Sitting of 7 March 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 3 (Deputy Speaker), SIR ALAN HASELHURST, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, PROCEEDED TO THE TABLE.
9.33 am
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At business questions yesterday there was some speculation that the House might find it necessary to sit on Saturday 15 March. There is certainly a precedent for that: the House did sit on a Saturday morning with the onset of hostilities at the start of the Falklands war. You will be more aware than most that hon. Members on both sides of the House regard weekends as an opportunity to carry out constituency business and that diaries have to be organised. Nevertheless, there can be nothing more important to Members of the House than the commitment of our troops to war.
It seems likely that by the end of this coming week there may well have been a United Nations resolution, and it is possible that hostilities might have commenced even by Saturday week. Could you please therefore tell the House how much notice the Government are required to give, and how much notice Members might expect, prior to a sitting on Saturday 15 March?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he would raise this matter. I realise its importance to all hon. Members. Chapter 14 of "Erskine May" is instructive. There are only two ways in which the House can meet on a Saturday. One is if the House itself resolves to do so, which obviously requires a motion to be put before the House at some point. That is plainly a matter for the House and not for the Chair. The other is if the House, having adjourned to the following week, is recalled under Standing Order No. 13 at the instance of the Government and with the agreement of Mr. Speaker. That procedure would only arise in a situation of great urgency, and clearly it would not be possible to give advance notice in the way that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I think that that is the best summation of the situation that I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is very helpful and I am sure that the House is very grateful for that, but could you just remind the House and Members
1054
of the timeline, as I think we call it these days, of how these events might unfold? In other words, what is the latest time at which the Government would have to table a motion for the House to consider in order for it to be able to sit on Saturday? I think that it would be very helpful if we had some idea of that—not only we as Members but all officers and staff as well—so that preparations could be properly made. I am sure, following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), that this is at the very front of all our minds, and it would be very helpful if we could have some idea of the sort of time sequence that might be envisaged and, to put it bluntly, how late the Government could leave it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the alternative scenario of a motion being put before the House, as I understand it that would have to be tabled on the Thursday immediately before the Saturday on which it might be proposed to recall the House.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that there seems to be a significantly large number of Members on the Opposition Benches: far more than one can normally expect to see on a Friday, who one can usually count on one's fingers. I could be flattered and say that they have come for the extra special treat of hearing me speak on a Friday, should I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I understand from what I heard from a Conservative Member yesterday that the Conservative leadership have put a three-line Whip on today, and I am shocked—
Mr. Richard Bacon: And outraged.
Mr. