Royal Opera House—Mark Damazer and their teams on the manner in which such interviews are conducted and the research on the basis of which questions are asked. It gets very political; I do not want to go into it now because it is a separate subject in itself. I think that those people do a great job—I am entirely in favour of the media having the best possible opportunity to take part in national debate—but those in the House of Commons and the House of Lords ought to raise their game to ensure that they perform a function that can be

  495
  seen to be completely impartial. It cannot be impartial if the Executive effectively controls the Select Committee system.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he accept that if the Government gave more serious consideration to the reports of the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament—not least "Shifting the Balance", which is well known to the Leader of the House—the very concerns expressed by my hon. Friend would be dealt with at a stroke? Will he, at an early date, urge the Leader of the House to allow a full day's debate on "Shifting the Balance" and to ensure that the Government are bound by the decisions of the House at the end of that debate?
  Mr. Cash: I have great sympathy with that view. Indeed, I pointed out that a free vote on such matters was essential. The Government for the second time have achieved a substantial majority and they should have confidence in the system of democracy and accountability in this House. This is a test of the good faith of the Government and the Leader of the House. I trust in the right hon. Gentleman's perspicacity in these matters and I believe that he will take the matter seriously. He has every reason to do so because if he were to go down as a great reforming Leader of the House, it would be a tremendous tribute to the success that he has achieved over many years. I say that despite some of my differences with him on a number of points.
  More generally, would it not also be a good idea to increase through education in schools the amount of information about the manner in which these systems of government operate? It is an important responsibility to afford to young people as they grow up and to students at universities special opportunities to study the workings of Parliament in relation to what is going on elsewhere in the world and in the European Union.
  As a member of 15 years' standing who serves on the European Scrutiny Committee I believe that there is something seriously wrong with the way in which we scrutinise the legislation, given that under the European Communities Act 1972 there is much of it that we cannot avoid. Let us not camouflage the issue: whether we like it or not, majority voting is implicit in the workings of the EU. It follows, therefore, that decisions are taken which affect this House. Bills which cannot be amended without infringing the fundamental rules laid down by the acquis communautaire are continually passing through the House. Once the Council of Ministers takes a decision by majority voting and even before it is implemented through our enactment, it is binding on us by virtue of the rules established under section 2 of the European Communities Act.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: A lot of this is built on stilts of very thin paper. If the House did its job properly and Members of Parliament turned up to all European Committees and could not only question Ministers openly but table
  496
  amendments, as they have the right to do in Standing Committees, there would be a different attitude towards much of the rubbish that flows from Brussels.
  Mr. Cash: It will be no surprise to the hon. Lady to hear that she has given me an opportunity to say that, only yesterday, for that very good reason, I tabled 240 amendments to the Bill implementing the Nice treaty.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is only a starting point.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed it is. Of course debate has been truncated by the programme motion. That in itself raises a question which comes straight to the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the integrity of his arguments. Nice is an important treaty, but I certainly will not go into it now because we will have some opportunity to look into it during a four-day debate that is truncated by a programme motion. It is essential that hon. Members in all quarters of the House table amendments. I am sorry to say, despite all I have said, that the Leader of the House was the progenitor of the programme motion. It was a terrible shame and he has not heard the end of it yet.
  That does not alter the fact that we could be in serious trouble with the grouping of the amendments. The Chairman of Ways and Means will decide on Tuesday whether the matters raised are properly discussed—common foreign security policy, the question of human rights, the movement of the centre of gravity as a result of the enhanced co-operation procedures and so on. I must not and will not go into those matters now, but it is absolutely necessary for people outside the House to understand them, and they will not be able to do so unless there is debate. That is why I tabled 240 amendments on the Maastricht Bill. Whether people liked it or not—whether the former Prime Minister, John Major, liked it or not—as a result of the determination and political will of several Members, we put on the record what was going on in that Bill. That would not have happened otherwise. We can look back to those days with some pride.
  Will the Leader of the House be good enough to consider holding a serious meeting with some of us—I look especially to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who is the main mover and shaker of the "Parliament First" group motion—so that we can have a good and proper discussion about the operating principles?
  There is much to be said for referring draft Bills to Select Committees for consideration, so that we can winkle out some of the absurdities that will need to be changed. There were certainly plenty of those during the previous Parliament and no doubt there will be many under this Government. We must sort that out.
  If the European Scrutiny Committee, having regard to the ambit of the legislation on which it is involved, puts on a reserve stating that a matter should be debated on the Floor of the House and that a decision should not be taken in the Council of Ministers until this place has come to a resolution, for heaven's sake let us make certain that that principle is adhered to. Over and over again, the decision of the European Scrutiny Committee is frustrated when it insists on debate on the Floor of the House on highly sensitive matters on which the Government do not want to hear opinions with which they do not agree.
  The House is where decisions have to be taken. This is about democracy and accountability. I am extremely glad that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)

  497
  holds his current position. I look forward to seeing him develop and evolve the ideas being expressed today in a way that is truly in the interests of democracy and of the electorate of this country.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: What a remarkable and interesting debate. So far, every contribution has been thoughtful and based on experience. Speeches have been cross-party and concise. It is hard to imagine a debate of which that could be said of every contribution. Furthermore, to his great credit, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has remained in his place throughout the debate—as has his junior Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. The debate has been a model—a rare occasion. If it is to be typical of debates in this Parliament, perhaps we really are entering a new era under my right hon. Friend's leadership of the House.
  I join everyone else who has spoken in congratulating the Leader of the House on the speed with which he has moved in setting up the Select Committees. We may have already forgotten that this Parliament is only two weeks old. My right hon. Friend was pressed on day one of the Parliament to set up the Select Committees. He promised that he would do so and he is well on the way to delivering that promise. That is enormously to his credit.
  I support thoroughly the detail of the motion—the reconfiguration of the Committees; the wider arrangements; and the changes to quorums. They are right, realistic and reasonable.
  The Leader of the House explained why changes to quorums were necessary. Most colleagues on both sides of the House will sympathise and agree with his argument about the attendance figures. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) made an extremely shrewd and experienced speech about the reality of attendance rather than the actual existence of an attendance record. I hope that his subtle remarks were heard by all those Members on both sides of the House who next week will be rushing to put their names forward for membership of Select Committees but who, during the next few months will not rush to attend the Committees in quite the same way.
  I suggest that if the new Select Committees had and were seen to have the importance and effectiveness of scrutiny that they ought to have—the status in the eyes of the House, the media and the public—there would be no problem with attendance. The problem is that they do not have the powers and thus the status, so they are not always given priority in people's diaries.
  Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one possibility is that at the point at which right hon. and hon. Members volunteer for membership of a Select Committee, they should make available an undated letter of resignation to be held by the Chairman and used if their attendance record is less than satisfactory?
  Mr. Fisher: I have heard of smoking guns, but the right hon. Gentleman suggests that an about to be smoking gun should be left in someone's hand. That is an interesting suggestion, as was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who said that continuing Select Committee membership should be
  498
  linked to attendance in some way. That is true of local authority committee membership, and the principle could be adapted to membership of Select Committees. However, it is not a matter of press-ganging Members to join.
  All of us would want to be members of Select Committee, and to be assiduous as members, if we really felt that all the Select Committees at all times not only did the work that they should do, but were listened to by the Government and the world outside. Their status and the effectiveness of their scrutiny will determine the enthusiasm of those who serve on them.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a causal link exists between the low esteem in which Select Committees are held and the influence of the respective Whips Offices in determining their composition?
  Mr. Fisher: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but there is no simple causal link, nor does any such link cover all Select Committees. Undoubtedly, there was no problem with the commitment and work rate of many Select Committees in the previous Parliament and earlier ones—or, indeed, with their status in the outside world. Examples are the admirable Public Accounts Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the Transport Sub-Committee under the valiant leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It is not a simple thing and the causes are subtle and various, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, but there is possibly some link, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  That brings me to the wider agenda that is only implicit—or is perhaps the dog that is not barking—in the motions tabled by the Leader of the House: the wider agenda of the Liaison Committee report of the previous Parliament and the Hansard Society report, with their rather specific recommendations on powers, selection of membership, resources, status and whether the Chairman should be paid. I very much welcome the positive remarks made today by the Leader of the House, who said that we would debate such matters again later, but not too much later, in this Parliament.
  The principle behind those reports, which should inform all our thinking on the issue, is that Select Committees are about the power of scrutiny. When the scrutiny powers of our Select Committees are compared with those, for example, of the Senate Committees in the United States, we can see how very gently toothless our Committees are. There is no direct comparison because we have very different democratic systems, but the principle is the same: those elected on behalf of the electorate have a duty to scrutinise, with real rigour and thoroughness, the actions of the Government. That is good for politics in any country and very good for the quality of government. It is quite sobering to compare how Senate Committees work with the detail and effectiveness of scrutiny of our own Committees.
  My other point on the wider agenda in our discussion of Select Committees is the only qualification to my praise for the Leader of the House in setting them up. The price that Parliament has paid for setting the Committees up quickly is that we have not been able to change the

  499
  basis on which they are made. While I congratulate the Leader of the House, I am sure that he understands that many hon. Members believe that these are parliamentary Committees—reference has been made to the early day motion relating to Parliament First—not governmental Committees. That being so, Parliament, not the Government, should decide their powers, status, responsibilities and membership.
  It is quite wrong—as it would be in any other organization—for the Government to appoint or have any influence over their own scrutineers. That does not make sense. The public would not understand it if they were to focus on that point, and we must return to this issue. The Government would be the greatest beneficiary—in the widest sense of the word—of those changes if they were to work with Parliament to return to the Committees the idea that they are parliamentary Committees, and that the responsibility to run, appoint and arrange their affairs should rest with Parliament, not with the Government.
  The Leader of the House sensibly and wisely volunteered the quotation by Professor Crick to the effect that we had a common interest. I would go further and say that the Government have, in the long term, the greater interest. Let us imagine the way in which the press and the public would respond if the Government gave away some of their powers for the first time in 100 years. The credibility that would be heaped on the Government would be enormous, and it would not be at the cost of any effective power or any ability to get their programme through. They would still be able to do that only too easily. However, their esteem would rise in the eyes of the House, of the public and of the world generally.
  My right hon. Friend is right: there is a lot to go on, here. I congratulate him on his encouraging use of that quotation from Professor Crick, and I believe that he recognises what we are saying about the importance of these matters and the credit that would accrue to the Government. This debate, and the way in which the Leader of the House is pushing forward these matters, are enormously encouraging for Parliament.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the leading light in the Parliament First campaign, which supplemented the activities of the Liaison Committee in the last 12 months of the previous Parliament. He has spoken with great eloquence and he knows that he has wide support in the House. All Members of the House support the campaign that he is leading, and he also knows that he has my 100 per cent. support for what he is doing.
  I am grateful for the positive way in which the Leader of the House and his team have responded to the approaches made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—who cannot be here today—and me. The Leader of the House was very positive when we all met. He suggested that there might be problems in interpreting and implementing the Liaison Committee's report, "Shifting the Balance", before the parliamentary recess. However, on balance, we believe that setting up the Select Committees at a very
  500
  early date was the priority and I am grateful to him for saying today that he will look again at all the recommendations and observations made by the Liaison Committee in the three excellent reports that it produced towards the end of the previous Parliament.
  I also endorse the views of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who has made a good contribution to Select Committees over many years, jointly chairing—as it were—the large Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich in the previous Parliament. I particularly endorse the reference that he made to quorums. I believe that flexibility on that matter is right, and that reducing the quorum is right. The Procedure Committee—which I chaired—had difficulty meeting its quorum on some occasions during the previous Parliament when we had important people coming before us to give evidence, not least because the Committee of Selection, or perhaps the Government Deputy Chief Whip, had not appointed the full complement of members to that Committee.
  I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to what I considered to be an abuse. A Government Member who served on that Committee did not attend once in the final three years of the Parliament. He had told the Government Chief Whip that he wanted to be removed from the Committee, but he was prevailed on to remain a member, although he was told that he need not attend. That is, I believe, a reliable explanation of what happened. I do not intend to name the Member involved, as I blame not him, but the system for allowing that to happen.
  I warmly support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish in a concise and eloquent speech. What matters is not the number of Members selected to serve on a particular Committee, but their dedication and commitment to serving and to doing the job that the Committee is there to do.
  The majority of the Government Members on the Procedure Committee were extremely assiduous and regular in their attendance, which made it much easier for us to do our job. I commend the majority of members for their work and dedication in producing our reports in the previous Parliament. The Leader of the House has been exemplary in tabling amendments to the Standing Orders and trying to set up the Select Committees as quickly as possible.
  Nine years ago, I had an experience that exemplifies the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about the abuse of the Select Committee system by the Executive of the day. We must take control of Select Committees away from the Executive of the day and put it back in the hands of the House of Commons as a whole.
  I used to chair the Health Committee. I pay tribute to that Committee and to a particular member of it who is no longer with us, the former hon. Member for Preston, Mrs. Audrey Wise. I am considered right of centre in the political spectrum and she was considered very much to the left of centre, but I tell you this, Mr. Deputy Speaker: we worked together on that Committee as one. It was a magnificent Committee. Indeed, it achieved so much influence that it embarrassed the Government of the day to such an extent that they indulged in a fraudulent practice with the connivance of the then Chairman of the Committee of Selection. They created a rule that worked

  501
  against me to try to break the Committee's influence and impact, even though it comprised not just me, but all those who were members of it, and they succeeded. That was a tragic abuse of the House that shows how an Executive can manipulate the Select Committee system.
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Winterton: I hesitate, but will do so if my hon. Friend is brief.
  Mr. Cash: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments and would add that, unless the Whip system is curtailed through Standing Orders, such changes will be made to no avail.
  Mr. Winterton: I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's observation, and I know that the Leader of the House is well aware of the important Liaison Committee report on the matter. My hon. Friend is right that the power of the Whips, the usual channels and the establishment in trying to influence, if not dictate, who serves on Select Committees must be ended. That power must be put back in the hands of Back-Bench Members.
  The Leader of the House has done a magnificent job and I am delighted to say that from the Conservative Benches. I went to see him with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, because at the end of the last Parliamentwe had been mandated by the Liaison Committee to act as a co-ordinating group to get the Select Committees set up and he has honoured in every way the commitments that he gave us. I hope and believe that he is sincere because I have great regard for the right hon. Gentleman. Whichever Department he has been in, he has done a magnificent job, both in opposition and in government. If, along with the House and those Members who value the role of Select Committees, he will look at the recommendations of the Liaison Committee, I believe that he will strengthen Government, because a House of Commons that can properly hold to account the Government and the Executive of the day will produce a better Government and better legislation.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I do not intend to detain the House long, although it would not be to the inconvenience of a great many Members were I to choose to do so. I hate to introduce a note of dissent to the debate, but I am afraid that my experience of serving on some three Select Committees during the last Parliament does not fill me with quite the same awe of those Committees as has been expressed today. A real measure of the importance that we actually attach to those Committees can be made from noting the attendance at this debate.
  I principally wish to discuss quorums and the measure that we have before us which, for the greater convenience of Select Committee members, proposes reducing those quorums. It certainly would have been for my greater convenience. I can recall on one occasion during the last Parliament rushing from one Select Committee meeting in the Upper Committee Corridor, down the stairs to the floor below to another Select Committee meeting. Of course that was down to the Committee of Selection,
  502
  which appointed me to two Select Committees that met at the same time on the same day. Nevertheless, I had to rush from one Select Committee to the other in order to maintain the quorum on the floor below and to prevent the embarrassment that would otherwise attend that Committee, as witnesses had come from far afield in order to be interrogated. It certainly would have been to our convenience if the quorum had been lower.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) has explained one of the problems that attaches to maintaining a quorum. Of course it might be difficult if a Committee meeting is held when a statement is being given to the House. However, it strikes me that there is a measure of contributory negligence in that, by arranging for a Select Committee to meet when there is likely to be a statement to the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) gave us two examples of how it is difficult to maintain a quorum, given the existing system for appointing members to Select Committees and, without giving names, he cast aspersions on the Members concerned. However, the answer must be to reform the system by which we make appointments to Select Committees, not simply to accommodate that corrupt system by reducing the quorum. It strikes me as absolutely monstrous to table a motion to reduce the quorums when the glaring problem is the very way in which we appoint Members to Select Committees. I believe that Select Committees would indeed achieve the importance that we allegedly attach to them if their members had to seek the approval of the whole House before their appointment. If they had to canvass support among their fellow hon. Members rather than have the privilege conferred on them by the Committee of Selection, greater importance would attach to their appointment and, of course, they would be under much greater pressure actually to attend the meetings.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Swayne: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
  Mr. Cash: I have great sympathy with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks, but as was shown by the number of Members who leapt to their feet, there is a problem with his argument. He is right if the decision taken by the whole House were on a genuinely free vote—which takes me back to the necessity of changing Standing Orders so that the Whips cannot interfere in those votes. However, it would not produce the right result.
  Mr. Swayne: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that it would not produce the right result. I am constantly assured that the importance of Select Committee work is that it is non-partisan, but I am not convinced of the merits of non-partisanship. I think that confrontation does a great deal to increase attendance at Committees. If we accept the often used argument that Select Committee work should be entirely non-partisan, I do not agree that a vote by the whole House would produce the wrong result.
  Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that Select Committee reports should be based on the evidence

  503
  given, whether it is oral or written? That is the importance of Select Committees. Decisions and recommendations should not be made according to people's individual partisan views or prejudices.
  Mr. Swayne: Of course. However, a clever member of a Select Committee can elicit the evidence that he wants by influencing the choice of witnesses to be called and by skilful questioning of those witnesses. I certainly believe that members can have great influence. It is my experience—from one Select Committee in particular—that a member can have a great deal of influence on the report that is produced.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's speech is veritably warming the cockles of my heart. However, leaving aside the logistical inconvenience of having speedily to transport himself from one Committee to another, does he agree that Select Committees often suffer from a triple problem? First, there is a tendency in some of them towards a rather formulaic style of questioning, which does not necessarily illuminate the subject matter. Secondly, the Whips are far too influential in determining the composition of those Committees. Thirdly, there is an alarming tendency, which has been exacerbated under this Government, for Ministers, in advance of the publication of the reports of the Committees, to brief against them with all the advantages of the government machine at their disposal. That does nothing to encourage confidence in the system.
  Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is quite right, although I assure him that it was not my intention to have any effect on the cockles of his heart, whatever they may be.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Or wherever.
  Mr. Swayne: Indeed, or wherever they may be.
  My hon. Friend draws attention to an important issue. It has been my experience in one or two Select Committees that members are often busy and have not had time to do all the reading, so when they arrive at the Committee they are presented with a list of questions drawn up by the Clerks. It is, in effect, the Clerks who do the interrogation, even though their questions are put into the mouths of the Committee members. I suspect that the Clerks have a greater role than the public may imagine in writing the reports of the Select Committees.
  A great deal of nonsense is talked about Select Committees. We attach huge importance to them and the great work that they do. Undoubtedly, some Select Committees do their jobs effectively, but not all of them are in the same league.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: One of the more intriguing aspects of the debate is that it gives rise to a phenomenon with which some of us are fairly familiar. We all do a balletic dance around the subject at issue. We have an interest in doing that, because most, if not all, of those forgathered here have a deep emotional attachment to the concept of Select Committees and the way in which they work. There are distinguished Select
  504
  Committee Chairman present, as well as a number of colleagues who have spent a great deal of their time and commitment on the work of Select Committees. That. however, should not blind us to a fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) just alluded. I suspect that I agree with him more than some earlier speakers.
  Let us look back to the genesis of Select Committees. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned this. We fooled ourselves for the best part of 20 years. As I recall, someone somewhere looked fondly across the Atlantic and said "Our American friends have the most wonderful system of legislative scrutiny and accountability; can we have some of that?" With all good will, that system was imported across the Atlantic.
  I am very much in favour of things being imported across the Atlantic. I imported Mrs. Forth from across the Atlantic. What more can I say? Mrs. Forth probably works better than the Select Committees. But on this occasion the problem was glaringly obvious from the start. We chose to ignore the fundamental difference between a legislature that has Congress on the one hand only, and a legislature—this legislature—in which the Executive is, in fact, part of the legislature and has control over it.
  Most of the difficulties that have been described today flow from that fundamental fact. We are perpetually caught by the same problem: we want a system of Select Committees that allows us to scrutinise the Executive effectively, but at the same time we must live with the fact that in our system of parliamentary government the Executive control the House. I fear that, until we find a way of breaking out of that system, we shall be stuck with the problem for a long time.
  The Liaison Committee report has rightly been mentioned frequently today. I admit that it will be difficult to solve the problem in one leap, but the report constitutes a considered, moderate and modulated effort to move us in the right direction. Nevertheless, I can see why the Government, and even a parliamentarian of the stature of the Leader of the House, will always be reluctant to take that step: Governments find the existing arrangement all too convenient. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) illustrated one of the more extreme examples, but there are almost certainly many others.
  So here we are, struggling with this motion. The Leader of the House—I join the many others who have given him credit—has responded rapidly to requests made to him, and to his colleagues, to accelerate the process of appointment of Select Committees, and we must all welcome that; but there is a catch. He knows and we know and we know he knows, and so on.
  If we had tried to hold up the establishment of Select Committees—which, I submit, would have been within our grasp—we would have been hoist by our own petard. Had we told the Government and the Leader of the House that we were profoundly dissatisfied with the means by which Select Committees are currently established, we would have delayed the establishment of Select Committees, and found ourselves with exactly the same problem as before.
  Thanks to the Leader of the House, we shall have our Select Committees, but they will be established under the very procedure with which we are nearly all profoundly

  505
  dissatisfied. Is that progress, or is it not? I hesitate to make the judgment, but the dilemma in which we find ourselves can be seen very readily.
  The motions give us an opportunity to be grateful for the limited progress that we are making, but also to point out that the Leader of the House has neither fooled us—although I am sure that that was not his intention—nor seduced us into thinking that all is well, and that the accelerated appointment of Select Committees legitimises the process whereby they are already being established. It should be understood that any progress we are making is very limited, and that mutual congratulation is not in order.
  Mr. Bercow: If the Leader of the House was keen to set up the Select Committees as early as possible in the current Parliament—principally, if not exclusively, to avoid the charge that he has created, or allowed to continue, a vacuum—but was perfectly open to the idea of a change in their composition, would it not be helpful if he said just that before the end of the debate? Would it not be helpful if he said "Yes, I want us to get on with our work, but I am entirely open to the idea of competitive elections to Select Committees, in which the Whips Office will have no involvement whatever"?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is legendary for his optimism and generosity of spirit. I suspect that I may be almost as legendary for my lack of those characteristics. I cannot share his view. I hope to give the Leader of the House an opportunity to sum up the debate, which I am sure he will do with his usual skill, but not before I have said a few more words about one or two other matters.
  Regrettably, I cannot agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The other fact of parliamentary life that we all understand all too well is that our Front Benchers and our business managers all share a joint and mutual understanding of the power of patronage, which is so important to them and which is expressed, among many other means, in the ability to appoint members of Select Committees. I believe that the parliamentary Labour party works in a different way. It has told us that it elects its members of Select Committees, so in a funny way the Labour party is perhaps less guilty of that offence than others.
  In my party, the system seems to work in the traditional way. Members are asked whether they would like to participate in a Select Committee, but our usual channels arrogate and keep firmly to themselves—certainly, they have done so hitherto—the power to give colleagues a place on an appropriate Select Committee. It is worse than that.
  The other truth that usually dares not speak its name—I am about to reveal it since we are in revelatory mood, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West has illustrated—is that there is then a disgraceful little carve-up of Select Committee chairmanships by the Front Benchers—talking of which, I give way to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
  Mr. Tyler: I, too, have been in revelatory mood as an ex-member of the usual channels. The other night, I pointed out to the House that not all Select Committee memberships must be put on the Order Paper by an Officer of the Crown; some Select Committees can be
  506
  elected by the House. Indeed, it is possible for hon. Members to make representations to the Committee of Selection that the recommendations from the usual channels are not appropriate, so, even within the existing rules, there are some ways in which we might make some progress along the lines indicated by the ever optimistic hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is correct—at least technically he is correct—and these are motions to which amendments can be made, but the reality lurking behind all that is that, in this Parliament, as in the previous one, the Government have been given a huge majority by the electorate. In the end, the Government will have their way. Indeed, the Front Benchers will have their way because my right hon. and hon. Friends are in the conspiracy right up to their necks, along with the Government—talking of which, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Before my right hon. Friend ventures any further down that route, I ask him to refer to the report in Hansard of the debate on a motion for the Adjournment just before the House rose for the election. He will find that, on behalf of the Conservative Front-Bench team, I supported the Liaison Committee's view on changing the system of selection and election for Select Committees. He must have missed that bit.
  Mr. Forth: No, I did not miss that bit at all. I am talking about something quite different, before my hon. Friend gets too upset. I am talking about the fact that we do not elect members of Select Committees, as the Labour party does. I am also talking about the fact that, as I understand it, our so-called usual channels, or whatever they call themselves these days, still do a deal with Government Whips and Front Benchers on who will get what chairmanships. I suspect that our Front Benchers allocate the chairmanships to certain privileged colleagues. That is all I am saying.
  There is nothing particularly secretive about it, but I say that to illustrate the point and lest we kid ourselves that the Select Committee procedure is a creature of the entire House. It is nothing of the kind. As far as I know, it is, has been and remains a creature of the Front Benchers. Let there be no illusions about that.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend suggested that I was unduly optimistic, but I certainly do not want to be mistaken for an imitator of Dr. Pangloss. He should not take the Labour party's evident approach to these matters entirely at face value. Has it occurred to his fertile mind that the fact that there is an election process in the Government party on the composition of Select Committees does not mean that there is not a sinister, invisible hand at work in the form of covert intervention, back-slapping, threats and so on from the Patronage Secretary?
  Mr. Forth: That may be, but provided that the ballot is secret, most of my hon. Friend's dark suspicions are addressed. As in the up-coming election for the leadership of our party, and for reasons that the House well understands, the secret ballot may well bring about many surprises that will shock some of the candidates.

  507
  However, I want to move on because in a few more minutes I will sit down to allow brief winding-up speeches.
  I want to say a few words about the matter of the quorum, which is one of the other distressing aspects of the debate. It is rather sad that we must wash such linen very publicly, but inevitable, I am afraid. How can Select Committees, grand and important though they are, vital though their work is to our democratic processes, occasionally find it so difficult to muster a quorum? That must be to our collective shame. We must try much harder to find an answer to that problem. It appears that colleagues are all too ready to submit their names to serve on Select Committees, but that if they find it just a tad inconvenient to attend and do their work, they are not present when it matters. We must turn our attention much more urgently to that tendency.
  Another argument that has arisen in the debate concerns the size of Committees. In this case, size really does matter. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) gave an acute analysis of the issue, and I am with him on it. I suspect that, if Select Committees are to be as effective as we all hope, the smaller they are the better—and for a number of reasons. With his enormous experience, the hon. Gentleman summed up those reasons much better than I could. Therefore, I resist, certainly for the time being, the blandishments of the Liberal Democrats on the matter. If we increase the size of Committees, we may reduce their effectiveness even further.
  Worse, there is a budgetary aspect to the argument. I say to the Leader of the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, as members of the House of Commons Commission, that in increasing the size of Select Committees, we shall increase the size of the travelling caravanserai that they so often become. That will happen unless we cap Select Committees' total travel budget and let them argue among themselves about its allocation. In that case the bigger ones would travel less because there are more people on them. That solution appeals to me, but I should like the reassurance of the Leader of the House that he agrees.
  I predict with some confidence that if we increase the size of Committees but do not cap the travel budget, the Liaison Committee would say, "We need more money for travel because there are more of us on Select Committees and we've no intention of curtailing our travel plans." These matters are never as obvious or straightforward as they seem. There are always wheels within wheels, which is a rather good metaphor for travelling Select Committees.
  I hope that some good can come from this debate and our deliberations on these matters, so that we can look with much greater honesty at Select Committees, the work that they do, the work that we expect them to do and their membership. Then, we would be able to make some positive and constructive suggestions to improve their workings. On that, I shall attempt to be an optimist.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Grieve: What started as a debate on a narrow issue has snowballed to cover a large number of topics, for the simple reason that there are many topics to be covered.
  508
  I entirely endorse the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), that we should not live in a Panglossian world, imagining that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. There are many aspects of Select Committees that are formulaic and could do with being reformed, but that will start only when the ball gets rolling. If this is going to start that ball rolling, it is a tremendous event, but if not, we are missing a tremendous opportunity. I hope that the Government will grasp the opportunity that they have been given.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): We have had an excellent short debate on a set of proposals that has proved largely uncontroversial, which may explain why the debate has ranged rather wide of them.
  I begin where the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) began: it is right to place this debate in the context of the need to reconnect people with politics and in particular to try to make Parliament more relevant to the lives of ordinary people, especially in the light of the low turnout at the general election. That is a sensible background for consideration of the proposals.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that the various proposals from the Liaison Committee, the Parliament First campaign, the Hansard Society and the Norton commission ranged far wider than what we are discussing today. I repeat his undertaking that we will return to those proposals, as we accept that this is a real debate that is happening both within the House and more widely.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) spoke about resourcing and staffing support—a legitimate issue, but not one that is properly a matter for Government: it is a matter for the House of Commons Commission. The Leader of the House sits on the Commission, and that is the right place for the matter to be considered. We will ensure that that happens.
  The hon. Member for Stone raised the broader question of education in schools about Parliament and its work. I very much associate myself with his remarks. The issue of citizenship in schools is a live one, and we should all seek to make this place more relevant to both primary and secondary schools.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of draft Bills being referred to Select Committees. The Government certainly favour greater pre-legislative scrutiny. The matter was considered at great length in the previous Parliament in the Modernisation and Procedure Committees. The Government have undertaken that draft Bills that relate to a single Department may be scrutinised by the appropriate Committee. That is clearly a first step, but there is scope for considerable further work if we are to have the broadest and deepest pre-legislative scrutiny that we can achieve.
  Several hon. Members spoke about quorums. It is important to emphasise that a quorum is a minimum, not a target. We do not aim to have only a small proportion of a Committee present. We simply want to ensure that its work can continue. The matter should clearly be kept under very close review.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish spoke about having joint Chairs. My understanding is that that is a matter for the Committees themselves. As he

  509
  said, that was the practice followed by the then Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament. If the new departmental Committees want to continue that practice, it is up to them.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke to his two amendments. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out the Government's response to those amendments, and I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press them to a Division. We have seen that there are various points of view in the House about the appropriateness of increasing the size of Committees. Certainly, I am sympathetic to the point about ensuring representation for the Liberal Democrats—they form the third party in the House—and for other, smaller parties. However, we must also take into account the needs and interests of all hon. Members, including those who belong to the principal Opposition party, as that party will not benefit from the proposed change with regard to Select Committee representation.
  Labour Back Benchers must also be kept in mind, and my right hon. Friend undertook to ensure that the question of membership would be reviewed. I hope that that undertaking will enable the hon. Member for Hazel Grove not to press the matter to a vote.
  Amendment (b) deals with Sub-Committees. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the proposals before the House would enable Select Committees to make such decisions for themselves. Like my right hon. Friend, I expect that it would be proper for a Select Committee to include on a Sub-Committee any minor party member who wished to be on it. However, I think that that should not be imposed by a decision of the House today, and therefore hope once again that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will not press the matter to a vote.
  The debate has ranged beyond the specific proposals before the House. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) placed the matter in the broader context of the history of Parliament, and set out some of the factors that make the British Parliament distinctive among other legislatures in the world. All hon. Members will agree that the British constitution is evolving. There has been much change in recent years, starting with the introduction of Select Committees 20 years ago, and this Government introduced important changes in their first term.
  The remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in opening the debate reflected the Government's determination to address the matter of Select Committees, and the relationship between the legislature and the Executive, in a serious manner. There is a determination that hon. Members of all parties should be able to contribute to that debate.
  I welcome the tone and content of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who praised the proposals and said that they were sensible. He pointed out that they amounted only to the first building block, and suggested that good will exists among Opposition Members on this matter. As a result, the debate has been good tempered, and several positive contributions have been made, both about the proposals and, perhaps more important, about the need for a broader strengthening of Parliament's scrutiny role. That strengthening would require greater power for the Select Committees.
  510
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend is grateful for the many kind remarks about his appointment and about his record as a very effective parliamentarian. I should like to thank in particular the three hon. Members from the Select Committee on Liaison who are now present in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made supportive remarks in the debate, which reflects the real good will evident in most contributions to today's proceedings.
  I am sure that the House will return to these matters in the weeks and months ahead, but I think that there is cross-party consensus in favour of the proposals. If the House approves them, we will aim to get the Select Committees up and running before the summer recess, so that their very important role in scrutinising the Executive can begin. On that basis, I appeal for support from all hon. Members for these proposals.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:

  A. Select Committee Meetings
  S.O. No. 124 (Quorum of Select Committees):
  in line 1, at the beginning, insert—

  '(A) Except as otherwise provided, the quorum of a select committee shall be three or a quarter of the number of its members, whichever is the greater; and in calculating the quorum fractions shall be counted as one.

  (B) Where more than two select committees or sub-committees thereof meet concurrently for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, pursuant to Standing Order (Select Committees: power to work with other committees), the quorum of each shall be two.'.

  S.O. No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting):
  in line 5, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 6.
  S.O. No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee):
  leave out paragraph (10).
  S.O. No. 142 (Domestic Committees):
  in line 9, leave out from 'Members' to end of the line.
  S.O. No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee):
  in line 19, leave out from 'Members' to end of the line.
  S.O. No. 145 (Liaison Committee):
  leave out paragraph (5).
  S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
  in line 10, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 11.
  S.O. No. 147 (Procedure Committee):
  leave out paragraph (3).
  S.O. No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts):
  in line 7, leave out from 'Members' to The' in line 8.
  S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
  in line 7, after 'concerned', insert 'and'.
  in line 8, leave out from 'committee' to 'shall'.
  in the table in paragraph (2), leave out the fourth column ('Quorum').
  leave out paragraph (5).
  S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
  in line 9, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 10.

  B. Select Committees (Power to Work with other Committees)
  That—

  (1) The following Standing Order (Select Committees: power to work with other committees) he made:

  '(1) Any select committee or sub-committee with power to send for persons, papers and records shall have power—

  (a) to communicate its evidence to any other select committee or sub-committee of either House of Parliament; provided that evidence from the National Audit Office shall first have been agreed between that Office and the government department or departments concerned;

  (b) to meet concurrently with any such committee or sub-committee for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence; and

  (c) to meet concurrently with any other select committee of this House for the purpose of considering a draft report.

  (2) Where two or more select committees have agreed reports to the House in identical terms, those reports may be published as a joint report; and

  (2) That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:'

  S.O. No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting):
  in line 16, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 33, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
  S.O. No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee):
  leave out lines 116 to 126.
  S.O. No. 142 (Domestic Committees):
  in line 23, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 40, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
  S.O. No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee):
  leave out paragraphs (12) and (13).
  S.O. No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee):
  in line 28, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 45, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
  S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
  leave out lines 21 to 26.
  S.O. No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts):
  leave out paragraphs (3) and (4).
  S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
  leave out lines 29 to 42.
  in line 47, leave out from 'proceedings' to 'and' in line 52.
  S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
  leave out lines 23 to 34.

  C. Select Committees related to Government Departments
  That Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) be amended, by leaving out items 1, 4, 5 and 13 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following items at the appropriate places:
  'Education and Skills/Department for Education and Skills/11';
  'Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/17';
  'Transport, Local Government and the Regions/Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions/17'; and
  'Work and Pensions/Department for Work and Pensions/11'.

  D. Select Committees (Power to appoint Sub-Committees)
  That the following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
  S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
  in line 29, at end add the following words:

  '(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

  (6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.

  (7) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.

  S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
  leave out lines 9 to 14, and insert the following words:
  '(3) Each select committee appointed under this order shall have the power to appoint a sub-committee, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Me Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee shall have power to appoint two sub-committees.'.
  S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
  in line 34, at end, add the following words:

  '(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

  (6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.

  (7) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.

  European Standing Committees
  Resolved,
  That the following amendments be made to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees):
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Agriculture, Fisheries and Food' and insert 'Environment, Food and Rural Affairs'.
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Environment, Transport and the Regions', and insert 'Transport. Local Government and the Regions'.
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out `Scottish, Welsh', and insert 'Scotland, Wales'.
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal 'Social Security', and insert 'Work and Pensions'.
  In the Table, in the column 'Principal 'Education and Employment', and insert [Angela Smith.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June].
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.—[Mr. Heppell].
  Question again proposed,
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth rose—
  It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Monday 9 July.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM COMMITTEE
  Motion made,
  That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson. Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, tan Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.—[Mr. Heppeill.]]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Foot and Mouth (Tiverton and Honiton)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
7 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: My purpose tonight is to seek information from Ministers, and I am seeking specific answers to specific questions. I did not want to table a lot of written questions and, perhaps, wait a long time for the answers. I hope that if the Minister cannot answer my specific questions when he responds, he will at least undertake to send me written, substantive replies to the many questions from my constituents. Although the Government have said that we are now on the home straight as far as foot and mouth is concerned, that is certainly not the way in which my constituents in my rural seat see the situation.
I should like to begin by referring to matters relating to the farming and agriculture industry. There is a great deal of confusion within the farming community about whether the Government have finally decided that, if the disease continues, the vaccination of animals has been ruled out. The subject keeps cropping up and I must admit—even as a former Agriculture Minister—that there is a duty on the Government immediately to establish a committee that will bring together all the relevant information, so that it can be considered over the coming weeks.
The fear among my farming constituents is that there may be a large resurgence of outbreaks in the autumn, when the weather changes and the disease is more likely to spring up again. If there is any question of the Government recommending vaccination, the work, preparation and analysis of all the available data will have been carried out over the summer months. We may reach autumn without having had a proper analysis and the farming community may be suddenly faced with a proposal for vaccination at a time when, perhaps, there will not be the opportunity for that to be properly considered. I urge the Minister to put together a committee of expertise and to put the information in the public domain before the autumn.
I have to express to the Minister my concerns and those of my constituents about the way in which the contiguous culls have been conducted. I agree in principle that where an outbreak occurs one should throw a cordon around it by culling out the adjacent farms in order to contain the disease. Other countries have done that and have managed to contain the disease.
What is not acceptable is when the contiguous culls are dealt with not within the first 24 or 48 hours of an outbreak, but days and weeks later. I have done some special pleading on behalf of farms in my constituency that were threatened with having their entire livestock slaughtered up to 21 days after an outbreak. If cases continue and contiguous culling proves necessary, I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is carried out quickly: leaving it for a long time would defeat the object of the exercise.
Since the election, there have been more outbreaks of foot and mouth in my constituency than before. Worryingly, the parish of Clayhanger, which previously had no identified outbreaks, has seen a crop of outbreaks in the past two to three weeks.

515
The issue of footpaths was raised at business questions today, but no real answer was given and perhaps the Minister could look into the matter. Who exactly has the final say about the opening of footpaths? Is it the Government or the local authority? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that there is no risk in walkers and others using footpaths, but my constituents are very concerned about the situation, especially in areas where livestock are kept on land immediately adjacent to footpaths.
Many of my constituents are still on farm, where they have been for several months, because they have been extremely cautious about their own movements on and off farm. Some of my constituents have effectively locked themselves away for several months and are concerned that others will come on to the land. Every time footpaths are opened, my office is inundated with telephone calls and I wish to know to whom I, as a Member of Parliament, should make representations. Is it to the local authority, or directly to the Minister's office? We are batted to and fro, with no definitive answer given.
Farmers who might survive foot and mouth still face practical problems. We are already aware of the financial pressures that veterinary inspection is imposing on farmers who wish to avail themselves of the derestrictions on movement. I alert the Minister yet again to the fact that the financial position of many farmers in my constituency is dire, and I shall give specific examples later in my speech. Farmers are also concerned about artificial insemination services gaining access to farms, because they are trying to plan for the future. What is the Minister's advice to farmers who wish to plan in that way? Sheep farmers also face specific problems with shearers gaining access to sheep.
All those issues are not only bound up with what has happened in the past few months, but they constrain farmers who are just about hanging on and who do not know whether they have a future or not. Therefore, I hope that the Department is addressing those practical problems and will be able to give specific advice to farmers.
Another problem is the holding pit that was built, at short notice, on a property called Westlake farm in the parish of Oakford in my constituency. It is north of Tiverton, right up on the Exmoor border, and I have been to see the holding pit myself. I was shocked. It looked like a massive strip of runway for an airport. It is huge and it must have cost millions of pounds. It has not been used and I have corresponded with the Environment Agency about how the project was instigated, because there was no consultation with the parish council or local people. It has had a dire impact on people in the area who wish to sell their properties and on nearby farms that do farmhouse bed and breakfast, because it is a massive blot on the landscape in that rural and beautiful parish.
My question for the Environment Agency is whether the area will be restored to its greenfield status, so that the people who live around it can try to get back to normal as soon as possible. I received a letter from the Minister at the beginning of the foot and mouth outbreak telling me that the Environment Agency was responsible for such projects, but I have now had a letter from the Environment Agency saying that the future of the site and the question of its reinstatement should be directed to the Department.
516
Tonight, I am doing just that. I hope that the Minister will have the answer, but if he does not I can tell him that the people of the parish of Oakford would like an answer. I urge the Minister to look into that situation, which is causing a huge problem. If the pit is not to be used, why was it put there in the first place—and why is it still in that state?
Another parish on the other side of my constituency has a problem, too. My constituency covers 600 square miles, so the two places are quite a long way apart. Burlescombe is just off junction 27 of the M5, near the A38, which goes to Wellington. During the election campaign, several people from the parish expressed to me their concern about material being stored off the A38 in sealed drums, watched over by security guards. Since the election I have had more telephone calls from constituents expressing further concerns about the material being stored in Burlescombe. They had also seen trailers clearly containing carcases, with only tarpaulins over the top, and with no motorised cabs attached, abandoned in lay-bys off the A38.
People are very concerned about that. We have all heard that in other sites in Devon, some of the ash from the pyres may be contaminated, and the people of Burlescombe want to know what the parish is being used for in terms of storing carcases or other material connected with foot and mouth.
Again, I ask the Minister to investigate for me. As a Member of Parliament, I have not been able to get answers to my questions. Can he tell me what is going on in my constituency? If he reassures me, I would like to go and take a look to reassure myself that my constituents' fears are unfounded. The parish is a long way from any foot and mouth outbreak, it is "clean", and my constituents have a right to know what is being done on their doorstep.
I shall now talk about the support—or rather, the lack of support—for businesses affected by foot and mouth. I shall give the Minister an example of that by reading a letter that I received this week from a fanner in the hilly sheep country north of Tiverton. Like many farmers, the people on that farm have diversified. They keep special breeds—rare sheep, which are kept for their wool alone—and have set up on farm a business manufacturing woollen garments and gifts with the wool from their own sheep.
The wool cannot leave the farm, and because those sheep are sheared in winter, the last shearing was in January. The farmer has therefore had no income since the beginning of the outbreak of foot and mouth. She wrote to me:
"Our son brought us a food parcel last week with toilet rolls and soap powder—we did not have enough money for a loaf of bread."
My constituent asked me what was happening to all the money that we keep hearing about—the millions of pounds and all those schemes that are supposedly helping people who, through no fault of their own, are not only finding it tough but are almost at the limit. I shall not read the rest of the letter, because although my constituent knows that I am raising her case in the House tonight, in all fairness, and for obvious reasons, I do not wish to give her name and address. These people are on the edge, and it is no good Ministers standing up and saying that there is a million pounds for this or a million pounds for that; they need help, and they need it quickly.

517
I have another letter, from Devonshire Heartland Association, which is focused mainly on Crediton, Tiverton, and the rest of mid-Devon. That organisation says that because of the crisis it has lost half its members, who cannot afford the membership fees.
The tourism industry in my constituency is in dire straits. There was an awful lot of good will among many people and organisations that voluntarily raised money to help. They were not simply looking to the Government for handouts. Many people in the west country contributed to the green welly campaign. for example, including local newspapers such as The Western Morning News. When the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), came to Devon, it was promised that that fund would be matched, pound for pound. Now we find that that did not include any corporate donations. There is a feeling in Devon that the Government have reneged on a promise that was designed to support and help the people I have just described.
We have just read of the report of the New Local Government Network, a think-tank close to the Government. It has, astonishingly, suggested a £3 a night tourism levy. I hope that the Minister will recognise the plight of the tourism industry and reject any such proposals.
The Government have told us that the small business loans guarantee scheme is available to help those who have problems as a result of foot and mouth. A written answer shows that only four tourism businesses have been awarded such grants. Where is the money going? I received a letter from my regional development agency saying that so many millions were going on this and so many millions on that. The money is clearly not going to the people who need it or to the sharp end. I believe that it is being spent on jobs for the boys—to the people who are analysing the problems, offering consultancy and doing everything but putting the money where it should go and should have been received weeks ago.
We should look at how this public money is being used. It is certainly not helping my constituents, and I believe that it should. It is incumbent on the Government to check how public money is being used, because clearly it is not going to the right place.
There was expectation of support for the farming community in Devon through the First Aid music festival, which was planned for the bank holiday weekend at the end of May. Small businesses and farmers in Devon had expected that to be another fillip that would help them, but the festival was cancelled. There was speculation that public money was spent or the event, which was then cancelled. I should like the Minister to look into that. Why was it cancelled? Was public money spent on it? If so, why is public money being used in that way, when farming, tourism and associated businesses in the county of Devon and in my constituency in particular need it?
These people will not survive, through no fault of their own. I refer not just to those who have had confirmed cases of foot and mouth but to many other businesses, all of which are inter-related. Same people are still stuck on their farms after many weeks, some can see no future and many are looking to the Government for the answers. I hope that the Minister will give me some answers tonight.
7.18 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I have two difficulties when it comes to answering the questions of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). First, she asked many specific questions. I understand her wish for a response to them, and had I had advance notice, we would have done some work to provide answers to them. However, I will certainly take away all the specific questions that she asked and respond as quickly as possible. I shall respond now, in the 11 minutes remaining to me—that is the second difficulty—to the greatest extent possible.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and introducing a series of very important issues through her questions. The impact of foot and mouth disease on rural issues has been massive for farmers and the wider rural community, and the hon. Lady referred to both elements. I welcome the opportunity to respond as far as I can to some of her questions.
The hon. Lady asked about the future of a specific site in her constituency. In general terms, it was very difficult in the early stages of the impact of foot and mouth to anticipate what requirements there would be. It was a fast-moving situation. Indeed, I had some experience of that in my constituency, with a site that in the event turned out not to be required. Everybody concerned had to move quickly. I will look at the specific circumstances and write to the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady referred to the situation in Burlescombe, concerns about storage, and reports of vehicles in lay-bys with carcases simply covered by tarpaulin. If such a report is a rumour, it is difficult to respond to, but if there is specific evidence of circumstances, time and place, clearly one can investigate. If information is provided contemporaneously, it is much easier to investigate. As I am sure the hon. Lady will acknowledge, a lot of information doing the rounds is not rooted in fact, but is based on misunderstanding. It is important for parliamentarians to distinguish between the two. If she can provide me with more specific facts, figures, dates and times, I will be able to pursue the matter further. It is difficult to deal with rumour.
The hon. Lady gave a specific example of a farm business. Clearly someone has tried through diversification to make a viable business. There is great sympathy for those in such circumstances who have had no income for a period of time. Again, I am happy to look at the specific case if she will provide the information. From the information provided so far I do not know whether that individual has explored all the possibilities available, but we can look at that.
There are concerns that people do not always use the information, health and support available to them. Last week a report was published which surveyed farm businesses and businesses generally in rural communities in the west midlands. It highlighted the financial impact on the rural economy and the number of people directly affected. It surveyed their concerns about the future. It also asked whether they had sought advice or help from the services available. Eighty per cent. had not done so. Sixty per cent. had not come up with ideas to diversify, change or market their business. In the depths of the direct impact of foot and mouth disease that is understandable, but we need to encourage people to use the support

519
available and to question whether the information and opportunities are reaching them. Again, if the hon. Lady will provide the information, I will look into it.
We are looking at the operation of the scheme to match donations by the public. It has moved a lot of money quickly into help for people through welfare activities which the voluntary sector can often deal with more speedily and effectively than the public sector. The undertaking was to match pound for pound donations from members of the public, and that has been kept. I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but that promise has been kept.
The hon. Lady asked about tourism and whether I and my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were aware of its plight. Yes, we are. My two first meetings with ministerial colleagues on taking up my present role were with the Minister at the Home Office who has responsibility for the voluntary sector and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who has responsibility for tourism. We looked at ways in which our officials could work together to ensure that we do all we can to restore tourism in the countryside.
The hon. Lady asked about opening footpaths. The urgency in that is to ensure that rural businesses in tourism, hotels, farms that have diversified into accommodation, and so on, can restore their business as quickly as possible. Many of them face a massive challenge.
The hon. Lady also asked who has the responsibility for reopening footpaths. The matter is clear. Perhaps I could send her a copy of a letter that I wrote today clarifying the whole situation for one of her colleagues, following an Adjournment debate yesterday—I am becoming a specialist. That letter sets out the situation comprehensively. In essence, the power of footpath closure lies with local authorities. At an early stage of the outbreak, local authorities were given the power to introduce blanket bans under which an area can be put under a prohibition through a single signature, instead of each footpath having to be signed off.
We are currently holding consultations on lifting blanket bans where they are no longer needed—I hope to make a decision during the next week. In some counties there have been no—or few—incidences of the disease, so the continuation of a blanket ban, which was introduced swiftly to enable a local authority to get a grip on the situation as a precautionary measure, is no longer appropriate. I have given local authorities the opportunity to put the case for a blanket ban where they think it justified. We should not be surprised to receive
520
applications from those areas which experienced the largest outbreaks, including Cumbria and north Devon. We shall consider such requests carefully.
When a blanket ban is lifted, the power of footpath closure is left with the local authority, as is normally the case. The advice is that a 3 km area around an incidence should be the subject of such precautionary closures. That is greater than the distance needed in respect of the threat or the dangers, but it is a precautionary measure.
The damage to rural businesses from the closure of footpaths is enormous. Biosecurity is crucial. The big danger is from people having contact with animals, or from contact between animals. That is why advice was issued earlier this week in an excellent video. I understand that the hon. Lady has a copy, even though you may not yet have received yours Mr. Deputy Speaker. The video is worth watching, because it makes clear the measures that are necessary for protection from the dangers of spread. It also explains that footpath openings will continue unless there is a need for protection against the danger of infection.
This is the right balance. It fits well with the balance mentioned by the hon. Lady when, in opening the debate, she referred to the damage that was done directly to farmers through the impact of foot and mouth disease and to its knock-on effects on those rural businesses-including the closure of footpaths.
I told the hon. Lady earlier that it would be difficult to answer all her questions in the short time available, but I will try to pick up on some of them. She asked where the money is going. We have the strongest possible commitment to ensure that the money goes to the sharp end. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work that is being undertaken by the people in our regional offices in conjunction with the regional development agencies and with local partners who are giving direct business advice.
I visited a regional office last week and met people who had just returned after working long hours directly combating foot and mouth disease and were then going straight on to help rural businesses and farmers. We should appreciate the pressure on our staff, as well as that on rural communities, and pay tribute to their work.
The hon. Lady's point about the financial pressures of veterinary inspection and her other points are well understood. I assure her that Ministers have those issues under active consideration.
It is not surprising that we are debating the impact of foot and mouth for the third time this week, because it is such an immediate and challenging problem. I understand the pressures on people and the concerns that the hon. Lady has understandably expressed on behalf of her constituency. I shall write to her taking up the specific points that she raised during her half of this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Department for Work and Pensions
[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Education and Employment Committee in the last Parliament on 1st May 2001, DfEE Funding: Departmental Report 2001, HC 451-I and Minutes of Evidence taken before the Social Security Committee in the last Parliament on 2nd May 2001, DSS Departmental Report, HC457-i.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I welcome this opportunity to open the debate on the new Department for Work and Pensions and to explain how it will be central in taking forward our welfare reform agenda. I note from the monitor that hon. Members are also discussing social security on the Floor of the House. There is some compatibility between the two debates, but I think that ours is the more important.
We are reforming the welfare state, to make it fit for this century. Through those reforms we want to make opportunity a reality for all. Our reforms are designed to meet our overall welfare objectives of eradicating poverty in childhood and combating poverty in old age, and of ensuring that there is work for those who can work, and greater security for those who cannot. We are overhauling the way in which we deliver services so that, for the first time, welfare services will meet the different needs of our client groups—pensioners, people of working age and children. We are putting in the investment needed for more streamlined services that will be focused on the individual needs of our customers, make greater use of technology and reduce the amount of fraud and error in the system.
We are modernising the way in which services are delivered. We are creating the Pension Service, dedicated to the needs of today's and tomorrow's pensioners, and jobcentre plus, bringing together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency dealing with people of working age. In the next three years we shall build new information technology systems to provide a modern, streamlined service to pensioners and those of working age. From 2003, automated credit transfer will be the normal method of payment for benefits. We shall introduce the integrated child credit from 2003 as the next step in the programme to tackle child poverty and make work pay.
We are introducing radical reforms to the pensions system, helping more people to save. Stakeholder pensions were introduced in April. Other changes are the reform of the state earnings-related pension through the introduction of the state second pension in April 2002 and the rewarding of those who have saved with the new pension credit in April 2003.
138WH
We are on target to reduce the amount of fraud and error in the system by 10 per cent. in 2002 and to halve it by 2006. The new Department will provide a single approach to the development of employment, disability and benefit policies for people of working age and for pensioners needing information and support. It will aim to be a joined-up, efficient, modern organisation and to respond to our customers' needs and the changing ways in which they want to gain access to our services.
The Department for Work and Pensions is a more precise reflection of the Government's labour market and social priorities of helping people to help themselves to become more independent. We are giving people new rights in return for accepting greater responsibility. The Department deals with a big business—a big public service. Every day we make 3.5 million benefit payments and every month we place 100,000 unemployed people in jobs. This year alone 8 million households have benefited from the winter fuel payment. People depend on us for their security, especially at the most vulnerable times in their lives—unemployment, bereavement, sickness and old age. It is therefore vital that the service that we provide is efficient, joined-up and geared to the needs of our customers. The creation of the new Department makes common and business sense, reflecting the changing way in which we organise ourselves to deliver services.
Over the past four years, we have laid the foundations for a major change in the social security system. We are moving away from a system designed to pay benefits in a passive way—which does not help people to become self-sufficient and takes little interest in them—to one providing people with greater opportunity for work and enabling those who cannot work to access the support that they deserve and need.
Major milestones were reached during the Government's previous term. We saw the successful reform of the new deal, underpinned by a strong economy, making work possible and making sure that it pays through the introduction of the working families tax credit, which guarantees that families with a member in full-time work will have a guaranteed minimum income of at least £225 per week by October 2001. We also saw the introduction of the disabled persons tax credit and the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been a great success, benefiting thousands of our constituents, despite the dire and absurd warnings that we heard from those on the crowded Opposition Benches.
All that has allowed us to spend more on tackling poverty and raising family support, through increases in child benefit. In the last Budget, child benefit increased to £15.50 a week for the first child and £10.35 a week for subsequent children—an increase of 26 per cent. for the first child over the life of the previous Parliament. In addition, we introduced the child tax credit, worth up to £10 a week. We have also reformed the child support system to make it less complex. Over 1 million children will gain as a result.
We have implemented our agenda to help senior members of society by introducing the minimum income guarantee, to ensure that all pensioners have a decent income in retirement, by increasing the basic pension by £5 a week for single pensioners, by making winter fuel payments and by providing free television licences. All pensioner households will be, on average,

139WH
over £11 a week—£580 a year—better off than they were in 1997. To help tomorrow's pensioners plan and save for their retirement, we have introduced stakeholder pensions, a new low-cost flexible option for those on moderate incomes who do not have access to a good occupational scheme.
All those changes have achieved results. Unemployment is at its lowest level for over 25 years and employment rates are at the highest level ever. There is always a danger of thinking of such facts as dry arithmetic or mere statistics, but when we compare the unemployment of just a few years ago with the job opportunities now, we can all put faces to the figures for our constituencies: we know some of the families behind the statistics.
The new deal for young people has placed more than 250,000 young people in jobs, but what about the second term? We still have a long way to go. There are still substantial pockets of unemployment. Although fewer than 1 million people are unemployed, a further 4 million are without jobs—people who have not traditionally been defined as unemployed. We have started to extend opportunities for those who have missed out in the past. The new deal for lone parents offers a package of choices—more help with child care and training and help to make work pay—and it is working. Some 222,000 lone parents have joined, and more than one in three participants—more than 90,000 people—have found work, even though participation is voluntary. After all, work is the best route out of poverty.
I now come to yesterday's announcement on the proposal to award incapacity benefit for fixed periods of three years. There has been much misconception and some scaremongering in the media and elsewhere. I want to say loudly and clearly that what we propose is not a crackdown on the disabled; it is about giving support and help to those who are able to work. We are not forcing disabled people into work. Those who are still eligible for incapacity benefit will get it. We will treat people as individuals—if they can return to work or undertake retraining then we should help them to do so, not leave them on benefits.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Will my hon. Friend confirm what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said during business questions today, which is that the new proposals would apply only to new claimants for incapacity benefit?
Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I can confirm that the proposals will apply to new claimants only.
If there is a scandal, it is that of people with handicaps or serious disabilities who have been laid to rest in the social security system, with no one taking an interest in them. Many of those people want the opportunity to work. I can think of a young woman in my constituency, whom I will call Sarah for the purposes of this story. This is a true story. She is a young woman with Down's syndrome. She went to special schools, and afterwards spent some years in a day centre. She did not feel challenged there, and one day she spoke up, saying, "I want a job, like other people." It happened that in
140WH
the borough of Croydon, a voluntary body called Status Employment was in the business of supported work. Sarah was helped by that organisation, and she became a bed chambermaid in a leading hotel. The supported employment project worked with her to teach her that job, and provided support afterwards.
Not so long ago, many people would have said that Sarah could never work—that she had a great disability and was a million miles away from employment. Sarah has now been working in that hotel for four years and is the longest serving employee there. The scandal is that, in the past, the Sarahs of this world have been dismissed as not being eligible for training and work. We need to address that, and we must not be put off by scaremongering in our endeavour to give those people the opportunities of work and citizenship. I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security—as was.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister might be tempting providence with that welcome. I should like to reciprocate by saying that I find it reassuring that he has taken a new position and an important role in the new Department, because I know of his interest in the subject.
The Minister's story is poignant and apposite. There has been much scaremongering about the recent announcement on incapacity benefit. The Government could have avoided that if they had undertaken a more coherent period of consultation before making the announcement. However, does he accept that simply moving people off incapacity benefit on to the jobseeker's allowance may, by itself, save money, but will not make those people any more job-ready in today's labour market? Support systems need to be available for those people before he can even begin to contemplate this change with any kind of confidence that it will work.
Malcolm Wicks: I will do my best to address that important point.
We accept that there are some individuals and groups for whom it is right to make some exemptions. I should like to make it clear—this is pure common sense and I hope that hon. Members would have expected it anyway—that we will listen to views on the matter in the immediate future. We will listen to the views of hon. Members from all parts of the House today and during the passage of the Bill on welfare reform.
We want to keep people in touch with the workplace through measures such as rehabilitation and skills retraining and by working with employers. That addresses the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, nothing is to be gained for those individuals who, whatever their physical capacity, are simply put on another benefit.
We must become much more sophisticated in our approach—I will say more about the jobcentre plus concept and organisation later—to those with disabilities or to other groups facing barriers to employment. We must look at people in the round, consider the multiple disadvantages that some of them may face and then address their needs, whether that includes reskilling, retraining or confidence building. I concur with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point.

141WH
We all know the background. The numbers on incapacity benefit increased by almost three times between 1979 and 1997, against a background of an increasingly healthy nation. The long-term rate is claimed by 1.3 million people at a cost of £5.3 billion a year. The number now is slightly lower than in 1997.
Fixed period awards are better for two reasons.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister and I have had many exchanges and I know that he is a fair-minded man. I do not think that he intended to make a partisan point. In a serious analysis of incapacity benefit, will he accept the fact that, now and over recent years, there have been more new claimants for incapacity benefit than the number of people who have fallen out of long-term unemployment? Surely that disturbing trend lies precisely behind the Government's new initiative to try to tackle new claimants.
Malcolm Wicks: I do not see that as the reason. I was not trying to mislead. The numbers on incapacity benefit are slightly—1 per cent.—lower than in 1997, but they have increased in the past year or so. We could debate the reasons for that, although not today. They are often complex and partly demographic. More people in our society are now over 50 than was the case even a few years ago, and they are obviously more likely to be at risk of incapacity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees on the key point, which is that we all need to work harder and more positively for those people, to give them the job opportunities that many of them are crying out for and deserve.
I was making the point that fixed-period awards are better for two reasons. First, they will help people realise that they are not being written off for life when they claim incapacity benefit. Secondly, we will be able to review their claims so that we can ensure that they receive the help that they need. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a point about that. I was going to call him my hon. Friend; I think of him that way because we served together on the Select Committee on Social Security, of which he is the former Chairman. We need to consider the help that people need. Nothing can be gained by shunting someone from one benefit category to another. I hope that he understands our commitment on that.
There are 2 million men and women—two thirds of them are men—in receipt of incapacity benefit, many of whom want to work and could do so given the right help. They want to enjoy the benefits that work brings, such as social contacts and increased financial independence. Through work-focused interviews and jobcentre plus, we aim to make that possible.
Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend and welcome him to his new position, one that is especially appropriate for him. Would there not be an even stronger case for the changes if they were tied into the possible introduction of age discrimination legislation? The main reason why people cannot find work when they are older is plain discrimination in the workplace.
Malcolm Wicks: I certainly recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's point. We are committed to such an
142WH
approach but are not naive about it; we need to consult and tackle the issues carefully. I am sure that we all see the absurdity of ageism adversely affecting many of our fellow citizens, given the facts that people in our society live longer and that there are skill shortages in many constituencies. That is not only a sociological absurdity but an economic one.
Mr. Brady: My understanding is that responsibility for dealing with anti-discrimination legislation lies with the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Minister confirm that? Is that not regrettable, given the fact that anti-discrimination should surely be tied in with promoting work, encouraging people back into the labour market and maximising the use of their skills?
Malcolm Wicks: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point fully in my winding-up speech. The responsibility for different aspects of discrimination now lies in Whitehall, and I hope that that is acceptable to him.
This month sees the introduction of the first job brokers under the new deal for disabled people, enabling disabled people to access specialist help and the support to which I have already referred. After all, disabled people are seven times as likely as non-disabled people to be out of work and claiming benefits. Surveys show that 1 million of them would like to work. We want people with disabilities to have similar opportunities to others to find out about moving into work. We want to help them to become and remain more independent. I am pleased to say that, by the end of April 2001, that approach had helped more than 7,900 people back into work.
As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget 2000 speech, the Government will also introduce a new generation of tax credits. That is the next stage in the series of reforms aimed at relieving child poverty and encouraging people into work by making work pay. The new credits will provide separate elements to deal with each of those aspects. I shall go into more detail about the integrated child credit. First, we shall draw together the various existing strands of support for families with children, including the child elements of income support, jobseeker's allowance, working families and disabled person's tax credits, and the new children's tax credit to create a seamless mechanism for channelling support to children. The new credit will provide a more transparent system of support and will be portable, spanning both welfare and work. It will build on the foundation of universal child benefit and will be paid to the main carer—which is important—in line with child benefit.
Secondly, we shall support those in low-paid work through an employment tax credit, building on the adult elements of existing tax credits and the new deal 50-plus. The new credit will help to increase work incentives for low-paid workers and to relieve in-work poverty in working households. The Government will be consulting on the detailed proposals of both credits later this summer, with a view to introducing a Bill later in the Session.
From 2003, the new pension credit will help pensioners with modest savings or occupational pensions and make sure that there are no disincentives

143WH
to saving. The pension credit will have two effects: first, it will provide a basic guaranteed level of income of £100 a week, below which no pensioner should fall. Secondly, the credit will ensure that people are rewarded for their thrift. It will benefit about half of all pensioner households in the country. Like the provision of stakeholder pension schemes for moderate and higher earners, our aim is to ensure that everyone can look forward to a secure retirement. We all meet regularly, not least during a general election campaign, pensioners who feel hard done by—and properly so. Because they have modest savings and a modest pension, they are barred from certain benefits in old age. We want to address that unfairness.
The Department for Work and Pensions carries out most of the functions of the former Department of Social Security and incorporates the employment, disability and international relations elements of what was my old Department, the Department for Education and Employment, including the entire Employment Service. That is a joined-up approach to benefits and employment issues. We are retaining close links, however, with the new Department for Education and Skills as basic skills and lifelong learning are crucial to our work.
Over the next few years, the Department has a formidable agenda. We are committed to creating the jobcentre plus organisation to provide an integrated work-focused service for all employers and people of working age. We shall establish the pension service, which will provide information and support for today's and tomorrow's pensioners. We are committed to delivering the pension credit—so that people are rewarded and not penalised for their savings—and a radically improved system of child support, through the continued implementation of child support reforms.
We will be working closely with the Inland Revenue to deliver new tax credits such as the integrated child credit. It is important to ensure that we are organised in a way suitable to deliver an efficient and modern service and it is vital that our staff have the technology to do their jobs, which is a matter of concern to hon. Members. We must bring our front-line IT systems up to the 21st century. A public service that is in contact with 70 per cent. of the population at any one time needs the proper tools and technology to do the job. As the Select Committee has documented, much of our IT is now 20 years out of date. The Chancellor has given us the money, so we shall be installing new computers in offices from July.
In the new Department, we are building two new operational arms: one for people of working age and one for those of pensionable age. Both will be operational from next year. The first of those is jobcentre plus—our new agency for people of working age. Jobcentre plus will bring together the Employment Service and much of the Benefits Agency to form a single gateway to the system. Everyone of working age—whether or not they regard themselves as looking for work—will go through the same gateway.
Jobcentre plus will bring real benefits to the Department's customers, and to its staff, whom we must treat properly and not take for granted. It will allow us to provide the more active and individualised help,
144WH
which has worked so well in the new deal. We will set up a service with greater flexibility, more use of personal advisers and a focus on tailoring our services to meet the needs of individuals and employers. We will move quickly to set up the first 50 pathfinder offices.
We are offering new help and new rights in return for greater responsibilities. In work-focused interviews, those who are able to work now or in the future will get the chance to hear about the help that is on offer.
At this time of record vacancies, we are also keen to work more closely with employers, matching people and skills to the jobs employers want to fill, and putting the right training and support in place. We will be working closely with the new Department for Education and Skills and the new employer-led learning and skills councils to understand the needs and demands of local economies and the needs of employers and individuals.
For those who have reached retirement or are planning pension provision, the Pension Service will deliver a more focused and streamlined service. It will provide a new and radically better service for today's pensioners, so that they will have an easily accessible point of contact for all their social security benefits and we will make full use of the opportunities provided by new technology, including the internet.
The Pension Service will deal with everything from policy development to front-line service delivery. We want to improve the face-to-face service to pensioners, so that they can receive the information and help that they want—not only on pensions and benefits but on other local services. That means adopting a partnership approach—learning from the "Better Government for Older People" pilots and Care Direct—to join up our services with local authorities and the voluntary sector.
As well as meeting public service agreement targets, the pension sector will have two aims: to provide a unified, modern service for today's pensioners, however they choose to deal with us; and to give a better service to tomorrow's pensioners by designing appropriate pension products and providing accurate information to help them to make decisions about future pension provision.
Crucial to the new service is clear information—from leaflets to forecasts of pension value. To implement that, we will work in partnership with employers and pension providers to introduce new pension forecasts giving both state and private pension details.
The present Disability and Carers Directorate will become a distinct unit within the Department providing an end-to-end service to people on key disability and carer benefits, such as disability living allowance, attendance allowance and invalid care allowance. The directorate will have close links with both jobcentre plus and the Pension Service, but will be managed separately.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the new Department is intended to build on the work that the Government started four years ago. We have made a good start, but we have a massive programme of further changes to deliver in our second term. We have the integrated child credit, and we will soon have the pension credit. We also have the Child Support Agency reforms and, crucially, the replacement of our entire IT system to enable us to offer a better and more accurate service to the public. The way in which we deliver our

145WH
service is of the utmost importance, and we want to make it our priority. That is why we are establishing Jobcentre plus and the Pension Service.
I apologise for delivering such a long speech. I could have written a shorter one, but the work of the new Department covers a range of issues, some of which are controversial, and the debate provides an early opportunity to discuss an important part of our modern machinery of government.
3 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the Minister. Both of us are present at the debate as—so to speak—refugees from other shores. However, although he is now fully assimilated, in due course I might be returned to the shadow brief whence I came.
Malcolm Wicks: You may have leave to remain.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment; it typifies his generosity of spirit.
The Opposition do not take an entrenched view against the reorganisation, even though it reverses an important reorganisation that was effected by the previous Conservative Government. The idea of bringing education and employment together within government had many friends, and the Minister himself was one of them, as a little research reveals. I admire him so much that I rushed out to buy a copy of his book, "A Future for All", which was published in 1987, and in which he perceptively commented:
"Increasingly, we will need to relate as part of a total package, questions of employment, education and training".
Although we do not oppose the reorganisation, we have important questions and concerns. The gains that were achieved by bringing together the Education and Employment Departments must not be lost as a consequence of the reorganisation.
I cannot resist sharing a story that was told to me, I think, by the former right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, as it is germane to the subject of Government reorganisation. I apologise if the story is familiar to the Minister, but if it is not, it should be. It concerns a new Minister. When he arrives in his Department, he is handed three envelopes that have been left to him by his predecessor. He is told that, if he runs into difficulties, he must open the first envelope; if things get worse, he should open the second one; and if there is a crisis, he must open the third envelope, which will contain instructions telling him what to do.
The new Minister locks the three envelopes in the drawer of his desk, and he thinks that such problems will never arise, but, very soon, they do arise. The Minister reaches into his draw and takes out the first envelope. He opens it, and on a small slip of card inside it are written the words "Blame your predecessor". The present Government have spent four years doing that. On the second occasion when the Minister finds himself in apparently insuperable difficulties, he reaches into the drawer and takes out the second envelope. He opens it, and finds a small card with the words "Reorganise your Department" written on it. He subsequently does that, and it carries him through for a short while longer. However, such initiatives never carry Governments
146WH
through if they fail to deliver in the longer term, and, consequently, the Minister soon finds himself having to reach for the third envelope. Inside it is a card on which is written the message, "Write out three envelopes for your successor".
The Government's reorganisation will be judged on whether it helps them to achieve an improvement in its record on delivery—rather than on its usefulness in helping them to disguise failures with regard to that. There have been failures of delivery. I think that the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, would accept that, and I know that the Minister would—although I will not ask him to accept it now.
The Government have failed to deliver on some of their most important targets. We need to see real delivery with regard to stakeholder pensions, as their introduction has caused problems. Action needs to be taken to improve employment opportunities, especially in stubborn job blackspots, to which the Minister alluded in his opening comments. We need the children's tax credit to unfold as an improvement on a grossly inadequate current provision, which discriminates against families who should not suffer such discrimination. Far-reaching reform of the new deal is also needed. In all those areas, and more, real delivery is essential.
As I said, many people have expressed concerns about the possible reorganisation of the Departments, especially the splitting of the Department for Education and Employment. When Sir Michael Bichard appeared before the Education and Employment Committee in May, he made it clear that he was concerned. He said that, although the impact of splitting the two Departments would be less if officials were more mobile than tended to be the case in the past, serious difficulties might arise. It was made clear before the general election that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had reservations about the proposed reorganisation, even though he knew at an early stage that he might not be directly involved in dealing with the consequences. If the former permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment wanted to see more mobility between Departments for officials, will the Minister say how many officials have moved? What has been the degree of mobility between the old Department and the new reorganised Department? At what grades and functions has that mobility become a reality?
Considerable concern has also been expressed about the possible loss of synergy in the previous combination of the education and employment functions. As the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said at the Select Committee hearing,
"If some DfEE functions are hived off to a separate agency, is it possible to continue the welcome synergies which you"—
the permanent secretary—
"and the Secretary of State, have referred to?"
First, the permanent secretary said:
"The machinery of government is a matter for the Prime Minister".
Possibly as a mark of a senior civil servant who expects to move on fairly soon, he also said:
"Personally, I am someone who is quite reluctant to change structures…Some people spend a lot of time trying to carry on behaving in exactly the same way in the new structure and you have a couple of years of disruption."

147WH
Does that bode ill for delivery in the next four or five years, and can the Minister assure hon. Members that two years of disruption will not be the price?
On the benefits and social security side, there is an obvious concern about what the merger may mean. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—who, as the Minister knows, can bring to bear in such matters as much cerebral firepower as the Minister and I combined—was concerned about screens. As he put it, the Benefits Agency operates behind screens, whereas the jobcentre has always been a welcoming environment. Will the integrated function take place behind screens? I am sure that the initial intention will be to have a warm, open, friendly environment, without screens, whether one is seeking employment or payment of benefits. However, can the Minister be confident that that will continue? Is there a danger that, as the process moves forward, instead of losing the screens from the benefits function, the employment function will be carried on behind screens?
The Minister rightly raised the question of incapacity benefit. Certainly, the information that emerged recently about proposed changes in the screening process for incapacity benefit has caused concern. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, much of that could have been avoided had the Government engaged in more consultation with interested groups beforehand. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will learn from that? Can he assure us that that consultation will now progress as it should have done previously?
What is the timetable for the implementation of changes to incapacity benefit? When the changes are put in place, what criteria does the Minister anticipate using to decide which recipients will be exempt from triennial screening and which will be included? Given that the Minister has confirmed that the change will apply only to new claimants—I think that I welcome that—what estimate has the Department made of the effect of the change over time on reducing the number of claimants of incapacity benefit?
The Government should be conscious of a wider concern about the treatment of disability issues in the reorganisation. The lead Minister for disability issues is no longer within the Department for Education and Employment, but is in the Department for Work and Pensions. That may send some people the wrong message. I accept the Minister saying that when disabled people are able to work, or may be able to work with sufficient help and support, they should be given every encouragement. However, is it the right message to give a disabled person who is neither retired nor able to work that the lead Minister is located within the Department for Work and Pensions, but is also the Minister in the role of gatekeeper for the benefits system? That sends potentially worrying messages to disabled people, and is a matter that the Government should treat with sensitivity.
Mr. Levitt: Throughout the years of the Conservative Government when there was a Minister for disabled people, that Minister was in the Department of Social Security and, therefore, the same criticisms that the hon.
148WH
Gentleman is now levelling could have been levelled at that Government. Under this Government, since the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission and other cross-departmental measures, where the Minister is based is less important than what the Minister is doing.
Mr. Brady: My point was not so much that it matters where the Minister is based as the signal that may be sent out. The name of the Department may—perhaps in the Government's preferred jargon—seem to exclude those who are not able to work or who are not in receipt of pensions. However, there is the more significant concern of the lead Minister for disability issues being connected with the gatekeeper function for benefits.
The priority in the matter must be that when people are, or may be, capable of work, the assessment must be carried out as quickly as possible and when there is the possibility of a person getting work, all reasonable help must be extended to that person as quickly as possible. Early signs showed that the Government have proceeded without the sensitivity required, but one hopes that that will improve now that one or two warning shots have been fired. The matter is obviously one of deep concern to the Prime Minister if he is moved to appear on a voluntary basis in the House of Commons, not merely when he is here to answer questions on a Wednesday. I gather that he made an appearance on the Terrace last night—clearly he was somewhat shaken.
I draw the Minister's attention to some of the deficiencies of the Government's reporting strategy. The most recent departmental annual report contains gaps where, in the previous year, there was information. Clearly that must be addressed. That is not just for the benefit of Her Majesty's Opposition, because a Government who claim to believe in open government must wish to provide the maximum useful information to all who are interested. However, in between last year's and this year's annual report, some important information has disappeared. The tables that showed the total and real-terms level of expenditure on benefits over a number of years—which were tables 1 and 2 in the previous year's annual report—have gone, as has the table that showed the number of recipients of the main benefits, which was table 10 in last year's annual report. The forecasts of future spending and take-up of specific benefits were contained in all tables in the previous year's report, but largely disappeared from this year's report. We would also welcome more detail of future plans for the Department, especially regarding the year 2003, which is largely missing from the report. Will the Minister give an assurance that next year's annual report will contain this important information, and in the meantime promise to write to me with this missing information, in order to improve the openness of the Government's reporting procedures?
The Minister knows that I have taken a close interest, as a member of the Employment Sub-Committee and in my position in the shadow Cabinet, in the opacity of the Government's new deal figures. It is difficult to discover from those figures the truth of what is happening, especially when one wishes to establish how many jobs are sustained or unsustained and how many paid or unpaid. The figures might be presented in an infinitely

149WH
more readable and understandable way; that would be an important development, which I hope that we shall see.
The Minister talked about the future development of the new deal, which is of enormous importance. The new deal has done some good, as I have always accepted.
Linda Gilroy: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the new deal has some good features. Does that mean that the policy that his party took into the general election has been ditched? I understand that his party intended to get rid of the new deal.
Mr. Brady: The hon. Lady has made the mistake of believing what she has been told by Millbank, which she must understand is not a good idea. The Conservative party's policy to replace the new deal with "Britain Works" still stands, I am pleased to say. That policy would improve the new deal and not remove everything that it has created.—[Interruption.]
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Hon Members should not heckle. They may make their own speeches.
Mr. Brady: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam. I think that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) wanted to draw in the Liberal Democrat Members by his latest sedentary intervention, but I would not want to become involved in that.
The new deal has done some good, but at huge cost. The cost of a positive outcome on a cost-per-job basis is unacceptable. That is held to be the case by not only Her Majesty's Opposition but many of those involved in the independent evaluation of the new deal; those people have raised concerns about the cost.
The new deal has had an impact on the payment count and the distribution of the payment count between the long and short-term unemployed. There is a flow of people from long-term unemployment, when they become eligible for entry to the new deal, into new deal options, and out of those options into short-term unemployment. There has been a churning of people from long-term unemployment through new deal options, so that if they return to unemployment they have the status of short-term unemployed.
Phil Hope: I want to draw a minor fact to the hon. Gentleman's attention. In Corby, youth unemployment fell by 70 per cent. whereas long-term unemployment fell by 84 per cent. as a direct result of the economic success of the Chancellor's handling of the economy and the impact of the new deal. It has given those young people and those long-term unemployed people chances that they did not have before. Is he now saying that those opportunities and successes will be ignored?
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman could almost persuade me against my better instincts to become a fan of the more consensual approach, which is supposed to be characteristic of Westminster Hall.
The situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and across the country—as he knows—was that unemployment was falling strongly before the Labour
150WH
Government came to office and has continued to fall strongly since. A difficulty that serious commentators accept—those with knowledge of the subject who study the performance of the new deal in detail—is that the most difficult thing to decide is what element of the fall has been connected to the new deal, and what has been entirely unconnected.
When the National Institute of Economic and Social Research conducted an evaluation in December 2000, its conclusion stated that the new deal had raised youth short-term unemployment. That was clearly not the intention of the new deal, but an unintended side effect. By moving people from long-term to short-term unemployment, the distribution of the figures was changed, particularly through young claimants returning from an unwaged new deal option.
When examining how to improve the new deal, I hope that the Government will allow new thinking to be introduced. I hope that the fact that the employment function has moved to another Department will allow for a more open-minded attitude to be taken in the review of the scheme. It is important that we continue to see development, particularly in relation to areas of high unemployment—I think that the Minister has implicitly acknowledged the underperformance of the new deal in that respect. That has always been a difficulty for any scheme intended to tackle unemployment. We need a more flexible scheme and a less bureaucratic approach, and the new deal must be more results-oriented, as was foreshadowed in the "Britain Works" proposals, which the Conservative party brought forward. A key aspect of those proposals was a real focus on real jobs.
I will briefly quote from the Trades Union Congress's labour market briefing in June. It is perhaps not the obvious source to endorse the "Britain Works" proposal, and I am sure that the TUC would say that that was not its intention. However, the briefing states:
"The TUC believes that the clear message from this and related research is that there must be an increased focus on new initiatives designed to assist New Deal participants into 'real jobs' and that the unwaged option should be viewed as a platform for achieving this end. Otherwise there is a danger that the most disadvantaged New Deal participants and also unemployed claimants living in areas with very high levels of joblessness may be churned through New Deal unwaged options."
That is a real concern and it must be tackled by focusing on getting people into jobs, not merely into the new deal unwaged options.
When conducting the review of the new deal, and considering how it can be improved in future, I would like to know what preparation the Department has made for the possibility of an economic downturn. Most people who are familiar with the performance of employment generation schemes are familiar with the fact that they tend to work better at times of economic growth and do not work well at times of economic stagnation or contraction. The way in which the new deal had been put together in its first form failed to take account of that possibility. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what changes he and his Department have in mind to tackle that.
A few loose ends remain which I hope that the Minister will help us with. What will be the final fate of the Employment Service? Will jobcentres and jobcentre

151WH
plus continue to be run by the Employment Service in its present form, and will they continue to be run by an entirely public sector organisation? Will jobcentres be subject to contracting out? Will we see more private sector involvement from private sector partners in the delivery of the jobcentre plus function?
How many jobs does the Minister expect to be created as a result of the new interview requirements with personal advisers? The evidence of the new deal for lone parents is that the intervention of personal advisers is not always effective in increasing the likelihood of people going into employment.
The movement of child benefit is now in the hands of the Inland Revenue. Can the Minister give an assurance that that is not a precursor to the taxation of child benefit, which would lead to the diminution of the benefit for many families?
Finally, can the Minister give some information and estimates on what will happen under the reorganisation—first, to the departmental overhead figures and, secondly, to the overall establishment figures? In the process of moving functions from the Department for Education and Employment to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry, and perhaps to other areas of government, will the total cost of delivering those functions remain no higher than it has been? Will the total number of officials involved in their delivery remain no higher than it has been? In that context, will we see a corresponding reduction in the establishment of the Department of Education and Skills as we presumably see an increase in the establishment of the Department for Work and Pensions?
3.26 pm
Linda Gilroy: It is a great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post in his new Department. He has a long track record in dealing with matters concerning older people, and I am sure that he will bring that experience to bear. Our paths first crossed in Church house, Westminster back in 1976, when he had prepared a document about tackling hypothermia to contribute towards something called the manifesto on the place of the retired and elderly in modern society. At that time, I had recently graduated and was working for the Scottish Old People's Welfare Council, which became Age Concern.
In those days, we knew that many more people were going to live long and fruitful lives in retirement, and that preparations needed to be made for appropriate pension provision so that they could have fulfilling retirements. Sadly, too many of the years that intervened were wasted in terms of preparing for that, as was the case with the other important part of my hon. Friend's departmental responsibilities relating to work. I remember attending meetings with the Scottish Council for Social Services, where predictions were made that if the Government did not develop active policies, we would face unemployment levels as high as 3 million to 4 million people.
152WH
My constituency, Plymouth, Sutton, has faced some of the greatest challenges with regard to tackling poverty. The Minister mentioned the focus of the work of his Department in continuing to bear down on that issue. I am pleased to say that during the first four years of the previous Labour Government we saw some remarkable changes, and it is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) to say that the new deal has not had a significant impact on unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) mentioned the 70 per cent. drop in youth unemployment. Some of the most remarkable falls in unemployment have been in my constituency, including a 90 per cent. drop in youth unemployment. I know from the stories of many young people from families such as those that the Minister mentioned that their lives have been transformed. I well recollect going round to people's houses before the 1997 general election, when behind almost every door that I knocked on there were people asking what the new Labour Government were going to do for them, because someone in the household was either unemployed or knew of someone who was. This time, the problems that I encountered on the doorstep included far fewer to do with unemployment. I will touch on some of those problems in a moment.
Mr. Brady: I certainly do not claim that unemployment has not fallen, but the hon. Lady must understand that such an employment generation scheme involves the phenomenon of deadweight. Ministers in her Government accept that at least 60 per cent. of new deal participants who get jobs would probably have got jobs without the new deal's assistance. Some evaluations put that figure even higher. Not every job that has been created has been created by the new deal.
Linda Gilroy: There is much more to the new deal than introducing people to work and work experience. One of its important features has been to ensure that the accompanying training is mainstream, leading to NVQs, and that it begins to introduce people who might have fallen out of the training world to the idea that we are now living in a world of lifelong learning. That has helped to raise our employment market in Plymouth to greater skill levels. We have great challenges yet to face in that area, and I will discuss it further.
I was referring to the wasted 20 years for pensions and work. We knew that there would be significant challenges and problems in both areas, which were not tackled during that time. During the past four years, some of the building blocks have been put into place to change that.
I shall deal with two main topics—first, pensions, which are very important to all our constituencies. In Plymouth, a city of 250,000 people which includes two and a half constituencies, there are some 50,000 people of retirement age. I never understood why a great deal more anger was not generated among us at the start of the previous Parliament by the scandal that 17,000 to 20,000 people of retirement age in the city of Plymouth were trying to live on incomes of less than £90 per week for a single person and £135 per week for couples. The Select Committee on Social Security worked on that. I was not able to serve on the Committee, but from the video of its inquiry, I listened to the evidence taken. The

153WH
Age Concern representatives put forward cogent arguments that there was a low but adequate basic income on which people could manage, without having to rob Peter to pay Paul.
The provisions for the minimum income guarantee will, to a large extent, address those problems. However, there are outstanding problems concerning the huge differences between households. Some properties are well insulated and have good modern equipment, whereas others are draughty, exposed and poorly equipped, and people in those households must spend much more of their income on heating. Of course, the fuel poverty strategy goes side by side with the minimum income guarantee to address the income requirements of such people. There are far too many of them, including a huge proportion of my constituents.
I greatly welcome the move to address the concerns of pensioners who, although they have every sympathy with their poorer neighbours, feel that they are being rewarded very little for having saved throughout their lives. It is important that we should address that, in fairness to them and to ensure that in future people think that it is wise to save. Far too many older people to whom I have spoken are beginning to say to their children and grandchildren, "Look, it didn't do me any good to save for retirement. You'll get taken care of to a certain level anyway." An important part of introducing the pension credit is rewarding the thrift of those people who have saved towards pensions or put away savings for a rainy day.
I warmly welcome the new pensions agency and hope that the Minister will confirm that it will tackle several issues. I welcome his remarks about offering a choice to people who inquire about their pensions. There were rightly many references in the previous Parliament—and a few in this Parliament—to the very long document, which contains several inappropriate questions, for people applying for the minimum income guarantee. My understanding is that the new Department intends to streamline that document, and that it will offer a range of choices for people to access information and make an application for a pension.
The publicity from the Department says that people will be able to choose whether to make their inquiries by telephone, internet, post or face to face. I would be glad if the Minister could say more about face-to-face contact. In the previous Parliament there was much discussion about the role of post offices. I hope that they will continue to have a role in offering practical advice, particularly in those areas— of which I have too many—of our constituencies where there are low levels of literacy and basic skills. Such people need somebody's help on a week-by-week basis not only to make sense of their pension income but with some of the challenges, which they will continue to face, of making ends meet on modest incomes.
I hope that we are right to look towards the new pensions agency to give a much better service to our constituents. I also hope that it will be able to do so in a timely way, which is often important. A constituent who recently wrote to me is obviously one of those people who like to be prepared. He wrote some two years in advance of his retirement to get a forecast of the pension income for which he would be eligible. Some 18 months, later he approached me in desperation to help him get that forecast, so that he could make important decisions
154WH
with regard to his forthcoming retirement. It was some time after his retirement before he was able to get at least part of the information that he wanted.
I hope that the Minister's faith in the new information system will prove to be justified, and that it will live up to our expectations and deliver timely and accurate information. I also hope that the software that is being designed will be of high quality. That has been a problem across many Departments, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be taking a keen interest in ensuring that we do not have future debates on the system's failure to live up to our expectations.
It has been my experience in Plymouth that a well-designed programme, in this case bringing together information from the Benefits Agency and from the Employment Service lone parent new deal advisers, can transform the ability of both staff and constituents to benefit from a service. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General and I visited an organisation in my constituency called Routeways, where we saw laptop computers going through complex calculations to work out whether lone parents would be better off in employment. That is a model of how such information and advice should work. I hope that we can progress to a similar quality of service being available for our constituents who inquire about their pensions.
Many of the young generation are conscious of the need to make provision for their future, but it is difficult to do so in a vacuum. The regular forecasts that will become available through the Department will he invaluable in increasing general awareness that people who save at a specific rate can expect a specific income, and that putting by a little more each month and each year, if they can afford to do so, will have an impact over the years to retirement. That will encourage people to save, and the Government's general approach will ensure that as many people as possible receive pensions and a decent income in retirement. People will be able to see the benefit of saving.
I turn to the work side of the Department for Work and Pensions, which is of great importance in my constituency. We can never underestimate the effect on unemployed people of getting a job, which gives them dignity and self-respect. When young people are asked what they want to be, they rarely respond by saying that they want to be good parents or good neighbours, and that may be regrettable. They usually define their future in terms of the job that they want. Long-term unemployment is a form of social exclusion, as I learned when campaigning during the 1997 election from those who had studied hard and got qualifications, but still could not get on to even the bottom rung of the employment ladder.
My hon. Friend the Minister spoke movingly of the need to end the scandal concerning those who have disabilities which make it even more difficult for them to enter the job market. He referred to a large number of people with disabilities who are unemployed and want to work. I believe that the figure was as high as 1 million.
Malcolm Wicks indicated assent.
Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend may not be surprised to learn that, as I travelled around during the recent election, I met a number of constituents in that position.

155WH
I shall take a moment to share with my hon. Friend the stories of three of those constituents because they illustrate, as did my hon. Friend's constituent, the scope that exists for a Department which can offer a service sufficiently sophisticated to enable people to achieve their potential and find work.
I have met one of those constituents over a number of years and came across him again during the recent election. I have not asked permission to mention his name so I shall use a pseudonym. Peter is a young man who is determined to be independent, despite a significant disability arising from a severe form of cerebral palsy. It makes him reliant on a wheelchair, but his mind is acute and he is a whizz on the internet. He has developed his skills over a number of years and examined the possibility of working, perhaps in some form of public relations, where he could use his internet skills and his ability with words. He has travelled independently to other parts of the world, including Africa and India, and is a remarkable, acute and very bright young man. He has made representations to and through me to the Minister with responsibility for disability in the previous Parliament. No doubt we will exchange correspondence with new colleagues in the Department that now has responsibility for that.
Peter tells me that one of the downsides to our great success in reducing unemployment is that he now finds it very difficult to recruit a carer. He has a full-time carer who lives independently in his home. We should perhaps consider some aspects of that with regard to forthcoming new deal developments and initiatives. We should consider whether there is scope for working with people in such situations.
My constituent's case raises other issues relating to inflexibility for people on benefits. If he wishes to move into work, the period that is allowed for him to experience that work before deciding whether it is a viable option for him to maintain an independent income and life—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. I have no power to limit the length of speeches, but if every hon. Member takes as long as the hon. Lady, not everyone will be called.
Linda Gilroy: I shall move on to describe the other two constituents. We shall call one of them Paul. He suffered a sports injury and needed information and support to retrain. He did not know about the new deal programme, and that illustrates the need for us to ensure that people are periodically given the opportunity to discuss their needs. The job broker will be able to help people in such circumstances.
A third constituent is partially sighted, the first person with such a disability to gain a recognised qualification in photography. He has made representations to me, which I will pass on to the new Department, about how helpful it would be if he had greater flexibility and support with regard to travel. He refers to a local arrangement in London called a freedom pass.
The cases of my constituents show that there is a need for flexibility—the Minister referred to being sophisticated—in meeting those challenges. It would be
156WH
of great benefit to us if we could help people with such severe disabilities by being flexible and sophisticated in our responses to them. They would become role models for others with less confidence and less enthusiasm for overcoming their disability or incapacity. Such help could lead to more fulfilling lives and greater opportunity.
I wish my hon. Friend well in his new post and new Department, and I look forward to working with him on many of the other challenges that face it, particularly in dealing with the long-term unemployed. Constituencies such as Plymouth, Sutton will take even greater steps forward between now and the next election in tackling poverty through work and better arrangements for pensioners.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I told hon. Members what I intend. There could be a large number of Divisions at 4 o'clock. Some may say that there will only be 11, but as an ex-Whip I can say that there could be 12. I intend to suspend the sitting and then resume 15 minutes after the last Division. If the Divisions are compressed into less than 15 minutes, we should not finish too late. However, I can assure hon. Members that there is injury time and the sitting will last for the required length of time, regardless.
Mr. Levitt: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. Under those circumstances, would the sitting continue until 7 o'clock, or could it continue beyond that?
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): The sitting will continue for the number of hours allocated to it, which is three. It may continue after 7 o'clock without me, but there will be three hours of debate, regardless.
3.49 pm
Mr. David Heath: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. McWilliam. I fear that the speech that I am about to start may be the longest that I have made in the House, and probably the longest that I will ever make. That is an accident of the timetable.
I should like to my add my welcome to the Minister and his Conservative shadow, both of whom bring to their tasks experience in education and employment that is obviously relevant to the new Department. I do not have the same expertise. I have followed a different and more unusual career path, similar to that of the Minister for Work, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), who has come from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The career structure is not obvious, but I am sure that I am as happy in my responsibilities as he is.
I welcome the establishment of the new Department, which was a logical step. I did not think that some of the changes to the structures of the Government, made by the Prime Minister in the flurry of reformatory zeal immediately after the election, had been thought through. However, the logic of the new Department's responsibilities is there for anyone to see, and its creation is a step that we have long promoted. I am less sure about its name, which has a distinctly Stakhanovite timbre. It hints that those not lucky enough to have

157WH
work and who do not yet qualify for pensions may not be the Department's top priorities. I hope that that concern will be dispelled as we see the Department in operation.
The new Department got off to a rather unfortunate start, and has received a poor reception to the changes in incapacity benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was right to say that that could have been avoided with a more proper approach to consultation. It could also have been avoided if senior members of the Government had not commented on the subject with such relish. I was staggered on 25 June, during the debate on the Gracious Speech, by the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, if not the titular head of the Department, certainly sets most of its activities in motion. His embracing of and approbation for the economic and social policies of Ronald Reagan, and his wish to be seen to be endorsed by George Bush, raised doubts in my mind as to what will be the Government's intended approach over the next few years. It must have raised doubts in the minds of many Labour Back Benchers as well.
As long as the Department provides a helping hand to the elderly, those with disability or those seeking work, it will have the wholehearted support of the Liberal Democrats. When that helping hand is transformed into a bully's implied or actual threat, it will have our undying opposition. We will be robust in saying that we will not stand for a Department based on sanction rather than support.
Phil Hope: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, based on the position of his party, that he supports the changes to incapacity benefit, given that they offer individuals the support, rehabilitation and skills retraining whereby they can return to work?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not accept the blank cheque that he offers on the assurance that what he says is what is intended. We are not yet convinced that that is the case. We hear the rhetoric but want to see the proposals and will discuss them in detail when a Bill is presented to the House. We are wary of what is suggested, as it may make life more difficult for people with disabilities, rather than helping them to obtain work if it is available, as we would want, and to gain security if it is not—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may take things as he chooses, but he should listen to his hon. Friends to find out what concerns are shared within and outside this Chamber.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Hon. Members cannot have private conversations, or we shall all want to join in.
Mr. Heath rose—
Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: Having just taken an intervention, I think that it would be unwise to take another. It might incur your wrath, Mr. McWilliam.
We have heard, in the context of the new Department's delivery systems, about jobcentre plus and the Pension Service. I have no quarrel with the intention of integrating the delivery of services. Any sensible Administration would try to achieve that.
158WH
However, we need to think about the detail and about what progress is likely to be made with integration. As to the Pension Service, the letter from the Secretary of State, which was widely distributed in the past day or two, stated:
"The national service provided by the pension centres will in the future use modern technology to process claims for the range of benefits for pensioners, initially retirement pensions, MIG and winter fuel payments."
The Minister has corroborated that statement today. That is fine as far as it goes, but—and this is a big but—the Government do not have a good track record in introducing modern technology to carry out some of the functions in question. We need to ask the Minister what progress has been made so far on, for example, NIRS2. When will the many problems associated with it be resolved? When will we be able to deal with substandard information technology infrastructure? Would it not be better to solve one new technology problem before creating new ones?
As to the operation of programmes that have already been established, an expensive—and justified—take-up campaign has been run with respect to the minimum income guarantee. However, one quarter of the poorest entitled pensioners still do not claim. How will that problem be solved? Will the new integrated structure be better at ensuring that those who are entitled to claim do so, or is that issue considered to be water under the bridge? There are 1 million men entitled to winter fuel payments dating back to 1997. How will the Minister ensure that they receive the money to which they are entitled?
The structure of the Pension Service and jobcentre plus needs to be considered. I read the Secretary of State's letter to colleagues working in the relevant services and the first question that struck me was whether there would be redundancies. Will we lose from those services skilled people who are not located near one of the new pension centres and who cannot relocate? Will they be out of a job?
The process of integration will be more difficult with respect to jobcentre plus. I do not know how much thought the Department has given to that issue. Two different cultures are involved in the agencies that will be united. I do not say that the difficulties are insuperable, but the integration of cultures and management structures and the agencies' interface with the public are issues that will need to be dealt with. I am also interested—this point is relevant to the Minister's previous responsibilities—in how the new jobcentre plus structure will interface with the ConneXions service that he was so instrumental in introducing. Connection between them is important and should be established, if that has not happened yet. It should be integral to the working of the new agencies.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) spoke at length on the new deal. There is evidence that it has achieved some of its objectives. There is also concern, as the Minister knows, about whether it is doing everything that we would want it to do, particularly whether it is sustaining employment for the new deal entrants. The Employment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment looked at the matter in detail and, in its report of 13 March 2001, concluded that some 22 per cent. of new deal participants who had found a job through the new deal had not obtained

159WH
sustained employment. That is an important factor. Until the new deal is capable of guaranteeing sustained employment for those young people, it is not fulfilling its primary function. We need to be satisfied that that will happen.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned the staggering lack of appropriate legislation to deal with discrimination on the grounds of age. That is a great disappointment. The Secretary of State has stated that one of his objectives is to help the over-50s into work. Through private Members' Bills, many hon. Members have expressed their desire for legislation at an early stage. However, the Government are dillying and dallying, saying that it will not be introduced until 2006, the last possible date under the EU regulation—so not only did we not see legislation in the previous Parliament, but we shall not see it in this one either. That is regrettable. I know that there are difficulties in framing legislation, and that consultations have to take place, but it cannot be right that it will take another five years to introduce appropriate legislation in an area that is of great concern to many people.
I hope that the jobcentre plus structure will allow greater flexibility in the way in which the Department works. I am thinking in particular of how to deal with a matter that I have raised in the House—hotspots of unemployment that occur in areas that are otherwise areas of high employment. Often, the closure of a relatively small company in a market town or rural area can mean a temporarily high percentage unemployment rate in an area where it is difficult to create new employment because there is no infrastructure to attract business from outside—[Interruption.].
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. The sitting is suspended until 15 minutes after the last vote has taken place. It is possible that the last vote will be on parliamentary pensions, with two amendments, (a) and (b). Hon. Members should be aware that not all amendments will necessarily go to a Division, and I shall not be handing out lines for lateness because I am as likely to be late as anyone else.
4.2 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.6 pm
On resuming—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): I apologise to hon. Members who turned up in the Chamber before me. I seem to be late, but I had warned them about that possibility.
Mr. Heath: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam.
Some hon. Members have been kind enough to say that they enjoyed the last hour of my speech. I now want to move on to the more contentious matter of whether we are moving towards a regime of benefit sanctions. The hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said that we were not. He believes the Government's
160WH
press releases—but then he always believes the Government's press releases. I treat them with a little more cynicism than he does.
Such matters are a real worry to hon. Members and those outside the House. If we are moving to a regime that imposes more burdens on those who are rightly claiming benefits that we want them to have, we must understand what the regime entails and how it will impact on claimants.
I do not know whether the Government are retreating on the matter of incapacity benefit. I heard what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said yesterday and I heard what the Leader of the House said this morning. The claim that the benefit will not apply to existing claimants was repeated today. That is not a change of policy. That is probably what the Department had intended originally, but such a line is now spun as a reaction to the adverse comments made at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday and elsewhere. It may be helpful to the Government for such a decision to be seen as a partial retreat in order to secure the support of their right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Levitt: The phrase "new claimants" was certainly used in yesterday morning's press coverage.
Mr. Heath: I accept that such policy had existed previously. However, it is now packaged as a partial reaction to the adverse criticism that the proposals have encouraged. But what will happen to those individuals on incapacity benefit? Will they be subjected to a full medical test, as they are when they claim the benefit initially? Who will carry out the test? Will it continue to be carried out by the private contractors, Sema, which presently undertake the test? If so, the Minister knows the considerable criticism that has been levelled at the way in which medical testing and assessments are carried out currently. He will also know that I, as well as other hon. Members, have asked about the high level of successful appeals—about 50 per cent.—against the assessment. He will correct me if I am wrong, but that suggests that something is inherently wrong with the assessment. You will also know of the considerable criticism levelled by the Social Security Select Committee in the previous Parliament.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. "You" refers to me.
Mr. Heath: I am sure that you are aware of it, Mr. McWilliam, and it was to you that I referred. The Minister may also know—let us hope that he does. He will have read the report of the Social Security Committee from April and the comments on the present contractor arrangement, which states:
"the suspicion that standards are coming second to profitability".
and
"The Committee has not been convinced that there has been improvement in the quality of examinations and reports since contractorisation…Ministers should ask themselves whether one of the goals of contractorisation—improved service to the public—has really been achieved. If they conclude, as we do, that it is not, they should take steps to renegotiate the contract or otherwise influence performance to ensure that this goal is met."
That is as scathing a conclusion as it is possible for a Select Committee to reach, and begs the question whether the new Department will take action on the

161WH
matter. It would be perverse if the Department reacted by increasing the scope of those medical assessments by instituting a triennial check on every person who received incapacity benefit.
We are concerned that setting targets—and this Government are increasingly obsessed with targets—in such sensitive areas as benefit take-up and getting people into work may result in a loss of objectivity among the agencies concerned. On the question of lone parents and people with disabilities, the Secretary of State suggested that there should be targets that define the percentage who come off benefit and go into work. Yesterday, he repeated those targets. The aim is for 70 per cent. of lone parents to go into work by 2010, whereas the present target is 50 per cent., and for 70 per cent. of those on incapacity benefit to go into work. There is a fine dividing line between encouraging people to meet the targets and compelling people to return to work to meet them. That is our potential major criticism and the test against which we shall judge the proposals when they are finally put on the table.
I shall not go into detail on child credit because it is an area on which we are likely to find much common ground with the Government. I look forward to the proposals. I hope that they will not be over-complicated or bureaucratic and that it is possible to devise a system that integrates the present arrangements to a far greater extent.
Will the Minister clarify where the responsibilities lie both within the ministerial team in the House of Commons and between the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments dealing with children and their welfare. It is important that we have a clear understanding; otherwise an important area of public policy may fall between the cracks.
Pensions policy is a matter of enormous concern to every hon. Member, and for millions of people throughout the country. We sometimes hear of the Government's good intent, not least in the debates that took place in the general election. However, we suspect that much pensions policy is being made up on the hoof—that it lurches from one programme to another and from one intent to another, with little coherence. We do not need to look far back to see the 75p increase: we considered that to be derisory, as did many other people. The public reaction to that produced a move to so-called transitional arrangements—a £5 increase in the pension this year, a £3 increase next year, and it appears that there will be a £1.50 increase in 2003. As that arithmetical progression does not encourage us to feel optimism on behalf of pensioners, we need to know exactly where it is heading.
As I have said, a quarter of the poorest pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee failed to claim it. It is extraordinary that the Government's pension credit consultation paper clearly states that the minimum income guarantee has several flaws. For example, it states that
"It sets a savings trap, penalising those getting the MIG"
and it goes on to say that
"Those just above the MIG level feel let down because they have gained little from having saved…It excludes pensioners from extra support, through inappropriate capital limits…It involves an intrusive means test."
162WH
That damning indictment comes from the Government, and it criticises a scheme that they, rather than the previous Government, devised. If anything amounts to an admission of defeat, it is that consultation paper on a scheme that was introduced merely two years ago.
We do not know what form the pension credit will take. It appears to be very complex, but we do not know in detail how it will work. We are, in effect, witnessing the abolition, after merely two years, of the minimum income guarantee, and it is possible that the second state pension will also be superseded.
Questions need to be asked. What proportion of pensioners does the Minister think will be on the means test after the introduction of the pension credit? How will the new Department deal with problems of take-up, such as those that have been experienced with regard to the minimum income guarantee? How will the pension credit interact with housing and council tax benefit? How will it work for people who are not receiving a full state pension? That final issue is not addressed in the consultation paper.
Those are important questions. It is possible that we will be told the answers to them today, but we may have to wait until the legislation is put before the House. However, for many of us, the bottom line is that we must establish a robust and sustainable pension arrangement for elderly people that fully recognises need and addresses the fact that frequently very elderly people have increasing needs. At the moment, there is little confidence that that is either in place or envisaged.
We welcome the establishment of the new Department. I look forward to working with others to scrutinise both the legislation that is put forward and the practical applications of the Department and its agencies on the ground.
I hope that we shall base our opinions of what is put forward on facts and figures, rather than on an unnecessarily impressionistic view that is coloured by the opinions of people who might not have carefully read the proposals or on an overly optimistic view that is spun by the Government and their Ministers. At the end of the day, the test is whether those who are vulnerable and who need the assistance of the state are better or worse off at the end of this Parliament. I am not yet convinced by what the Minister said. I have enormous respect for his personal qualities and I hope to see those qualities—both in terms of his intellect and in perception of what is needed—applied in full to the task ahead, and I hope that we will have fruitful discussions for the benefit of all the groups of vulnerable people whom we hope to serve.
Mr. McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. I apologise to the hon. Member for the unprecedented interruption to his speech. I also apologise to all hon. Members because the debate has been fractured in many ways. I have had the matter put on the agenda for the Chairmen's Panel when we meet on Tuesday, and I shall raise it in the strongest possible terms.
5.20 pm
Phil Hope: I welcome the debate about the Department, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. In his previous job, he and

163WH
I had many conversations about matters that affect young people. He thought that he had escaped me—he has not. I will press him on what the Government will do for older people. I hope that I shall receive the support and response that I received in our previous discussions. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. McWilliam, if, due to the unusual circumstances of the debate, I am unable to listen to the Minister's winding-up speech because I have another engagement.
It is widely recognised that we live in an ageing society. One fifth of the United Kingdom's population is aged over 60, and by 2030 it is estimated that that figure will rise by a half to more than 19 million. We are not only getting older but living longer. That is good for us, but not so good when one must pay the cost. The Secretary of State is the Government's champion of older people in Cabinet and has a crucial role to play. I shall focus my contribution on older people.
We must face the challenges that an ageing population brings, and the Department is at the forefront of responding to that. We must ensure that older people have financial security, and we must take action over a range of areas to plan for an ageing population and ensure that older people are at the centre of decision making. Public services must meet their needs and their contribution to society must be valued.
In the previous Parliament, the Government made significant progress in meeting those twin challenges, especially with the real improvement to pensions and benefits for older people. That has lifted many pensioners out of poverty and given more pensioners security in retirement. However, the debt that we owe our pensioners is not always appreciated. In recent months, I met voters on the doorstep—as we all have—and I was struck by the impact of the extra help that the Labour Government have given to pensioners, and by the need to do a lot more to put right decades of injustice.
As we approached the end of the past century, life had become hard for too many of the generation who fought for their country in the second world war. Conservative Governments from 1979 to 1997 made it hard to keep warm in winter because they put VAT on fuel, and made it hard to see because they put charges on eye tests. They made it hard for people to walk out of their homes in safety, because crime doubled. They created a national health service that failed our old people more, and there were year-on-year cuts in social services. That did not make for a great couple of decades for older people. It is a pity that when the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) spoke, he did not take the opportunity to make some small apology for the fact that, when the Conservatives left office, there were 3 million pensioners living below the poverty line.
I am pleased that we have turned the corner. Older people in my constituency recognise the measures that the Government have taken over the past four years to improve their quality of life. It was great on the street because I remember a pensioner saying to me, "I'm going to vote for you, Mr. Hope, because I've never been better off as a pensioner. In the whole of my life, I've never been better off. For the first time, as a pensioner, I've been able to put a bit by. I'm going to go to Blackpool for a week's holiday." For the first time, she
164WH
had a bit to spare from her income to be able to take a holiday. That may seem a small thing to some Members of the House, but it is a significant achievement of the Government to tackle pensioner poverty and provide a decent quality of life and a chance of a holiday for pensioners who in the past could not afford it. We can be proud that 1.7 million of the poorest pensioners are better off by at least £800 a year, and that the average pensioner household is £11 a week better off than in 1997. The Minister quoted those figures in his introduction.
We must do more, however, not only for the poorest pensioners but for those who have worked and saved for their retirement. I welcome the Government's commitment, renewed in the manifesto, to reward pensioners who have savings. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made the point earlier that the priority was to tackle the issue of the poorest pensioners. The legacy that I have described had to be addressed, and we spent many billions of pounds in doing so.
As for those pensioners above the poverty line, who have some savings and a small works pension but who are not seeing a reward for their savings and financial management, the pension tax credit is the way forward. There are legitimate questions on that matter, some of which have been asked this afternoon and which need to be answered through the consultation process. Those pensioners who fall just outside the minimum income guarantee and have some savings need to be rewarded for their thrift, not only because it is right but because we should give a signal to those who are saving now for their pensions that to do so will mean that they are rewarded when they reach retirement. The group of people who are older than 50 but have not reached retirement age will clearly be affected by the Government's proposals on incapacity benefit.
I said that those were legitimate questions to ask about the pension tax credit; questions may also be asked about the changes to incapacity benefit, but that is not the same as scaremongering. Although the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked some legitimate questions about the nature of the changes to incapacity benefit, he also suggested that people would be compelled to work—would be thrown out of their wheelchairs and made to work. That is scaremongering of the highest order, and should not be allowed.
If the hon. Gentleman read the speech that the Secretary of State made to the Institute for Public Policy Research, he would discover specific references to the fact that help will be given to people who have had accidents, to provide rehabilitation if they need special equipment for work, while more will be done to support those who will never be able to work. To introduce the notion of compulsion in this debate is scaremongering and must be rejected.
Mr. Heath: I said clearly that we would reject compulsion, were it to be proposed. I am not saying that the Government are proposing it. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the distress caused to many disabled people by the current assessment process, let alone the idea of assessments at repeated three-year

165WH
intervals? Is he satisfied that that is an appropriate way in which to monitor the effectiveness of the benefit programme?
Phil Hope: The distress that I recognise is that caused when hon. Members in this House go out of their way to frighten people unreasonably with allegations of changes to policy that will not happen.
I move on to a more positive note by mentioning the Government's "Better Government for Older People" project—a national project being rolled out at local levels in different constituencies. I am delighted to tell the House that on Monday I will join Jim Waite, Corby's champion for older people, to launch a local strategy to deliver better government for older people. We are establishing a new partnership between Corby borough council and other key agencies within Corby borough, including healthcare groups, the police, voluntary organisations, the Benefits Agency, social services and organisations such as Age Concern.
The broad aims of the local strategy are to develop and implement better, more responsive and more innovative policies and services for older people throughout the borough. Crucially, we want to develop and support older people with their skills to ensure that they have the opportunity to play an active part in society. It is especially important that we get rid of the stereotyped and discriminatory image of older people as being stuck in homes without anything to offer to society. Next week in the House, a reception will take place to celebrate older volunteers, as part of the international year of volunteering. Older volunteers throughout the country will be recognised for their contribution, whether it is helping in their communities, serving on voluntary management committees or carrying out one of a range of other activities. It is crucial that we make a positive statement about the contribution that older people make.
We can teach old dogs new tricks. A school in my constituency, Lodge Park technology college, has just opened a new technology suite for the community. The people who are using it are grandmothers and grandfathers, who learn how to do things with computers that they never thought that they could do, and subsequently can help their grandchildren with their information technology homework. That is a terrific example of how everyone in the community can learn, at any age, and can benefit. I hope that more opportunities will be provided and barriers removed, so that older people have the chance to succeed.
Finally, I want to draw the Minister's attention to the Five I strategy published by Warwick university, which relates to better government for older people. The first of the five is information, to ensure that we understand older people's needs, views and priorities. The second is imagination, which creates a vision that will be translated into a real plan of action. The third is inclusion, to ensure that all the stakeholders who work with older people are part of a local strategy. The fourth is integration, because of the need to integrate local services, especially health and social services, to respond to the needs of older people. The fifth is implementation—getting the job done.
166WH
A local strategy can be very successful in bringing together the different agencies, putting older people at the heart of that strategy, listening to their concerns and responding to them. Life for older people in this country could be transformed if the Government took bold and practical action now, at all levels, to plan for an ageing population. They must consult and listen in order to ensure that our public services are responsive, integrated and of high quality. That is relevant not just for today's older people but for the older people of tomorrow, some of whom may be sitting in this Chamber this afternoon. "Better Government for Older People" means better government for all.
5.31 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), and I agree with much of what he said. I certainly agree that "Better Government for Older People" was a welcome initiative. It is being developed in my constituency, as well as his, with some enthusiasm, and it will improve the ability of local elderly people—I include myself in that, as I am over 50—to participate more at crucial policy-making times when they can make a difference. The experience of the pilot scheme in the Borders in south-east Scotland was that the initiative was welcome, and long may that continue. The only comment that some local people would have made was that the central Government support that was enjoyed previously under the pilot scheme has since been reduced. That has diminished the ability to perform. However, one cannot have everything, and I am happy to concur with the hon. Gentleman's view that the initiative is welcome.
I am delighted that the Government decided to stage the debate. It is necessary, and the new Department is an essential part of the work of this Parliament. I wholeheartedly support the Government's desire to move towards a more active welfare policy, although I hope that it is an active and supportive welfare policy. One can construe the adjective "active" in a harsh sense. Some of the statements that have appeared on the No. 10 website, for example, refer to "value for money" in the welfare policy agenda. Everyone in the Chamber wants value for money, but there is a difference between trying to constrain a £7 billion incapacity benefit budget from the Treasury viewpoint of trying to save money, and developing a policy that is necessary and addresses the needs of those who require benefit.
The Minister's involvement in the Department—I say this honestly, without trying to sound too greasy—greatly reassures me. Knowing him as I do, I know that he will not have anything to do with any kind of policy that saves money for the sake of it. The debate has helped to explain the provenance of the Department, which is welcome.
This change involves huge administrative upheaval—no one should underestimate the extent of it. Even with the Minister's best endeavours and good faith, he may find many an administrative hurdle locally that will go against his serious plans for the future. The official start date for both the pensions agency and the new jobcentre plus is 1 April 2002. April fool's day may have been a mistake as a date to choose for opening the two new agencies; perhaps 2 April would have been better.

167WH
The timetable is enormously ambitious. If the Minister believes in his heart of hearts that that it is too challenging, I would rather that he postpone the formal launch date; we all experienced NIRS2. The integration of the computer schemes is the most ambitious target that I have encountered, and previous experience of that is inauspicious. I would rather do this to a sensible time scale with computers that work than try to rush it to a political timetable so that the Government can say that they have delivered the change on time. The Minister would certainly get my support and sympathy if he came to the House and said, "We are doing our best, but we need more time for the computers," because this is such an important change.
This is a cultural change in two directions. First, it is a cultural change in terms of trying to promote an active employment policy, which is the most important thing that the Government have done in their first term. They are getting the idea across to people that doing nothing is no longer an option, which is welcome. However, it will take a long time before that culture infiltrates down to the front line of the new service. Secondly, it is a huge cultural change for the staff of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service; when Sir Michael Bichard gave evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Employment in May 2001, he said that it was the biggest upheaval since the second world war. The change involves 80,000 members of staff and diverse computer systems. It includes not only the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service but the Inland Revenue and the Child Support Agency. The Government are taking on an ambitious scheme to rejig the CSA into a new configuration by July 2002. That is welcome, but it will not work if the computer systems are not in place. How can they get the integration over such a short time scale? It is a good trick if they can do it and I wish the Minister well in trying to deliver it. However, he must be careful not to bite off more than he can chew, which would result in claimants getting hurt because the system is not working and delivery services do not measure up to expectations.
There are some issues that the Minister will not have time to consider because this has been a detailed debate in which both Government and Opposition Members have raised interesting questions. I should like to know exactly what is happening to the social fund administration, which, as I understand it, is being split up. Some of the social fund services people of working age as well as those who are retired, which will mean disaggregating the current administration of the social fund. It is important that issues such as that are addressed sensitively and that we do not get things wrong as a result.
This is really a second order question, but it is important: some of the changes in responsibilities on anti-discrimination legislation will leave the Department for Work and Pensions responsible for disability issues across government. However, as was said earlier, the Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for race equality in employment, but, as I understand it, the Cabinet retains responsibility for gender legislation and policy. There is a danger of incoherence as a result of that change because it will be difficult to focus properly on a strategic Government
168WH
policy for anti-discrimination. The Government must be careful about that when they come to the fine print and the detailed execution of the change. However, it is both the right thing to do and a positive move. I certainly wish it well
I shall now turn to some of the individual elements of the change. In terms of benefit and work, one thing that is often underestimated is the burden of responsibility that is placed on some of the staff. Staff of the middle management and lower levels are paid meagre salaries to do crucial processing as part of important public service work. That is particularly true of executive and administrative officers in London, as the Minister knows better than me. If such staff do not get their work right, or do not get the right training, or do not stay, there are breakdowns in the service quality that we would all like to see. I hope that any change to pay rates—or equalisation of them because, in some regions at least, Employment Service staff are usually better paid than those of the Benefits Agency—will be an upgrading, and that that will be an opportunity to float up pay rates for some frontline staff at the Benefits Agency. That opportunity may not present itself again for some time.
Sir Michael Bichard, when he gave evidence to the Education Sub-Committee, was keen to stress the very different culture for workers in the Employment Service compared with that for frontline staff in the Benefits Agency and its local offices. The question of those different cultures must be embraced very sensitively. The Government have left little time in which to do so, and I hope that that will not threaten the policy change.
I have said that the Government are slightly culpable for their lack of consultation on the treatment of incapacity benefit. However, I know for certain—I have the document in front of me—that the idea was floated in April 2000 in a report from the performance and innovation unit called "Winning the Generation Game". It was very interesting and thoughtful, but the press took a headline story out of it: men aged over 60 would have to look for work or face loss of benefit under tough plans drawn up by the Government to get more older people back into jobs.
I am the first to admit that the idea behind the policy is not new and that it does not come as any surprise. The implementation of the policy is, however, crucial. The 60–65 age cohort is especially difficult to cope with for incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance. I cannot remember, although I should know, whether people in that age group are currently exempt in the case of JSA. They certainly used to be, but I do not know whether the new policy change will embrace a new look at that.
There is a world of difference between those people and someone who experiences a life-threatening or life-shattering event, such as an accident—the Secretary of State used that example—at the age of 35. It seems entirely reasonable that there should be an award of incapacity benefit if there is eligibility and that that should be tested regularly, as long as there is support and the Government are not using that as a method of coercion. I support that measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to a Select Committee report, and I make no apology for returning to it. Current medical services, and the work that they do in

169WH
disability living allowance and incapacity benefit, are very inadequate, with insufficient doctors to do the work necessary at the moment. Even if, as the Minister might say, much care will be taken in bringing the new cohort of claimants into the new regime, the Government can safely increase numbers of claimants for incapacity benefit only if they are absolutely sure that the medical profession can supply the specialist medical advice to service that policy change. Otherwise, there will be shoddy service, as there is at the moment. I am not satisfied that the Same services contract is capable of withstanding anything like the number of prospective new applicants for work capacity tests that is envisaged.
The philosophy of the policy is acceptable, as long as it includes safety features, such as the presence of necessary doctors. We heard earlier about the active support that comes in once the benefit is withdrawn, and that is essential. It is especially essential for people in the 60–65 age group.
We must recognise that there is a world of difference between the economy that would be found by members of that age group facing a reduction in incapacity benefit who live in Reading, and that which would be found by those who live in Govan. The benefits structure inadequately reflects the different labour market circumstances, which are like night and day. People acting in good faith can nearly always get reasonably well paid work in a regional economy such as Reading or Northampton. In Toxteth or Govan, however, there is no effective labour market—there is a collapsed market—and special circumstances may need to be taken into account.
My final word about incapacity benefit is that I will be watching the situation carefully. I am willing to support the philosophy, as long as the delivery is there to support it. However, I will be robust and critical if the back-up is not there and policy change is introduced in a way that does not give personal advisers the chance to follow and support those who are having their incapacity benefit reassessed. Previous Department of Social Security research stated that Child Support Agency claimants are being looked after if they are coming in for first interviews or for return interviews at the 13 to 26-week review stage. However, early evidence suggests that personal advisers are not that effective at getting rid of the barriers to work for people who are not in those two categories. The Minister must be satisfied that such problems are ironed out before it is safe to proceed with the changes that he suggests.
The new pensions agency is a step forward. The psychological change of disaggregating benefit delivery from the Benefits Agency caller station is a welcome move. Many of my constituents who have retired were reluctant to sit in queues with people with whom they had no real community of interest. If sensitive arrangements, such as call centres and house visits, are organised and introduced, that will be welcomed.
I ask the Minister to consider something that might cost a little money. I have some reservations about the fact that the Government are funding the minimum income guarantee as heavily as they are—I would prefer to pay the money flat rate to the older cohort of pensioners than to use the means test for the minimum income guarantee—but there is an arguable case for the Government's position. It is easier when a pensions agency is disaggregated from the Benefits Agency, so
170WH
why do we not impose a new legal duty on the new pensions agency to maximise pensioners' benefit income levels when an application is made? The Minister knows that at the moment no duty is imposed on the Benefits Agency to go prospectively fishing—if I may put it pejoratively—for other benefits to which people may be entitled, should they make an application. I would not suggest that that principle be applied across the gamut of the Benefits Agency's operations, in respect of income support and the like. However, now that we have a more focused agency, will the Minister consider the case that the new pensions agency, when set up, could be charged with a new legal duty to look at every pensioner application when it arrives and consider the range of benefits that a pensioner may be entitled to—things that are over and above what their application is for? I do not know how much that would cost; it might be very expensive. It would certainly be staff-intensive in terms of time. However, it would encourage people even more about the new pensions agency if the Minister said something positive about that.
I will not address the criticisms of the pensioner credit in full, but I look forward to seeing the detail of the Bill. I am worried about its interface with housing benefit and council tax benefit—an issue that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. I cannot see how the two systems can be interfaced without causing people to lose housing benefit if they get added income from pension credit; it is a conundrum. If a person is on council tax benefit or housing benefit and they are awarded pension credit, it is simply lost at the other end. If that is true, the Government should say so transparently. Many people are expecting real support from the new agency, and I hope that they get it. I would not like them to lose housing benefit and council tax benefit pound for pound as a result.
I think that the CSA reforms are right, but it will be difficult to run two CSA policies after July 2002, when the new system is introduced. I make the plea that the Government consider introducing a £10 child maintenance premium for everyone after that date. It is unconscionable to have two neighbours—families who are in every sense identical in terms of family size and are both claiming child support from the Child Support Agency—one of whom does not get to keep the 10, just because they are on the old system, while the one in the new system does. That will cause difficulties in all our surgeries. If the Minister will give the matter careful consideration, he will do us a great favour.
I complete my remarks with two final points. First, the treatment of black and ethnic minority claimants is an issue that the Select Committee on Social Security was getting very vexed about. I do not want to pre-empt any decisions about what may happen in the reconfigured Select Committee, but I hope that, whatever its membership, it will return to the subject of the disadvantage that is experienced by ethnic claimants at just about every level because the systems are not sensitive enough and there are insufficient resources for interpreters and other such services. The problem is becoming so serious that the Department cannot ignore it any longer. I hope that the Minister will spend some time investigating that.

171WH
Secondly, the issue of take-up is an essential issue for the Government. I have some misgivings about the extent to which means testing is being introduced into the system. If the Government are going to take that route—as they obviously are, and there is a perfectly arguable case for targeting help at the people who need it most—they will need a systematic and continuous policy for take-up campaigns. I do not know how successful the Department thought that the pensions take-up campaign on the minimum income guarantee was. As the Government intend to move so far in the direction of targeted benefits in future—the percentage of the benefit claimant count reliant on means-tested benefits is continually creeping up—it is incumbent on them to come up with a more coherent, integrated, systematic and on-going administrative system that deals with the whole issue of take-up. Otherwise, people will not get benefits to which they are entitled. Although the Government will be able to say that the levels of means-tested benefits are reasonably generous, people who do not receive them do not get the advantage.
There is much work to do and there are many challenges ahead, and I seriously wish the new Minister well. I know that he will make as big a success of it as anyone can. My final word to him is that if one tries to be too ambitious and policy gets too far ahead of its implementation, the level of service to the claimant suffers, even with the best will in the world. I hope that he will carefully guard against that.
5.52 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt: I, in my turn, express my welcomes to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is in his seat for the first time in this Chamber, and to his Parliamentary Private Secretary. The team in the Department for Work and Pensions has a nice blend of experience and new blood. I look forward to the implementation of the Government's campaign to tackle poverty at all levels through many of the schemes that we have heard about today and will continue to hear about in future. Over the past four years, the Department of Social Security, as it then was, made significant strides forward in making a fairer, more accessible and more effective Department, and I am sure that that will continue.
The new band between working age issues and pension age issues is sensible. It removes the arbitrary definitions of in-work and out-of-work benefits and encourages a greater cohesion of the benefits systems for any individual who is of working age. The definition of pension age varies and is likely to vary again. It involves issues at the border. Not least, one of my constituents tells me that, as he is on incapacity benefit and his 65th birthday falls on a Monday, he loses his incapacity benefit for one week but does not get his pension until the week after, so he has a week without benefit to which to look forward to. If his mother had delayed his birth by a day 65 years ago, that would not have happened.
Under the old system it was easy for people to miss out on benefits and to fall between two stools. I echo what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said about take-up levels and the need for consistent take-up campaigns through Government
172WH
agencies, the voluntary sector and welfare benefit services in local government and elsewhere. I am sure that the excellent start that has been made with, for example, the working families tax credit, which has a much greater take-up rate than the old family credit, will continue.
I shall spend most of my contribution talking about disability issues, but I want to respond to one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about pensions. He referred to a worrying arithmetic progression of the basic pension from £5 this year to £3 next year and came up with £1.50 the following year. In terms of inflation projections and the rule that links pensions to the retail prices index those are generous figures. However, he missed out the fact that the minimum income guarantee will not only produce more money for the people who benefit from it every year but increase in relation to the rise in wages, so the benefit obtained from the minimum income guarantee will rise faster than that from the state pension. Also, more people each year will benefit from the minimum income guarantee as it gets higher, bringing more people within its ambit.
I hope that, when the pension credit is introduced, the tax system will identify people who would benefit from the minimum income guarantee so that take-up will be much easier. The three-year projection to which the hon. Gentleman referred includes the starting years for the pension credit. I believe that it is not the level of pension or benefit that elderly people receive but the level of income that provides them with dignity and the income to spend on the little extras that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) mentioned. By concentrating on increasing pensioners' incomes by a variety of complementary systems, we shall ensure that poverty is tackled effectively.
This is not a short-term measure and I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said about the response of elderly people to the help that has been available so far. During the recent election campaign, I came across two 86-year-old women in different parts of my constituency on two consecutive days who said that they would vote Labour for the first time in their lives because they felt more comfortable on their incomes than previously. I was a little concerned about a statistic that I read in a newspaper recently concerning the low turnout at the general election. In some constituencies, half those who voted were pensioners, so any Government who lose their way on the pensioner vote will pay a serious price. I believe that the majority of pensioners are convinced that we have made a good start; the measures that my Department will be taking forward in the years to come will only add to that.
I said that I would spend most of my contribution talking about disability. Before coming to the House four years ago, I was an adviser to local authorities on disability issues and a trustee of a major national charity for disabled people. The story that my hon. Friend the Minister told reminded me that I am also an employer within a sheltered employment scheme. A young lady with Down's syndrome has worked in my office one day a week for six months. The arrangement is working well and she now comes without her assistant to help and guide her. Her independence and confidence have grown and I look forward to her continuing to work there until

173WH
she feels able to move on to something else. I shall not stand in her way, but I hope to be involved again in such a scheme.
The special interest that I have had in disability matters led me to take an active interest and to sit on the Standing Committee on the Bill that became the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. I have experienced a sense of déjà vu over the past 24 hours. The new debate on welfare reform, which is now 48 hours old, has not got off to the best start. However, if one examines the Secretary of State's speech yesterday, one finds that it is an entirely reasonable and sensible document. It contains proposals for future legislation and is clearly the beginning of a consultation and a discussion, and not the end of one. It contains no threats or axes, and was considerably more moderate than the spin that preceded it.
I must echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby about the way in which the issue has been presented. Twice yesterday I went on television programmes to argue the toss. Twice I was preceded by library video of disabled people in wheelchairs chained to fences and throwing paint around. That is not what the debate is about. This is not a confrontation. The Government are not attacking or removing the rights of anybody. The sort of images that are used, not just in the media but in the House, have not been helpful and do not lead to the best, most positive sort of debate.
I support the measures that the Government have proposed on incapacity benefit. I have read and understand them, in so far as the information is available. They are a logical progression from the steps that we have taken already on assisting disabled people into work and in work, and there are other good reasons for supporting them, to which I shall come in a moment.
Let me state, categorically, what these proposals are not. They are not proposals for cutting benefits for anybody who already claims existing benefits. As the proposals stand, only new claimants would be affected by the three-year rule. The proposals will not, therefore, affect the 2.3 million existing incapacity benefit claimants in any way. They will not affect disability benefits in any way.
I make a distinction between incapacity and the genuine disability benefits. The disability living allowance is a disability benefit. It is a sum that people get to compensate them for the effect that their disability has on their lives. Incapacity benefit is designed to be a moderate compensation for a loss of earning capacity related to a disability. If someone has an inherent need, which he or she needs to have addressed in order to live his or her daily life, there are disability benefits to address that. Those benefits, such as the special disability premium disability living allowance, are not mentioned, not touched, not threatened, not axed at all. For hon. Members to stand up in the House yesterday and talk about the effect on disability benefits was, understandably, frightening for many people. We are talking about one single benefit. It is a work-related, income-related benefit and not principally a disability benefit.
The average person on IB today is on that benefit for more than five years. In some cases, people are on it for life. If the average is just over five years, suggesting that we review that after three years may involve a large
174WH
number of people. However, it is not the end of the world, when one considers that so many of those people are on incapacity benefit for five years or less.
The Secretary of State also made it clear that those with the most severe disabilities, those with the most permanent disabilities, those who have the smallest prospect, under any circumstances, of earning a sustainable amount, would be exempt from the review. Therefore, they would not have to go through that indignity. It is important that we understand that someone who goes on to incapacity benefit for a stress-related reason, for example, or as the result of an accident, has the prospect of getting better. A person who has lost a leg does not have the prospect of growing another one, but someone with a stress-related problem, who claims 15 or 20 years down the line that the cause of the same stress still exists should have a review. A review is justified in the case of someone who has had an accident and has gone through rehabilitation, as it can show whether that rehabilitation has helped and, if not, more appropriate rehabilitation measures can be put in place. Only those with severe long-term or permanent disabilities can make a case to be removed from the review.
Will the Minister consider a question about the future of incapacity benefit? If there is to be a review after three years but, for administrative reasons—I have the Child Support Agency at the back of my mind in asking this—it does not take place for three and a half years, please will he not let the outcome of that review be backdated? Let us say to individuals affected that, if they lose benefit as a result of the review, we shall not backdate it to the three-year point; we shall give them a few more weeks on benefit so that they have time to make new arrangements and become accustomed to their new circumstances, rather than finding themselves out on their ear with a bill for back payments.
Those who oppose the measures must answer three questions. First, given the variety of in-work benefits available to people who work for 16 or more hours a week—the working families tax credit, disabled persons tax credit or whatever—would not many people who receive £80 a week incapacity benefit be better off in work, even if only part-time? In some cases, the answer is no, but I am sure that in the majority it is yes. When we consider the amount of assistance, support and advice from skilled, experienced people available for such workers, and the legal obligations that employers have to facilitate the employment of disabled people, the answer has to be yes: in the cases where people can work, they will be better off in work.
Secondly, did the number of people who were so ill that they were incapable of any work really double between 1979 and 1997, or is that just a smokescreen to hide rising unemployment? As the Minister said, at that time, levels of health in the country were not worsening, so we must ask why the easy, the hidden, way of removing someone from the work force on to incapacity benefit was taken in so many cases.
Thirdly, is it really the case that anyone who claims incapacity benefit today is really incapable of all work of any kind for ever—as the present incapacity benefit status seems to suggest—despite the wide range of advice and technical support that is available? The answer must be no. However, some within the disability movement suggested yesterday that disabled people

175WH
may be seen as a sorry lot of miserable people who stay at home because they are incapable of doing anything else. That is not the image that I have of disabled people. It is not the image to which disabled people and many of their organisations aspire, nor is it the image that is put forward by the Disability Rights Commission, which says that a million disabled people in this country want to work but feel, for one reason or another, that they cannot engage in the world of work. Almost half those people, 400,000 of them, say that they could work relatively easily given the right support. That support is essential. It is in the support that there has been a change, which is perhaps why we did not have similar arguments on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. Even in the past three years, things have changed, and that has made it much easier for people to succeed in work with financial and technical support, as well as advice and rehabilitation.
Five years ago, a disabled person knew that if he were looking for a job, he would be competing against many unemployed people in the labour market. There was no new deal for people with disabilities and no disabled persons tax credit to make working life better paid than not working. A vacuum existed between the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, a black hole into which disabled people could fall. At the same time, the disabled did not trust what they saw as a system of medical assessment for incapacity benefit that seemed to depend on the doctor, not on a fair and objective measure of a person's ability to work. If they tried work and it did not succeed, they would go back to the end of the queue and have to start the benefits system over again.
All that has changed. Unemployment has fallen and will continue to fall. Job vacancies are high, and anyone who wants to work should be able to find a vacancy somewhere. Measures are being introduced to help people whose disabilities and physical conditions gradually become worse to stay in work, which is one way to prevent people from taking incapacity benefit. The new deal provides special help and guidance on finding work and staying in it. The Benefits Agency and the Employment Service are coming together—only possible under the new departmental structure—to ensure a seamless service of benefits, employment advice and personal assistance. On a recent visit to the jobcentre in Glossop in High Peak, I was astonished by the change in atmosphere that has taken place over the past few years, and by the positive, involved and helpful attitude of the staff.
The test of eligibility for incapacity benefit is now fairer. The Government have established a new medical discipline of benefits-related medicine, to provide a system of qualification and training for doctors involved in benefits. It ensures a consistent approach across the country. No longer do individual Benefits Agency medical service doctors behave as though the money was from their own pockets. The aim is to ensure a consistent scientific approach to the measurement of people's capability to work.
If people come to the end of their three years and find that they will not continue on incapacity benefit, under the proposed rules they will not be left without anything
176WH
at all. They will transfer to jobseeker's allowance and be able to receive the advice from the Employment Service that is available to other disabled people.
We have already made another crucial change to the linking rule. In the past, if a person went off incapacity benefit and unsuccessfully into work, he was nowhere. Now such a person has up to a year to give a job a good chance of succeeding. If it does not work, he not only goes back on to incapacity benefit but goes back on to the higher level if he was on it previously. He can carry on from where he left off if he re-qualifies for incapacity benefit, for up to a year after leaving it.
In the past, disabled people were rightly fearful of the unknown. They had a bad, inconsistent and ungenerous deal, and they were often without hope. Through the changes that we have made to the benefits system, the swifter implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, all that has changed. Those who seek to whip up fear about such issues, from whatever Benches, media or organisations, do disabled people a great disservice. We will not leave sick and disabled people alone. We have an obligation to help them to maximise their dignity in life and their contribution to society.
The speech that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made yesterday was about the future of his Department, as was today's speech by my hon. Friend the Minister. New opportunities now exist for disabled people in work, but they can succeed only through the success of joined-up government. Connections must be made in sensible places. The new Department exemplifies such action. It will set up structures that are potentially sympathetic to disabled people. I am sure that its services for such people will go from strength to strength. It will overcome its temporary difficulty of presentation, and we shall deliver for disabled people as we will deliver for everyone else.
6.15 pm
Malcolm Wicks: I now know that the only difficulty in initiating a debate on the Department for Work and Pensions is that it will develop into a wide-ranging debate. If I had the time—which I do not, because I am watching the clock—I could pick up many of the broad-brush, but detailed and proper, points that have been made. I thank all hon. Members for the way in which they have contributed to the debate and their serious discussion of the issues.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) began his speech by thoughtfully discussing the pros and cons of the new Department, vis-à-vis issues about education and skills. Coming from the Department for Education and Employment, I understood his argument. However we divide up an organisation, whether it is concerned with local or central Government, and however we slice the Whitehall cake, we must ensure that we properly join up the responsibilities. As has been acknowledged, the advantage of the new Department is that it joins up employment and social security, which is important for people of working age. It makes possible the setting up of the new organisation, jobcentre plus, although it will depend critically on IT, which is a great disadvantage. I was asked whether my Department joins up with the new Department for Education and Skills; the answer is

177WH
yes. I reassure the Opposition spokesman that we are fully aware of that and that we are doing our best, at both ministerial and official level, to have the joined-up government that we all seek.
I was touched that the hon. Gentleman had dug out of a library a volume that I wrote some years ago, which is, unfortunately, no longer available in all good bookshops. I am nervous that he may read other pages that I wrote when I was a young academic. However, among other matters, I suggested that the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security should integrate one day. Well, that has happened for the purposes of national insurance and tax benefits. The hon. Gentleman may learn some other insights. The book may help the Opposition and I recommend that they read it.
On specific points, I was asked which Department is now responsible for age discrimination issues. They now come under the remit of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that matter. It was not as I understood the position. Can he confirm what other aspects of discrimination legislation are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions? Under whose remit are those that are not the Department's responsibility? What is the rationale behind such decisions?
Malcolm Wicks: Not all aspects of discrimination legislation are my Department's responsibility. The Home Office is still concerned, for example, with racial discrimination. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give details of where the different aspects are located. He said that we needed to pull together certain general themes and I am conscious of that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the stakeholder pension. We are determined that it will be a success. Forty-seven schemes have already been set up. In terms of information dissemination, we are doing our best to ensure that we move in the right direction.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about the security of our staff. We recognise that in bringing together the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, we are bringing together two different traditions, services and cultures. It is our intention that jobcentre plus will deliver its services in a predominantly unscreened environment, but we are also looking diligently to safeguard the well-being of staff. Too many of our staff have been attacked, and in difficult cases—such as those involving the social fund in which emotions tend to run high—we will deliver the service through a screen wherever possible. The welfare of our staff is paramount.
In our ONE pilot projects that are testing issues for jobcentre plus—I believe that Suffolk may be an example—we have found a willingness and enthusiasm for Benefits Agency staff to work without screens. I am hopeful that we can move forward with change while being careful to ensure the safety of our staff.
There has been some argument throughout the Chamber about the new deal for young people. We believe that it is a success. It has helped 299,000 young people into work—a success by any measure. The average cost of helping a person on the new deal is
178WH
approximately £2,200. Half of all participants have found work, so the cost per job is approximately £4,000. Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that long-term youth unemployment would be twice as high without the new deal. No doubt these important matters will be discussed in future.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the mobility of civil servants between the Departments. Those from the former DFEE and the DSS are now working happily together in the new Department for Work and Pensions. Staff up to and including grade 3 from the former DFEE have joined what was the DSS. That is the logic of it, because the employment chunk of the DFEE has come over to the new Department. As a Minister from the DFEE, arriving at what was the DSS, I immediately saw many former colleagues. There is a level playing field. Now that I have improved the standard of coffee in my private office, I am happy with the seamless transition.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned some important matters about the annual report.
Mr. Brady: I also pressed the Minister on whether, in addition to mobility between the Departments, the overall level of costs and establishment was being maintained, or whether there had been an increase in establishment at DWP without an entirely equal decrease in establishment at DFES.
Malcolm Wicks: Would the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I write to him on that matter? I am not trying to avoid the question. I know that I have the data somewhere, and I should like my answer to be accurate.
The move toward resource accounting in the most recent annual report of the DSS makes it difficult to compare the information with that for previous years, for technical reasons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State provided more information during parliamentary questions and answers in May. I will bring the problem to his attention, if he has not already dealt with it. He also promised to reflect on how best to provide information in future annual reports, so the point was well made.
I enjoyed a sunny day during the election campaign with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), and I am sure that the six or seven leaflets that I handed out at the bus station ensured her fantastic victory. Although I regard myself as a keen follower of the Select Committee, I was touched that my hon. Friend made the effort to get hold of a video recording of one of the sittings that she missed, as I have never gone to such lengths. I would like to borrow that video during the summer recess because if, on a wet evening, I cannot decide whether to watch "Casablanca" again or an episode of "The West Wing", I might choose instead to watch the Select Committee, starring the nice Archy Kirkwood.
My hon. Friend raised several important issues with regard to the Pension Service, and I cannot respond to all of them. We want to move towards a service that makes the best use of the new technology. I have watched the video that demonstrates where we in the Department want to be in relation to the issue. Many older people will feel more comfortable if, when they make a telephone call, they hear a human being talking

179WH
to them, rather than a machine. We will have local outlets where that is necessary. To offer the diverse service that some people need, there will be outreach in libraries and community centres—and why not in supermarkets, too?
The point about the difficulty of transforming the technology has been well made. I hope that we have learned the lessons of what we referred to as NIRS2. I remember visiting my hon. Friend's constituency with the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was in the Chair when the staff proudly wanted to demonstrate the system to us, but it had crashed that morning. Therefore, I am aware of the difficulties, and I am sure that we are all aware of the ambitious nature of what we are introducing in terms of IT.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked the question about NIRS2, and I have now given a brief response to it. He also raised several other issues that I cannot discuss. He mentioned ConneXions. Of course the ConneXions service that is starting to roll out will want to make links with the jobcentre and other agencies. However, given the endeavours of that new service, it will often be trying to persuade young people of up to 19 years of age and older to pursue training rather than to enter work. At a later date, questions will need to be raised about the jobcentre and jobcentre plus.
I shall move on more rapidly than courtesy demands, because time is limited. With regard to the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised about the staffing levels of the Pension Service, a key aim of our plans for the new organisation has been, and will continue to be, to ensure that all present staff have a job in the Department at, or within reasonable travelling distance of, their current place of work. We are concerned about that matter. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the taxation of child benefit, I reiterate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's clear statement. Child benefit will not be taxed, it will remain universal, and it will rise in line with inflation.
With regard to incapacity benefit, a couple of hon. Members raised the point about Sema and the medical services. We are aware of the difficulties that have arisen, and we have responded to the Select Committee with regard to those issues. We are determined to overcome those difficulties, because the quality of that medical service and the test are crucial to our progress.
Questions were raised about pension credits and means tests. Over half of all pensioners—that is, 5.5 million people—will benefit from the pension credit. I am familiar with the debates about the definitions of means testing: the pension credit will be based on income assessment. Therefore, it is more like the tax assessment that many of us are used to than the old-fashioned weekly means test.
180WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) made a thoughtful contribution about old people, and made specific points. I was particularly aware of his argument that we must accord older people the status and dignity that they deserve in society, and that we must consult them more often about the services that they need. I commend his work in his constituency.
The right hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—[Interruption.]
Mr. Kirkwood: Alas, not yet.
Malcolm Wicks: Whatever his formal rank is, the hon. Gentleman has a very high status in my eyes.
The hon. Gentleman made many of the points on which I touched about the administrative task that we face. He did not exaggerate when he said that the matter was a huge upheaval in terms of administration and information and communications technologies. I had better not compare that to the second world war—although the outcome in that was okay for us—but it is one of the biggest organisational changes and information technology challenges in Europe. I am not using any form of exaggeration. We are convinced that we can stick to our timetable, and I listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully.
On the social fund, we will respond to the Select Committee shortly and, obviously, before the end of the summer term. I should not say much more about that, but the social fund will clearly take full account of the new jobcentre plus and the Pension Service. Much of that will apply to people of working age, but other aspects are better organised in the Pension Service. That will become clear in due course.
If I may hurry on without mentioning every point, I shall now mention the arguments by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). I do not think that I have missed anyone out—I am sure that I have not. I welcomed his comments and support for the logic of the Department's reorganisation around the Pension Service and people of working age. We are all aware of his track record on disability, and his reasoned and thoughtful comments on incapacity reform were very well put. I wish that more people were debating the issues in that thoughtful manner. We must bring rationality and reality to the debate, and my hon. Friend did that well.
I thank everyone who has participated in the debate. As you have mentioned, Mr. McWilliam, it was unfortunate that we had to go and debate more trivial matters about other scale rates and housing benefit schemes in the middle of it. However, we have returned full of energy. I shall examine the Official Report, and if I owe hon. Members more explanation and data, I shall write to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Seven o'clock.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to announce the completion of contract negotiations with the preferred bidders for the London Underground public-private partnership. [1034]

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the PPP will be signed for the London Underground. [1603]

  Mr. Byers
  Robert Kiley reported to me on 3 July that he had not been able to agree terms with the bidders for the modernisation of the underground consistent with the objectives of his agreement with the Government. Having carefully considered everything Mr. Kiley had to say, the

  London boroughs' reported action under the homelessness provisions of Housing Acts

  Decisions made during the period1 January—March 2001

  Accepted as being homeless and in priority need

  Eligible, homeless and in priority need, but intentionally so

  Eligible, homeless but not in priority need

  Households accommodated by the authority on 31 March 2001 in bed and breakfast

  Number of households on the Housing Register2 as at 1 April 2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  34

  8

  12

  0

  1,925

  Barnet

  244

  4

  144

  3—

  5,489

  Bexley

  103

  7

  197

  66

  3,592

  Brent

  281

  35

  68

  585

  12,603

  Bromley

  216

  9

  98

  100

  3,264

  Camden

  289

  22

  102

  69

  5,884

  City of London

  3

  0

  0

  23

  787

  Croydon

  514

  22

  337

  420

  6,265

  Ealing

  244

  20

  255

  400

  7,709

  Enfield

  301

  3

  30

  267

  6,001

  Greenwich

  277

  10

  86

  0

  5,473

  Hackney

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  7,011

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  294

  5

  41

  376

  4,726

  Haringey

  299

  6

  3—

  192

  9,510

  Harrow

  189

  10

  86

  131

  2,610

  Havering

  16

  5

  51

  0

  1,738

  Hillingdon

  271

  9

  121

  407

  3,656

  Hounslow

  296

  7

  204

  182

  5,017

  Islington

  445

  17

  190

  3

  11,590

  Kensington and Chelsea

  163

  17

  42

  651

  8,206

  Kingston upon Thames

  125

  3

  68

  8

  3,113

  Lambeth

  304

  19

  60

  187

  16,220

  Lewisham

  247

  3—

  3—

  0

  9,774

  Merton

  45

  4

  28

  35

  3,920

  Newham

  429

  24

  73

  641

  11,107

  Redbridge

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3,555

  Richmond upon Thames

  118

  4

  33

  66

  4,992

  Southwark

  693

  28

  52

  250

  5,543

  Sutton

  114

  17

  88

  47

  2,154

  Tower Hamlets

  293

  13

  16

  187

  6,751

  230W
  Government have concluded that the best course is to proceed with plans for the modernisation of the underground, to create a 21st century tube which will be publicly run and privately built. I will today be asking London Underground to move quickly to progress negotiations, subject to the requirements to ensure safety, so that work can start as soon as possible. In doing this, and as a result of the discussions with Bob Kiley, London Underground plan to make a number of changes to deliver better public sector control, particularly in the area of safety.

  Homelessness
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) families and (b) individuals in bed and breakfast accommodation were placed there by local housing authorities; how many (i) families and (ii) individuals are regarded as homeless; how many (1) families and (2) individuals are on housing waiting lists; and how many (x) families and (y) individuals are on transfer lists, in each London borough. [1049]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: The latest available information as reported by London boroughs is presented in the table. This represents households without distinguishing between family groups and individuals. Information on local authorities' transfer lists is not collected centrally.
  231W

  London boroughs' reported action under the homelessness provisions of Housing Acts

  Decisions made during the period1 January—March 2001

  Accepted as being homeless and in priority need

  Eligible, homeless and in priority need, but intentionally so

  Eligible, homeless but not in priority need

  Households accommodated by the authority on 31 March 2001 in bed and breakfast

  Number of households on the Housing Register2 as at 1 April 2000

  Waltham Forest

  250

  46

  69

  135

  7,476

  Wandsworth

  258

  9

  145

  259

  2,441

  Westminster

  304

  21

  178

  923

  8,099

  1 Decisions during the quarter are those where applicant households were found to be home less and eligible for assistance under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 and associated legislation.

  2 Local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing housing register/waiting lists which mean that simple comparisons between authorities can be misleading.

  3 Information not reported

  Source:

  DTLR quarterly P1E housing activity and annual Housing Investment Programme returns

  National and regional information on local authorities' activity under statutory homelessness provisions is published in a quarterly Statistical Release published by the Department. A separate Supplementary Table provides summary data for individual authorities.

  Copies of the Release and Supplementary Tables are held in the Library, and the latest edition, published on 15 June, presents statistics up to the end of March 2001.

  Motorway-widening Schemes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will require the preparation of an environmental impact assessment when the widening of motorways is proposed. [1332]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The publication of an environmental statement assessing the impact of a project for constructing or improving any highway is a statutory requirement under the provisions of Part VA of the Highways Act 1980 if the area of the project exceeds 1 hectare or is situated in whole or in part in a sensitive area.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on the widening of motorways. [1331]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our 10-Year-Plan, Transport 2010 includes provision for widening some 5 per cent. (360 miles) of the strategic road network. Such widening will be a key element in meeting our objective to reduce road congestion on the inter-urban network and in large urban areas in England below current levels by 2010 by promoting integrated transport solutions and investing in public transport and the road network.

  Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to make a decision on a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. [1311]

  Ms Keeble
  A decision will be issued as soon as possible consistent with full and careful consideration of the report of the inquiry Inspector.

  A5
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has for improvement to the A5 between the M69 and A47 Long shoot junction. [1426]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency has a strategy for improving the A5. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. David Tredinnick, dated 5 July 2001:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent question about proposals for improving the A5 between the M69 and A47 Longshoot Junction.
  A strategy for improvements to this section of the A5 was developed following the publication of the Inspector's Report on the Public Inquiry into the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan. This strategy indicated the need for improvements to the road as a result of development proposals identified in the Plan and preliminary consultation, undertaken in June 1999, identified a number of possible improvement schemes.
  The enclosed leaflet sets out the broad programme although there have been a number of changes since it was published in March. Work is likely to start in the Autumn on two developer-funded schemes, the provision of roundabouts at Nutts Lane and Sketchley Lane, and we hope to start work this financial year on improving signing at Hinckley Railway Bridge and on the traffic signs at Stretton House Bends. Other developer funded schemes, including Dodwells roundabout and proposals at Wolvey Road and the M69 junction, are less advanced and will be dependent in part on the developers' timescales.
  More recently, work has started on the preparation of the Route Management Strategy for the trunk road corridor between the M1 and the A38 in the Mid lands, including this length of the A5. This was mentioned in Gwyn Drake's letter to you of 19th January. This will look at the corridor as a whole and will recommend a range of highway improvements for inclusion in future works programmes. It will also review some of the improvements identified in the preliminary consultation, such as the pedestrian and cycle path on the north side of the A5 between the M69 and the Longshoot junction, and enhancements including "no waiting" restrictions, a 40 mph speed limit and street lighting. Public consultation is expected to start early in 2002, with the final strategy being published June.
  The result will be a Route Management Plan, which will include a ten-year strategy and a three-year action plan.

  233W
  I trust that this answers your question but if you wish to discuss any aspect further, the Highways Agency Route Manager for this length of A5 is David Nock. He can be contacted at our offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 IBL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8362.

  Housebuilding Targets
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans the Government have to revise the housebuilding targets published in the regional planning guidance for(a) the west midlands, (b) the south-east and (c) East Anglia; and if he will make a statement; [1279]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the extent to which housebuilding targets detailed in a regional planning guidance are binding on local authorities. [1295]

  Ms Keeble
  Draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) is drawn up by the Regional Planning Body for each region and includes proposed rates of housing provision. Once the RPG has been confirmed by the Secretary of State following public examination, the presumption is that the rates of housing provision are carried through into structure plans or Unitary Development Plans. The housing provision for each region is no longer set as an inflexible long-term target for housebuilding based on a 'predict and provide' methodology b it is expressed as an annual rate of provision for additional dwellings which is subject to regular monitoring and review. The level of housing provision is monitored by the regional planning body with the expectation that it will be reviewed every five years, or sooner if necessary.

  RPGs for East Anglia and the south-east were issued in November 2000 and March 2001 respectively. The regional planning body in the west midlands is currently preparing new draft RPG.

  Best Value
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money within central Government has been allocated for administrative costs associated with best value in local government in the forthcoming year. [1291]

  Mr. Raynsford
  For the financial year 2001–02, £1,751,000 has been allocated within central Government for administrative costs associated with best value.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated cost to central Government was of the administration of best value in local government in the last financial year. [1284]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the financial year 2000–01,£1,524,000 was spent on the administration of best value by central Government.

  Electoral Law
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the annual costs to business resulting from the provisions on the availability of the full and edited electoral register in the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement. [1289]
  234W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Officials have been in frequent contact with representatives of businesses and business associations since the beginning of 1998 when changes to the availability of electoral registers were first considered by the Working Party on Electoral Procedures. A summary of the estimates made by companies which responded to the working party was published in Annexe M to the working party's final report of October 1999, copies of which are in the Library of the House and on the Home Office website.

  A draft Regulatory Impact Assessment accompanied the draft Amendment (No.2) Regulations when these were placed on the internet for public comment.

  Local Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to undertake local government restructuring(a) before and (b) after the introduction of regional assemblies in England outside London. [1296]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No decisions have yet been taken on what—if any—changes in local government structures might be involved in taking forward the Government's proposals in relation to elected regional assemblies.

  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 80W, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on Regional Governance in England. This will set out the Government's thinking on these issues.

  Good Practice
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he proposes to take to ensure that good practice in local government can be developed. [2164]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Secretary of State has introduced a wide-ranging programme of modernisation for local government. We are committed to supporting the capacity of local government to deliver on this programme. The development of best practice is seen as an important element of such support.

  We have strengthened the Improvement and Development Agency, particularly through the creation of the Performance Support Unit, and we continue to support the Local Government Improvement Programme. We have enhanced the Audit Commission's role in audit and inspection, particularly through the Best Value Inspection Service. The IDeA and the BVIS have key roles in sharing best practice.

  The DTLR offers help to local authorities directly through (among others) its Modernisation Team, a group of senior staff with local authority experience who work in every region of the country to support councils as they introduce modernisation.

  The Department is involved in many other initiatives. Examples include the introduction of Local Public Service Agreements. Local PSAs provide councils with the opportunity to discuss with Government Departments new ideas for improving services and try them out. Ideas that work will naturally be of interest to other councils.
  235W
  In addition, we are making available £350 million funding over three years, to enable local authorities achieve our target of 100 per cent. electronic service capability by 2005. This year we have made £25 million available to support innovative projects which will make a generic contribution to local authority service delivery. This work will be supported by a further £325 million in 2002–04.

  Local authorities were able to compete for grant under Rounds 2 and 3 of the Invest to Save Budget. This is a Treasury/Cabinet Office initiative, designed to develop projects which bring together two or more public services in an innovative and more efficient fashion. In Round 3, 46 out of 100 successful projects were led by local authorities, involving some £22.4 million funding from a total ISB Round 3 pot of £60 million. Both e-government and IS projects will provide a valuable source of best practice for local government.

  Through the beacon council scheme, councils can improve by learning from those who already provide excellent services. 39 councils, given beacon status in the second round of the scheme, are currently offering opportunities to develop services across 11 themes. Earlier this week—4 July 2001—we published an application brochure inviting further applications in the third round of the scheme. Evaluation studies are showing that the beacon scheme is making a positive contribution to the development of good practice.

  The Department has embarked on a major programme to develop best practice in partnership working with public, private and voluntary sector organisations.

  Jointly with the Local Government Association, we commissioned a Review of Local Government Procurement under Sir Ian Byatt. We have now received this report. It is an important contribution to the debate on the modernisation of local government and the provision of high quality services to local people. This report will stimulate the development of best practice in procurement.

  Rockingham Speedway, Northamptonshire
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will hold a public inquiry into the process and procedures by which a series of planning consents has been granted for the construction of the Rockingham Speedway, Northamptonshire. [1783]

  Homeless households in priority need accepted by London boroughs

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Barking and Dagenham

  241

  65

  257

  230

  234

  Barnet

  909

  872

  1,027

  1,103

  (3) 868

  Bexley

  173

  285

  319

  275

  359

  Brent

  1,394

  1,164

  (3) 721

  1,040

  1,146

  Bromley

  657

  610

  728

  839

  881

  Camden

  1,362

  1,422

  1,555

  1,338

  1,021

  City of London

  22

  44

  53

  64

  17

  Croydon

  1,513

  956

  814

  1,219

  1,886

  236W
  Dr. Whitehead
  A public inquiry will be held this September into the appeal by Rockingham Speedway against some of the conditions imposed by East Northamptonshire council in its permission of October last year. In addition, the council has resolved to take enforcement action to ensure compliance with other conditions. However the Department is not aware of any grounds to suggest the council's consideration of this case requires investigation.

  Fire Contingency Arrangements
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency arrangements he has made in the event of strike action by fire fighters on Merseyside; and if he will make a statement. [2129]

  Dr. Whitehead
  At the request of the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority, I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the armed forces Minister that armed forces personnel should provide emergency fire cover during any periods of strike action by firefighters on Merseyside.

  Local Authority Boundaries
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the terms of reference are for the boundary commission's current review of local government boundaries in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement. [2104]

  Dr. Whitehead
  All the Local Government Commission's periodic electoral reviews, including those of the Metropolitan borough councils in Merseyside starting in September, are undertaken in accordance with statutory requirements, including those of securing electoral equality (the number of electors represented by each councillor elected to the authority to be, as far as possible, the same in every ward) and effective and convenient local government, and to reflect the interests and identities of local communities.

  Housing (London)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people were accepted as homeless in each of the London boroughs in each of the last five years; how many of these were accommodated in bed and breakfast establishments; and at what cost. [1737]

  Ms Keeble
  Information reported to the Department by London boroughs on the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, in each of the past five years, is as follows:
  237W

  Homeless households in priority need accepted by London boroughs

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Ealing

  1,202

  1,068

  1,016

  989

  1,026

  Enfield

  836

  743

  754

  793

  1,007

  Greenwich

  1,053

  1,270

  1,403

  1,242

  1,227

  Hackney

  (2) 454

  676

  705

  963

  (3) 594

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  618

  598

  709

  895

  918

  Haringey

  1—

  1,157

  975

  (3) 1,101

  1,436

  Harrow

  499

  690

  720

  670

  701

  Havering

  (3) 267

  283

  (1)98

  (3) 326

  (3) 160

  Hillingdon

  888

  932

  914

  686

  1,003

  Hounslow

  1,082

  858

  (3) 609

  1,003

  945

  Islington

  1,113

  949

  (3)897

  1,298

  1,556

  Kensington and Chelsea

  614

  594

  (3)411

  533

  658

  Kingston upon Thames

  323

  437

  (3) 271

  306

  421

  Lambeth

  1,042

  779

  1,039

  1,124

  1,112

  Lewisham

  (3) 601

  (3) 574

  1,085

  1,248

  892

  Merton

  336

  186

  205

  242

  168

  Newham

  224

  1

  1,383

  1,411

  1,596

  Redbridge

  302

  322

  302

  450

  (3) 325

  Richmond upon Thames

  479

  584

  633

  432

  343

  Southwark

  (3) 873

  890

  (3) 841

  1,614

  1,702

  Sutton

  417

  274

  299

  513

  429

  Tower Hamlets

  (2) 369

  971

  1,070

  1,130

  1,282

  Waltham Forest

  771

  880

  (3) 779

  856

  981

  Wandsworth

  639

  440

  1

  (2) 391

  886

  Westminster

  1,259

  (3) 839

  1,266

  1,152

  1,074

  1 Blank entries indicate that no returns were submitted by the authority

  Note:

  Numbers in brackets indicate the number of quarters for which returns were received

  Source:

  DETR P1(E) housing activity returns (quarterly)

  Information reported by London boroughs on the numbers of households resident in bed and breakfast accommodation on 31 March in each year is as follows:

  Homeless households accommodated by London boroughs as at 31 March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  Barnet

  103

  88

  116

  1—

  1—

  Bexley

  1

  10

  19

  56

  66

  Brent

  273

  369

  290

  410

  585

  Bromley

  17

  30

  118

  134

  100

  Camden

  100

  114

  44

  56

  69

  City of London

  15

  22

  33

  64

  23

  Croydon

  1—

  122

  157

  286

  420

  Ealing

  19

  33

  68

  201

  400

  Enfield

  159

  208

  206

  253

  267

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  1—

  40

  1—

  366

  1—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  99

  159

  263

  317

  376

  Haringey

  1—

  142

  151

  216

  192

  Harrow

  58

  92

  183

  122

  131

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  Hillingdon

  107

  120

  295

  279

  407

  Hounslow

  11

  50

  1—

  149

  182

  Islington

  145

  65

  67

  71

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  239

  250

  466

  559

  651

  Kingston upon Thames

  9

  2

  1

  26

  8

  Lambeth

  2

  0

  14

  56

  187

  Lewisham

  1—

  1—

  0

  1—

  0

  Merton

  24

  9

  10

  56

  35

  Newham

  1—

  1—

  270

  346

  641

  Redbridge

  88

  145

  165

  184

  1—

  Richmond upon Thames

  39

  62

  203

  224

  66

  Southwark

  0

  0

  42

  180

  250

  Sutton

  24

  23

  64

  123

  47

  238W 239W

  Homeless households accommodated by London borough as at 31 March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  124

  253

  190

  187

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  1—

  32

  135

  Wandsworth

  74

  124

  1—

  1—

  259

  Westminster

  851

  1—

  1,058

  1,135

  923

  1 Indicates information not reported

  Note:

  Figures include households being accommodated pending completion of inquiries by the local authority

  Source:

  DETR P1(E) housing activity returns (quarterly)

  National and regional information on local authorities' activity under statutory homelessness provisions is provided in a quarterly Statistical Release published by the Department. Table 7 presents reported data on households accepted as homeless by each London borough, and a separate Supplementary Table provides summary data, including numbers resident in B&B, for

  Local authorities' gross current expenditure on bed on breakfast at accommodation

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Barnet

  1,679

  1,448

  1,907

  5,700

  9,406

  Bexley

  92

  98

  111

  424

  427

  Brent

  2,095

  2,392

  3,609

  3,848

  5,183

  Bromley

  125

  132

  144

  1,066

  1,858

  Camden

  1,403

  1,329

  2,825

  5,297

  5,780

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  775

  Croydon

  654

  609

  846

  2,097

  3,158

  Ealing

  409

  297

  243

  527

  1,322

  Enfield

  1,641

  1,790

  3,663

  6,776

  11,062

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  691

  3,467

  488

  2,046

  3,447

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,080

  1,779

  1,431

  2,947

  5,090

  Haringey

  4,475

  4,332

  5,790

  15,356

  16,518

  Harrow

  314

  700

  976

  1,964

  2,196

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  883

  808

  1,109

  2,326

  4,766

  Hounslow

  410

  402

  726

  2,140

  6,872

  Islington

  3,789

  3,087

  2,945

  2,942

  4,544

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,287

  3,222

  3,240

  4,937

  7,215

  Kingston upon Thames

  171

  130

  155

  52

  485

  Lambeth

  1,623

  664

  1,391

  2,092

  2,057

  Lewisham

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton

  340

  368

  162

  271

  688

  Newham

  1,061

  824

  1,401

  4,773

  5,388

  Redbridge

  486

  1,182

  2,029

  3,354

  3,486

  Richmond upon Thames

  217

  314

  460

  4,346

  11,184

  Southwark

  179

  127

  0

  352

  4,981

  Sutton

  193

  221

  163

  434

  1,525

  Tower Hamlets

  1,775

  2,155

  1,584

  2,128

  5,104

  Waltham Forest

  0

  2

  8

  2

  237

  Wandsworth

  890

  698

  1,626

  3,440

  3,289

  Westminster

  4,795

  5,024

  6,798

  13,595

  16,321

  Source:

  DTLR RO6 Revenue Outturn forms

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the average weekly level of(a) council rents in London and (b) rent charges for bed and breakfast establishments used by the London boroughs in each of the last five years. [1736]
  240W
  all authorities in England. Copies of these are held in the Library, and the latest edition published on 15 June presents statistics up to the end of March 2001.

  Information reported to the Department by London boroughs about their expenditure on bed and breakfast accommodation is as follows:

  Ms Keeble
  The average weekly unrebated rents for local authority tenants in London as at April in each year, including the latest survey results for April 2001, are as follows.
  241W

  Average local authority unrebated rents as at April

  (£ per week)

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  39.71

  42.10

  44.43

  49.68

  52.24

  54.54

  Barnet

  52.11

  52.60

  52.59

  55.35

  56.92

  58.52

  Bexley

  53.02

  58.52

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Brent

  69.81

  69.05

  70.37

  72.59

  72.81

  73.80

  Bromley

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Camden

  58.71

  59.69

  60.76

  59.77

  62.92

  63.97

  City of London

  55.34

  55.82

  56.83

  58.58

  58.70

  60.80

  Croydon

  62.10

  62.78

  62.78

  64.20

  67.95

  65.83

  Ealing

  59.17

  58.72

  59.11

  60.85

  63.26

  64.43

  Enfield

  51.98

  52.79

  53.50

  55.55

  57.93

  62.75

  Greenwich

  50.50

  51.14

  53.95

  56.25

  54.65

  58.99

  Hackney

  54.79

  55.25

  56.11

  56.62

  58.47

  61.77

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  53.77

  54.26

  56.18

  57.98

  59.13

  61.34

  Haringey

  57.54

  56.02

  58.96

  58.94

  60.48

  61.89

  Harrow

  64.68

  65.17

  67.21

  66.77

  68.65

  70.97

  Havering

  44.59

  44.95

  45.18

  46.83

  48.26

  49.68

  Hillingdon

  63.24

  64.20

  65.28

  66.71

  68.80

  70.59

  Hounslow

  49.81

  50.81

  52.01

  52.89

  55.85

  57.93

  Islington

  56.16

  57.16

  58.36

  60.00

  62.32

  64.38

  Kensington and Chelsea

  68.72

  68.72

  68.16

  68.17

  68.15

  70.23

  Kingston upon Thames

  61.15

  61.64

  63.43

  63.99

  66.33

  68.50

  Lambeth

  49.56

  54.01

  55.24

  57.72

  59.88

  62.00

  Lewisham

  46.73

  48.90

  49.82

  52.15

  55.00

  57.35

  Merton

  52.56

  53.05

  54.06

  54.83

  56.02

  58.60

  Newham

  43.72

  44.21

  44.92

  49.40

  54.35

  56.35

  Redbridge

  65.89

  66.36

  67.56

  67.65

  69.14

  70.20

  Richmond upon Thames

  52.92

  54.54

  56.09

  61.13

  62.41

  1—

  Southwark

  50.07

  50.56

  49.70

  54.74

  56.56

  58.04

  Sutton

  50.97

  53.08

  54.63

  54.15

  56.88

  60.44

  Tower Hamlets

  45.01

  49.21

  50.52

  58.71

  62.86

  66.39

  Waltham Forest

  46.37

  49.36

  52.17

  59.54

  62.65

  64.15

  Wandsworth

  59.68

  60.17

  60.79

  65.61

  66.95

  69.78

  Westminster

  64.62

  66.65

  68.62

  73.96

  76.15

  78.19

  1 Large Scale Voluntary Transfer of all borough stock

  Note:

  Average rents chargeable for the property, excluding any service charges

  Source:

  DETR Housing Subsidy Claim Forms and March Survey data

  Information on average rents charged by bed and breakfast establishments is not collected centrally.

  Housing (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost of bringing up to acceptable standard, the private sector housing stock in(a) Pendle, (b) Burnley and (c) East Lancashire as a whole. [1989]

  Ms Keeble
  We do not make estimates of costs to carry out repairs and improvements to private sector housing stock for individual districts or areas within regions. It is the responsibility of local housing Authorities to assess any problems of private sector housing within their districts. Local authorities supply the Department with their estimates of the numbers of private sector unfit dwellings in their areas, they do not provide cost estimates although this will change in 2001. The latest local authority estimates for numbers of unfit dwellings are:

  Number

  Pendle

  5,600

  Burnley

  7,344

  Remaining East Lancashire authorities

  36,334

  Housing (Warsop)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what timescale is foreseen on the use of a special purchase vehicle on private leased housing in Warsop and Warsop Vale. [2223]

  Ms Keeble
  The East Midlands Development Agency has been in discussion with the Meden Valley Partnership about this project and it is anticipated that decisions will be made later this year on the scale of funding that might be made available.

  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers are available to him when a local authority fails to enforce the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against owners who are in contravention of their obligations. [1930]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State has powers to issue listed building enforcement notices and conservation area enforcement notices. He can also take court action against those who carry out works to listed buildings or in conservation areas without the necessary consent, or in
  243W
  breach of a condition attached to a consent. The Secretary of State may also prosecute owners who deliberately damage listed buildings. It is the Secretary of State's policy to take enforcement action or to prosecute only in exceptional cases.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his response to his consultation on the control of noise from civil aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [1969]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will announce our conclusions later this year, after full and careful consideration of the arguments put forward by respondents.

  Green Belts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the status of green belts within planning guidance, with particular reference to those within key transport corridors. [1655]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 2: Green Belts, issued in 1995, sets out the presumption against inappropriate development in green belts. That guidance was amended in March this year by Annexe E of PPG13: Transport which advised that, in certain limited circumstances, park and ride development in green belts was no longer inappropriate.

  A30/A303
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which stretches of the(a) A30 and (b) A303 in Somerset have accident rates above the national average for A roads; and if he will make a statement. [1369]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: The average rate of accidents on non-built-up A roads of the three years 1997–99, published in "Road Accidents Great Britain: 1999 The Casualty Report", was 26 per 100 million vehicle kilometres (mvkm). Only one stretch of the A303 in Somerset had an accident rate above this national average; the stretch of road between the Eagle Tavern and the A358 had an average accident rate of 27.35 per 100 mvkm in 1997–99.

  The A30 in Somerset is a local road so information on accident rates is not held centrally. Further information the hon. Member requires may be held by Somerset county council.

  Mobile Homes and Parks
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation to regulate(a) the sale and (b) the running of mobile homes and parks; and if he will make a statement. [2482]

  Ms Keeble
  Changes to the statutory provisions on the sale of mobile homes and other proposals affecting residents of mobile homes and their site owners were 244W
  included in the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party, published last year. We consulted on, and are considering, the working party's recommendations.

DEFENCE

  Submarines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which fleet submarines are operational. [965]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Triumph, HMS Tireless, HMS Superb and HMS Trafalgar are currently on operational duties.

  Fertility Treatment
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding the availability of fertility treatment for service personnel and their families. [2327]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence receives a small number of letters each year from service personnel or their wives on this issue.

  Pilot Strength
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the benefits of recruiting RNZAF combat pilots made redundant as a result of the New Zealand Defence Review to fill gaps in RAF combat pilot strength. [972]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RAF, like several NATO air forces, currently has a shortfall of experienced fast jet pilots. The opportunity to recruit former Royal New Zealand Air Force pilots (who become surplus to requirements as a result of the New Zealand Government's decision to reconfigure their armed forces to undertake peacekeeping duties) is therefore of interest to the RAF. Details of the personnel directly affected by the restructuring have yet to be released by the New Zealand Defence Staff. The RAF are closely monitoring the evolving situation and senior British officers have been in contact with their opposite numbers in Wellington to highlight employment opportunities in the RAF.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Harriers are held in attrition reserve. [960]

  Mr. Ingram
  These are currently 19 Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft in the sustainment fleet, available to sustain an operational fleet of 28 Sea Harrier FA2s. The sustainment fleet includes those aircraft formerly considered as the attribution reserve fleet.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Harrier airframes have been used for spare parts in order to ensure other aircraft are operational. [959]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.
  245W
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Sea Harrier conversions are currently under way; and how many more Sea Harriers will be converted to FA2 standard; [966]

  (2) how many Sea Harrier FRS1s have been converted to FA2 standard. [961]

  Mr. Ingram
  All 33 Sea Harrier FRS1 aircraft operated by the Royal Navy at the time of the conversion programme were upgraded to FA2 standard. The programme was completed in 1999. No further upgrades to FA2 standard are planned. A further 18 new-build Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft were purchased from new.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Harrier engines have been upgraded to 1161 standard. [969]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Warships
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each operational warship of the Royal Navy, together with its scheme of complement total, and the number of trained men on board each vessel. [962]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 90 HM ships and submarines in the operational fleet. This includes all vessels on operational duties or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training. The precise manning level of ships available for operations is an indicator of the operational readiness of each individual ship and I am withholding the information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The total number of trained personnel on board these vessels as at 25 June 2001, is 9,012 against a scheme of complement total of 9,510.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all Royal Navy warships put to sea with their full weapon outload; and if he will make a statement. [964]

  Mr. Ingram
  All Royal Navy ships are equipped with weapon outloads appropriate to their operational tasking.

  Fleet Air Arm
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Fleet Air Arm's inventory is of each type of Lynx helicopter; and how many are operationally available. [963]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at Monday 25 June 2001, the Royal Navy had a total of 38 Mk3 and 36 Mk8 Lynx helicopters. Of these, 25 Mk3 and 18 Mk8 aircraft were operationally available. These figures provide a snapshot on a specific date. Numbers can change as aircraft move in and out of maintenance.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the secretary of State for Defence if type 23 frigates were procured to replace type 22 frigates; and if he will make a statement. [958]

  Mr. Ingram
  The type 23 class frigate was conceived in the late 1970s as a light anti-submarine frigate whose primary role was to meet the then Soviet nuclear 246W
  submarine threat in the North Atlantic. This new class was intended to replace the Leander class frigate, which was developed in the 1950s and the type 21 class frigate, developed in the 1960s, as the backbone of the Royal Navy's surface ship anti-submarine force. The type 23 class frigate was not procured as a replacement for the type 22 frigate.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of each of the Royal Navy's type 23 frigates. [967]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of HMS Norfolk, the first of the type 23 class frigates, was £135.449 million. The following 16 vessels have cost, or are estimated to cost where final payments are not yet due, between £60 million and £96 million depending on when the vessel was ordered and the scope of shipbuilder supplied equipment.

  Merlin Helicopter
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Merlin helicopter will be cleared for night-time active sonar dipping operations; and if he will make a statement. [957]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Merlin helicopter is expected to receive appropriate clearance to conduct night-time active sonar dipping operations before the end of 2001.

  Link 16
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of studies indicating significant operational advantages in fitting Link 16 to the Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7 fleets; [968]

  (2) for what reason he has decided not to install Link 16 on the Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7 fleets. [970]

  Mr. Ingram
  The operational advantages offered by systems such as Link 16 are well recognised. The capability is already fitted in some aircraft types and it will be fitted more widely in our aircraft and ships. As with any defence equipment capability, decisions have to be made about priorities. Link 16 is not currently planned to be fitted to Tornado GR4 or Harrier GR7 aircraft as we have higher operational priorities.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason he has decided not to install Link 16 on naval platforms. [971]

  Mr. Ingram
  No such decision has been taken. On current plans, we will install Link 16 in several in-service naval and air platforms as follows:

  In-service platform

  ISD with Link 16

  Type 42 destroyer (Batch 2 and 3)

  2004

  CVS (Invincible class)

  2004

  Sea King AEW

  2002

  Nimrod (R)

  2003

  Sea Harrier FA2

  2004

  Major new naval and air platforms, such as Eurofighter and the Type 45 destroyer, will be provided with situational awareness through secure tactical data links, in many cases by installing Link 16.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the prime contractors and their partner companies who have responded to the invitation to negotiate on the future strategic tanker aircraft project; what locations they have specified for their main operating base; and if any of the bids include any role for Dera or Quinetiq at Boscombe Down airfield. [867]

  Dr. Moonie
  We received bids on 3 July from two consortia: Air Tanker, consisting of Cobham, Thales, Brown & Root, EADS and Rolls Royce, and a consortium consisting of BAE Systems, Boeing, Serco and Spectrum Capital. Evaluation of the bids, which are complex and commercially sensitive, has only just begun. I am withholding further information under Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I shall, however, write to the hon. Member as soon as our analysis of the bids permits.

  Northumberland National Park
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future use of Otterburn Training Area in the Northumberland National Park. [868]

  Dr. Moonie
  Otterburn Training Area is one of the Ministry of Defence's principal training facilities. In common with all training areas, military training was suspended at Otterburn in recent months due to foot and mouth restrictions, but resumed on 29 June.

  As the hon. Member may be aware the MOD has plans to develop the Otterburn training area and our proposals have been subject to two lengthy sessions of a non-statutory public inquiry. The inquiry Inspector's report is with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and we await the decision.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment the Government have made of the potential increase in(a) organised crime and (b) financial crime in the UK and elsewhere of UK entry into the single European currency, with particular reference to the planned maximum denomination of euro notes; and if he will make a statement; [1259]

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the increase in (a) organised crime and (b) financial crime in the United Kingdom resulting from the introduction of the single European currency in other EU member states, with particular reference to the planned maximum denomination of euro notes; what measures the Government are taking as a result; and if he will make a statement. [1242]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Law enforcement and other competent authorities in the United Kingdom are already working with their counterparts abroad in preventing and combating crime in relation to the single European currency. Threat assessments have been carried out, at both the national level by the United Kingdom's National Criminal Intelligence Service and the European level by Europol, to determine the potential impact of organized 248W
  and financial crime involving the Euro, including counterfeiting and money laundering. These analyses and the experience being gained would be fully taken into account if the Government were to recommend United Kingdom entry into the single currency and Parliament and the people in a referendum were to agree.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2001,Official Report, column 97W, on work permits, if he will place a copy of the affidavit received from a Trinidad and Tobago Football Association medical officer in the Libraries of both Houses. [2086]

  Angela Eagle
  No. The affidavit was provided for the purpose of considering applications for work permits and it is not the practice of Work Permits (United Kingdom) to disclose documents submitted in support of applications.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2001,Official Report, column 97W, on work permits, what inquiries were made to validate the information contained in the affidavit provided by a Trinidad and Tobago Football Association medical official. [2087]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: There was no information to suggest that the evidence provided in the sworn affidavit was incorrect and in the absence of such information the Department did not think it necessary to make any inquiries to validate this information.

  Telephone Tapping Warrants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of telephone tapping warrants issued in each reporting period since 1980; and if he will make a statement. [1456]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: The numbers of interception warrants issued in 1980–84 are set out in the White Paper "The Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom" dated February 1985 (Cmnd 9438), prior to the introduction of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 now replaced by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

  Numbers of warrants issued annually since 1985 have been published in the reports of the Interception Commissioners, copies of which are placed in the Library. The annual report for 2000 is not yet available.

  Asylum Vouchers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reform the no-change policy in relation to asylum vouchers; by what date he intends to publish the findings of the review of asylum vouchers; and if he will make a statement; [1511]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a summary of the submissions made in response to the Government's review of asylum vouchers, indicating which individuals and organisations favoured abolition of vouchers; and if he will make a statement. [1638]
  249W
  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 50W. We are looking at the no-change rule as part of the review of the operation of the asylum voucher scheme. The Government have undertaken to place in the Library a list of those organisations which have contributed to the review and copies of their representations, once the review is complete.

  Young Offenders (Community Orders)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community orders relating to young offenders have been(a) breached and (b) revoked since 1 April 2000; and if he will make a statement. [2360]

  Beverley Hughes
  40,853 community orders were imposed between April 2000 and March 2001. Of these, 11,760 were breached, the order revoked and the offender resentenced.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require Youth Offending Teams to collect data for breaches and revocations of the different types of community order made against young offenders. [2359]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Youth Justice Board is currently in the process of revising its data collection methods. It will shortly be requiring Youth Offending Teams to record breaches for certain types of community orders made against young offenders.

  Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on private companies providing remunerated work-based prison regimes within the prison estate; and if he will make a statement [2120]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service is keen to work with outside contractors to provide increased and better quality employment opportunities for prisoners, where local circumstances permit. However, the primary aim of regimes for prisoners is to address their offending behaviour and improve their employability so as to reduce the risk that they will re-offend on release. It is important that regimes provide a mix of offending behaviour, drugs treatment and educational programmes and resettlement activities as well as work and vocational training.

  The private sector was originally introduced into prison management because of the possible benefits of cost and speed of delivery but also the prospect of improvements in the quality of prison conditions Where a prison is under private sector management, the contract requires employment and other purposeful activity to be provided and specifies the level of provision.

  Coroners Courts
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for the reform of coroners courts. [1729]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are keen to ensure that coroners can provide a modern, effective, service. A fundamental review of the coroner arrangements was accordingly announced in January, with terms of reference published in March. An announcement about the names of the chair and review members is expected to be made shortly.

  The review will address the coroner system both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, and will consider recommendations for changes to death certification procedures and the arrangements needed for the investigation of suspicious and unnatural deaths. I expect the review to report towards the end of next year.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 19 April regarding a constituent, ref. 62793286, PO4790/01. [1096]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: My noble Friend Lord Rooker replied to my hon. Friend on 26 June. I am very sorry for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter addressed to his predecessor on 2 April by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Shazia Azhar Alvi. [802]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My officials wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 June about this case and I will reply to him shortly.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the quality of statistics available to him on immigration and asylum. [2093]

  Angela Eagle
  Statistics on immigration and asylum are based on administrative sources and their quality is benefiting from the improvements and developments that have been made to the administrative systems over the past year. Further improvements in quality and scope are expected. The data produced monthly shortly after the end of the reference period are subject to quality improvement and revision prior to publication in biennial and annual statistical publications to take account of the delayed reporting of data and data cleansing work.

  Immigration and asylum statistics are published in a Command Paper and a number of regular statistical bulletins covering general immigration, asylum, and citizenship. All these publications form part of the National Statistics and as such are produced to professional standards set out in a Code of Practice. The formal assessment of data quality is incorporated in the cycle of reviews under the National Statistics Work Programme.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Coram Foundation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her policy relating to the Coram family, with special reference to plans to display its works of art and other memorabilia. [912]

  The Solicitor-General
  I must emphasise at the outset that I am required to act in this matter as protector of charity. Indeed, it would be improper for me to take into account any consideration other than what is in the best interests of charity.

  The Thomas Coram Foundation is a child care charity—its objects are broadly the support and maintenance of poor children. My predecessor intervened, as he was required to do, to ensure that any plans for the Hogarth paintings and other heritage assets which belong to the foundation are consistent with charity law. Essentially, the assets must be applied for the purpose of benefiting the charitable objects of the foundation, that is to say for child care purposes.

  I sympathise with the position of the Governors and Coram and am anxious to assist them to find a solution which is in the best interests of the charity.

  So the Attorney-General will be discussing this, among other issues, with the Charity Commissioners and will meet the Governors of Coram to discuss it with them.

  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions the Attorney-General has been asked to consider prosecutions under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998; and on how many occasions he has not consented to such prosecutions. [913]

  The Solicitor-General
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 relates to legislation governing the possible indictment in the UK of individuals who are conspiring to commit offences abroad.

  So far the Attorney-General has given his consent to the prosecution of two individuals involved in a conspiracy to facilitate the entry of illegal immigrants into the United States of America and the United Kingdom. There were eight defendants involved in the conspiracy and all were successfully prosecuted.

  There have been no other applications for the Attorney-General's consent under this provision.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the Crown Prosecution Service. [914]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Human Rights Act 1998 has undoubtedly affected all aspects of the work undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service. This was anticipated from a very early stage and a high priority was given to ensuring that the CPS was well prepared for the implementation of the Act on 2 October 2000.
  252W
  An intensive training programme for prosecutors and selected caseworkers was undertaken before 2 October 2000. Follow-up training is still being undertaken. The quality and intensity of the training has meant that cases giving rise to human rights issues have been dealt with in a professional and effective manner. CPS areas have reported that prosecutors are using convention arguments with greater confidence than ever before.

  The Human Rights Act has meant that the courts are considering many new arguments. A number of cases raising human rights points have already been decided by the appeal courts. Fast tracking of cases has enabled cases that have an impact on the criminal justice system as a whole to be heard quickly by the appeal courts. This has assisted in ensuring that blockages in the criminal justice system have not developed.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Solicitor-General what policies she has for tackling racism and promoting equality in the Crown Prosecution Service. [916]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to ensuring that it does not discriminate as an employer or as a prosecutor.

  The CPS has undertaken a series of initiatives to address discrimination and change the culture of the organisation. An Equality and Diversity Unit has been established to ensure that the CPS equality statement is implemented. A training programme in equality and diversity, with emphasis on racial equality, is under way and by March 2002 all staff will be trained.

  A new range of initiatives undertaken by the CPS internally include a "dignity at work" campaign, aimed at ensuring that cultural diversity is valued. The CPS has developed positive act ion training for minority ethnic staff in areas where they are under-represented. The CPS is also seeking to engage with local minority ethnic communities and leaflets in 12 languages explaining the work of the CPS have been distributed. New guidance has also been provided to prosecutors on their responsibilities under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

  The CPS is also examining the findings of the Denman report into race discrimination in the CPS. The CPS hopes to co-ordinate a response to the Denman report together with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) report into the CPS Croydon branch.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on progress of the inquiry by Ms Denman into racism in the Crown Prosecution Service. [917]

  The Solicitor-General
  Sylvia Denman has recently completed her inquiry and her report has been delivered to the Crown Prosecution Service. It is hoped to co-ordinate publication of the report together with the findings of the Commission for Racial Equality in relation to their investigation of the CPS Croydon branch. This would enable the Crown Prosecution Service to take a coherent and comprehensive approach to its race equality work.

  Postal Voting
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions she has had with the CPS on prosecution policy in respect of forging signatures on applications to vote by post at the last general election. [915]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have spoken to the Chief Executive of the CPS to discuss current prosecution policy.

  The police are responsible for investigating any complaints of forged postal applications to vote. As this is a specialised area of law, CPS headquarters handle all cases involving breaches of election law referred to the CPS by the police. All cases are reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, to assess the sufficiency of evidence and where appropriate the public interest in bringing a prosecution.

  CPS experience shows that allegations of this kind are received from a number of sources over a period of months. It is still too early to say whether the increase in postal voting has led to an increase in criminal complaints. In addition, the CPS liaises with the Electoral Commission as the Commission is required to publish a report on the conduct and administration of the recent general election.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the agenda for the meeting of the EU-Israel Association Committee in May to review the operation of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. [824]

  Peter Hain
  A copy of the agenda, agreed by the EU and Israel, was deposited in the House of Commons Library on 2 July 2001.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Israeli authorities have responded to the EU post-verification requests for certificates of origin for goods alleged to be from illegal settlements. [825]

  Peter Hain
  The Israeli Customs Authorities have responded to a number of the post-verification requests for certificates of origin for goods exported by Israel under the preferences conferred by the EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement, Israel has 10 months to reply to each request. All the responses should be received within the coming weeks. The EU will consider next steps in the light of the responses received.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the EU will stop the import of suspected settlement products under preference in the absence of the necessary proofs of origin within the internationally recognised borders of Israel, as provided for in the post-verification exercise. [826]

  Peter Hain
  The UK supports the Commission's efforts to establish whether any infringements of the EU-Israel Association Agreement have taken place. EU member states continue to receive responses from the Israeli 254W
  authorities to their post-verification requests, and all of these responses need to be analysed. The EC will consider next steps and will then discuss the issue with Israel at the EU-Israel Customs Co-operation Committee on 23 July 2001.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what safeguards the EU secured from the Israeli authorities that co-operation on(a) scientific and technological, (b) economic, (c) trade and (d) audio-visual and cultural matters, as discussed at the meeting of the EU-Israel Association Committee on 21 May, would give equal access to Arab, Druse and Jewish citizens of Israel and would not include any institutions operating in illegal settlements outside the international borders of Israel. [828]

  Peter Hain
  The EU-Israel Association Agreement provides for co-operation between the EU and Israel in a number of areas, and also allows Israel to participate in a number of EU programmes. The EU operates a non-discrimination policy in deciding which institutions can access these co-operation programmes.

  The EU has repeatedly condemned settlement activity in the occupied territories (including east Jerusalem). It is illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. Therefore, institutions from the Israeli settlements will not be eligible to participate in any EU co-operation or programme.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the EU proposes to monitor that co-operation between the EU and Israel under the EU-Israel Trade Association Agreement conforms with equal opportunities in benefiting Jewish, Druse and Arab citizens of Israel. [829]

  Peter Hain
  We take human rights issues, including equal opportunity for all, extremely seriously. Respect for human rights and democratic principles is regularly raised during dialogue at all levels, most recently at the EU-Israel Association Committee on 21 May 2001. EU Heads of Mission in Tel Aviv also regularly raise human rights concerns with the Israeli Government.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the decisions taken by the meeting of the EU-Israel Association Committee on 21 May. [827]

  Peter Hain
  A report of the outcome of the meeting can be made public only with the agreement of the EU member states and of Israel.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is regarding recognition of Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [1437]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government do not recognise Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara. The UK fully support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General, his Personal Envoy, James Baker, and the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) in finding a just and lasting solution to this issue.
  255W
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is towards the right of self-determination of the population of Western Sahara through a United Nations-sponsored referendum; and if he will make a statement. [1436]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We supported United Nations Security Council resolution 1359 which was passed unanimously on 29 June 2001 and which extended the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 30 November 2001. This reiterated full support for the on-going efforts of MINURSO to implement the Settlement Plan and agreements adopted by the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of the Western Sahara.

  Nice Treaty
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to renegotiate the Nice treaty to deal with the objections of the Irish people. [1558]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 167W.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for the implementation of the Nice treaty on EU enlargement of the Irish referendum result rejecting Irish ratification. [1822]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 167W.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the report to the European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the treaty of Nice and the future of the European Union, report number A5-0168/2001 Final, dated 4 May. [1764]

  Peter Hain
  We welcome all contributions to the debate on the future of Europe.

  However, final decisions will be taken by member states at the inter-governmental conference in 2004.

  British Dependent Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to ensure that all British Dependent Territories citizens have been offered British citizenship and the right of abode. [1304]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British Overseas Territories Bill, which will grant British Citizenship and the right of abode in the United Kingdom to British Dependent Territories citizens in qualifying territories, was given a first reading in the House of Lords on 21 June. The Second Reading is scheduled for 10 July. The Bill was published on 22 June. Copies, with Explanatory Notes, are available from the Libraries of both Houses.

  Africa
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to give greater priority to Africa within his Department's policy. [1821]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Prime Minister has made clear that Africa is a major foreign policy priority. The Minister for Africa, Baroness Amos, will be working to build on the solid base established over the past few years. Our aim is to promote a stable, democratic and well-governed African continent, which is increasingly free from conflict, disease and poverty and which will be able to play a full role in the global economy. We shall be working with the many African leaders whose goals are similar.

  Conflict Prevention
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department proposes to make conflict prevention and peacekeeping more effective. [1833]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is engaged on a number of fronts to make international conflict prevention and peacekeeping more effective. We are working to push conflict prevention up the international agenda with GB, UN and EU partners; to help make international organisations better at peacekeeping and conflict prevention; to assist other countries with their peacekeeping efforts; and to improve our own contribution.

  We support the UN Secretary-General's efforts to move the UN:
  "from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention",
  and welcome his recent report on conflict prevention, which pursues this aim. We are working closely with EU and UN partners to follow up implementation of the report on UN Peace Operations drawn up by the Panel chaired by Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi in 2000. In particular, we are pressing for improved early warning mechanisms within the UN system, better analysis of where problems might arise and more effective rapid deployment mechanisms. We are also working with UN Security Council partners to improve the decision-making processes leading to the deployment of UN peacekeeping operations.

  The Government have established two cross-departmental conflict prevention pooled funds to help maximise our contribution to conflict prevention and peacekeeping work. The pools—one for sub-Saharan Africa and one for the rest of the world—are jointly managed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence Their purpose is to produce a joint strategy to facilitate collective decision making on where

  257W
  and how to focus our conflict prevention efforts, enabling Government to identify ways in which these Departments, by working more closely together can make more a effective contribution.

  We are also putting mechanisms in place to improve the effectiveness of our national contributions to peacekeeping. These involve a rapid deployment capability for civilian police and on-call arrangements for military personnel.

  ABM Treaty
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the United States Government's intention to abrogate the anti-ballistic missile treaty; and if the future of the ABM treaty was discussed with the United States Administration delegation at the Gothenburg summit in June.[1823]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty is first and foremost a matter for the US and Russia as parties to the treaty. We welcome US and Russian consultations on strategic issues, and were encouraged by the outcome of the summit between Presidents Bush and Putin and by both sides' commitment to further constructive discussions on the issues.

  The future of the ABMT was not discussed at the EU-US summit in Gothenburg.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary, of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work has been done by his Department to assess the global reaction to a unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty by the US. [2297]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty is first and foremost a matter for the US and Russia as parties to the treaty. Presidents Bush and Putin agreed at their recent summit that the two sides should continue their consultations on missile defence and the ABMT. It is therefore premature to make such an assessment.

  US National Missile Defence
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Russian Government concerning the proposed US National Missile Defence system. [2295]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not yet discussed missile defence with his Russian counterpart. Missile defence is of course the subject of regular exchanges with Russia at all levels.

  Export Controls
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods, controlled by the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, were approved for export to Iraq in 2000. [3073]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry approved on 21 July 2000 a licence to export spare parts for use 258W
  in Iraq's electricity sector under the UN Oil for Food programme. The spare parts included a roller bearing, which is controlled by the Wassenaar Arrangement in line with existing Security Council resolutions. The export of the goods to Iraq was approved by the UN Sanctions Committee. The announcement of this export is in line with the Government's commitment to increasing transparency in the field of export controls.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the procedure is for issuing a death certificate for a British citizen who dies abroad. [2484]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Deaths of British nationals overseas may be recorded in the consular register of deaths held by the British mission in the country where the death occurred (with the exception of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, South Africa, Zimbabwe and the Overseas Territories; deaths which have occurred in Pakistan prior to 19 February 1972 cannot be registered). For a death to be registered the Registration Officer must be satisfied as to the national status of the deceased and the following original documentation presented in support of the application: the civil death certificate issued by the local authorities; evidence of the deceased's claim to British nationality, eg full UK birth certificate or British passport or certificate of naturalisation or registration.

  A consular fee is levied for this service.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the applicant KB under Dhaka reference 59569 will be called for interview. [2487]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not our practice to disclose details of individual entry clearance cases in a public forum. The Joint Entry Clearance Unit will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North about this case in the next few days.

  Norwegian Whaling
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and how the Government have opposed Norwegian whaling(a) inside and (b) outside the International Whaling Commission; how the Government have sought to get the Norwegian Government to curtail whaling activities; and whether Norway is permitted to survey minke whale populations in United Kingdom waters. [2078]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK Government take every appropriate opportunity, both within the International Whaling Commission and in other relevant forums, to express their opposition to Norwegian whaling and to persuade Norway to cease its whaling activities. After careful consideration the Government have refused Norway's recent application to survey minke whale populations in UK waters as we are not convinced that it is in the best interests of whale conservation.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those Least Developed Countries which are members of the World Trade Organisation; and what progress has been made with the establishment of a fast-track accession process to the WTO. [2289]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  Thirty Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are already WTO members. These are Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. Another nine LDCs are currently negotiating to join the WTO (Bhutan, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Laos, Nepal, Samoa, Sudan, Vanuatu, and Yemen) and are at different stages of the process.

  At the Third United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries in May 2001, the EU (in a joint statement with US, Canada and Japan), reinforced its support for the expedition of the WTO accession processes for the nine LDCs currently negotiating to join. The statement underlined our interest in streamlining the LDC accession process; seeking reasonable market access commitments; making full use of WTO Provisions for LDCs and strengthening technical assistance and capacity building. I have today placed a copy of the joint EU/Canada/Japan/US statement in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in her Department's commitment to increase its support for WTO capacity building projects. [2288]

  Clare Short
  Our recent White Paper on International Development (Making Globalisation Work for the Poor) commits the Government to doubling their support for trade related capacity building to £30 million over the next three years. A number of initiatives have been taken forward since the publication of the White Paper in December. These include:A £7.5 million bilateral commitment to the Africa Trade and Poverty Programme, to begin this autumn in six countries while a further six countries are identified this summer;
  A further £1.1 million to provide ongoing support to the Commonwealth Secretariat's Trade and Investment Access facility;
  A £700,000 bilateral commitment to support trade capacity development in Ghana:
  A £600,000 commitment to support a development capacity building project focused on trade related intellectual property rights with UNCTAD and the NGO ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development);
  A further £370,000 to provide ongoing support to the Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme (with the WTO, ITC and UNCTAD) which supports a number of East and West African countries on trade policy formulation and implementation;
  260W
  A £300,000 commitment with ICTSD to support African countries participation in trade negotiations with a special focus on trade and sustainable development;
  A £350,000 ($500,000) commitment to support the pilot phase of the enhanced Integrates Framework for least developed countries. We are also working closely with the World bank and other partners to guide this initiative.

  UN Aids Conference
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the UN Aids Conference in New York. [2290]

  Clare Short
  The Declaration of Commitment adopted by 189 delegations at the 26th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly sets out a global consensus on future actions necessary to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The Declaration commits member states to a series of national targets and strategies to achieve them in the areas of leadership; prevention; care, support and treatment; HIV/AIDS and human rights; reducing vulnerability; children orphaned and made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS, alleviating social and economic impact; research and development; HIV/AIDS in conflict and disaster affected regions; resources and follow-up. The Declaration does not clearly identify those individuals and groups at highest risk of infection because of blocking action by a group of states. Uganda and Thailand have demonstrated that an open and honest approach to tackling the epidemic can lead to a reduction in the rate of transmission of the disease. Other countries must follow their example.

  The Declaration confirms what we know needs to be done to begin to contain the spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It is now time to urgently transform commitments into action at country-level to tackle the epidemic.

  Internet Access
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department's study on the cost of internet access in developing countries will be completed. [2287]

  Clare Short
  The consultants have submitted a draft report which is being discussed by officials of my Department in consultation with officials of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations she has made to the University of Greenwich concerning reduction in staff at the Natural Resources Institute; and what assessment she has made of its effect on development and food production; [1689]

  (2) what representations she has made to the Natural Resources Institute concerning redundancies of specialists there; [1691]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the effect on agriculture and natural resource management in developing countries following the planned reduction in staff at the Natural Resources Institute. [1690]
  261W
  Clare Short
  It is for the University and the Institute to judge what staff they need. I understand that planned changes at NRI are designed to relate the numbers and type of staff more closely to the present day demand for research and consultancy and hence to equip NRI to contribute more effectively to development in the field of renewable natural resources.

  Poverty Reduction
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of poverty reduction strategy papers in reducing poverty. [2292]

  Clare Short
  Only five countries—Uganda, Burkino Faso, Tanzania, Mauritania and Bolivia have developed full poverty reduction strategy papers. More than 20 low income countries, have produced interim PRSPs and a further 15 could be presented by the end of 2001. PRSPs contain goals and targets for poverty reduction over 3–10 years. One positive early indication is the strong degree of local ownership that has emerged in the course of developing many of the PRSPs.

  Technical Assistance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the enhanced integrated framework pilot project to improve the efficiency of trade-related technical assistance to least developed countries; and what plans she has to develop a more extensive initiative. [2293]

  Clare Short
  The implementation of the enhanced Integrated Framework (IF) commenced as a Pilot Scheme on 3 May 2001 with the adoption of the Pilot Phase Work Programme by the WTO Steering Committee. The three countries selected for the pilot process are Cambodia, Madagascar and Mauritania. The operation of the scheme will be reviewed prior to the fourth WTO ministerial meeting in November 2001, with a view to extension to other countries.

  Montserrat
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in providing post-16 education for children in Montserrat. [1306]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Montserrat manage a programme of post secondary education, through the University of West Indies Distance Learning Centre. The Government of Montserrat are considering how to meet the tuition needs of A-level students in the short term. In the longer term, the Government of Montserrat are planning a new Community College and considering possible funding.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations have been made to the Montserrat Government concerning the withdrawal of benefits from elderly people living with their relatives. [1316]

  Clare Short
  In February 2000, the Government of Montserrat introduced a means tested social assistance scheme to replace the near-universal food welfare scheme which was made available following the onset of volcanic activity.
  262W
  The introduction of the scheme has been closely monitored and levels of assistance are kept under review by the Social Welfare Board which includes representatives of the Government of Montserrat and civil society.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessments have been made of volcanic activity and dome buildings in the Soufrière Hills volcano in Montserrat. [1315]

  Clare Short
  The Montserrat Volcano Observatory's assessment is available weekly through local media and published on their website www.mvomrat.com.

  The formal scientific and hazard assessment was last updated in January 2001. It concluded that the volcano had entered into a second period of prolonged dome growth, likely to last for at least the next few years. The risk to the populated areas of the island is considered low, though a shift in the direction of dome growth, towards the north or west, would make the areas bordering the exclusion zones a high risk. A copy of the full scientific assessment has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to encourage tourism in Montserrat. [1314]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Montserrat are supporting a number of tourism initiatives, including the development of nature trails, assistance to the Montserrat Tourist Board and the development of volcano-linked tourism.

  UN Development Targets
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made towards the UN international development targets for 2015; and if she will make a statement. [1748]

  Clare Short
  An analysis of progress towards the International Development Targets is shown in DFID's "Departmental Report 2001", pages 11 and 12, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Progress is being made against all targets although current trends are not enough to achieve all of them in every region of the world. The income poverty target looks as if it will be met, thanks notably to progress in the large countries of Asia, but some countries are moving less fast. Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, has stagnated for most of the past decade though some African Governments have made significant progress in reducing poverty. Intense efforts will be needed if Sub-Saharan Africa is to reach the targets.

  Much has been achieved, but much remains to be done—1.2 billion people still exist in extreme poverty, 113 million children are currently out of school and over half a million women still die in pregnancy and childbirth each year.

  Increased international effort is needed, building on what has already been achieved and on the overwhelming consensus reached at the 2000 Millennium summit last September. This summit reaffirmed the commitment of the international community to achieving the goals as a first step towards eradicating global poverty.
  263W
  The challenge over the next few years will be to turn this commitment into solid and sustained action. National Governments must take the lead. Industrialised countries must work for a stronger commitment in global institutions and agreements to the systematic reduction of poverty. Development assistance needs to increase and be deployed more effectively on building national capacity to meet the IDTs. Globalisation must be managed if its effects are to benefit the poorest people in the poorest countries. DFID's approach to this is set out in our White Paper published last December, a copy of which is also in the House Library.

  DFID is widely seen as playing a leading role in the drive towards the international development targets. The long-term fall in UK development assistance has been reversed and this Government are committed to increasing the oda/GNP ratio from its year 2000 level of 0.31 per cent. to 0.34 per cent. by 2003–04. Our manifesto committed the Government to further substantial increases during this Parliament.

  Overseas Development (Investment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of(a) the total investment in all forms of overseas development by her Department, for each country dealt with by her Department, in the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 and (b) expenditure per head of population for each country. [1393]

  Clare Short
  Details of all DFID's expenditure on overseas development is contained in "Statistics on International Development".

  Development Council
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the outcome was of the Development Council held on 31 May; and if she will make a statement. [1942]

  Clare Short
  At its meeting on the 31 May, the Development Council:called for increased poverty focus in EC aid; clear indicators of performance; more effective collaboration with other donors; and coherence between development objectives and other EC policies. It also agreed a mechanism for monitoring performance against such indicators;
  called for the EU to improve co-ordination with other organisations on conflict issues without adding to bureaucracy; agreed that development adds the vital longer-term perspective to analysis of conflict and highlighted the importance of building national capacity to prevent and resolve conflict;
  agreed conclusions on Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development; Election Monitoring; EC-UN Partnership; and Follow-up to the EC Development Policy;
  adopted a Joint Declaration with the Commission on the Global Health Fund.
  We will be reporting separately on the outcome of the Council to the Chairs of the House of Lords European Union Committee, the Clerks of the International Development Committee and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee.

  St. Helena
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Government of St. Helena concerning improvements in transport services to and from the island; what further discussions she has had regarding a proposed airport for St. Helena; and if she will make a statement. [1785]

  Clare Short
  The report of the "Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access" for St. Helena, which addresses the future international passenger and cargo transport needs of the island, has just been finalised. Copies are available in the House of Commons' Library. The study's findings are currently under discussion with the St. Helena Government. We have made it clear that we will support funding for either the cost of replacing the RMS St. Helena or the estimated capital cost of an airport and related infrastructure, depending on which is most cost-effective.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the proposals of the St. Helena Leisure Corporation for the future of that island. [1684]

  Clare Short
  The St. Helena Leisure Company has held preliminary discussions with the St. Helena Government and my Department about its proposals to provide leisure facilities on the island. At the request of the St. Helena Government, we have made available to the Company a copy of the recent report of the 'Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access' for St. Helena. We understand that the Company wishes to take account of the study's findings in further formulating its proposals to the St. Helena Government.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the results of the comparative study of air and sea access to the island of St. Helena will be published. [1685]

  Clare Short
  The report of the 'Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access' has just been finalised. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fixed Term Work Directive
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implementation of the EU directive on fixed term work. [1966]

  Alan Johnson
  The fixed term directive is due to be implemented by 10 July 2001, but provides that member states may take up to an extra year to implement if they encounter special difficulties. The public consultation on the implementation of this directive in the UK closed on 31 May and the responses have shown that there are particular difficulties with the implementation of the directive in this country. In particular, the relative lack of existing legal provisions on fixed term contracts in the UK has made it difficult to establish how they are used. We shall therefore be taking extra time to implement the fixed term directive and have notified the European Commission accordingly. Before deciding to take extra time to implement the Directive, we consulted with
  265W
  employer and employee representative bodies, including the CBI and TUC. I am aware that several other member states have indicated they will also be taking extra time to implement the directive.

  Productivity
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the United Kingdom's productivity rate compared with that of the United States; and if she will make a statement. [2159]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government monitor the productivity gap with the US and other leading industrial countries as part of our Public Service Agreement commitments. The most recent assessment can be found in "Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity Challenge", which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I published on 18 June 2001. This document sets out the next steps the Government will take to narrow the productivity gap.

  Small Businesses (Merseyside)
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to increase the productivity of small businesses in the Merseyside sub-region. [2015]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: We have established the Small Business Service on Merseyside to help small businesses enhance their competitiveness and profitability. They work with a range of partners, including the Government Office (especially as the managing agent for the European Objective One Programme, which has a significant resource dedicated to developing business) and the North West Development Agency, to champion entrepreneurship and business improvement and to minimise the burden of regulation.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policies for supporting UK manufacturing industries. [1728]

  Mr. Wilson
  The platform of economic stability the Government have established, together with our policies to foster enterprise and help firms to innovate and grow, are the best way to secure the long-term success of UK manufacturing industries.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish responses to the consultation on draft legislation on export controls published on 29 March (Cm 5091); and if she will make a statement. [3099]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department has received 52 responses to the consultation on draft legislation on export controls published on 29 March. I am today placing copies of the responses in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Library of the Department. I have also arranged for copies of the responses to be made available by the Department's Export Control Organisation on request.

  Universal Bank
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will make transitional finance available for rural sub-post offices before 2003; and if she will make it her policy that the universal bank will be post office based. [30]

  Mr. Alexander
  Decisions on the provision of transitional financial assistance for rural sub-post offices will be taken in the context of advice from the Postal Services Commission which we expect to receive in the autumn in line with the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit report. Earlier this year, a new Government fund, with a funding allocation for the current financial year, was announced to help with the costs of relocating and refurbishing rural post offices. Universal banking services is a Post Office based approach which will ensure that those benefit and pension recipients who wish to continue to collect their benefits in cash, in full, across a post office counter, will be able to do so.

  Public Services
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with trade unions in respect of proposals to introduce greater private sector management into the public services. [1757]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have regular meetings with trade unions at which we discuss a wide range of topics.

  Adhesive Label Manufacturing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the reclassification of backing paper as packaging material on the competitiveness of the UK adhesive label manufacturing industry. [1236]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has not assessed the impact of this obligation on the competitiveness of the UK adhesive label manufacturing industry. Nevertheless, the regulations should not place UK business at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic market given that imported packaging is equally obligated. Similarly, packaging which is exported from the UK is not obligated under the UK packaging regulations.

  The Department works closely with representatives of the UK's paper and printing related industries in order to help improve their long term prospects. To this end, we are currently exploring ways to take forward recommendations from recent competitiveness studies for paper related industries, in partnership with the Confederation of Paper Industries and the British Printing Industries Federation.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the change in the annual cost to the UK adhesive label manufacturing industry of the reclassification of backing paper as packaging material; and if she will make a statement. [1237]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has not independently estimated the change in the annual cost to the UK adhesive label manufacturing industry.
  267W
  However, the Environment Agency have estimated that the cost in 2001 to the UK adhesive label manufacturing industry as a whole will be in the order of £430,000.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Merseyside have(a) received final compensation payments, (b) received interim compensation payments and (c) undertaken a medical assessment and are awaiting payment for (i) vibration white finger and (ii) respiratory diseases. [2029]

  Mr. Wilson
  IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered, in Merseyside1 778 claims in relation to Vibration White Finger, VWF. Of these, 428 have attended appointments to undergo the Medical Assessment Process, MAP. To date, IRISC have made 197 interim payments and 128 claims have been settled in full and final settlement.

  With regard to respiratory diseases, IRISC have registered 1,383 claims in Merseyside1. Of these, 605 claimants have undertaken a screening spirometry test and 132 claimants have undergone the full MAP. To date, IRISC have made 279 interim payments and 82 offers in full and final settlement.
  1 Merseyside is defined by postcodes with prefixes CH 41–49, 60–63, L 3, 9, 10–13, 16–26. 29–31, 34–38, 62–63, PR 8,9, WA 10–12 and WN4–5.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average duration is between medical assessment and final compensation payment for former coal miners seeking compensation for(a) Vibration White Finger and (b) respiratory diseases. [2010]

  Mr. Wilson
  With regard to Vibration White Finger, VWF, under the Handling Agreement, where there are no outstanding issues, the employment has been agreed and IRISC, the Department's claims handlers are in receipt of all the necessary documents, an offer of compensation in respect of general damages can be made in 56 days. The issues regarding special damages have not been finalised and therefore these payments can not be made as yet.

  In respect of compensation for respiratory diseases, following spirometry, the first stage of the medical assessment, expedited offers are made within seven days where the results meet the relevant criteria. Payment is made within 10 days of acceptance of offers, subject to agreement of employment history.

  In relation to settling claims where claimants have undergone the full Medical Assessment Process, where there are no outstanding issues, the employment has been agreed and IRISC are in receipt of all the necessary documents, an offer of compensation in respect of general damages can be made in 28 days. Meanwhile, IRISC are making interim payments wherever applicable.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress made in processing miners' compensation claims. [2030]

  Mr. Wilson
  To date, the Department has received over 272,000 claims in respect of respiratory disease and Vibration White Finger, VWF. Of these, more than 132,000 have been assessed. The Department has made over 91,246 individual payments amounting to £451 million.

SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE ON THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Electoral Law
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, when the Commission intends to publish its plans for spending on public awareness campaigns under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [1445]

  Mr. Beith
  The Electoral Commission acquired responsibility for promoting public awareness of electoral and democratic systems under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 on 1 July 2001. I understand from the Chairman of the Commission that information about the Commission's spending plans under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will be included as part of its overall Five Year Plan. This will be published following consideration by the. Speaker's Committee at its next meeting, whose date is currently under discussion. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, (1) what reports the Commission(a) has submitted and (b) intends to submit to the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; if he will place the reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [1443]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Commission's plans to conduct a review of the administration of the general election of 7 June under section 5 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; and when the Commission estimates that the review will be completed. [1444]

  Mr. Beith
  I understand from the Chairman of the Electoral Commission that the Commission intends to publish a report on the administration of the 2001 general election later this month. The report will also deal with wider issues relating to the election. A further report, addressing issues of election expenditure, is planned for spring 2002. These reports will set out the Commission's preliminary views on the need for a review programme for modernising the electoral process.

  The Commission has not, to date, submitted any reports to the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is expected to do so following the completion of its review programme.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what circumstances the Minimum Income Guarantee is payable when the claimant is abroad. [2485]

  Mr. McCartney
  Generally, Minimum Income Guarantee remains in payment for a limited period while the claimant is abroad provided certain conditions are fulfilled. The conditions are set out in the Income Support (General) Regulations 1997 (SI 1987/1967), regulation 4.

  Benefits Information Guide
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the 2001–02 edition of the Benefits Information Guide has been published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [2263]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A copy of the 2001–02 edition of the Benefits Information Guide has teen placed in the Library.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if pensioners who respond to the Government's take-up campaign for the Minimum Income Guarantee will be contacted to advise them of their potential entitlement to the Pension Credit once details of that scheme have been worked out. [1265]

  Mr. McCartney
  We will develop a comprehensive programme to ensure all those who may be entitled to the Pension Credit are aware of this.

  Pensions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the proportion of a stakeholder pension fund accumulated over 20 years which would be lost by a 1 per cent. charge. [1132]

  Mr. McCartney
  The proportion of a stakeholder fund taken by a 1 per cent. charge over 20 years would be 11.4 per cent.

  Note:

  This figure is based on standard assumptions used by the Personal Investment Authority.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many pensioners are subject to a reduction in their state retirement pension because they have been in(a) an NHS hospital and (b) a similar institution and treated as being an NHS patient, for over 52 weeks; [2303]

  (2) how many pensioners in hospital for 52 weeks or more and subject to the hospital downrating system receive less than 20 per cent. of the basic pension rate; [2305]

  (3) how many people experienced a reduction in (a) their state retirement pension and (b) one or more means-tested benefits due to being in hospital for (i) six weeks and (ii) 52 weeks in the last year for which figures are available. [2304]

  Mr. McCartney
  The rule that pensions and other benefits should be reduced when the beneficiary is in hospital has been in force since the National Insurance Scheme was introduced. There is no reduction during the first six weeks in hospital. Thereafter the amount of Retirement Pension is reduced by 20 per cent. of the basic pension rate for those with a dependant and by 39 per cent. for all other cases. (40 per cent. prior to 9 April 2001). The amount of Retirement Pension reduces to 20 per cent. after 52 weeks. No one receives less than 20 per cent. of the basic State Pension.

  The available statistical information on retirement pensioners with hospital reductions is shown in the table.
  270W

  Retirement pensioners by category with hospital reductions

  Thousand

  September 2000

  All hospital reductions

  31.5

  Reduced by 20 per cent.

  6.1

  Reduced by 40 per cent.

  14.9

  Reduced to 20 per cent.

  10.5

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest hundred

  2. Totals may not sum due to rounding

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at September 2000

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government will publish the revised reports from the Pension Provision Group on pension provision for self-employed people and the impact on pensions of changes in the labour market. [2270]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Provision Group are currently reviewing both reports in the light of the Government's Pension Credit proposals. It is anticipated that both reports will be ready for publication later in the year.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 33W, on the pension credit, if he will estimate how many of the responses to the formal consultation process did not welcome the proposals. [1559]

  Mr. McCartney
  The responses contained helpful views, many welcoming our proposals. We will be announcing our response to the Pension Credit consultation in due course.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average amount of state pension and benefits lost by pensioners subject to hospital downrating rules was in the last year for which figures are available. [2307]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is not possible to provide estimates for the average reduction in income-related benefits.

  The average reduction in basic state pension as a result of hospital downrating in 2000–01

  £ per week

  Category

  Average reduction

  Benefit reduced to pocket money rate

  56.28

  Benefit reduced by 20 per cent.

  13.53

  Benefit reduced by 40 per cent.

  27.11

  Note:

  Data are from the September 2000 administrative sample

  Asylum Seekers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the issuing of national insurance numbers to asylum seekers who have been given permission to work; and what the average time for issuing of NI numbers has been from the date of application in the last 12 months. [1125]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Asylum seekers who have been granted permission to work should apply for a National Insurance number if they are working or claiming a
  271W
  benefit. A person applying for a National Insurance number will be invited to attend an evidence of identity interview at their local Benefits Agency office and complete the relevant documentation for the allocation of a National Insurance number to be considered.

  Information about the overall length of time taken for an application for a National Insurance number to be processed is not held.

  Council Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensioner households paid(a) more than 5 per cent., (b) more than 10 per cent., and (c) more than 15 per cent. of their gross income in council tax in 1999–2000. [2257]

  Mr. McCartney
  41 per cent. of pensioner households in Great Britain paid more than 5 per cent. of their gross income in Council Tax in 1999–2000, 8 per cent. of pensioner households paid more than 10 per cent., and 2 per cent. paid more than 15 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. These figures are from the Family Resources Survey (Great Britain).

  2. For the purposes of this analysis, Council Tax is taken to be net of Council Tax discount.

  3. A pensioner household is one that contains at least one person over State Pension age.

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

  5. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for Incapacity Benefit from residents of(a) Aylesbury and (b) Luton were made, how many applicants were required to take a medical examination, and how many of those medical examinations were undertaken at (i) Luton, (ii) Aylesbury, (iii) Euston and (iv) other in each year since 1997. [823]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the tables.

  Incapacity Benefit claims received in the Aylesbury and Luton Benefits Agency office areas

  Aylesbury

  Luton

  January to December 1997

  2,128

  4,147

  January to December 1998

  1,734

  3,697

  January to December 1999

  1,710

  3,978

  January to December 2000

  1,561

  3,723

  January to May 2001

  709

  1,388

  Note:

  New claims data are from a 100 per cent. count. A new claim may not result in an award of benefit, for example where a claim is withdrawn.

  Number of Incapacity Benefit claimants who ere assessed at medical examination centres (MECs)

  Aylesbury

  Luton

  Euston

  Aylesbury

  October to December 1998

  186

  8

  1

  January to December 1999

  710

  27

  8

  January to December 2000

  597

  21

  0

  January to May 2001

  307

  14

  1

  272W

  Number of Incapacity Benefit claimants who ere assessed at medical examination centres (MECs)

  Aylesbury

  Luton

  Euston

  Luton

  October to December 1998

  5

  519

  0

  January to December 1999

  27

  2,002

  1

  January to December 2000

  20

  1,432

  0

  January to May 2001

  8

  683

  0

  Notes:

  1. Initial entitlement to Incapacity Benefit requires the claimant to provide medical evidence of their incapacity (normally a general practitioner's certificate) Subsequently, incapacity is assessed under the Personal Capability Assessment but not all claimants are required to attend a medical examination.

  2. Figures are from data supplied by Medical Services and include first and subsequent referrals. Information for individual MECs is not available prior to October 1998.

  3. Figures relate to Incapacity Benefit claimants living in the area covered by Aylesbury and Luton Benefits Agency offices respectively.

  4. Medical Services have no record of any customers in these areas being referred to other MECs.

  Departmental Title Change Costs
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the Department's new name is estimated to cost in total, broken down into costs associated with(a) stationery, (b) signs, (c) moving fixtures and fittings, (d) redesigning the website and (e) other costs. [372]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 77W.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the second stage of the State Second Pension is expected to be introduced. [2266]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to page 40, paragraph 8 of the Green Paper "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions" (Cm 4179) in December 1998.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate(a) the cost of extending Winter Fuel Payments to households with a disabled person and to householders with children aged under five years and (b) the amount allocated within existing benefits for disabled people towards heating costs. [1118]

  Mr. McCartney
  Applying current entitlement rules and extending Winter Fuel Payments to households with a disabled person aged under 60 in receipt of Disability Living Allowance and all households with a child under five, would increase the annual cost of Winter Fuel Payment provision by an estimated £780 million.

  There is no specific amount for heating costs in the benefits available to disabled people under 60 years of age, but Disability Living Allowance (DLA) provides a contribution towards the extra costs associated with severe disability. The care and mobility needs entitlement criteria for the benefit are used as broad indicators of all the extra

  273W
  costs, including the heating costs, of a disabled person. The disability premiums in income-related benefits are paid in recognition that the poorest disabled people need extra help.

  Note:
  Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million. They are based on data taken from the 1999–2000 Family Resources Survey and 5 per cent. scans of administrative data from the DLA computer system and Child Benefit computer system. Quoted costs allow for forecast changes to 2001–02 in the DLA caseload and in the number of children under the age of five.

  Benefit Rules
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the annual cost of abolishing the rules regarding the reduction of state pensions, other contributory benefits and income-related benefits for(a) claimants and (b) pensioners. [2306]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is not possible to supply costs for abolition of hospital downrating for income-related benefits.

  Estimate of the cost of the abolition of hospital downrating for 2001–02

  £million

  Benefit

  Cost for abolition for 6–52 weeks downrating

  Cost of abolition of over 52 weeks downrating

  Total cost of abolition

  Retirement Pension

  30

  30

  60

  Incapacity Benefit

  10

  10

  20

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  1—

  20

  20

  Total cost

  40

  60

  100

  Cost for pensioners

  30

  30

  60

  1 Means that the costs are greater than 0 but less than £5 million

  Notes:

  1. Costs are given in £ million, rounded to the nearest £10 million

  2. It is not possible to give costs for means tested benefits

  3. Costs are based on 2000 administrative data

  4. Costs are given in current price terms

  Non-residential Care
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will exempt people on Income Support from charges for non-residential personal care; and if he will estimate the cost of doing so in each of the next five years [261]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 3 January 2001 we published a consultation paper and draft guidance on fairer charging policies for nonresidential social services. The draft guidance proposed that charges should not reduce service users' incomes below "basic levels" of Income Support, as defined in the draft guidance.

  The Department's consultation paper noted that, while some users would pay lesser charges or cease to pay charges as a result of the draft guidance, better off users might reasonably be expected to pay higher charges. The experience of the local council operating the good practice example of charging policy described in the consultation paper suggests that there is scope for councils to maintain charge income in this way.

  We are currently considering consultation responses and plan to issue final guidance later this summer.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment the Government have made of psychological trauma caused by foot and mouth disease to rural communities; and what provision they have made to counter this problem; [2191]

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the psychological effect of foot and mouth disease on farm children; and what provisions have been implemented to ensure that adverse effects on their schooling are resolved. [2179]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department is working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in support of the Rural Stress Action Plan (RSAP) which offers support to help alleviate stress in rural areas. Through the RSAP, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already made available £500,000 to support farmers as part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's action plan for farming. The second RSAP is focused on the need to respond to the problems facing rural people as a consequence of the foot and mouth disease outbreaks which commenced in February 2001. The Department has also provided the rural stress information service and MIND with funding through the section 64 General Scheme under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for projects developing support networks and access to information, care and support for people in rural areas.

  In addition, local primary care services will be able to provide appropriate support to children and families suffering any adverse psychological problems resulting from measures taken on farms to eradicate foot and mouth disease. The Department for Education and Skills has also issued information on the implications of foot and mouth for schools, in order to help minimise the impact on pupils' schooling. This includes guidance on making arrangements for attendance recording, educational trips games fixtures and national tests. The Department for Education and Skills also worked closely with the GCSE/A-level awarding bodies to allow special considerations to apply where students' participation in exams or completing coursework was affected.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the consequences for agriculture of the foot and mouth outbreak in Essex; and if she will make a statement. [1070]

  Mr. Morley
  Foot and mouth disease is having a considerable impact on fanning and a range of industries throughout the UK. The duration of the outbreak and associated restrictions remains uncertain. At present it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the overall effect.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the figures of
  275W
  those farms and holdings that lost stock due to the contiguous cull under foot and mouth provisions will be published. [1671]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: To 28 June, 2,617 premises in Great Britain have had a total of 926,912 animals slaughtered as a result of the contiguous cull.

  Figures for the number of animals slaughtered on contiguous premises, broken down by county and species, are published and updated daily on the DEFRA foot and

  Week ending

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Goats/etc.

  Total

  25 February 2001

  799

  370

  1,741

  0

  2,910

  4 March 2001

  6,262

  38,156

  l89

  9

  44,616

  11 March 2001

  16,578

  60,621

  1,304

  12

  78,515

  18 March 2001

  32,979

  104,596

  11,086

  43

  148,704

  25 March 2001

  46,852

  197,468

  28,405

  236

  272,961

  1 April 2001

  78,307

  364,484

  20,864

  145

  463,800

  8 April 2001

  85,751

  489,509

  20,744

  777

  596,781

  15 April 2001

  88,435

  473,844

  25,389

  243

  587,911

  22 April 2001

  59,742

  357,839

  6,418

  141

  424,140

  29 April 2001

  24,075

  198,866

  7,529

  89

  230,559

  6 May 2001

  17,582

  90,619

  419

  389

  109,009

  13 May 2001

  10,445

  47,652

  2,313

  15

  60,425

  20 May 2001

  8,651

  54,440

  78

  3

  63,172

  27 May 2001

  15,693

  80,256

  276

  12

  96,237

  3 June 2001

  13,046

  50,813

  98

  7

  63,964

  10 June 2001

  12,533

  47,371

  56

  43

  60,003

  17 June 2001

  10,972

  56,072

  957

  55

  68,056

  24 June 2001

  7,833

  42,023

  0

  1

  49,857

  Total

  536,535

  2,754,999

  127,866

  2,220

  3,421,620

  Source:

  DEFRA Disease Control System Database—latest figures subject to revision, as more data become available

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will conduct a public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. [1863]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: There will be an inquiry, when the disease is finally over. We have always said we are keen to learn the lessons from this outbreak. The precise nature and scope of the inquiry will, as such, be a matter for the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what instructions have been issued to veterinary surgeons in respect of wild animals brought to them for treatment during the course of the current foot and mouth outbreak. [1827]

  Mr. Morley
  No instructions have been issued at a national level to veterinary surgeons in respect of wild animals brought to them for treatment during the course of the current foot and mouth outbreak.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the deer population is harbouring foot and mouth; and if she will make a statement. [1493]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: All cloven-hoofed animals, including deer, are susceptible to foot and mouth disease. Wild deer tend to show mild or unapparent disease, resembling the disease in sheep, although some species (eg roe deer and muntjak deer in the UK) may be severely affected.
  276W
  Mouth disease website www.defra.gov.uk. Work is in hand to add the number of affected premises per county to this report.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals were slaughtered in each week as a result of foot and mouth disease. [1652]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The table lists the number of animals slaughtered each week as a result of foot and mouth disease since the commencement of the outbreak.

  Deer can be carriers of the foot and mouth virus, and could transmit foot and mouth disease to susceptible livestock during the clinical stages of the disease. However, the Department's current veterinary risk assessment indicates that the risk of wild deer playing any significant part in the spread of foot and mouth disease is very low. There are therefore no plans at this stage to control wild deer populations, although as more information becomes available about the epidemiology of the disease in areas where there are wild deer, the risk assessment will be updated.

  As of 2 July more than 60 samples have been submitted to the Institute of Animal Health for testing from various parts of England and Scotland. All have tested negative for evidence of the foot and mouth virus, antigens or antibodies.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what circumstances she has contingency plans to authorise a programme of vaccination against foot and mouth. [1492]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: The Government would be prepared to authorise a programme of vaccination based on the advice of the Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Veterinary Officer. At an earlier stage of the outbreak, their advice was to vaccinate cattle in Cumbria and Devon provided the campaign had the substantial support of farmers, consumers, veterinarians, and the food trade. That level of support was simply not

  277W
  there and, as the number of new cases fell, the signs were that it would not be achieved. Vaccination remains an option, however, and is kept under continuous review.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the implementation of animal welfare standards during the culling of livestock during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [2195]

  Mr. Morley
  All animals culled during the current foot and mouth disease outbreak were required to be killed in accordance with the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (WASK). These regulations are enforced outside slaughterhouses by veterinary officers of the State Veterinary Service. To the best of our knowledge the vast majority of animals were dealt with humanely and in compliance with WASK. The few cases brought to our attention where it was alleged that animals had not been dealt with humanely have been investigated and appropriate action taken.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent to which the current foot and mouth virus type is spread by(a) air and (b) movements of people and vehicles. [347]

  Mr. Morley
  Analyses have been completed for the first 1,706 infected farms, and epidemiological investigations are continuing on the most recent cases to determine the source of infection and method of spread. Seven farms are considered to have been infected as a result of windborne spread over several kilometres. This low number is thought to be because only 10 pig herds have become infected during the epidemic.

  Short distance aerosol spread cannot be distinguished from other causes of local spread within 3 km of infected premises, which accounts for 81 per cent. of cases. In these cases there are often a number of possible means of spread such as using common facilities contaminated roadways and movement of people and farm vehicles. In addition, however, 83 cases have been specifically associated with lorry movements or movements of people.

  The breakdown is as follows (as at 21 June 2001):

  GB

  Number

  Windborne (not local)

  7

  Dairy tanker

  5

  Truck

  18

  Other inanimate object

  9

  Local1

  1,381

  Person

  60

  Infected animals

  84

  Under investigation

  142

  Total

  1,706

  1 Source of infection within 3 km; exact source unclear

  Further epidemiological information will shortly be available on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many laboratory tests for foot 278W
  and mouth disease were negative after 24 hours, but were subsequently found to be positive. [38]

  Mr. Morley
  It is correct that a laboratory test which is negative or inconclusive at 48 hours may give a positive result at 96 hours. This is because some samples may contain a very small amount of virus and it can take a second passage of 48 hours in inoculated cell cultures for the virus to be amplified to a level where it will give a clear result. Each cell passage takes 48 hours—ie 96 hours in total.

  Of a total of 1,551 tissue samples which have tested positive for foot and mouth disease virus, 1,310 were confirmed in less than 24 hours and 241 were found to be positive after 24 hours. It is not possible to provide similar data for blood samples submitted together with tissue samples because when tissue samples were found positive the testing of the blood samples ceased.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms in Worcestershire are still on form D restrictions around farms now known not to have foot and mouth disease as a result of laboratory tests. [44]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is only available for Hereford and Worcester. As at 2 July, 119 farms are under form D restrictions, contiguous to 66 infected premises. Of those 66, 43 were tested, of which 30 returned negative laboratory results. These 30 cases remain designated as infected premises.

  An infected premises is one where foot and mouth disease has either been diagnosed by a vet on the farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence, or where disease is found after testing. However, a negative laboratory result does not necessarily mean that the disease was not present and does not change the status of an infected premises confirmed on clinical diagnosis.

  Information on the number of farms under form D restrictions within the protection zone around infected premises where negative laboratory results have been found is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of premises infected with foot and mouth disease as a result of allowing animals to enter the West Midlands via Penrith, Longtown, Welshpool and Ross markets. [40]

  Mr. Morley
  The relatively widespread distribution of infected premises has been due to the movement of infected sheep through markets and the subsequent mixing and further sales through dealers and markets before 23 February. Without this widespread dissemination the number of infected premises would have been considerably smaller.

  No firm estimates have been made of the number of infected premises that would have occurred if certain markets had not been held during mid-February. However, from analysis of the first 112 infected farms in the area, the

  279W
  breakdown of source of infection in the Hereford epidemiological group, comprising Herefordshire, the Severn Valley and the Forest of Dean is as follows:

  Hereford

  Infected animals

  7

  Local1

  82

  Other inanimate object

  2

  Person

  8

  Under investigation

  13

  Total

  112

  1 Source of infection within 3 km; exact source unclear

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many rural tourism businesses have(a) applied for and (b) been granted relief from business rates in connection with the impact of foot and mouth disease. [133]

  Alun Michael
  The data provided by the local authorities which administer the rate relief scheme do not distinguish between different classes of business, so the question cannot be answered in precisely the terms of the question. The background is that local authorities have powers to grant rate relief to businesses suffering financial hardship. Normally, the Government meet 75 per cent. of the cost of this and authorities the remaining 25 per cent., but in order to alleviate the problems of foot and mouth disease, central Government agreed to pay 95 per cent. of the cost: to 151 rural authorities; for the three months April—June; and for the properties with a rateable value (RV) of £12,000 or less.

  The Local Government Association has provided us with the results of the most recent survey, which showed that 46 worst affected local authorities, have received 4,832 applications for rate relief. 41 authorities have so far approved 1,589 cases; in many cases local authorities are still considering applications. Many are also deferring ratepayers' payments. In conjunction with colleagues in other Government Departments, I shall be monitoring the take-up of this scheme.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what progress she has made in publishing the location of each foot and mouth disease pyre and burial site in the UK; [793]

  (2) how many pyre sites there are in each county in the UK; from how many ash has been removed; and how many have been completely restored. [792]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on pyre and burial sites is in the process of being collated, cross-checked and validated. In the meantime, arrangements are being made for the safe removal and disposal of ash from those sites where it has not been possible to bury it on site. Information on the number of pyre sites restored is not available.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) cattle and (b) sheep, on how many farms, in each county of England have been slaughtered because they were contiguous to infected premises but where the infected premises later tested negative. [796]
  280W
  Mr. Morley
  The following table shows the numbers of cattle and sheep slaughtered on premises which are contiguous to infected premises in counties in England and where the infected premises have had negative sample results.

  County

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Premises with cattle and/or sheep

  Avon

  1,291

  829

  12

  Cheshire

  386

  370

  6

  Cleveland

  202

  206

  1

  Cornwall

  35

  0

  1

  Cumbria

  3,405

  19,738

  52

  Derbyshire

  46

  151

  3

  Devonshire

  9,551

  44,176

  122

  Durham

  2,278

  7,364

  26

  Gloucestershire

  5,512

  21,401

  123

  Hereford and Worcester

  4.415

  31,338

  114

  Kent

  59

  701

  3

  Lancashire

  811

  3,210

  27

  Leicestershire

  38

  345

  2

  North Yorkshire

  1,962

  3,621

  25

  Northumberland

  3,336

  33,545

  40

  Shropshire

  939

  3,059

  18

  Staffordshire

  976

  2,253

  20

  Wiltshire

  0

  823

  3

  England

  35,242

  173,130

  598

  A negative test-result does not necessarily mean that disease was not present and does not change the status of an infected premises

  Homeopathic Remedies (Foot and Mouth)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she intends to commission to establish the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, including borax, in relation to the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [1424]

  Mr. Morley
  Products that are presented for the treatment or prevention of disease in animals, or which have that function must be authorised under the terms of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994 before they can be legally sold or supplied in the United Kingdom. This ensures that such products are properly assessed and are demonstrated as being safe, of consistent good quality and effective when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The manufacturer of any such products may apply for such authorisation. No such application has been made for Borax. The onus for providing evidence that supports the need for research into the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, including Borax, against foot and mouth disease lies with the manufacturer.

  Foot and Mouth (Cheese Production)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations were received by her Department and by its predecessor Department about the impact of foot and mouth restrictions on the use of unpasteurised milk for specialist cheese production; what the scientific basis was for restricting this use of unpasteurised milk; and what response she has made. [1176]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: The Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food received a number of representations on the manufacture and

  281W
  handling of unpasteurised cheese. My noble Friend the then Minister of State, Baroness Hayman, responded to those representations as the Minister responsible for animal health.

  Foot and mouth disease virus can be excreted in milk before animals show clinical signs of the disease. Unpasteurised milk is therefore a potent source of infection, and any milk produced in an Infected Area is required to be heat treated.

  Carcase Disposal (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to compensate individual households and communities adversely affected by the Druridge Bay burning site and the Widdrington carcase disposal site in Northumberland. [1175]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: There is no statutory provision for compensation for any inconvenience caused to residents by the disposal of animal carcases.

  Departmental Restructuring
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many civil servants were employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in April 2001; and how many will be employed by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs once departmental restructuring is completed. [1468]

  Mr. Morley
  In April 2001 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food employed 11,118 civil servants, including staff in its agencies. It is anticipated that there will be 12,190 employed in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but this figure will be subject to change once the departmental restructuring is completed.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role nuclear power will play in the UK's climate change strategy; and if she will make a statement. [837]

  Mr. Meacher
  Nuclear power plays a role in helping the UK to meet our climate change targets. The Government believe that existing nuclear power stations should continue to contribute to the electricity supply and to the reduction of emissions, as long as they can do so to the high safety and environmental standards that are currently observed.

  Nuclear output is however expected to decline from around 2005 onwards, as the older stations begin to close. Electricity generation is therefore likely to become more carbon-intensive unless other low or zero carbon energy sources can be developed. There are currently no proposals for new nuclear power stations in the UK, largely due to nuclear's inability to compete on cost grounds with other types of generation. Issues related to waste disposal and public acceptability would also need to be resolved before industry put forward any proposals for approval. The Government will shortly be publishing a consultation document on radioactive waste policy.
  282W
  Internationally, the industry is addressing disposal issues through its research and development programmes into current and future technology, recognising that they need to be addressed effectively if nuclear power is to remain an option in the future.

  The Government announced on 25 June that the performance and innovation unit is undertaking a review of the longer term, strategic issues, including those of climate change, surrounding energy policy within the context of ensuring secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies at competitive prices.

  Livestock Blood Tests
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if livestock owners whose animals are being blood-tested by her Department's vets and officials will be allowed to keep a part of samples taken. [346]

  Mr. Morley
  No. Samples of blood taken for testing are potentially contaminated with foot and mouth disease virus, which is a specified pathogen controlled under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 (SAPO). No one may possess a specified animal pathogen or material which contains a specified pathogen unless they are licensed to do so under SAPO and have the necessary facilities to ensure the safe containment of the pathogen concerned in relation to the risk it poses.

  Farmers (Internet)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of livestock farmers in England who have access to the internet. [1490]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: The latest information available was collected in April and May 2000 as part of a research study into "MAFF's Role in E-Business". At that time the level of internet use among livestock farmers in the survey was estimated to be between 40 and 45 per cent. Further details of the survey results are available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/ebus/maffrole/annexa.htm.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications there have been for home energy efficiency scheme grants since its inception; and how many were successful. [1801]

  Mr. Meacher
  The new home energy efficiency scheme (HEES) for England was launched on 1 June 2000.

  Applications for grant are mainly made over the telephone. In the period 1 June 2000 to 30 June 2001, 388,410 householders applied, of whom, 313,623 or 80 per cent. were successful.

  The separate schemes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the respective Parliament or Assemblies.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to meet her counterparts in the devolved administrations to discuss the adoption of a common definition of fuel poverty. [1812]

  Mr. Meacher
  We intend to consider this, and the other issues raised during consultation on the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, within the Inter-Ministerial Group on Fuel Poverty whose members include representatives from the devolved Administrations.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the final fuel poverty strategy required by the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 will be published. [1811]

  Mr. Meacher
  Our aim is to publish the final version of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy in the autumn.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many qualified veterinary surgeons were employed by the state veterinary service in each year since 1979. [1983]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the state veterinary service at 1 January each year since 1979, is given in the table. The hon. Member may wish to know that since this date the state veterinary service has changed several times. The Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL), which previously formed part of the state veterinary service, became the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) in April 1990. The CVL figures are incorporated in this return for the years 1 January 1980 to 1 January 1990. From 1990 the figures do not include the CVL. The Veterinary Investigation Service became part of the VLA on 1 October 1995 and is not included in these figures from that date. In 2000, there were 99 veterinarians employed by VLA. Much of the information presented here previously appeared on 27 February 1997,Official Report, columns 323–24W.

  Of the 286 full-time equivalent veterinarians employed by the state veterinary service, 220 are employed as field veterinary officers. The work of these officers is supplemented by about 100 Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs) from the private sector in normal times.

  Year

  Number of vets

  1979

  597.5

  1980

  580.5

  1981

  563.5

  1982

  557.0

  1983

  549.0

  1984

  539.5

  1985

  527.5

  1986

  506.5

  1987

  464.5

  1988

  444.5

  1989

  422.0

  1990

  430.5

  1991

  408.0

  1992

  414.5

  1993

  420.0

  1994

  408.3

  1995

  394.5

  1996

  301.2

  284W

  Year

  Number of vets

  1997

  289.5

  1998

  302.0

  1999

  283.0

  2000

  284.0

  2001

  286.0

  Marsh Report
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to implement the recommendations of the Marsh report into the veterinary profession's right to dispense prescription-only medicines. [1984]

  Mr. Morley
  The then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), appointed a group under the chairmanship of Professor Sir John Marsh CBE to carry out an independent review of dispensing by veterinary surgeons as part of the Government's Action Plan for Farming. Its terms of reference were to review the procedures by which prescription only medicines (POMs) for veterinary use are classified and sold in the United Kingdom and the impact current practices may be having on availability and prices, and to make recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by 31 March 2001.

  The chairman presented the Group's report to the then Minister on 16 March 2001 and it was published on 11 May. The Government's draft response to the report is under consideration and, in due course, will be circulated for comment to interested organisations and individuals before consideration is given to the implementation of any of the recommendations contained in the report.

HEALTH

  Personal Social Services
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure consistency of charges among local authorities for non-residential personal social services. [262]

  Jacqui Smith
  We published draft guidance on fairer charging policies for non-residential social services on 3 January 2001. Following consultation, we plan to issue final guidance later this summer.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residental care homes in(a) the county of Essex and (b) the boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea were (i) publicly-owned and (ii) privately-owned in each year from 1995 to 2000 inclusive. [1066]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  285W

  Number of local authority staffed and independent residential care homes in Essex, Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea local authorities, 1995 to 2000

  Number

  Essex1

  Thurrock

  Southend-on-Sea

  As at 31 March

  LA homes2

  Independent homes3

  LA Homes2

  Independent homes3

  LA homes2

  Independent homes3

  1995

  67

  464

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1996

  66

  500

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1997

  68

  629

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1998

  61

  583

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1999

  47

  411

  5

  28

  7

  122

  2000

  45

  378

  3

  28

  6

  120

  1 Information is presented for the former county of Essex (ie prior to re-organisation) for 1995 to 1998

  2 Local authority staffed homes

  3 Consists of voluntary, private, dual registered and small homes

  4 Not available as areas did not exist until 1 April 1998

  Source:

  RA form A, RAC

  NHS Staff Numbers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors left service in the NHS in the last(a) two and (b) four years. [1610]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not collected on the number of hospital doctors who leave the National Health Service. The number of unrestricted principals or equivalents (who most people will have as their general practitioner) who left the NHS for any reason between 1996–97 and 1999–2000 is in the table. Doctors who 'left' include resignations, retirements and short-term career breaks. Some of these doctors will 'rejoin' the NHS at a later date.

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents who left the NHS in England 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  (headcount)

  Leavers

  1996–97

  1,058

  1997–98

  1,040

  1998–99

  1,030

  1999–2000

  1,098

  Notes:

  1. Unrestricted principals and equivalents includes general medical service unrestricted principals, personal medical service contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs

  2. Leaver data refer to those UPEs leaving between 1 October and 30 September

  3. Leavers are defined as those UPEs who were employed in a particular census but were not registered in the following census. We do not know why these doctors left.

  Source:

  General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Care Home Beds
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care home beds there(a) are and (b) were in May 1997 in England. [1608]

  Jacqui Smith
  The numbers of residential care and nursing care home beds at 31 March 2000 and 31 March 1997 are shown in the table.

  Number of residential and nursing care home beds in England, 1997 and 2000—as at 31 March

  Residential care

  Nursing care

  1997

  338,140

  196,269

  2000

  345,578

  193,330

  Source:

  Department of Health Annual Statistical returns

  Nursing Home Fees
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons his Department did not meet the deadline of December 1999 set out in circulars on 11 August 1999 (Health Service Circular 1999/180 and Local Authority Circular (99) 30) to give final advice on the lawful way to charge nursing home fees; and what factors underlay the delays in issuing this advice prior to March 2001. [1836]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health Service Circular 1999/180: Local Authority Circular (99)30 said that the Department would:"aim to issue any new guidance later this year [1999]".

  New continuing care guidance for the National Health Service and social services (HSC2001/015: LAC (2001)18) was issued on 28 June. It replaced nine pieces of guidance on continuing care, stretching back to 1992.

  Autism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent change in the incidence of autism. [2248]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of children identified as having autism is increasing. Although the full explanation for this increase is not clear, it is at least in part due to improvement in diagnosis by the clinical professions, including child mental health specialists and community paediatricians.

  The Department has recently asked the Medical Research Council to conduct a detailed review of the current state of knowledge about autism and to suggest possible areas for further research. The aim is to obtain a clear and comprehensive picture of what is currently known about the incidence, prevalence and causes of autism and how strong the evidence is which underpins that knowledge.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce tests for children at an early age to detect autism. [2249]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have recently announced the establishment of a working party to develop new guidance on how the needs of young disabled children aged 0–2 and their families can be met. This guidance, which will
  287W
  be issued jointly by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health will cover issues such as early diagnosis, intervention and support.

  A group chaired by Professor Ann Le Couteur, the National Initiative on Autism, is looking at diagnosis and early interventions in autism. This is being funded by the National Autistic Society. We will consider what, if any, further action needs to be taken in the light of the group's report.

  A number of diagnostic tools have been developed in recent years. These include the diagnostic interview for social and communication disorders whose further development is being led by the National Autistic Society.

  Registered Blind People
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered blind people there are in the United Kingdom; and how many have assistance animals. [1725]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department receives returns from all local authorities in England on the numbers of blind and partially sighted people registered with local authority social services departments. The latest figures for the year ending 31 March 2000 show 157,820 registered blind people in England.

  There are 4,763 blind and partially sighted people in the United Kingdom who are guide dog owners. Each year 700 people receive training for new or replacement guide dogs. It is not known how many of these people are registered blind.

  Data for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Assemblies.

  "Golden Hello" Payments
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the golden hello payments to general practitioners joining the NHS to come into effect; and if he will make a statement. [11986]

  Mr. Hutton
  All doctors taking up a first post as a principal, assistant or salaried general medical services general practitioner or as a personal medical services performer on or after 1 April 2001 are or will be eligible for payments under the "golden hello" scheme. The detailed implementation of the scheme is subject to consultation with the profession, which is in progress.

  We aim to conclude consultation in time to enable payments to be made to all eligible doctors in September.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cash releasing efficiency savings procedure within the NHS. [11951]

  Mr. Hutton
  As set out in the NHS Plan we have introduced a new approach to setting efficiency targets for the National Health Service. In the past efficiency targets were imposed on the NHS without an analysis of what is realistic.
  288W
  The new approach to efficiency targets does not permit a trade off between cost and quality. The cost of providing care in trusts providing a high quality service is the benchmark for the whole of the NHS with all trusts expected to reach this level within five years.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS dentists in Yeovil constituency are accepting new adult NHS patients; and if he will make a statement; [1376]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the steps taken by Somerset health authority to deal with the shortage of NHS dentistry in the Yeovil constituency; and if he will make a statement. [1377]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: Somerset health authority has prepared a dental access plan to ensure that all residents who wish to can access a National Health Service dentist within a reasonable time and distance by September 2001. The plan has been subject to external assessment and the health authority has been assessed as low risk in terms of its ability to meet its access targets.

  No dentists in the Yeovil constituency are currently accepting new adult NHS patients. Local availability of NHS dentistry changes frequently. Dentists can open and close lists at short notice. The hon. Member's constituents can access emergency NHS treatment through the Yeovil Dental Access Centre or the emergency dental service.

  Health Care
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the plans of his Department to utilise the private sector to deliver health care. [1636]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: We believe unequivocally in the principle that the National Health Service should provide care to all, free at the point of use, regardless of ability to pay.

  The areas where we will seek to use private sector expertise and finance, to help deliver care more quickly, may include: first, using spare capacity in private sector hospitals to perform operations on NHS patients; secondly, getting private sector management to run some of the new stand-alone surgery centres our manifesto commits us to building; thirdly, extending the private finance initiative and public private partnerships beyond the hospital sector into primary care, social services and the provision of imaging and laboratory equipment; and fourthly, using private sector management expertise such as information technology systems.

  East Somerset NHS Trust
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in East Somerset NHS Trust have been waiting more than(a) three, (b) six, (c) nine, (d) 12, (e) 18, (f) 24, (g) 30 aid (h) 36 months for an (i) in-patient operation and (ii) out-patient appointment; and if he will make a statement. [1384]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: Information on hospital waiting times is published quarterly by the Department of Health in "Hospital

  289W
  Waiting List Statistics: England" and "Waiting Times for First Outpatient Appointments in England: Detailed Statistics". This information is also available on the Department's web site at www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes.

  The numbers of patients waiting for in-patient or day case treatment at East Somerset National Health Service Trust on 31 March 2001 were as follows:

  Patients waiting for admission by number of months waiting

  Months

  Number

  0–2

  1,089

  3–5

  538

  6–11

  314

  12–17

  2

  18+

  0

  Total

  1,943

  These figures show a drop of 6 per cent. in the total numbers waiting for treatment compared with 31 March 2000.

  The number of general practitioner written referral requests seen as a first out-patients in Quarter 4 (1 January–31 March 2001) were:

  Of those GP referral requests seen, the number who waited (in weeks)

  Weeks

  Number

  0-less than 4

  2,251

  4-less than 13

  2,267

  13-less than 26

  758

  26+

  208

  Total

  5,484

  Information on the total number of patients waiting for a first out-patient appointment on a given date is not collected but the numbers of people waiting over 13 weeks and 26 weeks are. At East Somerset NHS Trust 369 patients had been waiting over 13 weeks and 97 had been waiting over 26 weeks at 31 March 2001. This represents a drop of 51.6 per cent. and 62.3 per cent. respectively compared with the numbers waiting at 31 March 2000.

  Nursing Home Residents (Attendance Allowance)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if residents of nursing homes receiving Attendance Allowance will receive that allowance at the same rate after the introduction of the Government's planned contributions to nursing care. [2028]

  Jacqui Smith
  The rate of benefit currently paid to nursing home residents in receipt of Attendance Allowance or disability living allowance will not be affected by our plans to introduce free nursing care.

  Heath Visitors
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which return-to-nursing course covers health visitors. [2486]

  Mr. Hutton
  The English National Board Return to Practice—Part 11 is a specific return to practice course for health visitors. Work force development 290W
  confederations are responsible for the commissioning of return to practice courses and will be able to provide further information on where courses are available. A list of the work force development confederations is available in the Library.

  NHS Complaints Procedure
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report on the NHS complaints procedure produced by York Health Economics Consortium; for what reasons it is a confidential report; and what the expected time scale and action plan is for implementing changes to the complaints procedure. [1985]

  Ms Blears
  We will be publishing the report of the evaluation of the National Health Service complaints procedure in the near future. The report is not confidential. We intend to consult widely on the options for change, following publication of the evaluation report, with a view to implementing a reformed procedure before April 2003.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sixth Form Education
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which learning and skills councils have developed policies on the future of sixth form education. [871]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Responsibility for policy on the future of sixth form education lies with the Government, not with individual local offices of the Learning and Skills Council.

  AS-Level
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about the future of the AS-level. [884]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  It is too soon to make any statement about the future of the AS-level. The Secretary of State has asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to review the delivery of advanced level qualifications in general. An interim report is due by the middle of July.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support she will give to schools to help them deal with disruptive pupils. [885]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today to the hon. Member of Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).

  Pupil behaviour is a major issue that will be included in a forthcoming White paper. We are also keeping the exclusions process under regular review.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on discipline in schools. [887]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
  291W
  Pupil behaviour is a major issue that will be included in a forthcoming White Paper. We are also keeping the exclusions process under regular review.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has arranged with Ofsted to discuss standards of discipline in schools. [901]

  Mr. Timms
  We meet Ofsted regularly. Standards of discipline and behaviour in schools are important aspects of school standards, and an important part of continuing discussions with Ofsted.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to introduce proposals designed to improve discipline in schools. [872]

  Mr. Timms
  We strongly support heads in maintaining order in schools, including using exclusion where necessary. We are providing over 1,000 learning support units and 4,000 learning mentors to support teachers in maintaining order. We will be consulting on a wider use of parenting orders to ensure that parents take responsibility for their children's behaviour at school.

  Key Stage 3
  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what priority she will give to raising standards at Key Stage 3. [888]

  Mr. Timms
  Our new Key Stage 3 strategy aims to help schools raise standards in secondary education, building on the successful literacy and numeracy primary strategies and the work from our pilot that started in 205 schools in autumn 2000. From this September, we will be phasing in the strategy with the English and mathematics strands, to be followed by science, teaching and learning in the foundation subjects (TLF) and ICT.

  Lifelong Learning
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her plans are for expanding resources for lifelong education. [889]

  Margaret Hodge
  Total expenditure by my Department on lifelong learning will increase from £11.6 billion in 2000–01 to £14.7 billion in 2003704, an increase of 18 per cent. in real terms. We are also seeking to expand the investment made by individuals and employers in lifelong learning through Individual Learning Accounts and other measures. This is against a background of a forecast increase in total Government expenditure on education in the UK from 4.8 per cent. to 5.3 per cent. of GDP over the same period.

  IT Skills (Older People)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to promote IT skills for older people to increase their work and leisure potential. [890]

  John Healey
  The Department leads on a range of measures to promote IT skills for everyone including older people, such as UK online centres, learndirect, and Wired-up Communities. This is part of our activity to encourage lifelong learning for all, to help close the digital divide, to increase peoples' employability, and to use new technologies to enrich peoples' lives.

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her plans to widen participation in higher education. [891]

  Margaret Hodge
  Widening participation is a key goal for this Government We want half of all young people to have the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the end of the decade. In this spending review the Higher Education Funding Council for England have allocated £550 million to widen participation over the next three years. In addition the Excellence Challenge will put £90 million into schools and further education colleges. We shall continue to consider what further steps we need to take to tackle the barriers that inhibit the widening of participation in higher education.

  School Administration
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills; what meetings she(a) has had and (b) plans to have with the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers to discuss the level of administration in schools. [892]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I continue to meet regularly with heads' and teachers' representatives to discuss a wide range of subjects. On 2 July, we met representatives of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers and other teacher and headteacher associations to take stock of progress on the independent study of teacher workload.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has had with the Secondary Heads Association to discuss the level of administration in schools. [874]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I continue to meet regularly with heads' and teachers' representatives to discuss a wide range of subjects. On 2 July, we met representatives of the Secondary Heads Association and other teacher associations to take stock of progress on the independent study of teacher workload.

  Workplace Communications
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for the improvement of workplace communications through the development of the union learning fund. [893]

  John Healey
  We have been greatly encouraged by the response to the union learning fund, including projects supporting basic skills, English as a second language and the development of IT learning centres. Union learning representatives, who communicate with employees, employers and training providers to promote learning in the workplace, have made an important contribution to improving workplace communications. The Government are currently consulting on giving statutory backing to union learning representatives to give them formal recognition and to build up their numbers through the union learning fund.

  Teacher Morale
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action is being taken to improve teacher morale. [894]

  Mr. Timms
  A broad range of action being taken will help to improve teacher morale. These include improvements in the pay, status and working conditions of teachers, backed by real-terms increases in funding for schools and measures giving greater automony to successful schools and greater support for schools in more challenging circumstances.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she last met representatives of the National Union of Teachers to discuss teacher morale. [896]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the National Union of Teachers, together with representatives of all the main teacher unions, on 2 May and discussed issues related to teacher morale and the setting up of an independent study into teachers' workloads.

  Teachers (Working Conditions)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she has to encourage more suitable individuals into teaching, with special reference to improving working conditions. [897]

  Mr. Timms
  A range of measures is in place to encourage suitable people into teaching. Improved funding for schools and increased starting salaries have helped to bring about an extra 12,600 teachers in maintained schools in England between January 1998 and January 2001. But greater expectations and extra resources in the system have created more teaching posts and vacancies still exist. Training bursaries worth £6,000 have been introduced to attract more graduates into teaching, with new style golden hellos, of £4,000 for those who go on to teach in shortage subjects. London weighting allowances have been lifted by 30 per cent and recruitment and retention allowances of up to £5,085 are now available to schools. We will also attract experienced teachers back to the profession and welcome back bonuses of between £2,000 and £4,000 are planned. These measures are set against a backdrop of increasing funding for schools, which has risen by £540 per pupil since 1997, and more resources for increasing the numbers of teaching assistants and improving working conditions generally. Grants have been made available to schools, through local education authorities to ensure that all school staff have better working conditions and ready access to the equipment they need to work effectively. The Government have invested more than £5 billion in school buildings since 1997, and £7,8 billion in England over the next three years is the biggest schools capital spending programme in decades.

  School Finance
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if it is her policy to introduce a new system of financing schools in 2002–03. [898]
  294W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government are currently undertaking a review of local government funding. As part of that wider review we are working with local government and schools partners on the proposals in the September 2000 Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" for a new LEA and school funding system. The Government have not yet decided on the timing or the final shape of any changes to the local government grant distribution system.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to recruit more teachers. [899]

  Mr. Timms
  Our recruitment and retention measures have already secured more teachers than for over a decade and the number of trainee teachers has risen for the first time in eight years. We have pledged at least 10,000 extra teachers by 2006.

  To achieve this, we have announced a teacher retention and recruitment fund to support schools in areas where there are difficulties; an extension to English of the £4,000 golden hellos for newly-qualified teachers of shortage subjects; an expansion of the Graduate Teacher Programme; and new courses for those returning to teaching. We are also proposing a welcome back bonus for people returning to teaching this year and a scheme to help pay off, over time, the student loans of new teachers in shortage subjects who commit themselves to a career in the maintained sector.

  Further and Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will review the arrangements in England and Wales for payment of tuition fees and student loans in further and higher education. [900]

  Margaret Hodge
  The student support arrangements for higher education in England and Wales are kept constantly under review. As announced in the recent "Opportunity for All" White Paper, we are currently reviewing the financial support available for learners in further education and we will make an announcement on this soon.

  Pupil Funding (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will set a timetable to bring funding per pupil in Worcestershire closer to the English average; and if she will make a statement. [903]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are currently undertaking a review of local government funding. As part of that wider review we are working with local government and schools partners on the proposals for a new LEA and school funding system. We want that system to ensure funding better matches the separate responsibilities of local authorities and schools and reflects fairly, on the basis of up to date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country. The Government have not yet decided on the timing or the final shape of any changes to local government grant distribution system.

  Local Education Authority Funding Formula
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessments she has made of the ability of the local education authority funding formula to reflect need and costs. [904]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are currently undertaking a review of local government funding. As part of that wider review we are working with local government and schools partners on the proposals for a new LEA and school funding system. We aim to create a simpler, more transparent and fairer formula for distributing education funding to authorities that better reflects the separate responsibilities of LEAs and schools and the needs of their pupils.

  School Admissions
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her proposals to change policy on school admissions. [905]

  Mr. Timms
  We are considering whether changes to the school admissions framework should be proposed, but no decisions have been made yet.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice she gives to parents of children who have applied to go to a particular school, failed to gain a place, failed at an appeal and are due to attend a school they did not choose. [895]

  Mr. Timms
  Recent research into secondary school admissions shows that 96 per cent. of parents are offered a place at a school for which they have expressed a preference and that 85 per cent. are offered a place at their favourite school. But we cannot guarantee that every parent will secure a place for their child in their favourite school. Where they do not, they have a right of appeal. During 1999–2000, the latest year for which figures are available, 34 per cent. of all appeals were decided in parents' favour. Parents can ask for their child to stay on a waiting list for their favourite school, although the school is not obliged to keep one.

  Numeracy and Literacy Targets
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets for numeracy and literacy the Government will set for the next school year. [906]

  Mr. Timms
  We remain committed to the 2002 targets we set in 1997 of 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieving the expected standard in literacy and 75 per cent. in numeracy at Key Stage 2. The literacy and numeracy strategies are clearly raising standards in primary schools. Since 1998 there has been a 10 per cent. point improvement in the English results from 65 per cent. to 75 per cent., and in mathematics a 13 per cent. point improvement from 59 per cent. to 72 per cent.

  Adult Basic Skills
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the levels of basic skills among adults. [907]

  John Healey
  The latest wide-scale assessment of the level of basic skills among adults was carried out in 1996 as part of the international Adult Literacy Survey. This 296W
  found that around 20 per cent. of adults in Great Britain performed at the lowest of five levels of literacy skill. Lord Moser drew upon this in his report, "A Fresh Start", to estimate that up to seven million adults have difficulties with literacy and perhaps more with numeracy.

  The Government launched their strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills on 1 March this year. As part of our strategy we intend to collect better information on the scale of basic skills need, including through pathfinder projects already established in the nine English regions and through a national survey.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received on the effect the introduction of tuition fees has had on applications for, and recruitment to, higher education courses from areas with high levels of social deprivation. [908]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend receives many representations about a wide range of higher education issues, including the effects of the introduction of student contributions to tuition fees. There is no evidence to date that their introduction has had any demonstrable effect on applications by, and recruitment of, students from the three lowest socio-economic groups.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies for teachers in Leicestershire are anticipated for the start of the school year in September. [879]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not collect data on anticipated vacancies in schools. Information on the number of teacher vacancies is collected once a year in January as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. In January 2001, Leicestershire LEA recorded 30 teacher vacancies.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time teaching vacancies there are in (i) secondary, (ii) primary and (iii) special schools in Surrey; and if she will make a statement. [2415]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2001 the numbers of vacancies for full-time teachers in maintained schools, reported by Surrey local authority, were as follows:

  Number of vacancies

  Secondary

  62

  Primary

  25

  Special

  17

  Information on part-time vacancies is not collected centrally.

  Teacher Recruitment and Retention
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to improve teacher recruitment and retention; and if she will make a statement. [880]
  297W
  Mr. Timms
  The number of teachers in maintained schools in England has risen by more than 11,000 since 1997. We have pledged a further increase of at least 10,000 by 2006. Various incentives are in place, and applications for postgraduate teacher training are rising. We have also proposed a welcome back bonus for returners to teaching this year and writing off, over time, the student loans of new teachers of shortage subjects in maintained schools.

  Early Years Places
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason Somerset has a lower proportion of three-year-olds in free early years places than the average figure for England; and if she will make a statement. [1385]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: Our commitment is to provide every three-year-old, whose parents want one, with a free nursery education place by September 2004. Local education authorities have chosen to make different levels of provision in the past. They have also been influenced by the fact that allocations of places, funded directly by the Government through the nursery education grant, were made on the basis of social disadvantage.

  The Government are making available over £2 million to provide Somerset with 1,704 early education places for its three-year-olds. We are the first Government to make such funding specifically available.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish a table showing the percentage of three-year-olds with free nursery places in each education authority in England in each of the years 1998–99 to 2003–04 (planned); and if she will make a statement on her plans for increasing provision of free places for three-year-olds. [1632]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: We are committed to providing all three-year-olds, whose parents want one, with a free nursery education place by September 2004. Estimates of the percentage of three-year-olds already provided with a place in each area are not available to the Department, although local authorities may choose to make their own estimates based on local data.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to reduce the differentials in levels of funding support provided through SSAs. [1866]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: The Government are currently undertaking a review of local government funding. As part of that wider review we have set up two working groups, with local government and schools partners, to develop proposals for a new LEA and school funding system. We aim to create a simpler and more transparent formula for distributing education funding to authorities that reflects fairly, on the basis of up to date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what analysis her Department has made of the impact of education maintenance allowances on staying-on rates post-16; [1956]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the education maintenance allowance pilots. [1958]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The education maintenance allowance pilots now cover around 30 per cent. of the country and have reached over 80,000 young people. An extensive three-year evaluation programme is under way, with both quantitative and qualitative research, including interviews with 20,000 young people. We published the first evaluation reports in March.

  Results from the first year of the pilot have shown an increased participation among the target group of 5 percentage points. Early anecdotal evidence suggests that the young people who receive an EMA appreciate the independence this affords them and they benefit from the experience of managing their own money.

  Exam Marking
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were employed in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 to mark A-level papers; and how many people have been employed this year to mark (i) AS-levels and (ii) A-levels. [1961]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The number of examiners recruited by the awarding bodies at advanced level over the period in question was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1999

  7,000

  2000

  7,000

  2001

  14,000

  2001 is a special year, as it is the last year for the old style A-levels and the first year for the new AS examinations. This transitional situation is reflected in an increase in the number of examiners recruited, the total comprising 7,000 for A-levels and 7,000 for AS-levels.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to enable schools to fund more programmes to tackle drug abuse. [2088]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Funding to support drug, alcohol and tobacco education will rise from £14.5 million in 2001–02 to £15.5 million in 2002–03 and £17.5 million in 2003–04. This funding will improve the quality and coverage of drug education programmes in schools, provide funding for every school to have access to an LEA drug adviser and will fund drug education training for teachers and Connexions advisers. In addition to this specific funding, schools will receive £15 million in 2001–02 to support personal, social and health education and citizenship, which they can choose to spend on programmes to tackle drug misuse.

  Teachers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason newly qualified teachers(a) who trained and qualified in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and (b) from countries within the European Economic Area are allowed to teach in maintained schools in England without having to sit the national numeracy test. [2141]

  Mr. Timms
  The requirements for achieving Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not include passing a national numeracy test. That is a matter for the devolved Administrations of those countries to decide.

  Teachers who are nationals of other countries within the European Economic Area (EEA) are entitled to be awarded QTS in this country on the basis of teaching qualification status recognised elsewhere in the EEA. Similarly, those teachers would not have to pass a numeracy test to teach in this country.

  School Sport
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will make a statement on the amount of time dedicated to sport in schools each week; [2142]

  (2) what plans she has to increase the amount of time given to sport in schools. [2143]

  Mr. Timms
  The National Curriculum for Physical Education has an aspiration that all pupils should receive two hours of physical activity a week. Officials are considering with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport how we could assist schools in delivering a two-hour entitlement to all children, as set out by the Prime Minister on 11 January this year. This commitment was included in our Green Paper, "Building on Success". We are also consulting with Ofsted, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, PE associations and teachers. The QCA have published examples of best practice on their

  School

  LEA

  Urdu

  Bengali

  Gujarati

  Hindi

  Chinese

  1

  Arden school

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  2

  Ashcombe school

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  3

  Bishop Heber county high school

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  4

  Bournemouth school

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  5

  Bullers Wood school

  London borough of Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  6

  Chatham grammar school for boys

  Medway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  7

  Clevedon community school

  North Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  8

  Cranford community high school

  London borough of Hounslow

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  9

  Dallam school

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Dartford grammar school

  Kent

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  11

  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson school

  London borough of Islington

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Gosforth high school

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Haydon school

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  14

  Hele's school

  City of Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  15

  Hockerill Anglo-European school

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  16

  Hummersknott school

  Darlington

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  Ian Ramsey CE school

  Stockton on Tees

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  Judgemeadow community college

  City of Leicester

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  19

  Katharine Lady Berkeleys school

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  20

  King Edward VII school

  Sheffield

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  Kingsthorpe community school

  Northamptonshire

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  22

  Levenshulme high school

  Manchester

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  23

  Little Lever school

  Bolton

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  24

  Lord Grey school

  Milton Keynes

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  25

  Lymm high school

  Warrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  26

  Millais school

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  27

  Monkseaton community high school

  North Tyneside

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  300W
  website, from schools that are already providing two hours or more PE and school sport. School sports co-ordinators, of which there will be 1,000 by 2004, are already working with families of schools linked to specialist sports colleges to help schools meet this entitlement.

  Bownham Park School, Stroud
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions Ministers from her Department have had with the adjudicator in connection with the timing of the announcement about closing Bownham Park School, Stroud; and if she will make a statement. [2226]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: Ministers from this Department have had no discussions with the adjudicator in connection with the timing of the announcement about closing Bownham Park School. Ministers were informed on 6 June that the Office of the Schools Adjudicator would be announcing its decision on 8 June. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator is independent of the Department and Ministers have no role to play in what decision the adjudicator makes on a particular proposal.

  Community Languages
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 36W, on community languages, if she will list those specialist language colleges which offer (a) Urdu, (b) Bengali, (c) Gujarati, (d) Hindi and (e) Chinese. [2356]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand that of the 99 specialist language colleges in operation as of September 2000, 46 offer one or more of the languages in question to an accredited level: Urdu (17), Bengali (10), Gujarati (7), Hindi (1) and Chine se (31). The names of the 46 schools are given in the following table.
  301W

  School

  LEA

  Urdu

  Bengali

  Gujarati

  Hindi

  Chinese

  28

  Montgomery high school

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  29

  Moseley school

  Birmingham

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  30

  Northgate high school

  Suffolk

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  31

  Oulder Hill community school

  Rochdale

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  Prince Henrys grammar school

  Leeds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  33

  Queen Mary's high school

  Walsall

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  34

  Royal grammar school

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  35

  Shireland language school

  Sandwell

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  36

  Sir Thomas Rich's school

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  37

  St. Edward's college

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  38

  Tavistock college

  Devon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  39

  The Harwich school

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  40

  The Holy Family school

  Bradford

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  The John Bentley school

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  42

  The Sir John Cass's Foundation and Rid Coat CE school

  Tower Hamlet

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  43

  Tile Hill Wood school

  Coventry

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  William Ellis school

  London borough of Camden

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  45

  Wolverhampton Girls' high school

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  46

  Woodbridge high school

  Redbridge

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Total

  17

  10

  7

  1

  31

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the cost to public funds to date of the regional cultural consortiums; and if she will make a statement. [69]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 15 June 2001]: The cost to date of the Regional Cultural Consortiums is as follows:

  Expenditure

  £

  1999–20001

  15,200

  2000–01

  210,796

  2001–02

  23,437

  1 The Regional Cultural Consortiums went established in October 1999

  2 Expenditure calculated to 22 June 2001

  The Consortiums also receive support from my Department's staff based within the Government offices in the regions. The Regional Development Agencies and the various regional agencies have all been encouraged to help with funding and other means of support.

  The Consortiums use their resources to support their strategic role in the regions and promote joint working with other regional partners in order to ensure that cultural and sporting interests make a significant contribution to economic development, regeneration and social inclusion in each region.

  Radio Licences
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list all applications for local radio licences which are under consideration by the Radio Authority, indicating when each was lodged. [72]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The following is a list of all applications for local radio licences which are currently under consideration by the Radio Authority:
  302W
  Local Analogue licences

  South and West Yorkshire regional—lodged: 6 February 2001

  Sixteen applications:

  The Arrow (Chrysalis Radio (Yorkshire) Ltd.)

  Century Yorkshire Ltd.

  Deja vu Radio (Oldies Radio (Yorkshire) Ltd.)

  Flair FM (White Rose Radio Ltd.)

  Flix Radio (Yorkshire) Ltd.

  Forever 106 (Forever Broadcasting (Yorkshire) Ltd.)

  Jazz FM Yorkshire Ltd.

  Nova 106 (Yorkshire Radio Enterprises Ltd.)

  106.2 The Rose (White Rose Regional Radio Ltd.)

  Route FM (Yorkshire Sound Ltd.)

  Saga Radio Ltd.

  Sunrise Radio (Yorkshire) (Bradford City Radio Ltd.)

  Variety FM (Radio Variety Ltd.)

  Y107 (Yorkshire Regional Radio Ltd.)

  Y-Radio (SMG Regional Radio Ltd.)

  Yorkshire FM Radio Ltd.

  Omagh and Enniskillen—lodged: 13 March 2001

  Four applications:

  Fast FM Ltd.

  Southwest Radio (Southwest FM Ltd.)

  Radio West FM (Radio West Ltd.)

  Westside 101 (Lisara Ltd.)

  Rugby—lodged: 10 April 2001

  Four applications:

  Fosseway Radio (Jet FM Ltd.)

  The Lion (Lion Radio Ltd.)

  Rugby FM (Rugby Broadcasting Company Ltd.)

  Rugby 1 (Rugby on Air Co. Ltd.)

  North London (current operator: London Greek Radio)—lodged: 8 May 2001

  Two applications:

  Fusion FM Ltd. (Di' Fusion)

  London Greek Radio Ltd.

  303W
  Thamesmead (current operator: Millennium FM)—lodged: 8 May 2001

  Three applications:

  Millennium FM Ltd.

  Starmela.co.uk Ltd.

  Unity FM Ltd.

  Stockport (current operator: Imagine FM)—lodged: 12 June 2001

  Three applications:

  Imagine FM Ltd.

  Stock FM Ltd.

  RAKA Asian Radio Ltd.

  Local Digital Multiplex licences

  Ayr—lodged: 24 April 2001

  Two applications:

  Score Digital Ltd.

  Switchdigital (Scotland) Ltd.

  Bournemouth—lodged: 15 May 2001

  One application:

  Now Digital Ltd.

  Dundee and Perth—lodged: 19 June 2001

  Two applications:

  Score Digital Ltd.

  Switchdigital (Scotland) Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to end the current restrictions on religious broadcasters wishing to apply for new radio licences. [78]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The White Paper "A New Future for Communications" announced that the Government will bring forward legislation to allow religious bodies to hold a local terrestrial digital licence. The White Paper also invited views on whether the restrictions on ownership of other terrestrial licences by religious bodies should be relaxed, and we are currently considering the responses. The Government will publish details of their proposals in a draft Bill as announced in the Queen's speech.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will state the income to date of the New Opportunities Fund together with cash disbursements made to projects. [113]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: At 31 May 2001, the New Opportunities Fund had received £814.9 million in income and committed £794.7 million to projects. £189.1 million had been made as cash disbursements to projects. A further £79.6 million in grants was awarded at the June Board meeting, and details of these will be announced in the near future.

  BBC Board of Governors
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure political neutrality in appointments to the BBC Board of Governors. [114]
  304W
  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Department for Culture, Media and Sport appointments follow the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which state that appointments should be governed by selection on merit and that political activity is not a consideration for appointment.

  The Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has for Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee to be celebrated in the regions; [128]

  (2) if she will make a statement on preparations for the celebration of Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [127]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 22 June 2001,Official Report, columns 7–9W.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are for the use of Lottery funds in relation to Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations. [126]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Voluntary organisations and local groups in the community will be able to apply through the cross-distributor Awards for All scheme for grants of between £500 and £5,000 for Jubilee-related projects. Projects must meet existing criteria and involve one or more of the Lottery good causes of the arts, sport, heritage, charities, health, education or the environment. Larger applications associated with the Jubilee will be considered by Lottery distributors if the project meets the criteria and timetable of an existing programme or scheme.

  BBC Chairman
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the timetable for lie appointment of the new Chairman of the BBC. [104]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: My Department has advertised the post for a new Chairman of the BBC, and the deadline for submission of applications is 9 July. The appointments process will follow the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the position will be filled once those processes have been completed and a suitable candidate has been identified.

  Arts Boards/Arts Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the number of employees(a) currently and (b) in May 1997 of each of the Regional Arts Boards and of the Arts Council of England. [75]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The number of full-time equivalent employees of each of the Regional Arts Boards and the Arts Council of England in May 1997 and June 2001 is set out as follows.
  305W

  Full-time equivalent employees

  May 1997

  June 2001

  Arts Council of England

  240.5

  205

  Regional Arts Board

  East England Arts

  41

  35.5

  East Midlands Arts

  36

  42

  London Arts

  44

  69

  North West Arts

  46

  53

  Northern Arts

  36

  38

  Southern Arts

  33

  39

  South East Arts

  29

  40.6

  South West Arts

  33

  39.5

  West Midlands Arts

  42

  45

  Yorkshire Arts

  40

  45.1

  Culture Online
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement about the future of Culture Online. [98]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Culture Online is a manifesto commitment and we remain committed to press ahead with the programme by the target date of 2002. We are in the final stages of the preparation of our business case for Culture Online and are currently considering the most appropriate way to establish the new organisation.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is her Department's policy towards the regional arts boards. [116]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Arts Council is due to report to me very shortly on its plans for reorganising the arts funding system in England and I am looking forward to discussing the proposals with it and other interested parties in more detail once I have received them.

  News Scheduling
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the scheduling of news bulletins on(a) independent television channels and (b) the BBC. [136]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Under the current arrangements, the scheduling of television news bulletins on independent television channels and the BBC is the responsibility of the Independent Television Commission and the BBC Governors, respectively. We set out in the Communications White Paper—A New Future for Communications (CM 5010)—our intention to include within the proposed new regulatory structure an obligation on public service broadcasters, including the BBC, to safeguard the provision of news and current affairs in peak time.

  Underwater Archaeological Sites
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to enhance the protection of underwater archaeological sites. [100]
  306W
  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Government are actively seeking a legislative mechanism to allow the transfer of responsibility for underwater archaeology to English Heritage at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime my Department will continue to support initiatives, such as the Nautical Archaeological Society's excellent training scheme, to raise awareness of the importance of our underwater cultural heritage and promote best practice in its protection, investigation and the public's enjoyment of it.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what legal discussions she has had regarding trade names and trade marks used by the New Millennium Experience Company. [77]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: I have had no legal discussions regarding trade names or trade marks used by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC).

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Football Association regarding the future development of Wembley Stadium. [2153]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had any discussions with the Football Association since coming to the Department.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future plans for Wembley Stadium. [2152]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 37W.

  Sponsorship (Tobacco Companies)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions she has had with sponsors of Formula One regarding the proposed ban on tobacco advertising; and if she will make a statement; [141]

  (2) what discussions she has had with representatives of (a) Formula One and (b) other sports regarding the proposed ban on sponsorship by tobacco companies. [142]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: I have not yet had discussions with either sponsors or representatives of Formula One or representatives of other sports regarding the proposed ban on tobacco advertising.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what advice she has received about the proposed funding of the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester. [1341]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the adequacy of funding arrangements for the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester; [1340]
  307W
  (3) what representations she has received from Manchester 2002 Ltd. and Manchester city council about the funding of the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester. [1342]

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement about the 2002 Commonwealth Games. [2198]

  Tessa Jowell
  Pursuant to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, columns 78–79W, the figure for Manchester city council's contribution to the further funding for the 2002 Commonwealth Games is a further £45 million and not £35 million as given in the answer.

TREASURY

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals contribute to(a) defined benefit occupational pension schemes, (b) defined contribution occupational pension schemes, (c) group personal pension schemes, (d) additional voluntary contributions and (e) free-standing additional voluntary contributions. [1141]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest information available is in the table.

  million

  Type of pension provision

  Number of active members

  Defined benefit schemes

  8.8

  Defined contribution schemes

  1.1

  'Hybrid' schemes1

  0.3

  Group Personal Pensions

  1.4

  Additional Voluntary Contributions

  0.9

  Free Standing Additional Voluntary Contributions

  1.4

  1 Mixed defined benefit/defined contribution

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to nearest 0.1 million

  2. Active members are those currently accruing pension rights

  3. The information on occupational pension schemes is drawn from the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes (1995). The number of members will include those whose scheme does not currently require member contributions. It is estimated that the number of members contributing are 8.2 million for defined benefit and 0.8 million for defined contribution schemes.

  4. The information on Group Personal Pensions is drawn from the New Earnings Survey (2000).

  5. The information for Additional Voluntary Contributions covers private sector schemes only.

  6. The information on Free Standing Additional Voluntary Contributions is drawn from Inland Revenue Statistics (2000). Individuals can have more than one Free Standing Additional Voluntary Contribution scheme.

  Employment Rates
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of people of working age(a) with
  308W
  disabilities, (b) aged over 50 years, (c) of ethnic minority background and (d) who are single parents, have been in employment for each of the last 10 years in (i) the UK, (ii) England, (iii) Somerset and (iv) Yeovil constituency; and if he will make a statement. [1389]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. David Laws, dated 4 July 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about various groups of people employed for last 10 years in UK, England, Somerset and Yeovil. I am replying in his absence. (1389)
  Estimates of the number of people in employment in the various groups that you requested are available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). It has not been possible to supply estimates for the Yeovil constituency in any of the tables as the sample size for this area would be too small to provide a reliable estimate.
  Table 1 below shows the proportions of disabled people of working age in employment, from spring 1998 to spring 2000, estimates are not available prior to this. Table 2 shows the proportion of people between 51 arid working age in employment from spring 1991 to spring 2000, however the regional breakdown is only available for the latest quarter. The proportion of the ethnic minority population of working age in employment is shown in Table 3 below. The sample size is too small to provide reliable estimates for the regional breakdown. Table 4 shows the proportion of lone parents of working age in employment. This table shows data for spring 1990 and then spring 1992 to spring 2000 as data for 1991 are not available on a consistent basis. Estimates for Somerset are not available from 1991 to 1999 and the sample size is too small to provide a reliable estimate for spring 2000.

  Table 1: Proportions of disabled people of working age1 in employment; spring 1998 to spring 2000; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  UK

  England

  Somerset

  Spring 1998

  43.1

  45.2

  60.3

  Spring 1999

  45.8

  47.8

  60.2

  Spring 2000

  46.4

  48.6

  53.2

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Proportion of people aged 51–59/64 years in employment; spring l991 to spring 2000; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  UK

  England

  Somerset

  Spring 1991

  63.4

  64.7

  1—

  Spring 1992

  61.9

  62.8

  1—

  Spring 1993

  60.4

  61.6

  1—

  Spring 1994

  61.2

  62.2

  1—

  Spring 1995

  61.6

  62.8

  1—

  Spring 1996

  62.2

  63.4

  1—

  Spring 1997

  62.7

  64.0

  1—

  Spring 1998

  63.8

  65.3

  1—

  Spring 1999

  64.8

  66.1

  1—

  Spring 2000

  65.6

  67.0

  68.8

  1 Data not available

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey
  309W

  Table 3: Proportion of the ethnic minority population of working age1 in employment; spring 1991 to spring 2000; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  UK

  England

  Somerset

  Spring 1991

  2—

  57.3

  2—

  Spring 1992

  54.8

  54.8

  3—

  Spring 1993

  52.7

  52.6

  3—

  Spring 1994

  51.4

  51.6

  3—

  Spring 1995

  52.5

  52.6

  3—

  Spring 1996

  53.5

  53.5

  3—

  Spring 1997

  56.5

  56.6

  3—

  Spring 1998

  56.4

  56.4

  3—

  Spring 1999

  56.2

  56.4

  3—

  Spring 2000

  57.5

  57.5

  3—

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 Data not available

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 4: Proportion of lone parents of working age1 in employment with dependent children; spring 1990 to spring 2000; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  UK

  England

  Somerset

  Spring 1990

  44.6

  45.1

  2—

  Spring 1992

  43.0

  43.5

  2—

  Spring 1993

  42.8

  43.4

  2—

  Spring 1994

  44.0

  44.3

  2—

  Spring 1995

  44.0

  44.4

  2—

  Spring 1996

  43.7

  43.8

  2—

  Spring 1997

  44.7

  45.4

  2—

  Spring 1998

  46.1

  46.6

  2—

  Spring 1999

  46.9

  47.1

  2—

  Spring 2000

  49.7

  50.5

  3—

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 Data not available

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the(a) male and (b) male and female working age population have been in (i) full-time employment and (ii) part-time or full-time employment in each year since 1975; and if he will make a statement. [1388]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. David Laws, dated 4 July 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the proportion of males and males and females in full and part-time employment since 1975 (1388). I am replying in his absence.
  Estimates of the proportion of the working age population in employment are available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The table below shows non-seasonally adjusted LFS estimates of the proportion of the working age population in employment and full-time employment from spring 1984 to spring 2000. Estimates for 1979 to 1983 are not available on a consistent basis and prior to this there is no LFS data available.
  310W

  Proportions of the working age1 population in employment and in full-time employment; United Kingdom; spring 1984 to spring 2000—not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage2

  All persons (male and female)

  Males

  Spring

  In full or part-time employment3

  In full-time4 employment

  In full or part-time employment3

  In full-time4 employment

  1984

  68.3

  55.0

  77.4

  74.7

  1985

  69.2

  55.5

  77.9

  75.0

  1986

  69.4

  55.5

  77.4

  74.2

  1987

  70.1

  55.6

  77.7

  74.1

  1988

  72.4

  57.6

  80.1

  76.3

  1989

  74.2

  59.1

  81.8

  78.1

  1990

  74.7

  59.4

  82.1

  78.1

  1991

  73.0

  57.8

  79.6

  75.5

  1992

  71.1

  55.4

  76.3

  71.8

  1993

  70.2

  54.4

  74.8

  70.1

  1994

  70.6

  54.3

  75.3

  70.2

  1995

  71.1

  54.9

  76.4

  70.8

  1996

  71.6

  54.7

  76.4

  70.6

  1997

  72.6

  55.4

  77.5

  71.3

  1998

  73.1

  55.9

  78.1

  71.9

  1999

  73.6

  56.2

  78.4

  72.1

  2000

  74.3

  56.7

  79.1

  72.7

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 Percentages include those who did not state whether working full/part-time

  3 Includes unpaid family workers from spring 1992

  4 The classification as full-time is based on respondents' self-assessment

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Census 2001
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to ensure that the volunteers who helped distribute the Census 2001 forms have been adequately remunerated. [1738]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Miss Anne McIntosh, dated July 2001:
  The Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question asking what measures have been taken to ensure that the volunteers who distributed the 2001 Census forms have been adequately remunerated. I am replying in his absence. (1738)
  Most of the 70,000 Census field staff were paid for the work carried out by them under the terms of their contractual agreements with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in full and on time. However, there have been problems with making final payments which have lead to delays in settling claims for payments and other outstanding expenses.
  In the light of these difficulties ONS has written to Census District Managers explaining the situation, and individually to the field staff concerned, to apologise for the delay and to ensure that they are aware they can contact ONS directly. Arrangements to complete these payments as a matter of urgency are now in hand. ONS has made interim final payments to those affected and has introduced special pay runs to minimise any further delays in making payments. Extra staff have been drafted in to the payroll operation to make sure the remainder of the claims are processed as quickly as possible. All staff will be paid the amounts due to them.

  Euro
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the impact of the euro exchange rate has been on UK competitiveness since the launch of the euro. [2206]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: UK exports of goods to the European Union are now over 15 per cent. higher than at the time of the euro's introduction. The UK also has a modest current account surplus with the rest of the EU.

  Surveillance and Security Services
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of total UK expenditure on domestic and foreign surveillance and security services for each year since 1985, expressed in real terms using 2000–01 prices; what public service agreements exist to ensure value for money for such expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [1371]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The level of expenditure by the three intelligence agencies, GCHQ, the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service, was first disclosed in 1994. As a consequence of the decision taken at the time not to disclose information for the years prior to 1992–93, I do not have that information. The available information is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  2000–01 constant prices

  1992–93

  860

  1,048

  1993–94

  940

  1,116

  1994–95

  856

  1,002

  1995–96

  782

  890

  1996–97

  742

  818

  1997–98

  704

  755

  1998–99

  686

  715

  1999–2000

  769

  783

  2000–01

  803

  803

  2001–02

  1876

  857

  1 (Resource)

  Each of the three agencies has a Public Service Agreement, the contents of which are available to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  Telecom/Computer Sectors
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of growth of telecoms and computer sectors was in the five years to December 2000; and what his forecast is for the next two years. [1643]

  Ruth Kelly
  Output of computers and computing equipment grew at an average rate of 14 per cent. a year in the five years to December 2000 while manufacture of transmission and telecommunications equipment grew at an average of 26 per cent. a year. The Treasury does not produce output forecasts for specific industries. Forecasts for manufacturing as a whole can be found on page 174, table B6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001 (HC 279).

  Industrial Provident Societies
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new industrial provident societies have been registered in each of the last five years; and in what areas. [2338]

  Ruth Kelly
  The table provides details of all industrial and provident societies; including credit unions, which have been registered each year since 1996.

  Registered in:

  Calendar years/entities

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  1996

  I&Ps

  183

  16

  199

  Credit unions

  35

  1

  36

  1997

  I&Ps

  175

  11

  186

  Credit unions

  39

  12

  51

  1998

  I&Ps

  175

  13

  188

  Credit unions

  40

  7

  47

  1999

  I&Ps

  187

  14

  201

  Credit unions

  43

  7

  50

  2000

  I&Ps

  147

  13

  160

  Credit unions

  34

  5

  39

  20011

  I&Ps

  70

  4

  74

  Credit unions

  10

  0

  10

  Total

  I&Ps

  937

  71

  1,008

  Credit unions

  201

  32

  233

  1 To date

  Source:

  Registry of Friendly Societies—2001

  Local Regeneration Projects
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policies he has to encourage banks to become partners in local regeneration projects.[1776]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government, through their National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, have brought together many different organisations in response to the problems of deprived neighbourhoods. As part of this strategy, banks are involved in the New Deal for Communities pathfinder projects as well as other initiatives to reduce financial exclusion.

  European Central Bank
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the scope available to Ministers to intervene in the decisions of the European central bank in circumstances where they deem that the ECB Board has taken a decision which has a negative impact on EU member state economies. [1762]
  313W
  Ruth Kelly
  According to Article 108 of the treaty, when exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by the treaty and the statute of the European system of central banks, neither the European central bank, nor any member of its decision-making body, shall seek or take instructions from community institutions and bodies, from any Government of a member state or from any other body.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor it of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce legislation to reform the Office for National Statistics. [18]

  Ruth Kelly
  The launch of National Statistics in June 2000 marked the largest overhaul of official statistics in the United Kingdom for over 30 years, putting in place new arrangements to deliver statistics that command the trust and confidence of the public.

  The Office for National Statistics, led by the National Statistician, is central to the Government's drive to improve the nation's statistical service. All of its public access databases and publications are within the ambit of the new arrangements, as set out in the "Framework for National Statistics".

  Within the new arrangements, the Statistics Commission—independent of both Ministers and the producers of National Statistics—monitors and advises on the quality and integrity of National Statistics. The Framework Document also tasked the Statistics Commission to review the need for statistics legislation after two years (from 2000) and report back to Ministers, and keep the legislative framework under review thereafter.

  Pension Rights (Part-time Workers)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the House of Lords ruling on the pension rights of part-time workers on public sector pension schemes. [2268]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Following the House of Lords ruling in February 2001, many part-timers, who made timely claims in the Employment Tribunals, may be eligible for back-dated access to public service pension schemes, once their cases have completed the legal process. In addition, there are many part-timers still in employment covered by public service schemes who may be eligible for back-dated access to their scheme.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Duchy of Lancaster
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the disbursement from the surplus of the Duchy of Lancaster to Her Majesty the Queen in each of the last 25 years. [2075]

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has provided the following information.
  314W
  Payments made by the Duchy to the Privy Purse over the past 25 years are as follows:

  Year

  £

  976

  415,000

  1977

  445.000

  1978

  485,000

  1979

  626,500

  1980

  815,000

  1981

  983,000

  1982

  1.075,000

  1983

  1,225,000

  1984

  1.350,000

  1985

  1.475,000

  1986

  1,700,000

  1987

  1,950,000

  1988

  2,270,000

  1989

  3,190,000

  1990

  3,000.000

  1991

  3,100,000

  1992

  3,750,000

  1993

  3,918,253

  1994

  3,900,000

  1995

  12,100,000

  1996

  5,345,000

  1997

  5,752,000

  1998

  5,703,000

  1999

  5,968,000

  2000

  5,907,711

  1 Change of accounting period

  Poverty Alleviation
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has for co-ordinating Government and EU programmes in areas of high social and economic deprivation to maximise the impact such programmes have on building up social capital, economic activity, environmental improvement and public safety; and if he will make a statement. [2122]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  'A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal National Strategy Action Plan' was launched by the Prime Minister in January 2001. It sets out the Government's vision to narrow the gap between deprived areas and the rest of England, so that within 10–20 years no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live. Our aim is to deliver economic prosperity, safe communities, high quality schools, decent housing, and better health to the poorest parts of the country.

  This approach will focus main Government programmes explicitly on deprived areas and will require all sectors to work in partnership. The strategy is being spearheaded by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, a cross-cutting unit based in DTLR and staffed by officials from across Whitehall and the public sector, with secondees from the private and voluntary sectors.

  In respect of European Programmes, we are looking to the Regional Development Agencies. They have the main responsibility for regional economic development, and are key members of partnerships which deliver both domestic and European Funds to the programme areas. We are keeping the RDA role under review as the European programmes develop.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Auld Report
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library copies of the evidence submitted to Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts. [2215]

  Mr. Wills
  Lord Justice Auld has not yet completed his review of the criminal courts. The Government will make arrangements for the evidence to be made available to the public once the report has been published.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if Lord Justice Auld has completed his review of the criminal courts; and what arrangements the Government have made for the publication of his report. [2216]

  Mr. Wills
  Lord Justice Auld will complete his review of the criminal courts shortly. The Government will make arrangements for publication once his report is received.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor expects to receive Lord Justice Auld's report on criminal courts. [2214]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor expects to receive Lord Justice Auld's report shortly.

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the sentencing policy of individual judges whose sentencing he has reason to believe does not reflect the severity of the cases heard. [1352]

  Mr. Wills
  It would be improper for the Lord Chancellor to intervene in, or comment on, the sentence imposed in an individual case since to do so would undermine the independence of the judiciary. Within the statutory limits laid down by Parliament, the appropriate sentence in each individual case is entirely a matter for the discretion of the trial judge, who has heard the evidence, listened to the arguments and given in open court his reasons for the sentence imposed.

  Judges
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will re-examine his Department's advice to judges on how to avoid any display of partisanship which might be considered party political. [1351]

  Mr. Wills
  The current guidance given to judges on appointment advises them against engagement, in any capacity which might undermine, or be reasonably thought to undermine, their judicial independence or impartiality. A statement about the position of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary was made by the Senior Law Lord in another place on 22 June 2000,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 419–20, setting out the general principles on the participation of the Lords of Appeal in the business of the House of Lords. There are no plans to review the guidance.

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the performance of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [911]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government continue closely to monitor the situation of the OSS. Progress has been made in clearing the backlog of cases received by OSS prior to 1 January 2000. There is also evidence that in complaints received after that date, the OSS is beginning to achieve the quality and turnaround time targets that were agreed with the Government in December 2000.

  Mediation UK
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what support the Lord Chancellor's Department has given to Mediation UK in each of the last five years. [2135]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In both 2000–01 and 2001–02 the Legal Services Commission has granted £15,000 to Mediation UK as part of a joint funding exercise to provide core funding that also includes the Home Office and the Department of Health.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will initiate a study into the likely conseque 'Pal effects of establishing a human rights commission on the existing arrangements for upholding laws relating to(a) equal opportunities, (b) sex discrimination, (c) racial discrimination, (d) disability rights and (e) child protection; [1721]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the case for establishing a human rights commission to promote the Human Rights Act 1998 and investigate violations of human rights in the United Kingdom. [1720]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have not ruled out the possibility of a Human Rights Commission. We already have several commissions, however, for example the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission, and there may be and case for a single, over-arching human rights commission, with a divisional structure, to cover all these areas. The Government would welcome representations on that possibility. During the last Parliament, the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a consultation document, seeking views on what form a human rights commission might take. We will consider very carefully any recommendations the reconstituted Joint Committee makes following this consultation.

  Bailiff Law
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made with the reform of bailiff law. [918]

  Mr. Wills
  The area of bailiff law is complex and requires careful consideration as part of a comprehensive enforcement system. The Government's forthcoming Green Paper on enforcement will include proposals for a single piece of bailiff law. The Government continue
  317W
  to believe that the broadened enforcement review, announced on 6 March this year, which includes structures for, and the regulation of civil enforcement agents generally, not just within the High Court and county courts, affords an opportunity for real progress in our enforcement system.

  Libra Computer Project
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the current state of the Libra computer project, including the total cost, specifying what sums expended are irrecoverable. [1970]

  Mr. Wills
  Work on the Libra project continues. The first stage of the project, to roll out the infrastructure and provide office automation to all courts, is proceeding on schedule.
  318W
  The second part is the development and implementation of a software application. This is part complete: there is a demonstration version dealing with criminal cases which has been well received by users improving how they operate; and developing the rest of the software is expected to delay full implementation until toward the end of next year, representing an overall delay to this part of the project of 15 to 18 months.

  The total value of the Libra contract is estimated to be £319 million over the life of the contract at current prices and workloads. Payments made to date amount to £10 million (ex VAT) of which £7.8 million (ex VAT) are for office automation services delivered to the courts to an acceptable standard, and for which the question of recovery does not arise.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EU Information and Consultation Directive
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have agreed to the European Union directive on compulsory management-employee consultation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have always believed that good companies inform and consult with their employees. During negotiations on the proposed information and consultation directive, our aim has been to avoid a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach, which would be inappropriate for the United Kingdom, given its traditional strength of employee relations, which are built on flexibility, partnership and company-based solutions. The agreement reached in Brussels on 11th June meets those requirements.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but is it not lamentable that as soon as the general election was over, the Government agreed to a measure that, for months before, the Prime Minister had been saying that he objected to and opposed in principle because it offended against the principle of subsidiarity and because it was wrong to impose EU requirements for consultation on companies operating at a national level? Was not the measure forced on the Government, who gained no more than a delay in implementation for the smallest companies, because of their folly in ending the opt-out from the social chapter? Is not the measure a classic example of the EU interfering in matters that have nothing to do with the requirements of the single market?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, our objection to the directive as originally proposed was as I have said: we objected to a one-size-fits-all approach that was prescriptive in the way in which it operated and applied too much to small businesses. All our objections were sustained in the negotiations that concluded on 11th June. Under those circumstances, it is clear that we were right to opt in again to the social chapter when we came to office in 1997 and we have been right to agree to the presidency compromise that was reached on 11th June.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is significant that the decision was
864
reached unanimously, even though it was formally subject to qualified majority voting? That is because all the big countries—Spain, Italy, Germany and France—which collectively constitute a successful European economy, think that, with the rapid changes in Europe, such minimum information and consultation with workers will make a more adaptive and successful European economy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are concerned not only that the measure should be good for the European economy, but that it should be good for business and employment in this country. We believe that the draft directive achieves that It has to have a Second Reading in the European Parliament, where it could be amended, but we are satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations so far.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, how has the position of small businesses been alleviated as a result of the negotiation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not a question of being alleviated. The directive does not apply to small businesses. In the first place, nothing can happen for three years after the directive completes its passage through the European Parliament, which takes us to the beginning of 2005. Secondly, it will be a further two years before it applies to firms in this country with fewer than 150 employees and another two years again before it applies to firms with fewer than 100 employees. Even after that, it will still apply only to firms with more than 50 employees, which excludes all but 2.5 per cent of businesses in this country.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the events of the past few months, particularly in the manufacturing sector, have demonstrated the need to improve consultation mechanisms between management and workforces? Does he also accept that the implementation of the directive in due course will provide only minimum standards for the sort of consultation that ought to be present in any modern economy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that I agree with both those points. The directive has a delayed implementation date and it excludes a large proportion of businesses in this country, but it has always been our view that businesses in this country should inform their employees and should consult with them on the basis that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggests.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the tragic job losses in what was once called British Steel and is now called Corus. The majority of the 10,000 job losses at that firm have been in the United Kingdom. Is he aware that there was no consultation in this country but that there was lengthy consultation in Holland? Does he agree that there is an urgent need for that situation to be put

865
right? Does he further agree that the comments from the Conservatives hark to the past and not to the future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's last point. The regrettable job losses at Corus are subject to the collective redundancies directive, which has been in force for more than 25 years and requires a consultation period of 90 days. Corus has observed that. I am sure that my noble friend agrees that the important point is to start consulting earlier. That would be one of the beneficial results of the proposed directive.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is it not apparent that the Minister has not had an opportunity to read the memorandum put out by the Department of Trade and Industry on 21st November last year? It stated categorically:
"The Government is not persuaded of the need for a directive on information and consultation in companies operating only at a national level".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I have read that. That is exactly why the Government successfully negotiated the result that we achieved on 11th June.

London Underground Proposals: Public Scrutiny
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will disclose the public sector comparator for the purposes of their public/private partnership proposals for London Underground.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the public sector comparators will be released once negotiations with bidders have been completed, allowing full public scrutiny of the value for money achieved for the 21st century Tube programme. London Underground's financial appraisal of the public/private partnerships, including the preparation of the public sector comparators, has already been the subject of a report by the National Audit Office, which made a number of recommendations about using the financial analysis in decision-making. Those recommendations will be followed in full.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am aware that the Government are seeking the best value for money and want to be convinced on the subject. Does the Minister agree that that conviction should be shared with the public in London, who are literally wilting in the heat and chaos of the shambles that is the capital's Tube system? The Government have failed to have a debate
866
about the detail of that value for money programme and what is to be achieved by it. Is that what they call accountability to the people of London?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that what is required is investment and improvement in the Tube as quickly as possible. To publish the comparator before the negotiations were completed would give the bidders a significant advantage in those negotiations to the detriment of the public sector. However, the National Audit Office has considered the public service comparator and said:
"London Underground has undertaken an exceptionally thorough process in preparing the capital and operating costs of the Comparators and the estimated costs of the bids".
Therefore, we have the comfort of the National Audit Office saying that the comparison is a proper one, and we do not lose ground with the negotiations.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, why on earth do the Government not give Mr Kiley, who really knows what he is talking about, his head?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, our intention is to ensure that proper investment in the Tube takes place. The way to achieve that is by making the contracts with the bidders, thereby levering in £13 billion. It is then for London Underground, with Mr Kiley at its head, to deliver to the people of London.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is there any reason why the general public should not be made aware of the same data that were made available to the National Audit Office in order that they might come to a decision?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the public sector comparator were made public, it would then come to the attention of the bidders, who would be able to use it in the course of negotiations to try to extract a more favourable deal. Therefore, from the point of view of the public sector, it is best that that material is not made available before the deal is completed. However, the public have the comfort of knowing the National Audit Office's analysis of that public sector comparator.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that about the only thing the public understand is that there is a hiatus in relation to the future of London's Underground system? Can he tell the House whether his right honourable friend the Prime Minister has any intention of intervening, as he will almost certainly have to do in the end, to bring order out of chaos?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, having considered what Mr Kiley said to him on Friday and earlier this week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions said in a Written Answer today that he

867
intends to proceed with plans for the modernisation of London Underground in order to create a 21st century Tube. In those discussions, Mr Kiley said that he was unable to do a deal which was satisfactory to him. Therefore, subject to certain improvements, my right honourable friend has decided to go ahead with the arrangements with the bidders. That allows us to lever in the money and bring modernisation to the Tube.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that, before this matter can be resolved, there is to be a judicial review? In those circumstances, how long does he believe that it will take before a resolution is reached? Furthermore, will he confirm that, whatever the final solution, the Government's intention is that there should be an overarching responsibility for safety?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the overarching responsibility for safety is critical in all the arrangements. The Government have always put that issue first. Safety will remain the responsibility of London Underground but subject at all times to the regulation of the Health and Safety Executive. Safety remains at the forefront of the Government's approach to the modernisation of London Underground. So far as concerns the legal proceedings, the judicial review is to be heard on 23rd July. It should be completed within a few days. I have no idea how long thereafter it might take if there were to be an appeal.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental disagreement between the Transport Commissioner, Mr Kiley, and Her Majesty's Government? Mr Kiley wants to focus on replacing rolling stock and signalling equipment, whereas Her Majesty's Government, through PPP, would upgrade the stations as a priority. Bearing in mind the suffering of London Underground users over the past few weeks, does he not agree that Mr Kiley is right?
Lord Falconer of Thornton: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's characterisation of the position. So far as concerns the proposals put forward by the Government, it is planned to give equal priority to renewing signals and rolling stock and to stations and other aspects of the service. It is simply wrong to say that improvements to stations are the priority.

Revenue Losses from Smuggling and Cross-Border Shopping
3.14 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate for the current financial year of the loss of revenue from (a) tobacco duties and (b) duties on petrol and diesel arising from (i) smuggling and (ii) products brought in legitimately from other European Union countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Customs and Excise does not have estimates for the current financial year. However, the revenue lost from tobacco smuggling for the calendar year 2000 was published on 7th March and was estimated to be £2,890 million for cigarettes and £890 million for hand-rolling tobacco. The Government's strategy for tobacco smuggling is still in its early stages, but with more front-line staff and new x-ray scanners being put in place, and the cigarette pack marks which came into force last week, Customs and Excise will be able to take even more effective action against the criminals involved in tobacco smuggling.
Estimated revenue losses from cross-border shopping for the calendar year 1999 were £185 million for cigarettes and £35 million for hand-rolling tobacco. Customs and Excise does not have estimates for the revenue lost from the smuggling or cross-border shopping of fuel.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what is a moderately encouraging Answer in terms of the Government's decision to take action. Does he agree that the fact that an enormous amount of tobacco product and petrol enters our country in this way undermines both our public health and environmental policies? Does he also agree that it is very damaging in terms of the overall approach by the Government? Can anything be done in conjunction with our European Union partners to set up more effective controls at the points of entry or, indeed, can we persuade our European partners to show the same concern for the health of their people and for the environment as we show for ours?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dubs is of course right to point to the reason why we have tobacco and fuel duties on the one hand, it is for health reasons; on the other, for environmental reasons. However, it is not a matter of resiling from those health or environmental objectives. The damaging issue we must address is that of organised criminal gangs. That is the fight which I attempted to describe briefly in my first Answer, and it is ongoing. I do not believe that it is for me to make recommendations to our partners in the European Union about their taxation policy any more than we would wish them to make recommendations to us.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, do not the figures which the Minister announced demonstrate that, although there is no case for the harmonisation of direct personal taxation, under the single market there is every reason to promote the harmonisation of excise duties and, of course, preferably the harmonisation of excise duties upwards throughout the European Union?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have just resisted the temptation to express views on the taxation policies of other members of the European Union. I persist in my view that that is the right

869
position for this Government, just as it is right for the Government to take their own decisions about excise duties.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, what progress has the Department of Trade and Industry inquiry made into the alleged role of British American Tobacco in the tobacco-smuggling scandal? When might we see a report on that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the DTI investigation into British American Tobacco does not involve smuggling into the United Kingdom but, rather, South America and elsewhere. I do not believe that that matter follows on from the original Question on the Order Paper.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that I am a smoker. We on these Benches applaud the efforts of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to implement the Government's policies to combat smuggling. That said, is it the case that Mr Martin Taylor's report contained a recommendation to cut duty as a means of curbing the involvement of organised gangs in smuggling? Furthermore, is it not the case that in the 12 months since the Chancellor of the Exchequer ignored that advice, according to the Treasury's own figures, the smuggling of tobacco has leapt by 40 per cent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course it is up to those who are consulted and invited to give advice to provide independent advice. That is what they have done. However, I have already made entirely clear that the Government's position is that it is for government to decide the level of excise duty. It is important that we make every effort, as we are doing, to combat organised crime. I happen to shop in Holloway Road in North London. Three weeks ago, 20 or 30 people there were selling clearly smuggled tobacco. I was pleased to learn that a crackdown on that practice took place last weekend and that that particular outlet was wiped out.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the serious effect that price differentials is having in the country of Ireland? In the border counties, smuggling allows paramilitaries and other gangs to make huge gains and it puts businesses in Northern Ireland completely out of business. The price differential is such that even local farmers drive across the road where they can buy their fuel at approximately half the price that is charged in Northern Ireland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a combination of problems is involved. I agree that that is a serious problem when there is a land frontier with another member of the European Union. We build revenue into our estimates and accept that there is legitimate cross-border traffic in this case and across the Channel. We are concentrating our efforts on the criminal aspects of smuggling and cross-border traffic.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any truth in an article in today's
870
Independent, which stated that the Government will introduce their own Bill to prohibit tobacco advertising rather than rely on the more chancy procedure of a Private Members' Bill? Is he also aware that if they do that, the health of the nation will improve and that the image of the Government in the eyes of all health professionals, which is presently at rather a low ebb, would greatly improve?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I read that report. My noble friend is as well informed as I am about that matter, which is not covered by the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that the Government's public health and environmental objectives will not be altered and that there will be no lessening of the level of duties on tobacco products and petrol?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear more than once that one reason for the level of excise duty on tobacco is the preservation of personal health and, in relation to fuel duties, the protection of the environment. Those have always been high priorities for the Government.

Menwith Hill and Fylingdales: Security
3.21 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the security arrangements at Menwith Hill and Fylingdales are satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, in light of the recent incursions by demonstrators at Royal Air Force Menwith Hill, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the security arrangements in place are not satisfactory in relation to this public order threat. It is not government policy to comment on specific security measures, but security at RAF Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales will be reviewed and appropriate remedial action will be taken.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that although it would be wrong to suggest that these silly people from Greenpeace are a security threat, what happened suggests that it might be possible for serious intruders with a serious design to get into two very important and sensitive establishments?
Lord Bach: My Lords, what happened was serious but the noble Lord is right to say that the people who took this action were peaceable protestors whose aims were limited. It is important to point out that a peaceable protest required a proportionate response. The noble Lord knows that minimum force that is proportionate to the event is to be used and that this event received a proportionate response. Equally, if there had been a serious attempt of the kind to which

871
the noble Lord referred—an attempt to break into the operational functional mission of the base—the response would have been proportionate. That would have been a much more serious eventuality.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it the case, as was reported, that some of the intruders were at large in the compound for a considerable time before they attracted the attention of the security forces? Would that have been the case if they had not been peaceable intruders?
Lord Bach: My Lords, some of those who got in were within the outer perimeter —there are several fences at this establishment. The noble Lord is right—some protestors were within the outer perimeter but it was known that they were there. That outer perimeter is not as secure as the inner perimeters because families live on the base inside the outer perimeter. A balance has to be kept between the requirements of the operation there and the needs of the families to live everyday lives.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, as the former chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, noble Lords will know that I have always taken a keen interest in liaison matters between the Ministry of Defence Police and the local police service. Today, the deputy chief constable came to brief me carefully on operational matters concerning the demonstrations at Menwith Hill. I was pleased that the noble Lord did not in any way criticise the North Yorkshire Police Force, which was responsible for looking after the outer perimeter.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, will the noble Lord please accept that there has to be good and close liaison between the local police and the Ministry of Defence Police? Does he recognise that we must be able to see with clarity that the two responsibilities are entirely different?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am delighted to answer the question of the noble Baroness, who has huge experience in this field, particularly in the area of England that we are discussing. She is right—in my view, no criticism is to be attached to anyone. We agree with the propositions that she put forward.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, it is clear that although the event at Menwith Hill was good humoured and peaceable, there is still the risk, as my noble friend acknowledged, that demonstrators can turn nasty. That raises the risk that harm or injury may be caused to peaceful demonstrators or to staff in the targeted establishment. Are there any other establishments like Fylingdales and Menwith Hill which could become alternative targets if security is tightened at those two establishments? Will the Government make it
872
absolutely clear that they remain committed to fulfilling the obligation that people and places shall be safeguarded from the risk of harm as a result of unsatisfactory demonstrations, such as those at Akrotiri earlier this week?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can answer my noble friend in the affirmative. We are looking at other possible bases and we do indeed take what happened seriously. I entirely agree with what he said. While we must of course recognise people's right to protest and to demonstrate—that is the mark of a free society —irresponsible actions by protestors, such as we have seen in this case, put them at risk of coming to harm. It is then our duty—the duty of the Ministry of Defence—to return them to a place of safety. I hope that noble Lords appreciate that when the protestors entered the base, it became our duty to ensure that they were not themselves harmed. Fulfilling that duty in turn places our security personnel at risk of harm. I agree with my noble friend for those reasons.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the election, we fought off a proposal by the government to extend the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police. It seems that we were absolutely right. Where were the Ministry of Defence Police, and why were they not fulfilling their proper function, which is to guard Ministry of Defence premises? Would it not be appropriate to do that before their powers were extended more widely outside Ministry of Defence premises?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have to say that the noble Lord is going too far. A number of Ministry of Defence Police were on site—they work a shift system—and some were at the gate. I shall tell the noble Lord what happened. Thirty people alighted from a bus and a truck at the main gate and barged past the main gate guard. A number of those people were stopped by the normal number of Ministry of Defence Police who were on duty. Other people went to another part of the four-mile perimeter and scaled the perimeter fence using ladders that they had specifically brought for the occasion. That is what happened; no criticism is to be levelled at the Ministry of Defence Police who were present. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord sought to do that.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, should not those who protest by attacking the Armed Forces and their bases be reminded by Her Majesty's Government that their freedom and right to peaceful protest was gained for them by the victories won by the Armed Forces in years gone by?
Lord Bach: My Lords, that is an extremely important point made by the noble and gallant Lord. Not only were victories won, but won at a huge cost to those members of the Armed Forces who fought for us then. It is perhaps something that protesters may care to think about when they next set out on their task.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, without in any way criticising either the Ministry of Defence or the local police, does the Minister agree that the demonstrators highlighted the fact that new construction works have taken place at Menwith Hill? Do not the Government consider that if those works are in preparation for Star Wars 2, prior authority should have been sought from Parliament?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his experience, will not be surprised at my answer. It is not and never has been government policy, whatever government is in power, to comment on specific security measures.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This series of amendments to the Standing Orders for private business was passed by the Commons this morning. Noble Lords will realise that the proposals stem from changes in the nomenclature of government departments.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
Amendment No.
Standing Order 27
1. Line 74, leave out from "the" to end of line 76 and insert "the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Health and Safety Executive"
Standing Order 27A
2. Line 33, leave out "four" and insert "two"
3. Line 34, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government"
Standing Order 29
4. Line 7, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government"
Standing Order 30A
5. Line 4, leave out "of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
Standing Order 31
6. Line 7, leave out "of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
Standing Order 32
7. Line 10, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
Standing Order 34
8. Line 12, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government"
Standing Order 37
9. Line 10, leave out from "Office" to end of line 11 and insert ", the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions"
10. Line 14, leave out "a copy" and insert "two copies"
11. Line 17, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and one"
12. Line 18, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government"
Standing Order 39
13. Line 3, leave out from "Bill" to "three" in line 4
14. Line 5, after first "at" insert "the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and"
15. Line 7, leave out "the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,"
16. Line 10, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills"
17. Line 11, leave out "of Social Security" and insert "for Work and Pensions"
18. Line 23, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills"
19. Line 27, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills"
20. Line 33, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
Standing Order 45
21. Line 17, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government"
Standing Order 47
22. Line 12, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport. Local Government"
Standing Order 139
23. Line 11, leave out "the Environment. Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government"
24. Line 27, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Expenses
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The resolution before the House increases the maxima for allowances for day subsistence, overnight attendance and secretarial support and extends the range of circumstances in which your Lordships would be eligible for these allowances.
As your Lordships are aware, they were recommended by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body. The SSRB report was published in March this year. It made clear that Peers should not be out of pocket as a result of carrying out their parliamentary duties and concluded that the present levels of allowances failed to fulfil that important principle.
Evidence indicated that the current day subsistence allowance of £37 did not cover many of the incidental costs incurred by Peers in attending this House. The SSRB recommended that the day subsistence allowance should be raised to a maximum of £60 per day.
It also recommended that the overnight allowance should be increased from £84 to a maximum of £120 payable for each night following a day of attendance, and for the preceding night, where a Member attends a sitting of this House or of a committee. That increase reflects better the rising costs of hotels in London. Extending eligibility to six days rather than five, where that is necessary, will, I hope be regarded as only a fair recognition of the work carried out by Members of this House.
The SSRB recommended that the secretarial allowance should be raised from £36 to a maximum of £50 a day. That is payable, on claim, for the number of days on which the Member attends the House, or an official delegation, or is on a committee visit away from the House, and for a maximum of a further 40 days where such an expense has been necessarily incurred. There is an increase of 10 days to the additional number of days your Lordships could be paid for secretarial assistance and some welcome flexibility on the definition of an eligible day.
Your Lordships will be extremely pleased to know that we shall shortly be bringing forward an order to provide for increases to the salaries of Lords Ministers—I pause for approval—as recommended elsewhere in the SSRB's report. That will mean that Lords Ministers will receive an additional £2,000 per annum this year from 20th June and a further £2,000 next year, in April 2002. That will ensure that the cash differential between the salaries of Ministers in the other place and in this House does not widen. There is even better news. That increase will also apply to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley. Lords Ministers' night subsistence allowance automatically rises on a formula which is worked out as 220 times the overnight allowance.
876
It is plain from the evidence and the comments in the report that not all noble Lords are fully aware of what costs may be reimbursed or the proper basis for any claim. The SSRB has therefore made the eminently sensible recommendation that the House authorities should publish a guide which sets out the appropriate information and I am sure that your Lordships will feel that that will be of assistance and convenience to us all.
The report contains a recommendation that we ought to have free postage on business matters in the same way as those in the Commons. The Chairman of Committees said that, if that meets with the approval of the House, the relevant committee will attend to that question first. It is not entirely straightforward but it seems anomalous that your Lordships may have free use of a telephone but not free postage on the same basis as the Commons. So the postage question is likely to be dealt with first, followed by the question of written guidance and the question of further upgrading of hotel costs in the future.
The recommendations are entirely a matter for your Lordships. The SSRB raised wider questions. Should noble Lords feel that matters outside the ambit of this Motion are usefully to be considered, I am of course more than happy to take them away and discuss them appropriately. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to expenses incurred by Members of this House after 19th June 2001—
(1) For the purposes of paragraph (1) of the resolution of 20th July 1994 (office, secretarial and research allowance), the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in the period beginning with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st July 2001 should be £50; and paragraph (3)(b) of the 1994 resolution should apply as if that were the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in the year preceding 1st August 2001.
(2) In paragraph (1) of the 1994 resolution, the reference to attendance at relevant sittings or meetings should include a reference to attendance on visits away from the House—

(a) as a member of an official delegation; or

(b) as a member of a committee of this House.

(3) The days which a Lord may specify under paragraph (4) of the 1994 resolution—

(a) should include days on which this House sits but which are not days of attendance by him; and

(b) should be subject to a maximum of 40.

(4) In determining, in accordance with paragraph (2) of the resolution of 25th July 1991, the limit on the expenses which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1)(a) of that resolution (day subsistence), the maximum daily amount for a day in the period beginning with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st July 2001 should be £60; and paragraph (7)(b) of the 1994 resolution should apply as if that were the maximum daily amount for a day in the year preceding 1st August 2001.
(5) In determining, in accordance with paragraph (4) of the 1991 resolution, the limit on the expenses which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1)(b) of that resolution (night subsistence). the maximum daily amount for a day in the period beginning with 20th June 2001 and ending with 3Ist July 2001 should be £120; and paragraph (8)(b) of the 1994 resolution should apply as if that were the maximum daily amount for a day in the year preceding 1st August 2001.

877
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (4) of the 1991 resolution there should be added to the maximum daily amount for the days referred to there the maximum daily amount for each other day which falls immediately before a day of attendance at a sitting of this House if the Lord incurs expenses in staying overnight away from his only or main residence before the sitting and it is necessary for him to do so for the purpose of attendance at the sitting.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am pleased to support the Motion to which the Leader of the House spoke. However, I do not entirely welcome the report; it failed to deal with some of the recommendations, which I shall raise in a moment.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who worked with others on all sides of the House so as to present a case to the SSRB. That followed a lot of work done prior to the 1997 general election and it is extraordinary how long it has taken to reach this stage.
There are positive aspects. It is important that we retain the attendance-related rather than the salary system of payment. After all, this is still a part-time and voluntary House and the system should therefore stay that way unless and until a new House is in place and determines otherwise.
The recommendations provide a significant uprating of Back-Bench allowances and secretarial expenses. I should have liked to see the secretarial assistance extended across the year. But, as a first go, we should certainly accept what is proposed. And I very much welcome the increase in ministerial pay, not just because of my own position, but also as genuine recognition of the burden that is placed upon government Ministers in this House who have to respond for their entire departments rather than just their specific subject interest.
Some aspects of the report were sloppy. For instance, on page 29 it talks about myself and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, as being business managers in the House of Lords. I am sure that that is a position that both he and I should very much like to have. It talks about the Appointments Commission nominating people's Peers or people's Peers being nominated by businesses, trade unions, charities and others. Of course, as we all know, they are self-nominated and not nominated by those bodies.
The report also has a curious phrase on page 17 where it says that,
"The House now sees itself as much more business oriented … Members expect to contribute in a professional way".
I am not sure what "business oriented" means and in what way debates were not "professional" over the course of the past few years. I wonder therefore how much the SSRB understands the way in which this House operates.
In relation to the demerits, I regret that the committee rejected the suggestion that severance pay should be made available for Ministers and officeholders who retire over the age of 65. I see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who I believe to be over that age,
878
and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who was Leader of the Opposition. The idea that just because one accepts a ministerial office to which may be attached a ministerial pension—none of my colleagues who exists on those pensions will ever be rich men on the back of them—should not mean that there should not also be severance pay for Ministers over the age of 65.
I would also like to have seen recognition of the special work carried out by senior Ministers in this House. I refer in particular to the work done in the last Parliament by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. We suggest in our evidence that up to four senior Ministers in this House should be given pay equivalent to those of Cabinet rank.
I fail to understand why the Senior Salaries Review Body has accepted that Members of another place should have the joy of visits from their spouses up to 15 times per year but that your Lordships should have that only twice per year. Two trips in 177 days is not much for those who live far away. Perhaps that is one of the items upon which the noble and learned Lord will reflect in future.
A more serious position is that of the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. I made clear in my evidence that it is time to recognise that there is a difference between Opposition spokesmen and spokeswomen and Back-Benchers. For the record, perhaps it will be useful to remind noble Lords that apart from myself and my noble friend Lord Henley, the Chief Whip, all Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers work on the same basis as Back-Benchers.
I believe that there are simple solutions to this problem; perhaps the extension of the ministerial secretarial allowance or a strong case for deemed attendance. When Front-Benchers are working from home at their computers they have excellent access to information but they have to leave home and come to this House in order to claim their expenses.
I turn finally to the question of free postage, which I hoped would be able to be dealt with in this Motion. I am not sure why we have to wait for a committee of the House to agree it, although I am sure that it will be agreed. Certainly, we shall lend our support to the Government in so doing.
I apologise for responding at length. We do not have many opportunities to do so. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that some of these points are worth pursuing and perhaps we can see changes to what I regard as serious injustices which still exist in this House.
Lord Roper: My Lords, we, on these Benches, also support the Motions put forward by the Lord Privy Seal. We are grateful that the Government have moved quickly and backdated the proposals in the 48th report of the Senior Salaries Review Body to the beginning of this Parliament.
We are also grateful for the work done by the group of Back-Benchers in which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, played an active part, as did my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. That was an important example of the way in which Back-Benchers

879
can ensure that their views are put forward. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for raising the problems of those who work on the Front Benches on this side of the House and hope that that matter will be carefully considered in future.
As he stated, there are two matters on which we want to see early action taken. I am glad that the Leader of the House mentioned the question of free postage, which is referred to in paragraph 4.36 of the report. It is important that early action is taken.
Similarly, a number of my noble friends pointed out to me the fact that although in paragraph 4.40 reference is made to the difference between this place and the other place as regards spouse travel, no recommendation is made in the report. However, it seems that that is a matter to which early attention should be paid.
A number of my noble friends have spoken to me—they may well wish to intervene in the debate—about the necessity for noble Lords to maintain their professional knowledge. They referred to the absence in the report or anywhere else of provisions to enable them to attend professional conferences on matters which they cover in this House. This is a complicated matter on which a good deal of further examination is needed. Perhaps I may draw that to the attention of the Leader of the House in the hope that it can be examined within further studies, either within committees of the House or by a subsequent report of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
We welcome the Motions tabled today and the assurances we have received from the Leader of the House.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I gave notice to my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal of my intention to raise a relatively minor matter. I hope that he may be able to give a sympathetic response. I wonder whether the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (A FPS) could be included in the section of the resolution which deals with relevant sittings and meetings. I declare an interest as one of the nine Members of your Lordships' House who are participating in the scheme this year. I understand from Sir Neil Thorne, the chairman of the scheme, that it is intended in future that there should be six Members of this House who join the scheme each year. Therefore, this issue will return year after year.
Members of this House will know that the AFPS enjoys universal cross-party support and that the Ministry of Defence is particularly keen that parliamentarians who are not old enough to have enjoyed the experience of National Service should be able to learn about the services at first hand through their membership of AFPS. In the other place, Members participating in the AFPS are able to reclaim expenses under the extended travel scheme as they are viewed as wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the carrying out of parliamentary duties. My request to my noble and learned friend is that we in this House should treat the AFPS in the same way and regard
880
visits away from the House on AFPS duties on the same basis as membership of an official delegation or other committee of this House.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Roper about the possible reimbursement of expenses for attendance at professional meetings. My noble friend Lord Methuen is not in his place because he is attending the first meeting of the Science and Technology Select Committee. He has asked me to say that he is disappointed that provision has not been made for such expenses.
Members of professional bodies are now encouraged, indeed in many cases required, to participate in continual professional development. He would like to see a method whereby Members of the House could be enabled in appropriate circumstances to participate in such activities without the embarrassment of soliciting beneficial or free attendance. He considers it to be to the advantage of this House that Members participate in such events so that they can be better informed on relevant topics which may arise in the House or in Select Committees. For example, there was recently a conference on signalling safety organised by the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers which he would very much have liked to attend but could not do so because of the cost. He hopes that this proposal might be further considered and looks forward to a constructive response.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am glad that the subject of free postage has been mentioned. The postbag received by many Peers becomes bulkier day by day on matters relating to the House. I welcome the statement and hope that an early report is made to the House
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in leading the informal group in preparing certain submissions to the House.
There is one point that I should like to raise. I particularly welcome the better provision for office expenses. The previous figures were ludicrous. They are not particularly generous now compared to the £48,000 plus which Members of another place receive for office and research expenditure.
There is a related point. I recognise that it is understandably not included in the report we are considering but it is directly and inextricably related. I refer to office accommodation. Frankly, we need basic office space. I am meek in what I want; namely, a worktop for a computer and space to be able to write; adequate shelving and adequate files. That is all I ask for. Many noble Lords do not have that; I am fortunate in that I do. I have only just achieved it. I do not know how many noble Lords are aware that 14 of us have been given notice that we are to be removed from our present accommodation to make space for additional civil servants from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am sure that we shall be offered other accommodation. However, I believe that that reflects

881
the wrong priority. It sends the wrong message. Having thoroughly supported the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in beautifying his house, I hope that as he is sitting on the Front Bench he will think again about that proposal.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words which have been said about the manner in which we have reached the present stage. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this has been an unfolding story in which he has played a part. I well recall in 1995, together with others, trying to press the chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body, but we did not make much progress.
The House should not be timid in asking for what it believes it is entitled to have. Far too often in my life people say, "What is the point of asking? We will only be turned down". Unless we ask and ask in the proper manner—I do not mean in a servile manner but in a dignified manner—we shall not get anything.
I believe that the present outcome is eminently satisfactory. Reference was made to the collegiate nature of the representation. In the past, each Bench followed its particular interest, but on 8th July 1999, when my noble friend Lord Carter brought to the House the ministerial salaries review, I took the opportunity to say that I support Ministers but asked about the workers and the rest of us. He had to be diplomatic, as he always is, but he reminded us that an opportunity would soon arise, and it did.
With the approval of the senior Whips, I set up a small committee and the House should have placed on the record its indebtedness to those who served on it. Its members were the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and myself. The eight representatives of the four Benches met six times and we did not always agree. However, we did agree that we must concentrate on the three pillars of the existing regime and see whether we could improve them. We gathered together the evidence and submitted it. Other noble Lords submitted evidence individually.
I made a point of going back to my group two or three times during the process in order to remind Members where we were and to consult. Suggestions were made and they were incorporated in a document which was approved—not every word and comma, but it was approved. When I saw Sir Michael Perry, he went out of his way to say that the submission was well put together and that it saved him and his committee a great deal of work in drawing things together. It was well received and I should like to place on the record the indebtedness of the House and those affected by the report to Sir Michael Perry and his committee. We are also indebted to the Leader of the House and to the Chief Whip because representations had to be made to the Prime Minister, the Treasury and others and we have not been let down.
882
Reference was made to certain matters that should have been included. I am sorry that the issue of spouses' comparability was not included. A number of Members of this House receive 15 spouse journey tickets—they are the Ministers—and they always have. I do not understand the grounds on which it is believed necessary for the spouse of a Minister, who has a busy life, to be able to come to London in order to be helpful, sympathetic and comforting while other noble Lords—I do not include myself because I live near to London—are denied. That is a small but significant issue. There ought not to be a differentiation on such a matter between Ministers and Back Benchers in this House. I hope that in reply the Leader of the House will indicate some sympathy with the suggestion. This House and its committees ought to have some powers; they ought to be able to take action without the constant need to go to the Senior Salaries Review Body to dot every "i" and cross every "t".
I also hope that he will reconsider another vexing issue. Some Members of this House are part of parliamentary delegations who go about their business but are disadvantaged. Members of the other place receive the comparable overnight allowance in an annual payment. Whenever they travel abroad, they receive their allowances and their hotel accommodation is paid. In addition, they have received their overnight allowance, but Members of your Lordships' House have not. The chairman of a committee told me that there are in mind trips abroad which might take three days. During that time, Peers will be denied their overnight allowance which is used to pay the rent of a London flat. Eventually, the question will be asked, -Do we really need to go for three days"—which is what they should do—"or should we cut it down to one or two days?". The quality of the work done in this House could well be affected by the impact of such payments. I hope that the Minister will take account of it.
At the end of the day we never get what we want. In the play, A View from the Bridge, by Arthur Miller, the interlocutor said at the end of a terrible time, "We in this community settle for half-. I believe that we have obtained more than half; we have obtained considerably more than what we wanted. However, there is still a need to press the case. I am grateful to all those colleagues I mentioned who helped us to get as far as we have. We are grateful to the Minister and his colleagues but there is still work to be done.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord consider the point already raised about journeys from Scotland? I do not restrict my wife to two journeys a year, but perhaps I may remind the Minister that the fare to London is not the only expense incurred in bringing a wife down. It would be only fair that the number of journeys should rise considerably, perhaps to once a month or 12 times a year. It is ludicrous that Members of the Commons and others are entitled to 15 journeys for their spouses

883
while we in the House of Lords are entitled to only two. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give that point considerable attention.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, having been flushed from cover, perhaps I may briefly say how much I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I pay tribute to his sure and experienced touch at the helm of the committee in what were difficult—hardly dangerous—waters.
We were concerned entirely with reimbursement and not remuneration, which may come in the second stage of re form. Our concern was purely to address the anomalies and inequalities which had built up over the years. The cross-party view which formed was pretty well unanimous at all times, although perhaps occasionally there were differences on peripheral matters and on matters of emphasis.
However, the main theme was that it was totally unacceptable that in a working House in the 21st century Members might be out of pocket as a result of attending to their parliamentary duties. I believe that the recommended changes will correct the long-standing concerns which we have on these matters and I commend them to the whole House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton for the work that he has done. I make two very brief points on those issues which are still in abeyance in order to help the process along. I deal first with postage. To help the committee in its deliberations, those of us who use e-mails can communicate with the world from here at no cost; similarly, those who use faxes can use that method of communication as telephone calls throughout the UK. However, if we want to send letters we must pay for them, which is inconsistent and illogical. The cost will not be high because we can use e-mails and other devices.
Secondly, I refer to noble Lords who serve on committees of this House outside London. I include visits by the CPA and IPA and perhaps others; for example, the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body, of which I am a member. I believe that it is illogical and unfair that noble Lords should be perhaps several hundred pounds out of pocket because they attend on official business, which is just the same as being in this Chamber. The fact is that virtually none of those costs is defrayed through being away. Even if one takes the subsistence allowance it is all swings and roundabouts; on some days it costs more than one receives and on other days less. If one uses that argument, it is illogical that noble Lords should be denied subsistence money when they are away because somebody happens to provide a meal while they attend a meeting of a Select Committee or whatever.
This is an important point. I hope that when they look at it the powers that be in this House will identify a list of bodies and committees—the CPA and the like, in addition to Select Committees of the House—in respect of which any Member of the House will be entitled to his full allowances for the days that he attends.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful for the typically generous tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in particular and a number of other noble Lords paid to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. My noble friend has worked a very long time and has been an extremely skilful steersman of an enterprise which, by and large, has proved satisfactory.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, inquired of me why it was that in the Commons there were 15 spouse tickets a year but only two a year for Back-Benchers in this House. I am not sure that the answer readily came to mind, but it occurred to me that perhaps, given your Lordships' immaculate standards of behaviour throughout the year, two checking visits were quite sufficient, whereas elsewhere the position was different. As the noble Baroness rightly observed, Ministers are in quite a different category.
I believe that one or two questions can be dealt with generally. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, and my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lord Dubs raised questions which are dealt with in paragraph 4.20 of the report. It was concluded that,
"attendance remains the most appropriate basis for the subsistence allowances. We also consider that all expenses properly incurred"—
I believe that this is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dubs—
"on authorised parliamentary business away from the House should be reimbursed separately".
Importantly,
"There is a clear view that not all such expenses can be claimed although we are told by the Accountants Office that they are claimable".
I believe that that is another reason why more information should be available.
I take on board the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about attendance—I believe that he spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen—at professional conferences. Those are the kinds of questions to which we may need to return in considering the proper ambit of authorised parliamentary business. I believe that that observation applies in particular to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester about the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. He said that there would be six Members of this House on that body. I believe that that is also a matter to be looked at.
My noble friends Lord Hoyle and Lord Dubs asked for an early resolution of the "postage" question. I have already indicated that the Chairman of Committees is to have the first meeting of the relevant committee next week. Therefore, I do not believe that any delay is looked to.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised questions which I believe went wider than this Motion. He referred to accommodation in the Palace. I believe that that is a complaint which chimes with everyone. Almost no one has decent accommodation. I reproach myself because I do have decent accommodation. I did not really want to mention it in case the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, tapped on my door to ask for a little

885
space at the corner of the table. It is a difficult question. I hope that we shall be able to provide a desk for every Peer who wants one by the time we resume in the autumn. It will not be perfect because almost no one will have a room of his own. The conditions are not good, but we are subject to the constraints of the building.
If there are any other matters which occur to noble Lords perhaps they can be directed to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The noble Lord should be able to draw up a list of suggestions made either today or in correspondence so that we can look at them. I cannot give any guarantees for the future, but the Chief Whip and I both believe that if we are doing a job of public importance, as I believe we are, we are entitled to the provision of reasonable assistance. I do not believe that this resolution does more than that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is barely five months since I last moved the Second Reading of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. Since that time noble Lords on all sides of the House have devoted time and energy to detailed debate of the proposed schemes, taking five sessions at Committee stage and one day at Report stage.
That careful scrutiny enabled the Government to make certain amendments to the Bill as it proceeded through its parliamentary stages. Sadly, it was not possible to make more progress than we did with the Bill in the previous Session. I hope that the fact that the Government are re-introducing the measure at this early stage of the new Parliament, backed by a manifesto commitment, and with the introduction of important new clauses to Part 2, will persuade your Lordships of their determination to relieve the plight of residential long leaseholders by reforming the existing leasehold system and to offer a robust and well tried alternative scheme in commonhold. I shall outline the new proposals later. I am sure that we all look forward to what will prove to be a distinguished contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Best, in his maiden speech.
Those noble Lords with an established interest in this area will no doubt still have in their minds a clear picture of what the Government intend in the Bill, so I can be brief in describing its content. Both parts of the Bill address the problems faced by long leaseholders. Part 1 will introduce commonhold—a scheme providing for the ownership of the freehold of interdependent properties, or units as the Bill calls them, and the corporate ownership and management of the associated common parts by the unit owners. No one in this scheme will have a greater interest in the individual unit than the registered unit-holder. No
886
landlord will be able to interfere with the unit-holder's quiet enjoyment of the unit. The unit-holder, owning as he will the freehold interest in his unit, will not suffer a diminution of the unit's value as does the long leaseholder as the lease term begins to run out.
It will be remembered that the scheme is necessary to overcome the problem that our law at present does not allow for the obligations of positive covenants to pass to successive owners of freehold properties. It is this difficulty which has led to the overwhelming majority of residential flats in England and Wales being held on leases, the terms of which allow for the obligations created by such covenants to pass on changes of owner. Perhaps it is the greatest strength of leasehold property that, on the sale of a lease, the buyer normally takes the property subject to positive and restrictive obligations alike. It makes leasehold the only system which can work in a building where there are several owners and shared parts, and in consequence owners of flats are restricted to leasehold ownership with all the drawbacks which are all too well known.
It will also be remembered that commonhold, under a variety of different names and with differences of detail appropriate to the jurisdictions in which it operates, exists in almost every other country in the world and the scheme we propose owes much to the experience of others.
Bearing in mind the nature of the debate on the former Bill, I take this opportunity to remind your Lordships that the usefulness of commonhold will not be confined to blocks of flats. Although I am aware that it is there that leaseholders suffer most at present, the scheme we propose will be as useful for a business park or a large out-of-town shopping centre as it will for mansion flats in Kensington or leafy suburban housing estates. It could be employed for something as mundane as a shared car park.
Noble Lords will recall that a commonhold will consist of two elements: units, which will be owned by individual unit-holders, and common parts, which will be owned by a commonhold association.
The commonhold association will be a private company limited by guarantee. Its members will be the unit holders. The Bill provides for its constitution and for the mechanics of voting for various purposes, and places on it a duty to manage the development. The details of its memorandum and articles of association will be set out in regulations.
The Bill provides for the production of a commonhold community statement (CCS), which is a combination of plans and rules of management. Together with the memorandum and articles of association, it forms the central governing document of the development. Rules governing the use and maintenance of units should be set down in the CCS. Much of the documentation will be standardised, and will not have to be drafted for each individual commonhold. We believe this to be a very important feature of commonhold.

887
Let me stress that the Government are taking careful note of all the arguments put against the rule which requires the consent of 100 per cent of the prospective unit holders for conversion from leasehold to commonhold. We doubt that allowing long leaseholders to continue physically within, but legally at least semi-detached from, the commonhold arrangement would be a sensible way through. The only alternative, which would bring a non-consenting minority within the new arrangements, might be characterised as expropriation.
However, if a well-judged amendment were put forward, for which there was substantial cross-party support, the Government would listen to the debate and consider it very carefully. That said, the position which the Government have hitherto maintained, and to which they still adhere unless persuaded to the contrary, is that, although there is undeniable merit in not allowing one person out of step with the proposed new regime to obstruct the entire commonhold arrangement agreed upon by the others, the sensitivities inherent in expropriating that one person may be an overriding consideration the other way. But the Government will listen.
Perhaps I may now deal briefly with the proposed measures in Part 2 of the Bill. The Bill introduces a new right for leaseholders of flats to manage their building without having to prove shortcomings by the landlord or pay compensation. This new right will give leaseholders the chance to make a better job of managing the property. Its very existence will encourage landlords to give their leaseholders better value for money. The rules are as simple as possible to minimise the scope for challenges. They are similar to the proposed new rules for collective enfranchisement.
To ensure clear allocation of responsibility, democratic management and effective dispute resolution, the right will be exercised by a company with a prescribed constitution suitable for residential property management. All leaseholders will have the right to join.
As there is no need to prove that the landlord is at fault, we need safeguards for the landlord's legitimate interests. We have tried to strike a fair and workable balance.
The Bill makes a number of changes to the right of collective enfranchisement for flats. We propose to simplify the eligibility rules by abolishing the residence test and remove the requirement for two-thirds of the leaseholders in a block to participate. We will raise the proportion of the building that can be occupied for non-residential purposes from 10 per cent to 25 per cent and remove the low rent test where it still applies. The Bill will also restrict the existing exemption for resident landlords.
Leaseholders will have to use a company with a prescribed constitution similar to that proposed for the right to manage and commonhold. That will ensure democratic management and an effective mechanism for resolving disputes. All long leaseholders will have a right to join. At present, leaseholders can be unfairly excluded once the two-thirds majority currently required has been achieved.
888
We share leaseholders' concern about the cost of enfranchisement but we also recognise landlords' legitimate interests. They are entitled to a fair market price, which, despite criticisms from some noble Lords during the debate, should include a share of any marriage value. As disputes over the price can result in leaseholders incurring costs which amount to as much as the price itself, we intend to reduce the scope for costly arguments.
The Bill amends the right of individual leaseholders of flats to buy a new longer lease. Many of the changes reflect those proposed for collective enfranchisement. It will remove the existing three-year residence requirement to help leaseholders who occupy their flat as a second home or sublet it. To prevent short-term windfall gains by speculators, leaseholders will need to hold a long lease for two years before being able to exercise that right.
The Bill provides new rights for leaseholders of houses who have extended their leases under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. They will be able to buy the freehold after the extended lease has commenced. They will be entitled to remain under an assured tenancy when the extended lease expires.
The Bill amends the definition of "service charge" under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to cover improvements where these are payable under the terms of the lease. It will also give leaseholders new protection against unreasonable administration charges. Let me make it clear that administration charges and service charges for improvements will only be payable where the lease provides for their payment.
The Bill extends existing requirements to consult leaseholders on proposed works or services The Bill provides that ground rent is only payable when demanded. If paid within 30 days, the landlord will be prevented from making additional charges or starting proceedings.
The Bill introduces new restrictions on the use of forfeiture. Landlords are able to threaten forfeiture, often on spurious or non-existent grounds, to persuade
leaseholders to pay unreasonable charges. Landlords will be prohibited from commencing forfeiture proceedings for any contested breach of covenant unless a leasehold valuation tribunal or court has determined that a breach has actually occurred.
The Bill makes a number of changes to the leasehold valuation tribunals in order to improve their effectiveness and speed up dispute resolution. Leaseholder interests, in particular, were critical of the Government on the grounds that they believed that the previous Bill did not go far enough in its protection of leaseholders. Part 2 of the Bill includes important new provisions to strengthen leaseholders' rights. These are intended to address concerns put forward by noble Lords during discussions in Committee. I am grateful to noble Lords, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Williams of Elvel, and Lord Richard and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for their helpful and constructive comments.

889
The new provisions make changes to the qualifying rules for the enfranchisement of leasehold houses similar to those proposed for flats. They improve existing accounting requirements to provide greater transparency and discourage fraud. They include a new right for leaseholders to withhold service charges where requirements have not been met. Further, they will make it easier to remedy defective leases. The grounds will be clarified and extended and jurisdiction transferred to leasehold valuation tribunals. Lastly, they will make it clear that the right to seek the appointment of a manager under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 applies where a third party is responsible for management, and will restrict the current exemption for resident landlords.
We hope that these important additions to Part 2 of the Bill will help to meet some of the criticism levelled at the Government during debate on the former Bill. We realise that perfectly proper expectations had been raised by our consultation process, and we are pleased to be able to include them now.
We continue to believe that this is a good Bill. Principled differences of view arose during debate in its former incarnation. I do not doubt that some of those differences will arise once more. I repeat that, if a well judged amendment is put forward, for which there is substantial cross-party support, to the effect that less than 100 per cent of the prospective unit holders should be necessary for conversion from leasehold to commonhold, the Government would consider it carefully, despite their reservations about what could be regarded as expropriation.
When the Bill was last considered, there were some who suggested that we should forbid any further leasehold development and require existing leasehold developments to be converted to commonhold. But we shall continue to maintain the position that stopping leasehold in its tracks is not the most prudent way to proceed. Instead, we shall continue to attempt to win the hearts and minds of potential developers, investors and buyers to ensure that commonhold is established as the preferred alternative for those building interdependent properties. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that clear exposition and resumé of the Bill. As he rightly pointed out, we are re-treading ground which is still fresh in our memories. I should like immediately to thank the Government for certain amendments which have been included. It is clear that they have taken on board some of the points that were made. I hope, too, that at this stage it might be in order for me to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on his new appointment. I look forward to working closely with him on housing matters. The noble and learned Lord will soon become used to the team. We
890
are not a big team, but we are quite vociferous. Although we may have different points of view, I believe that by and large most of the noble Lords concerned are very well briefed.
I had not intended to say much about commonhold because I felt that I was one of those noble Lords who was bashing his head against a brick wall and getting nowhere. However, given the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his introduction, I now think that perhaps there is a crack in the wall and, if I continue to bash my head against it, we might knock a little of that wall down.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. I did not put my name down to speak in the debate on Second Reading because I, too, thought that we were bashing our heads against a brick wall on the matter of commonhold. However, now that my noble and learned friend has said that there might be a chink, then I shall certainly participate in the proceedings in Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will be with me in Committee. I felt that we formed a good team earlier in the year. We might be an even better team now. I did not like the provision that required 100 per cent agreement to move from leasehold to commonhold. It seemed to defeat the object of moving to commonhold in the first place and I felt that it could not progress all that far. However, I believe that we might now have an opening to develop that point.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on Part 2 of the Bill, covering leasehold reform. At this point I should note that today we are lucky enough to have one noble and learned Lord opening the debate and another noble and learned Lord closing it. That is most fortunate. Could the noble and learned Lord who is to sum up say a little more on why the Government have made the amendments set out in Chapter 4 of the Bill? That appears to be the part of the Bill which has changed the most since it was first introduced in the last Parliament.
The underlying principle of leasehold enfranchisement has always been to give leasehold homeowners the right to buy the freehold. Over the years that principle has been steadily eroded and, what is of key concern, will eventually disappear completely under the terms of the Bill. That is perhaps surprising when even the Government's most recent consultation paper seemed to accept that legislation should not benefit speculators and professional property investors. I believe that the Bill represents a fundamental flaw in the Government's thinking because it will do exactly that.
The original 1967 Act did not expressly exclude commercial property from its provisions and, to that extent, mixed-use properties could fall within it if the building reasonably could be called a dwelling-house. However, in practice, the great majority of mixed-use property was excluded because of the low rent test, the rateable value limits and the residency test. The 1993

891
Act changed that by the removal of the rateable value limits, although again a large number of mixed-use properties continued to be protected by a combination of the low rent test and the residency condition. The 1996 Act made further inroads into that by removing the low rent test for leases over 35 years. The current Bill originally intended to make no further amendments, but I see that the Government are now proposing to abolish the low rent test and the residency test for houses, but with the saving of a two-year residency test for mixed-use properties.
What will be the effect of these cumulative amendments? I believe that as regards a mixed-use building—whatever the proportion of commercial use—if it is let to an individual on the standard institutional 25-year term and he lives in the residential unit for two years he will then be able to buy the freehold of the building. Furthermore, under the terms of the 1967 Act, there is no right for the landlord to claim a leaseback on the commercial unit; he loses the whole thing. I believe that to be fundamentally unfair. All one is doing here is exchanging one landlord for another to no great benefit.
Incidentally, the abolition of the residency test for houses has one particularly odd consequence; that is, to allow the head lessee of a building comprising flats to buy the freehold. From my experience as a surveyor, which I ought to declare—I declared it two days ago before my remarks on the Land Registration Bill; I am an active surveyor and I have friends who are surveyors, property owners and solicitors deeply involved in this field (I have now also declared everyone else's interest)—I can think of a great number of people whom I might term as unsavoury property speculators who hold head leases on residential buildings in certain parts of London. They will relish the prospect of the Bill in order to increase the value of their premises—again, for no real good cause, which had been the original idea behind enfranchisement.
Under the 1993 Act, a tenant cannot be a qualifying tenant for the purpose either of a collective claim or a lease extension claim if he has a business tenancy. So far as I can see, no changes have been proposed to that. Furthermore, a building will not qualify for a collective enfranchisement if more than 10 per cent of the internal floor area has non-residential use. Also, at least half of the participating tenants in a claim must fulfil a residency test. However, the Bill proposes to abolish that residency test and to increase the nonresidential limit to 25 per cent.
Perhaps I may cite the example of a standard, four-storey mixed-use building comprising a ground floor shop with the upper parts divided into three residential units. The shop is let on a standard institutional 25-year term, with each of the flats sold on a long lease held by an offshore investment trust. If the Bill as drafted is passed, then the three offshore investors will have the right to buy the freehold of that building. I accept that the landlord has the right to a leaseback on his commercial unit, but he will lose the freehold of his building and the ability to manage it as part of a larger holding. Again I must ask the noble
892
and learned Lord: what is the justification for this? All that is being done here is transferring the right to buy the freehold from one landlord to three offshore landlords. I do not think that that would benefit the people living in the building.
I shall remain with the question of mixed-use buildings. We have all heard sagas of excessive service charges. I shall cite one instance that I know of well. It is worth recounting the facts to noble Lords for the simple reason that it supports a major plank of my next argument. The building in question has a commercial use of more than 25 per cent with six residential flats above. The owner had an agent, Agent A, who managed the property from 1993 to 1999. Over that time, the agent's fees amounted to 62 per cent of the total service charge. Additional items were set down, for which fees were charged; namely, for exceptional repairs which, during a period of six years, amounted to over £58,000. The owner then changed agents. Agent B has now applied to the tenants for a further £22,000 for redecorations and repairs. We have tried to secure from the original agent a breakdown of how the costs of over £58,000 were incurred. There are no details; no specifications; no invoices; no guarantees; the freeholder denies all knowledge; and, of course, the new Agent B also denies all knowledge. We have had surveyors look over the property and they cannot see how that sum can readily be accounted for. The matter has been reported to the appropriate institutional body—the chartered surveyors—but, sadly, that body is not proving as effective as I had hoped it would be and it does not seem to be taking any action against the agents.
The point of the example is that that property will receive no benefit under the Bill, and the six residential tenants and the commercial tenant continue to be penalised.
At the end of the last Session, the noble Lords, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Goodhart, and I, attended a very constructive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who was then the Minister in charge of the part of the Bill dealing with leasehold housing. The noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Goodhart, and I—all from different sides of the House—had the combined agenda that more important than the right to enfranchise was the right to manage. There should not be too much read across; they are two very separate items. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who is to speak next, will pick up on that point.
I have given your Lordships a classic example of a property where all the tenants want is sensible management, and they cannot get it. The Bill does nothing to help them to get it. The residential tenants do not want to enfranchise and the commercial tenant does not want to enfranchise, but they cannot get the requisite information, and the professional bodies involved do not seem to be able to help.
I should like to see changes in the Bill which allow a greater scope for right to manage. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, is not on the list of speakers because he has particular experience of this issue. I hope that he will come in at Committee stage.

893
Surely, in this instance, there is no reason why a combination of the commercial tenant and residential tenants should not be able to take over the long-term management of that building.
That leads me to my second point—which concerns the totally unsatisfactory nature of some of the agents with whom we are faced. Putting it as mildly as I can, some of my fellow agents are not the best people to be looking after property. All agents should be licensed; we should all be trained and regularly retrained to a high standard; and there should be draconian penalties levied against us when we do not perform. It is a scandal that fellow agents are not able to produce those invoices, those specifications and those guarantees.
When we previously discussed the Bill in Committee, I tabled an amendment to that effect. It is a vital ingredient which would help the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's Land Registration Bill. If we can get a better quality of surveyors in this country, who are trained to a high standard, the whole process of the housing market, the commercial market, the leasehold market and the commonhold market will improve. People will start to gain confidence in agents who will be held accountable. I hope that on those two issues we can get some movement from the Government.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to speak on what should be described as the Fourth Reading of the Bill. We had a First and Second Reading before Dissolution; we have had another First Reading and we are now having the second Second Reading. We also had five days in Committee in the Moses Room before Dissolution and one day on the uncompleted Report stage. I hope that that will help us to shorten the proceedings.
I, too, should declare an interest as the holder of a lease on a flat. The flat is Crown property—the Crown Estate is the freeholder—and so it is not in exactly the same advantageous position as other flats, but I still should declare the interest.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I congratulate him on a clear presentation of a number of complicated issues. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, who has raised a number of important points on Part 2 of the Bill. I believe that those points have a great deal of force behind them. I have little doubt that we shall support many of them when we get to the Committee stage.
Perhaps I may start with a general statement of my party's position on this matter. We are strongly in favour of both the introduction of commonhold and a further stage of leasehold reform. We feel that in some respects these proposals do not go far enough. It is a highly detailed Bill and we believe that, in a number of cases, the details are wrong or could be improved.
We regret that the break between the abandonment of the Bill on Dissolution and its return could not be used to make further improvements. As I understand
894
it, most, if not all, of the additional provisions which now appear in the Bill compare to those which appeared for Report stage. They are, in fact, amendments which were put down for debate on Report but which were not incorporated into the Bill because of the termination of the Report stage. I should be interested to know whether there are any amendments which are additional to those tabled by the noble and learned Lord at Report stage.
We welcome the principle of commonhold. For the reasons explained by the noble and learned Lord, freehold ownership of flats is impracticable. Long leaseholds also present serious problems, particularly in regard to the difficulty of obtaining mortgage finance when the outstanding term of a lease falls below 30 to 40 years. Various forms of collective ownership have been developed in other parts of the world, the most relevant of which, perhaps, are those in the USA and Australia. They have undoubtedly worked well there and there is no reason whatever why they should not work well here. We therefore warmly welcome the introduction of commonhold.
But there are a number of problems, some of them serious. As the Bill now stands, the main problem is the requirement for 100 per cent consent from all interested parties—freeholders, leaseholders, chargees—before the conversion of existing properties to commonhold is possible. This will make it very difficult to convert existing leasehold blocks to commonhold. It might be possible in some small buildings containing, say, no more than three or four flats, but hardly any larger blocks would be likely to convert. The great majority of commonhold would be likely to be new build.
I was particularly interested to learn, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is prepared to consider amendments and has an open mind on the subject. Indeed, he obviously favours the principle of removing the 100 per cent consent rule if an appropriate alternative can be designed.
I would reject any idea based on expropriation. I believe that it is perfectly possible to devise a workable scheme where a small minority of leaseholders—no more, say, than 20 per cent—refuse their consent. This would involve the commonhold association acquiring the freehold and simply leaving the leases of non-consenting parties outside the commonhold scheme until the leases expire. We tabled amendments to that effect on the previous Bill. We shall look at the text of our amendments again to see where they can be improved, and we shall bring something back for that purpose.
Another serious problem with commonhold is the question of the recovery of arrears of service charges and other liabilities due to the commonhold association from unit- holders. At present, of course, with leaseholds the threat of forfeiture is usually enough to secure payment. But if forfeiture is not available, that is not possible. It is true that a charging order can be obtained for arrears, but that involves an application to a court—which is likely to take some time—and, of course, existing charges on the property

895
take precedence over a charging order. This could mean serious cashflow problems for commonhold associations even if they do eventually get their money back. Prompt payment is vital; and it will not occur without effective mechanisms for securing it.
Therefore, I should like to see arrears of service charges treated as priority debt, so that if a mortgagee sells a commonhold unit the mortgagee must pay off the arrears before reimbursing itself. The Council of Mortgage Lenders is, I understand, unhappy with such a proposal, but I believe that any detriment to the council is outweighed by the probable benefit in securing better and more effective maintenance of buildings, which will benefit mortgage lenders as well as commonholders.
Finally, as regards Part 1, there is the question of the best corporate structure for commonhold associations. The Government propose a company limited by guarantee. Some critics have raised the objection that the structure is too formal and complicated.
I accept that there undoubtedly must be a corporate structure for commonhold associations; however, I believe that the structure and administration of limited liability partnerships under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 1999 is likely to be a good deal simpler. For commonhold associations with no more than 10 members, a limited liability partnership could well be more appropriate than a company limited by guarantee.
Limited liability partnerships are a novel form of incorporation. It may perhaps be premature to provide them as an alternative available at present. However, the Government should at least include powers in the Bill to enable them to introduce a limited liability partnership at a later date if it looks likely to be beneficial to small commonhold associations. That point applies also to the right to manage and the right to enfranchise companies as well as to the commonhold associations.
I move on to Part 2 of the Bill, Clause 69 onwards, dealing with leasehold reform. We did not, of course, have the benefit of a debate on Report. Again, we support the principle of extending the right to manage to enable tenants to form an RTM company without having to prove mismanagement by the landlord. Where property is well managed, lessees are probably unlikely to want to take over the management themselves. But the need to prove mismanagement has deterred lessees from claiming the right to manage where management has been unsatisfactory or incompetent rather than grossly oppressive.
Part 2 contains what is perhaps the only significant earlier concession by the Government; namely, their acceptance that RTM and RTE companies should not be mutually exclusive. Under the original proposals, a member of an RTM company who did not wish to become involved in the cost of enfranchising would have lost the right to participate in management when the company proceeded with enfranchisement. The provision needs strengthening.
896
Our main disagreement with the RTM proposals relates to the automatic right of a landlord to be a member of an RTM company. RTM companies should be representative of tenants and should he able to deal at arm's length with the landlord. We accept that where the landlord is also the occupier of a flat it may be reasonable that he should be a member of the RTM company. However, it gives an unjustified advantage to non-resident landlords to enable them to have the right to be members of that company.
We believe also that the Government have not dealt properly with the position of management contracts subsisting at the time of the take-over of management by an RTM company. There was a confused debate on the matter at the Committee stage. It appears that the Government are assuming that existing management contracts will be terminated on the take-over of management by an RTM company, although that is a matter of general law rather than the consequence of any provision in the Bill. That may be technically correct, but if so it seems to us to be undesirable. Management contracts may be contracts, for instance, with a cleaning company for the cleaning of the common parts of the building; they may include a contract with a gardener for looking after the garden.
The basic principle should be that contracts of this kind should be novated. That means that they should continue with the substitution of the RTM company for the landlord. I believe that this rule should be adopted on the face of the Bill subject to the right of an RTM company to terminate contracts in cases where, for example, the landlord has given a contract for services to be provided by a friend at excessive cost.
I now turn to Chapter 2 of Part 2, which extends the right of collective enfranchisement. We welcome this provision. It extends the right to join in collective enfranchisement to a number of leaseholders' who did not have it previously. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, put forward a number of criticisms which have some justification behind them; but broadly, this is a principle that we support.
There is, however, one defect which is of fundamental importance. The Bill does not require the automatic transfer of membership of an RTE company on the assignment of a lease. That seems to me to be essential if the purpose of an RTE company is to be achieved; namely, to give leaseholders the right to participate in ownership. We see an RTE company as in effect an embryo commonhold association. If the leaseholder can sell his lease but retain his interest in an RTE company, we are simply recreating the problem that the legislation was designed to remedy. We are, in other words, creating a new set of absentee landlords.
I come finally to the issue that raises the only real conflict of principle between ourselves and the Government. I refer to the inclusion of marriage value in the computation of the price to be paid to the landlord on enfranchisement under Chapter 2 or Chapter 4 and on the extension of a lease under Chapter 3.

897
The basic price to be paid is what the freeholder loses. That means the market value of the reversion being acquired by the leaseholder or an RTE company or the reduction in the market value of the reversion as a result of the grant of an extended lease under Chapter 3.
We have no quibble with that principle. We do not press for the extension of the artificially reduced value that was originally provided for by the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That could well be contrary to the Human Rights Act—although the Duke of Westminster's case indicated that at the time it was thought not to be contrary. But the market value paid to the freeholder is increased on the footing that the leaseholder is a special purchaser and would be willing to pay more than someone buying a freehold as an investor.
We believe that that concept is unfair. The leaseholder is in a weak bargaining position in this notional market: unless he or she buys the freehold or obtains an extended lease, he or she will face inconvenience, disturbance and the distress of having to move home. We believe that it is wrong in principle that the freeholder should be allowed to take advantage of this weakness in the bargaining position of the leaseholder.
Marriage value should, we believe, be eliminated from this equation. The leaseholder should have to pay what the investor would pay for the property, and no more than that. We shall, therefore, fight throughout the proceedings on this Bill for the abolition of the marriage value.
There are some other points that we shall raise at later stages, but they are relatively minor and I shall not discuss them now. The Bill, even as it stands, is an important step forward. It could be a good deal better. We hope that before it reaches its "Fifth Reading" it will at least be a bit better. This has been a good week for property nerds in this House, with debate on the Land Registration Bill on Tuesday and on this Bill today. If I were an examiner, I should give the Land Registration Bill an alpha. This Bill, I am afraid, would qualify for no more than a beta, but let us hope that before it passes into law we can get it at least up to a beta plus.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, although I was unable to participate in the previous Second Reading debate, I was able to attend and hear my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor open that debate, as he has done today. The telling of the tale has only improved in its clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as ever, spoke with enormous experience and expertise which I cannot match.
I do not have to declare an interest as a leaseholder, as other colleagues will be doing, but many years ago I owned a flat in central London, and I remember with some bitterness the unfairness and cost of service charges. I also remember that the changes in
898
ownership and the managing agents of the block created enormous problems for those of us who lived there. I felt strongly about the remarks that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made about managing agents which were true in my case. I remember, too, when we decided to sell up and move on, spending a significant sum of money resolving issues of old-fashioned covenants on the property. I welcome, in particular, those parts of the Bill that introduce a new right for leaseholders of flats to manage their own building without having to prove fault or to pay compensation.
This reform has been a long time coming, starting in 1967 with the then government's Leasehold Reform Act. Further legislation in 1985, 1987 and 1993 sought to extend the rights and protection of leaseholders, including the right to buy freeholds and the right to challenge incompetent and neglectful landlords.
However, although on the face of it the protection of leaseholders afforded by the law appears formidable, in practice many of the remedies are expensive and, for an ordinary person like myself, to challenge them is too formidable, too difficult and too complex. Landlords have become adept at blocking loopholes so that leaseholders find themselves in a disadvantageous position. That, and the fact that it is an investment in a home that is steadily losing its value as the lease approaches its end, are some of the reasons why the Bill is so welcome to many people living in leasehold property.
I am aware that some leasehold associations feel that the root and branch reform proposed in earlier consultations has not taken place. But the dress rehearsal that we undertook before the general election has served us well and I congratulate the Government on the additional clauses that address some, though not all, of the concerns that have been raised. In Committee, we shall need to examine the powers of right-to-manage companies, some of which I suspect people will feel are inadequate. We also need to ensure the quality of new management.
The first part of the Bill introduces the new structure of commonhold. I attended most of the Committee stage debates last time round and listened carefully. One of the issues raised by noble Lords was the challenge posed to those who support commonhold in persuading the development industry to embrace an innovation that is not yet proved. It is a catch-22 situation. Investment will not be made until commonhold has proved itself, and it cannot prove itself until its success is apparent. The Government will need to go out and sell commonhold to the development industry and its investors. I was particularly pleased to hear my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor acknowledge the problem and I look forward to discussing how to solve it as the Bill progresses.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I rise with the usual combination of anxiety and awe to present my maiden speech, but perhaps with a little extra trepidation because I think that I am the first to speak from among

899
those appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. The news media gave us people's Peers a rather rough ride, so I feel a little extra pressure to prove my worth.
I want to speak not only because I have some comments to make about the Bill, but because it gives me the opportunity to say something about the role of charitable research-based foundations, such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, of which I am the director. I hope to show that they can play an important role in policy making. We have produced some nine reports in the past decade on issues relating to commonhold and leasehold reform, the first of which we (lid with the Consumers' Association. We looked through the eyes of the leaseholders—the consumers—at the problems that they faced and discovered that more than 50 per cent of the leaseholders surveyed had had severe problems with their absentee landlords. Those problems included excessive service charges, lack of repairs and maintenance, leaking roofs, dry rot and even some harassment by landlords.
We followed that study over the past nine years with a series of reports in which we brought together researchers from the University of Stirling, led by Dr. Douglas Robertson, Professor Ian Cole and others from the University of Sheffield, Hallam and, more recently, we imported from America comparative knowledge and understanding from Professor Katharine Rosenberry of the California Western School of Law in Santiago. In America they are well used to commonhold, as they are in Australia, and we have produced a series of reports under that heading.
I hope that this body of knowledge has been helpful not just in producing some ideas and information for policy makers, but also for being a source and network from which the Government have been able to commission additional research and draw down expert advice, not; least international advice in the policy-making processes.
With that lengthy preamble to justify the role of charitable foundations, perhaps I can now make three comments about the Bill itself. My first is to make the connection between this legislation and the urgent need to persuade more people to live in our towns and cities, particularly in the centres and conurbations in the North and the Midlands, and not just in London.
Some 60 per cent of all new homes in London are built as flats, but for England as a whole, only 17 per cent of all new accommodation is built in the form of flats. We are averse to the idea of living in flats, which propels us to buy freehold houses in the suburbs and beyond, into the countryside. If we are to reverse these trends, we must remove the disincentives and inhibitions of people to live in flats in urban centres.
The Bill goes a long way towards remedying the differences between buying a freehold house and buying a leasehold flat. Until now it has not been wise to buy a leasehold. It has a depreciating value over time and subjects leaseholders to the potential of bad
900
landlordism and high service charges. I welcome the Bill for the contribution that I hope it will make to the agenda for urban renaissance, which the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, and others are keen to promote.
My second reason for welcoming the Bill is that it goes beyond simply freeing people from the potential tyranny of absentee landlords. It will provide the framework within which the people who want to manage their premises together can do that difficult job. We know from research that people who have collectively bought the freehold of their apartments and who now manage the common parts themselves are sometimes disillusioned by the process. Their neighbours have not turned out to be the managers that they had hoped for and new disputes can break out.
The legislation, particularly the regulations, and the manual of guidance which I hope will accompany it, will enable people to get along together. We cannot legislate for people to love their neighbours but we can provide legislation which makes it easier for people in a block of flats to co-operate and work. together. I believe that the measure will provide the basis for clarity on matters such as how much one sets aside for future repairs and how one handles the collective parts of the building. That will be important to good neighbourliness.
My third point is rather more technical. It concerns the new tendency for planning consent to be given for new developments with the condition that some of the new homes are not for owner occupation but constitute affordable housing for rent. Planners are increasingly and properly insisting upon mixed tenure developments in which social, rented. housing — perhaps housing for key workers—is included among housing for owner occupation. That is infinitely to be preferred to segregating and separating social housing and building polarised estates where people are labelled poor or losers. However, that presents some challenges for the commonhold and right-to-manage legislation as we shall in future increasingly have blocks of flats and tight, dense developments of owner-occupied housing which has within its midst traditional tenants, not long leaseholders. Their views on managing and looking after the common parts which they will share will need to be taken into account in ways that are not yet possible as the legislation is drafted. I hope that that point will be considered as the Bill progresses.
I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the many kindnesses which have already been shown to me. I also thank noble Lords for their patience in listening to my comments on the Bill and for their tolerance in allowing me to set those points in the context of the role of charitable foundations in debates of this kind. I hope to draw on that again in the future.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is my privilege to follow the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best. We have enjoyed a wonderfully riveting and profound maiden speech from the noble Lord and a contribution

901
full of grace, insight, humanity and passion which reflected his great experience. The speech was delivered without a note in sight. He very much made the case for people's Peers.
As the noble Lord said, he is director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one of our great, leading charitable organisations which supports renowned policy development, particularly in the areas of poverty alleviation and urban regeneration. Before joining the Rowntree Foundation the noble Lord, Lord Best, was director of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which is why his contribution this afternoon was so skilful and comprehensive in its scope and clarity. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord on many future occasions in your Lordships' House.
I now turn to my own poor morsel of a contribution. Not being a campaign veteran of the first introduction of the Bill earlier this year, and not being a housing expert by any stretch of the imagination, I shall not detain your Lordships long. I simply want to make three points. First, I very much welcome this important Bill with its introduction of commonhold, allowing property owners the right to own their own property absolutely and also to be able to manage common parts through a commonhold association. As many noble Lords have said, this model of co-ownership, which means no leases and no landlord, is long overdue and calls on the land ownership systems which, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just said, are the norm in the USA, Australia and New Zealand. When debating the Bill in the spring of this year many noble Lords commented on the importance of adopting best practice from those and many continental countries. The Bill also tackles the vexed problem of leasehold reform to make it easier for leaseholders to buy the freehold of their homes and to give them effective redress against landlord abuse.
Secondly, I hope that the Bill, when it completes its passage through your Lordships' House, will reflect a proportionate response to the clamour in the country for justice in leasehold reform. Some 2 million leaseholders in England could benefit from new legislation. The current system of residential leasehold is fundamentally flawed, giving disproportionate powers and privileges to landowners. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in his opening remarks at the first Bill's Second Reading in this House on 29th January,
"many leasehold tenants have a wide range of grievances. These include high service charges, absentee landlords who allow the common parts of a block of flats to fall into serious disrepair and landlords who may exploit their position when it is alleged that a tenant has broken the terms of the lease".—[Official Report, 29/1/01: col. 454.]
I very much hope that the new right to manage, the removal of the residence test and the low rent test, along with the simplification of the qualifying rules for exercising collective enfranchisement and other remedies in the Bill will go a long way to alleviate the strong sense of injustice which leaseholders currently feel.
902
Thirdly, looking back at the substantial amount of work that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and other noble Lords have already carried out on the Bill, I hope that despite calls—particularly from the leaseholder lobby—that these proposals do not go far enough, we shall be able to find enough common ground on which to agree in order to reach a fair and balanced solution for all interested parties.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hesitated before putting my name down to speak today but finally decided to do so for two reasons. The first is that I took part in the Committee stage of the abortive Bill in the previous Parliament and am likely to do so again this time round.
Being extremely mindful of the injunction of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House on Monday that we must lean over backwards to declare our interests, and by inference our non-interests, I ought therefore to set out my stall. The trouble with having to set out one's stall is that it minimises the chances of being falsely accused by one or other organ of the press of acting purely out of mercenary considerations, thereby minimising the chances of being awarded massive libel damages, but there it is! Accordingly, I declare a complete non-interest in that neither I nor any member of my immediate family is either a ground landlord or a lessee.
However, when the process of leasehold reform started back in 1967 I gradually became emotionally absorbed in it, for a number of reasons. In about 1968 a good friend of mine living in the South West of England let a disused, unmodernised farm cottage approximately 200 yards from his own house on a 40-year building lease at a totally nominal rent of about £1 a year to a well-to-do childless couple, the intention being that his as yet unborn grandchildren should inherit the improved cottage in 40 years' time. However, the lessee, a clever lawyer—I cast no aspersion on clever lawyers with whom the House is absolutely packed today—took advantage of the 1967 Act, on which the ink was scarcely dry and the full implications of which had not yet sunk in in rural Britain, compulsorily to acquire the freehold for an utterly derisory sum, thereby robbing my friend and future generations of his family. That alone fully justified the observation of Lord Brooke of Cumnor on 23rd October 1967 who stated:
"I venture to prophesy that this will go down in history as one of the worst Bills ever presented to Parliament".—[Official Report, 23/10/67; col. 1391.]
He later said that it opened the door to "legalised stealing". Significantly, even the then Labour Government—in those days they still called themselves socialists—had not planned for or anticipated such an outcome. Speaking from the Government Front Bench on 26th June 1967, Lord Shackleton said:
"Interference with contract ought to be kept to a minimum, and plainly there are some people who do not need protection in any form, and who, if there were no limits, would obtain very large windfalls out of proportion to the particular hardship of their need".—[Official Report, 26/6/67: col. 18]

903
Alas, it did not work out that way, as we all know, and many extremely rich people have benefited from leasehold reform. To some extent politicians of all parties are to blame. I think that electoral considerations played a part since there are many more leaseholders than landlords.
I concede that my in-laws, who were a great deal less well off than the clever lawyer in my first example, were able to acquire the freehold of their London house, albeit for a much larger capital sum and from a group rather than an individual. Of course, I was utterly delighted for them personally, although I could not help hoping that no future charitable beneficiary would lose out in consequence.
The third event which moulded my thinking on the subject was the treatment of an old family friend of my father's generation—a most distinguished and extremely senior officer in the Royal Air Force. His final retirement years in his flat on the Chelsea-Kensington borders were made a total misery by the unscrupulous, indeed wicked, behaviour of his overseas-based ground landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, gave instances of that kind. I have always been 100 per cent behind any legislative effort to prevent exploitation of lessees over service charges and maintenance. I have never had any problem there. It is confiscation which sticks in the gullet. I am not convinced that the present Bill, although better than many of its predecessors, is totally devoid of that element—for example, in the matter of marriage value. Here I totally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The second reason for my intervention is to defend the principle of leasehold. The Labour Government of the late 1960s did not argue that leasehold was inherently evil. On the contrary, they conceded that it had merits, not least in the matters of maintenance of historic squares and orderly redevelopment. They were concerned with the rectification, as they saw it, of some specific abuses and regional problems, in South Wales and elsewhere—a perfectly commendable objective. But nowadays it is fashionable, and by no means only on the Left, to attack the whole principle as immoral. But why? As Henry Brooke pointed out in 1967–1 quoted him previously—the leasehold system enabled him and his parents to live in a better house in a better location than would have been possible had only freehold houses been available. Why should not a middle-aged, childless couple invest such money as they have in the short leasehold of a luxurious flat or house in Belgravia, Chelsea, Kensington, Knightsbridge or Hampstead rather than being confined to buying a freehold of a house for the same amount of money in Ealing, Edmonton, Forest Gate or Croydon? To deny people the right to opt for a wasting asset, if they so choose, is pure paternalism.
This is not an academic argument. It is highly relevant to the Bill. If we can convince ourselves that leasehold is inherently wrong and immoral, then the question of fair compensation can safely take a back seat or even be chucked out of the window altogether.
904
But if it is not inherently wrong, as all major parties used to agree, then we must surely oppose any element of confiscation.
Finally, while commonhold is a great idea in theory, it is perhaps not the total panacea that some imagine. Fifteen years ago some of my family had the experience of being leaseholders in a block where the management, most unusually in those days and probably now, was wholly devolved to the leaseholders, as will be the case under the common hold system. Nearly all the leaseholders were fairly young, intelligent people with university degrees. One would have imagined that everything would have gone swimmingly. But not a bit of it. No one turned up for meetings; no one would take responsibility; no one would take decisions; they could not agree on the colour the front door should be painted; or whether bicycles should be left in the hall or chained to railings. It was a complete mess.
In an extremely impressive and beautifully delivered maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded us of such situations. I do not believe that that was, or will be, an isolated instance, notwithstanding the prospect of professional management companies. It may well be—I do not deny it—that commonhold is better than the alternative. However, I fear that in practice there will be quite a few problems.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I spoke at the previous Second Reading and I do not intend to repeat what I said. I state again my declaration of interest. I own leasehold property which I intend to use when I can no longer manage the stairs in my freehold house.
I am a strong supporter of commonhold. My experience in Australia has shown me that it works well. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out the difficulty of encouraging people to develop commonhold property. I believe that some form of incentive is necessary. In the past I have tabled amendments which would force people to build commonhold but I accept the Lord Chancellor's comments that that is not appropriate. Once commonhold is established people will see how good it is and it will take off.
I hope that we shall debate the Bill in this Chamber. We achieved quite a lot during debate in the Moses Room. However, I make a plea that we have further stages of the Bill in this Chamber.
I received today a fax from the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association. It states:
"Dear Lady Gardner, We are very concerned that the Government has completely failed to take up any of your suggestions"
—I am not sure which suggestions but I shall find out later—
"and seems determined to go ahead with its badly constructed bill on Leasehold Reform with only its own amendments.
"We hope that you will not allow the Government to push the bill past the Lords in this manner".

905
I feel very flattered that it thinks I can stop them! But that is the bad news. The good news is that I believe that there are many improvements in the Bill. I refer in particular to the adjustments of leases. Clause 156(3) of Part 2 makes variations possible. It refers to,
"such other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
I hope that that means that where a lease makes no provision for the setting up of a reserve fund or sinking fund it may be possible to apply to have leases varied in order to do so. It is a major problem when a building is allowed to fall into disrepair and there is no method by which everyone can be asked to produce a small amount. It is a difficult situation. One does not want large amounts of money taken from people unnecessarily but one does need a reserve fund.
I was concerned to note that in Chapter 1 of the Land Registration Bill, Clauses 9 and 10 on classes of title cover only registration of freehold or leasehold land. As we are creating commonhold, why is there no provision in the Land Registration Bill to register commonhold? Some years ago we debated a gas Act which referred to the "registered disabled". At the same time another Bill before the House abolished the term. This seems a parallel situation. In one Bill we create commonhold; in another we ignore it. Why is that? Should it be included in the Land Registration Bill?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned that there was a provision to prevent people having to pay too high an amount before the leasehold valuation tribunal. That will be one of my main areas of concern in Committee and at subsequent stages. I was very involved in the 1993 Act. In fact, it was my hapless question on what it would cost people that elicited the answer, "Every penny of the cost of the tribunal down to the milk for the office cat". That raised such a furore in the House that, after a lengthy debate, it was eventually agreed that, no matter how long the case went on, even if the landlord was determined to drag it out to make it too expensive for the leaseholder to continue, the maximum payable by the leaseholder would be £500.
That has worked well, but the snag comes when the landlord who is resisting the enfranchisement or the longer lease appeals to the Lands Tribunal, where the conditions that we wish to avoid can apply. The landlord can make the case so long and so costly that the leaseholder cannot afford to continue and has to give up. It is very important that the guarding of costs in leasehold valuation tribunals should be extended in the case of enfranchisements to cover the Lands Tribunal as well.
I have already commented elsewhere about the Australian example of mixed-use buildings. In those instances, commonhold operates in two ways. The business premises are run under a separate commonhold from the residential part. That solution is well worth considering, because one of the big problems is the end of life of the commonhold property. The termination provisions now in the Bill
906
are a great improvement. I am pleased that there is provision for termination with 80 per cent agreeing. There can always be a small number of very difficult people who are determined not to have the general interest in mind.
I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about opposing marriage value completely. I do not oppose it completely, but the distinction between an 80-year lease and others is too extreme and sharp. There should be more of a sliding scale. The leases that I have are 50 years or shorter, so I am not putting the idea forward from that point of view. However, someone who was just a year or two under the 80-year limit and lost any benefit of reduction in marriage value would feel disadvantaged.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, made a very interesting and informative speech, but I take issue with his view that people should not buy freehold houses with gardens. For those with small children, there is nothing as good as a freehold house with a garden, big or small. Outside London, people can afford such houses in a way that they cannot in London. The number of people living in flats in London has increased not because we think that it is the most desirable way to live, but because it has been forced on us by London costs. I understand the noble Lord's point that it would be desirable to have flats for people who are single or those who prefer to have a city-type dwelling in places other than London. When they are built, I hope that they will be built as commonhold, because I believe that that would work best.
I welcome the fact that the Bill has been brought back and improved.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I was unable to participate in the previous Second Reading, so I begin by declaring an interest. I am a leaseholder of a flat in central London. The lease can be extended under the rights given by the 1994 legislation passed by the Conservatives. At that time, I sought to persuade the then Government to rectify some serious deficiencies in the Bill. I even went so far as to take out a full-page advertisement in The Times with an open letter to Sir George Young, the then housing Minister. Unsurprisingly, my representations were unsuccessful, but three of my four proposals have been included in this Bill, so presumably I was on target. Therefore, one may reasonably ask why I am so utterly despondent about the Bill, which corrects most of those issues that were not properly dealt with last time.
There are about 2 million leaseholders in this country. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on the last Second Reading of the Bill:
"The position of those who own long leasehold residential property in England and Wales leaves much to be desired. … they own a wasting asset that declines in value with years and may eventually become unsaleable",—[Official Report, 29/1/01: col. 454.]
Just one other country in the world—Hawaii—had a leasehold system. Hawaii has now ended that system. So here we are in this great democratic country with a Labour Government determined to advance the cause

907
of leaseholders. From the Government's public statements, there can be no doubt about that. In their November 1998 consultation paper, they stated:
"The leasehold tenure is almost unique to England and Wales"—
I think that it is now unique—
"Ii has its roots in the feudal system and gives great powers and privileges to landowners. It is totally unsuited to the society of the twentieth—yet alone the twenty-first—century".
They went on to say:
"The Government believes the leasehold system is fundamentally flawed. It is committed to introducing a new form of tenure for flats—commonhold—which in future will enable the individual flat-owners in a block to own and manage the whole building collectively from the outset. We see commonhold as the best way to tackle the problems faced by many existing residential leaseholders".
Finally, they said:
"The Government considers that leasehold is a fundamentally unsatisfactory tenure. The reform legislation of the last thirty years has had only limited impact. The time has now come for a comprehensive reform of leasehold law".
With those resounding words, is it any surprise that leaseholders and leaseholder representative organisations were excited about the intended legislation, until they saw the draft Bill?
I have quoted those comments fully because I want to show your Lordships that the Government had serious intentions to advance the cause of existing leaseholders, yet today existing leaseholders and their organisations are in despair. I believe that between the time when those statements were made and the time when the Bill appeared, some dramatic changes of policy took place in the DETR. It could have been a decision by Ministers or on the advice of an official. All parties concerned have denied that there is any change in policy, but the Bill, within its essential terms, fails to advance the cause of existing leaseholders. I emphasise "existing", because there are 2 million leaseholders who are ill served by the Bill.
Astonishingly, the last Conservative Government's legislation was a great advance for leaseholders, because it enabled many people with houses to acquire their freeholds and many flat-owners to enfranchise or to obtain a 90-year lease extension. Those were fundamental and advantageous changes for all leaseholders throughout the country. On the negative side, the terms on which leaseholds could be acquired were in many cases horrendously onerous and in some cases legally complicated.
There was no doubt among key groups representing the interests of leaseholders that Labour would greatly improve the ease and cost of enfranchising. Having worked our way through the Bill in some detail before the general election, we now know beyond a shadow of doubt that it will do very little for existing leaseholders. The first great hope was that existing leaseholders could convert in some way to commonhold. However, when we were debating the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that he did not anticipate that more than a handful of leaseholders would be able to convert to commonhold and that this form of tenure was intended for future developers. I admire the noble
908
Lord's accuracy and frankness, but how does one square that with the need to help 2 million leaseholders? He went further and insisted that the present leasehold system should continue to be available for new developers. Many of us heard that with incredulity.
How, under the present system, can leaseholders' ability to extend their leases or acquire their freeholds be made much easier and more affordable, thereby ensuring that in the fullness of time the leasehold system would disappear from this country? If Hawaii can do it, so can we. At the moment, leaseholders believe that they have a better chance of improving their position under the Conservatives than under the present Government—although they may have to wait a long time.
The second critical issue, in addition to the introduction of commonhold, is the question of marriage value. I have always believed that the best solution is to abolish marriage value. Many organisations have argued that there is a strong case for abolition.
However, there are lesser steps which could greatly ease the lot of leaseholders. Perhaps I may illustrate just a few. First, the Government have excluded marriage value for leases over 80 years. Therefore, in my opinion and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, it would be logical and reasonable to have a sliding scale for landlords' share of marriage value. In relation to very short leases, it would reach 50 per cent, but for longer leases that 50 per cent would be reduced by stages to 40, 30, 20 or perhaps 10 per cent. It is illogical to have a zero marriage value at 80 years and 50 per cent at 79 years.
Then there is the possibility of allowing tenants who have lived in their homes for many years to have a lesser share of marriage value, perhaps declining to nothing, if they have occupied their homes for, say, 20 years. People who have been leaseholders for many years—certainly in a block of flats—know how much money they have paid not only towards maintenance and upkeep but also on improvements to their homes. It is bitterly painful to have to pay for that all over again.
Finally, there is another possible approach in so far as the real burden of acquiring either an extended lease or a freehold is that the share of marriage value must be paid up front at the time of the acquisition. It is hard enough for tenants to find the sums necessary to acquire their freehold or leasehold extension, excluding marriage value. Indeed, if the landlord were to sell his interest to a third party, he would receive no marriage value, and there is a strong case for saying that the payment of marriage value should be deferred until the property is sold on.
That would penalise successfully those who are selling supposedly in order to make a quick profit. More importantly, it would protect those who are now forced to sell in order to pay for the freehold or leasehold extension. It has not been recognised adequately that many people would like to remain in their own homes but cannot do so because they are

909
caught between their property depreciating in value at a very rapid rate and finding adequate resources, which they may not have, to prevent that situation occurring.
The need to acquire freeholds or to extend leases is driven by the rapid depreciation of properties in the last few years of a lease. One has either to pay whatever is demanded or lose everything. Therefore, in my opinion, there is a real logic in suggesting that the payment of marriage value should be deferred without the accruing or payment of interest but possibly with indexation for inflation.
If the Government were to introduce any or all of those ideas, landlords would not be trampled underfoot and leaseholders would not be laughing all the way to the bank. Before this Government were first elected in 1997, I had meetings and correspondence with the Housing Minister in another place who had been responsible for this Bill. At that time, I wrote saying that I hoped that the Bill would be the last important one on leasehold reform and that it would not be a small step forward, requiring yet another Bill to deal with this thorny issue. Two million leaseholders anticipated confidently a more effective Bill—something that would at least stand comparison with that produced by the Conservative government when they were in power.
There are three simple steps that the Government could take to curb or, indeed, eliminate enthusiasm for the leasehold system by landlords. Only three simple amendments are required. First, all new leases granted for a capital sum should be for a term of 999 years. Secondly, enfranchisement and lease extension legislation should apply to leases granted for a capital sum over 14 years rather than over 20 years as at present. Thirdly, lease extensions would be for 900 years rather than the current 90 years. Those steps, together with the right to manage, commonhold and some easing of the marriage value, could make this a great Bill.
I shall ask the Government to respond to only one question. Will they facilitate meetings with the relevant Ministers here and in another place, together with officials, to re-examine some of these ideas in the time afforded to us by the Recess and before we reach the Committee stage of the Bill?
Finally, I can do no better than to quote the Minister of State for the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions when she wrote last year that the leasehold system was,
"totally unsuited to the society of the twentieth—let alone the twenty-first—century".
That is what this Government believe, and we on these Benches share that belief. The Government have the power to advance the cause. With determination and effort, the Bill can ensure the gentle demise of the leasehold system without the need for further legislation.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly not only to welcome the Bill back at this early stage of the Session but also to stress the interest which the previous Bill generated in the country and the expectations that it raised for many. I became very aware of that during the run-up to the general election when I assisted in the office of my Member of Parliament, the right honourable Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, Nick Raynsford, who had responsibility for piloting the previous Bill through the other place prior to the election.
That previous Bill generated a great many telephone calls and letters to Nick Raynsford's office from voters of all parties and from throughout the country. In listening to the debates on that Bill. I learnt a great deal about the public conception of it. In particular, the commonhold element has captured the imagination of many people because they genuinely believe that it tackles many of the problems encountered by leaseholders. I heard about those problems in considerable detail over the election period, and we have heard more details today.
The concept of commonhold upholds the Government's determination that the community matters and that those who live in an area should have both rights and responsibilities for the control and management of the units in which they live. And that has appealed to the public. I found that people like the idea of owning the freehold interest in their units; they like the idea of added control over their own unit, while joining with neighbours to take decisions on the common parts of their establishments, whether they be swimming pools, seating areas or, as has been mentioned, car parks; they like the idea of the commonhold association—an innovation in the housing market; and they see commonhold as an exciting and forward-thinking alternative to leasehold.
At the same time, long-term leaseholders welcome a reform of the existing system. They—especially those who have suffered under the current law and under unscrupulous landlords—welcome the chance to have more control over their property management. They particularly welcome new restrictions on the use of forfeiture, which some landlords have used to force leaseholders to pay exorbitant charges. On that subject, I heard a fascinating account of how leaseholders are suffering at present in some of the most fashionable squares in this city.
Of course, concerns are still voiced over some parts of the Bill—in particular, as has already been said, the question of the 100 per cent conversion rate. I have no doubt that that will continue to be a hot potato in our discussions. In relation to leasehold, noble Lords earlier raised concerns and I shall not repeat them. However, those expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who was an assiduous attendee when the previous Bill was debated, should be taken careful note of because they commanded considerable cross-party support in our previous discussions.

911
Finally, from my experience during the election period, I believe that the importance of this Bill has already been recognised by many. I am pleased that it has been re-presented at such an early stage of the work in this House.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have a friend who was the best man at the third marriage of one of his friends. He started his speech at the third reception with the words, "As I was saying". I feel that we are somewhat in that position today. Perhaps, as he did, I shall resist going over the history. I shall not make the usual Second Reading speech but shall continue where we left off.
I declare, as others have done, my interest as a leaseholder. Happily, I have never experienced the difficulties of which we heard in such passionate and telling correspondence from those who were in touch with us during the previous Bill and, of course, its predecessors.
First, I shall, in a mild way, break the rules. I know that there are strictures on too many congratulations being given to maiden speakers. However, I shall break that rule and heartily congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best. He brings huge expertise. He said that he felt the need to prove his worth. However, he has proved it time and again outside this House and he need have no fears on that score. To return to the terminology that was used during the controversial discussion of the appointment of the so-called people's Peers, I am sure that he will feel very "comfortable" in your Lordships' House.
During the previous Parliament, the anxiety to enact the previous version of this Bill before the end of that Session did not make the government intransigent but they were rather resistant to some amendments. I hope that that will not be the case this time round. Some changes have been made in this Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Goodhart, I have not seen anything other than what was proposed on Report but I have to confess that my attempt at a line by line comparison began to falter fairly early on. This is a fairly thick Bill and its format is slightly different—it is easier to read. That brings me to a point that I have made about legislation on other occasions. There is a place for using modern technology in this context—it would have been useful if emboldened print had been used to show us where changes had been made.
Have the Government received further representations on the Bill? I said that we were continuing from where we had left off, but if they have had such representations, we may be starting from a different position. Do the Government propose any further alterations to the Bill's drafting? It was helpful to see successive drafts to the proposed model form of memorandum and articles of association for commonhold associations and for commonhold community statements. I echo the words of one organisation—it has doubtless been in touch with many noble Lords—which suggested that those documents in particular should be in the plainest English possible.
912
I have taken the view throughout that it is not just important but essential to get the commonhold arrangements right. Commonhold is a new form of tenure and it will not be easy to tweak it if we do not get it right. Getting it right includes making it easy to operate. My noble friend Lord Goodhart referred to that matter and a similar point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in relation to leasehold.
My noble friend also referred to the 100 per cent rule. He said that we tabled amendments during the passage of the previous Bill. He did not intend to but he used the Royal "we"; however, I could not possibly have drafted the skilful amendments that he prepared. I was aware of the stream of notes passing from the Government Front Bench to the Box during my noble friend's speech. In light of that, I have asked him whether I can now call him the noble nerd!
The noble Lord, Lord Best, discussed the challenges of mixed tenure while avoiding ghettoisation. That is a hugely important point. It is just as important to establish how the relevant associations manage properties when, to use the fashionable term, they are "pepperpotted"; that is, when they are sprinkled around among units with different tenures that do not need to be managed by a registered social landlord. He was absolutely right to remind us of the Bill's context, although that is not so much the case with commonhold. In relation to the need for affordable housing, we are now close to a crisis. By "affordable" I mean affordable to people who are on incomes that, in any normal, rational world, would allow housing to be bought and owned.
I had a call a couple of weeks ago from some friends who asked for advice, which I am not sure I was qualified to give. They, like so many others, were having continuing arguments with a landlord. They were members of a residents' association. They made vivid to me how urgent it is to support people in that situation. Their landlord, whom they said had particular "muscle"—he was a well-known, very large property owner in London—had been putting off repairs to the building because he was hoping to sell. Frankly, he was not paying any attention to maintenance. In trying to deal with the situation the residents' association had built up £90,000 in costs. That is simply not acceptable.
The Bill does not involve root and branch reform—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that it did—but it is very welcome. Marriage value has been referred to. The strength of concern from these Benches was well expressed. I hope that we can explore what my noble friend believes is the answer to the Human Rights Act argument and take the matter forward. We have discussed the regulation of managing agents—we did so during the passage of the previous Bill. I hope that we will also consider that matter.
I encourage those who provide briefings—usually at the last minute before debates in this House—to make them short because that enables us to use them more easily. I take up a point made in a briefing that I

913
received this afternoon from the National Housing Federation. It urged the Government to grant right-to-manage companies,
"the ability to seek forfeiture to the landlord, on the same basis as a freeholder may seek forfeiture for non-payment. The landlord, as a condition of receiving the forfeited property, would be responsible to make good the service charge arrears and other reasonable costs owing to the company".
We may pursue that point later but I make it now because it was specifically raised by what in this context is an important organisation.
My last words today—there are no doubt many contributions to come from these Benches in forthcoming debates—are that the previous Bill did not satisfy those who called loudest for change in relation to leasehold reform. Today is not complete because we do not have those familiar faces in the Public Gallery. I almost wonder whether our proceedings are valid without them!
My noble friend gave the Bill a "B-plus". Using the analogy of a school report, I say, "Good effort so far. We hope that the Government will have the confidence to go further".
5.48 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I begin by extending, on behalf of the Opposition, our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his maiden speech. It combined economy, clarity and originality—a rare blend, even in your Lordships' House.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will incline towards allowing the Committee stage of the Bill to be taken on the Floor of your Lordships' House. While the Moses Room no doubt has great merit, the limit to four hours per session meant that we were ensconced there for no less than five days. Of course, the noble and learned Lord's influence on those who manage the business in your Lordships' House is not always overwhelming; nevertheless, to the extent that the noble and learned Lord can exercise it in that direction, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tantalisingly suggested that the Government might entertain a helpful amendment with the purpose of allowing a conversion to commonhold from leasehold by less than 100 per cent of the lessees. I noticed a tremor of excitement passing throughout your Lordships' House when noble Lords heard those words.
I also understood the noble and learned Lord to say that the initiative should come from Benches other than the Government Benches. I hope that that does not mean that the Government will not be prepared to discuss the terms of a draft amendment proposed by other Benches before such an amendment is tabled. In my submission, it would immeasurably inhance our chances of success if the Government were involved at the earliest possible stage. Indeed, if we achieve that aim, it will be a remarkable advance on what happened previously.
914
I understand the reasons why the noble and learned Lord is unable to agree to a prohibition on other forms of tenure after this Bill becomes law. In future, I should prefer all residential flats to be based on the commonhold system. However, I detect little sign of the Government being prepared to accede to that.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that commonhold should compete in the market with other forms of tenure. If commonhold is to compete successfully, perhaps I may humbly suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it must have attributes that are more attractive than those of leasehold. One of my worries in that respect relates to those provisions in the Bill that concern the ability of one unit holder to enforce common obligations against another unit holder.
What we have heard so far from the Government does not suggest to me that real effectiveness will be introduced into the new legislation which will enable law-abiding commonholders to enforce against those who are not prepared to meet their obligations. I trust that the Government will carefully reconsider that aspect of the Bill during the Committee stage.
I also hope that the Government will be prepared, in Committee, to table the draft regulations on the commonhold community statement and on the memorandum and articles of association of the commonhold association as schedules to the Bill. That will enable us to table amendments to the contents of those two extremely important documents. Should the Government not be inclined to do so, it is certainly our intention to table the draft regulations as amendments to the Bill, thus seeking by those means to allow the House to look carefully at those important provisions.
I have two further observations to make about commonhold. First, from his days in practice, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that flying freeholds are not permitted in English common law. Likewise, I note that flying commonholds are not to be allowed in the proposed statute. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think again in that respect, because there are many attractions in having the commonhold tenure introduced into buildings where residential ownership is confined to the first and upper floors.
Secondly, I regret that so much of the content of the Bill is to be contained in regulations, not schedules. This is an argument that, I suspect, I shall not win. However, I can at least express my concern, as I did both on Second Reading and throughout the Committee stages of the previous Bill.
I have one general observation to make in respect of the leasehold aspects of the Bill. It is sad that the Government are not taking the opportunity of this Bill to consolidate the law on leasehold. It is now contained in so many different provisions that it is both a trap and a nightmare for lessees who have to protect their rights under the legislation. Once the Bill reaches the statute book, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give early consideration to consolidating the whole of our leasehold law. It will be a remarkable landmark during his tenure of office if he does so.

915
I turn to the right to manage, upon which I have three or four observations to make. My most pressing concern relates to Clauses 89 and 90, which deal with the contractual arrangements that are made between landlords and those who provided services to the building, and the way in which they are continued, or otherwise, once the RTM is established. In the event that the service provider chooses not to continue the contract, the position under the law is clear.
However, it is much less clear what the law will be in circumstances where the RTM company decides not to continue the contract. Who will bear the burden of that refusal—will it be the RTM? In which case, where will it find the resources? Alternatively, will it be the landlord? If it is the landlord, can that really be a fair solution?
My second observation is one that was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Caithness and, indeed, by one or two other speakers in the debate. In my submission, it is high time that the Government did something about the regulation of managing agents. That, in itself, is highly desirable. But it is also desirable because, unless the Government do something about regulating managing agents, it will be impossible to introduce objective standards for RTMs. It is clearly not fair to RTMs to require them to meet professional standards if the managing agents employed by landlords are not required to do so. In my view, the two are linked. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider this issue most carefully.
I am also concerned about the use of RTMs in the context of mixed uses in buildings. As I understand it, the purpose of the RTM is to give the residential lessee more control over his property. Yet, as the law stands, if there is a decision by the lessees to introduce an RTM in a mixed property its scope will extend not only to the residential parts of the property but also to the commercial parts.
Is that really desirable? The management of commercial property is much more sophisticated than that of residential property. It is probable that the residential managers of the RTM would not wish to deal with complex commercial issues. One possible solution would be to introduce an amendment to the Bill which would allow the commercial elements of a building subject to an RTM to lease back the management of those elements to themselves.
I have two final observations on the question of leasehold enfranchisement. At Second Reading and in Committee I was intransigently opposed both to the Government's provisions on marriage value and on the removal of the residential requirement as a qualification for leasehold enfranchisement. I have been thinking again about those matters in the course of the election break.
One of the difficulties about marriage value is that the evidence on the ground of the difference between 90 and 80 years is very different in London as compared with the rest of the country. Perhaps the Government could look at that and think hard about it: first, to see whether or not they agree with me as a
916
matter of fact; and, secondly, if they do, to consider whether or not they should reconsider their own provisions. I am much more hesitant about my outright opposition to the Government's proposals than I was. Nevertheless, a problem exists and I should like the Government to think about it again.
The second area where I feel less confident than I did the last time I was at this Dispatch Box is that of the residential qualification for leasehold enfranchisement. I had assumed that that would be open season for the predatory speculator. But have seen a great deal of evidence to suggest that a number of lessees who, for reasons that are no fault of their own, are not always resident in their leasehold property will be seriously prejudiced if we continue with the residential requirement. From outright opposition I am now also hesitant in that area and would be grateful if the Government could look again at the matter and come back in Committee with a fuller justification of their position.
I apologise to your Lordships for my rather rambling wind-up, but noble Lords will at least be relieved to know that it is now at an end.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in opening this debate I omitted to disclose to your Lordships that I recently purchased a leasehold flat in central London. I rectify that omission before my noble and learned friend rises to reply.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I too omitted also to remind the House, as I did at Second Reading the last time this Bill came round, that I am the holder of a lease from the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, regrettably a very short one.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords. my wife and I are long leaseholders of property in London.
I enter this debate with great trepidation. It is a debate that has taken place once before in relation to this Bill. But it is also a debate and a cause that has been going on for a considerable time. People both within this House and outside have been engaged in the issues which form the subject matter of this Bill for a very long time.
I mention particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has been involved in debates on this issue for almost a decade. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, has plainly been involved in these debates for an extremely long time. In relation to people outside this House, Mira Bar-Hillel, the property correspondent of the Evening Standard, has repeatedly raised issues which have formed the subject matter both of this and earlier Bills.
I say with genuine admiration what a high quality of debate this Second Reading produced—I am sure brought about by the fact that those who have taken part have been involved in and well-informed about this matter for a long time. I much prefer the description of Members of this House who take part in debates given by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

917
He described us—with trepidation I repeat the description—as a "cosy group of housing specialists", rather than the "nerds" as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, described us.
This Bill is important, not only because of the policy good that it brings, but also because it is changing the rules and the law in relation to property, which will have a significant effect for years to come. It is extremely important that we approach it in a cooperative spirit and that we, as a government, listen. If any changes can be made to improve it, we should approach them with as co-operative a spirit as possible.
I join other noble Lords in saying how delighted I was to be present when the noble Lord, Lord Best, delivered his maiden speech. It was a speech of real quality. I say three things about it. First, he brings real lustre to the Peers nominated by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. Secondly, it was a speech that looked much more broadly at the Bill, rather than simply at the detail. Thirdly, it was delivered with an impressive degree of confidence and clarity that few noble Lords have shown since they came to this House. I take my hat off to the noble Lord.
We in the Government recognise the considerable input that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has made to the formulation of government policy and Katharine Rosenberry's work has been particularly helpful in framing the commonhold part of this Bill. On the substance of the noble Lord's maiden speech, I agree that we must provide secure and sustainable tenure arrangements for blocks of flats if they are to meet our future housing needs. The Government cannot stop neighbours falling out, but the Bill would provide a framework for democratic property management which should encourage the effective resolution of disputes and a community approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised a specific point about the provision of affordable housing in the commonhold context. It has always been the Government's intention that such housing provision should be available in commonhold developments and, as he suggests, we will take care to ensure that sustainable forms of governance are developed to take account of that.
I deal first with commonhold. In the course of this debate, commonhold met with broad approval as a matter of principle, though there were specific issues with which I should deal. I mention, first, the points made by my noble friend Lady Thornton and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We need to persuade developers, investors and landowners to use commonhold. We, as a government, expect to devote a good deal of energy to selling commonhold in the period between Royal Assent and its coming into force. We are already in touch with developers, academics, lawyers and many others with the intent of enthusing them about commonhold.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that we need to provide incentives to make people take up commonhold. Again, that is something we should
918
and will look at. If the noble Baroness is prepared to engage with us in that regard, we will find it useful to discuss it with her.
The question of the memorandum and articles of association of commonhold properties and the commonhold association have been updated since the last occasion this Bill was going through Parliament. We should publish it, make it public and make it available to all noble Lords so that there can be detailed debate about those instruments because they are plainly of great importance as regards the organisations that will be set up.
The 100 per cent consent rule was perhaps the specific issue that caused most controversy in relation to commonhold. It is said to be a serious disadvantage to those living in long leasehold blocks who wish to convert to commonhold in due course. It could be dealt with in one of two ways. We could either allow the majority who wanted to convert to commonhold to so convert, and leave the minority who did not on some other basis. Or, subject to whatever majority we chose, the small minority who did not want it could be forced into commonhold. Perhaps I can deal with both of those scenarios.
It is possible to conceive of many schemes which would facilitate conversion with a lower proportion of consents and deal with what we have called "anomalous leaseholders". But each of the schemes has, at their heart, the same problem. Whatever we end up with would not be commonhold; it would be a scheme of unnecessary complexity detracting from some of the chief advantages of the scheme as proposed.
It is also our view that such hybrid schemes—the majority commonhold and some on another basis—are really not necessary. Those who wish to take control of their freeholds and enjoy greater security and freedom from the interference of landlords but who are unable to muster 100 per cent support can take advantage of Part 2 of the Bill. Although Part 2 stops short of delivering all the advantages of commonhold, those who take that course will derive great benefit and be able to live in an environment which can take account of the non-participants without vitiating the essence of the scheme.
The second alternative to the 100 per cent problem is the expropriated leaseholder. If we are to achieve a position in which a threshold of less than 100 per cent is allowable, it seems to us that the only alternative to the anomalous leaseholder situation is expropriation, either by way of extinguishing the existing lease and forcing the commonhold documents on the unwilling tenant or by forcing out the unwilling tenant altogether by way of what would amount to compulsory purchase. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, we will consider any well-founded amendment put forward by noble Lords from any part of the House. However, we would require a good deal of persuasion that the complexities and resulting expense which will inevitably attend both the conversion process and the management of the final organisation will not be out of all proportion to the

919
extra benefits commonhold will bring to those who already have the prospect of enfranchisement open to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, spotted that the Lord Chancellor was willing to consider any amendment put forward, but on the basis I have stated. He asked whether we would help in relation to such an amendment. If any noble Lord has such an amendment in mind, we would be more than willing for it to be discussed at official level and, if appropriate, at ministerial level to see whether it goes anywhere. We shall not wait for it to be tabled in Committee and then respond. We shall certainly help but please note the terms in which we say that. We are not encouraging amendments. We are dubious that any amendment would work but we shall consider any amendments put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also raised the question of how one commonholder enforced rights against another. That is an interesting problem. It is a matter which we should discuss with the noble Lord in advance of Committee stage to see whether we can properly identify his concerns and whether or not special measures are needed to deal with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised questions about the form of the company which might be used in relation to commonhold. His points were not restricted to the commonhold association; I believe it also applied to the right to manage company and the freehold company that exists in the right to collective enfranchisement. The noble Lord suggested that the use of limited liability partnerships should be considered in relation to blocks with 10 units or less. We are grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive suggestion. However we do not agree at present that a limited liability partnership would be an appropriate alternative vehicle for the three areas of commonhold, right to manage and right to enfranchise. Those partnerships are designed with profit-making in mind. That is far from the intention of the corporate structures provided in the Bill. We therefore consider it preferable to draw upon the substantial body of law and practice which surrounds the use of companies for collective property ownership and management.
Apart from those points, everybody in the House welcomed the introduction of commonhold. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, wondered whether it would work as well as we thought it might. We would be grateful to hear from the noble Lord on any detailed points of concern so that we can work with him to try to reduce as much as possible any problems in the working of commonhold.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also raised the issue that commonhold may not be a flying freehold. We decided not to allow commonhold to be developed on top of non-commonhold property because, although the commonhold scheme overcomes the difficulties of covenants running with the land within the scheme, it does not purport to overcome the problem outside the limit of the commonhold development. The Government recognise that work needs to he done to deal with difficulties presented by
920
covenants and easements. The Law Commission has in hand a further look at the scheme of land obligations it produced some years ago which tackles that area.
However, we do not believe that the Bill is the place in which to try to iron out all the associated problems. For the time being it is necessary to ensure that commonholds are not developed in circumstances in which they would be virtually unsustainable. In due course, should the law allow it, it may be possible to make the appropriate changes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the question of whether we have included registration of commonhold in the Land Registration Bill. The answer is that it is in Clause 1 of this Bill under the heading "Freehold" because commonhold is a part of freehold.
I believe that that deals with all the substantive points on commonhold. I turn to leasehold reform. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, raised the point that this is a disappointing Bill. He hoped that it would go much further. We have accepted that leasehold is a fundamentally unsatisfactory form of residential tenure but we cannot simply get rid of it overnight. Commonhold is clearly the way forward for multi-unit developments. But that would not make it right to impose commonhold on all existing leaseholders, their landlord and others with interests in the property. We cannot ignore a landlord's legitimate interest or force leaseholders to buy out that interest.
Instead, the Bill will provide opportunities for the conversion of leasehold properties to commonhold if all parties consent to that. Where leaseholders do not want that or other parties are opposed, they still benefit from the greatly enhanced rights and protection afforded by the leasehold provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, was kind enough to say that the Bill dealt with many of the complaints he set out in the full-page advertisement he placed in The Times which he addressed to Sir George Young. Although I am sorry that we have not gone as far as he would want, I hope that he is at least grateful for the fact that we dealt with the point on which he spent all that money in that advertisement a long time ago.
I turn to a number of points raised on Part 2 of the Bill dealing with leasehold. First, I refer to concern over the abolition of the residence test. As I understood it, it was clear that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is still worried about that. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland has moved from being, as he put it, intransigently opposed to it to his thinking being in a state of fluctuation. as to where precisely his thinking had got. The election allowed him a period of many weeks to consider the point and had left him in a state of uncertainty.
We wish to abolish the residence test for lease renewal to make the right available to leaseholders who bought their houses primarily for personal rather than investment reasons but who were, nonetheless, unable to meet the residence test. Examples include a leaseholder whose main home is a house in the country but who has a pied-à-terre in town; a leaseholder who is working abroad and who has bought or retained his

921
house with the intention of living in it on his return, and a leaseholder who is living in the house as his main home but has leased it through a company because his landlord has a policy, specifically designed to block the right to a lease extension, of letting only to companies.
The Government understand the fear that abolishing the residence test would open the door not merely to those deserving categories of leaseholder but also to others intent on short-term speculative gain. For that reason the Bill provides an alternative requirement that the leaseholder must have held the lease for a period of at least two years before he or she can gain the right to renew it.
I turn to mixed use premises, a point raised by a number of noble Lords. It was aired at great length, quite rightly, during the previous deliberations in this House. We recognise the concerns of leaseholders who live in mixed-use buildings who would be unable to enfranchise or exercise the new right to manage. It is not our intention to create a situation where flats and premises where those rights are not available are regarded as second class. We also recognise the concerns of the commercial property industry about the effect of the current proposals on the future of mixed-use developments and urban regeneration schemes.
We are genuinely grateful to those noble Lords who spent some time devising alternative and sometimes very imaginative solutions to the problem. Unfortunately, so far we have been unable to conclude that any proposed alternative is preferable to that which is put forward in the Bill. Most of the suggested alternatives involved dividing ownership of and/or responsibility for managing the residential and commercial parts.
While such a division of responsibility may be theoretically possible, it would give rise to considerable practical difficulty and lead to costly and time-consuming disputes over who was responsible for particular matters. This would be at odds with the Bill's objectives of providing leaseholders with rights which are easy to exercise and which avoid uncertainty. Moreover, in some cases, a division of responsibility may fail to give the leaseholders any worthwhile rights.
We consider that the proposals in the Bill are reasonable and workable. However, we remain open to any alternative suggestions which give worthwhile ownership and management rights to leaseholders and will be workable in practice. I am sure that noble Lords will want to discuss the matter in Committee, but if there are any such suggestions we shall be pleased to hear them before the next stage of the Bill.
Marriage value is also an important issue and was much aired during previous debates. It is the most controversial aspect of the current arrangements for the enfranchisement of flats. Leaseholder groups have long campaigned for marriage value to be excluded from the purchase price. We do not agree that it would be right to remove marriage value from the determination of the enfranchisement price. However,
922
there are certainly defects in the current provisions which need to be corrected. The right to enfranchise is a right of compulsory purchase. In order to exercise it, the leaseholders do not have to demonstrate that the freeholder is at fault in any way. Therefore, it is only fair that he would be paid the same price as he would have received from selling the freehold voluntarily.
When leaseholders buy the freehold of their block they obtain a benefit which no other purchaser would; they can grant themselves new 999-year leases without having to pay a penny for them. The value of the extra benefit is the marriage value. If their existing leases still have, say, 80 or more years left to run, these new leases will be practically worth nothing more than the existing ones. Therefore, any marriage value will be insignificant. But if the unexpired term is relatively short—say, 50 years—the difference will be substantial.
It follows that if in a sale between willing parties where the unexpired term of the leases were not very long, the leaseholders would be prepared to pay additional money for the extra benefit. But they certainly would not offer the whole amount of the marriage value. They would be well aware that they represented the freeholder's only chance of obtaining a higher price. In practice, a sale would be agreed only if the parties agreed to split the difference and, if the parties were equally willing and eager, the split would be 50:50.
The freeholder would end up with a rather higher price than he would have received from another purchaser. However—and I must emphasise the point which deals head on with that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs—the leaseholder will end up with an asset that is worth more than he paid for it. That is the protection for the leaseholder.
That is the principle behind the valuation provisions of the 1993 Act and the Government believe it to be a sound one. There is a separate procedure under Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 whereby leaseholders can acquire the freehold where the landlord is in serious breach of the lease and likely to remain so. In those circumstances, they can do so at a price which excluded marriage value. That is because the landlord is clearly at fault and a penal regime is appropriate.
If marriage value were removed from the valuation arrangements under the 1993 Act, there would no longer be a distinction between the no-fault and default enfranchisement. In the Government's view, that would not be a defensible position. The 1993 Act provisions were based on the principles that I have described, but they were defective in two ways. First, they provided that the freeholder's share could never be less than 50 per cent but could be higher. That was unfair. Why should it be possible for the freeholder but not the leaseholder to argue for a higher share? It also led to argument between the parties, which could be protracted and expensive, about what the shares should be. Secondly, they encourage the parties into further arguments about the amount of marriage value, even when there was going to be practically none.

923
This Bill in trying to deal with those points provides for the freeholder's share of any marriage value to be 50 per cent in all cases. In recent years, leasehold valuation tribunals have awarded more than 50 per cent only in two or three highly unusual situations out of hundreds of decided cases, but that has not prevented landlords from arguing for more.
The Bill also provides that where the unexpired term of each of the leases held by participating members of the company exceeds 80 years no marriage value is payable. It is intended to prevent disputes between the parties over relatively insignificant amounts of money. Our objective in these two changes is to prevent costly arguments which are disproportionate to the sums at issue.
That, in summary, is what our case is on marriage value. A number of other issues were raised but I do not believe that they are of such critical importance as those with which I have dealt. However, perhaps I may deal finally with three matters. First, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked why we did not reform the whole of leasehold law and put it into the Bill. What an excellent idea! However, it would take ages to do so and the Bill would be gigantic. While we would like to do it, we believe it far more sensible that we make only the changes we can make now and consider a Bill consolidating all the law on leases at some time in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised concerns about the ability of the Lands Tribunal to award costs and asked whether there should be a limit on that. That is an important issue and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be keen to write to the noble Baroness about that as soon as he is able to express a view. He is keen that we should do so in a measured way rather than me responding to it now.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was pleased to see better termination provisions. We are grateful for her encouragement in that respect.
924
My noble friends Lady Gibson and Lady Crawley emphasised how much difference the Bill makes to people. My noble friend Lady Gibson spoke of the number of telephone calls and inquiries she received while working for Nick Raynsford in Greenwich. That indicates the importance to people of the Bill. It is a most worthwhile Bill and I sensed that the House agrees with that and is keen to work in order to ensure that it is the best possible Bill. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, like a number of noble Lords, perhaps I may ask him where the Government intend to hold the Committee stage of the Bill. There is much call for it to be debated by a Committee of the Whole House rather than in the Moses Room.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is obvious that the time limitation of four hours per session makes it desirable to hold the Committee stage here. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to give any assurance in relation to that because I am not one of the business managers. It is for the business managers to decide, through the usual channels, where the Committee stage should take place. I am quite sure that the business managers will have noted the comments all round the House about the appropriate place in which to hold the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]

  National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
  Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
  House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past six o'clock.

  Asylum Appeals
  Asylum Appeals
  Employment Tribunals: Legal Aid
  Employment Tribunals: Legal Aid
  Teaching Professionals: Salaries
  Teaching Professionals: Salaries
  British Industry: Euro Exchange Rate
  British Industry: Euro Exchange Rate
  UAE Flights: Illicit Arms
  UAE Flights: Illicit Arms
  ECHR: Resources
  ECHR: Resources
  Iraq: Wassenaar Arrangement
  Iraq: Wassenaar Arrangement
  Turkey: Human Right
  Turkey: Human Right
  Foot and Mouth: Vaccination Policy
  Foot and Mouth: Vaccination Policy
  Sheep Movement
  Sheep Movement
  Sheep: Survival of Fell Breeds
  Sheep: Survival of Fell Breeds
  Equality: Policy Co-ordination
  Equality: Policy Co-ordination
  Equality: UN Convention
  Equality: UN Convention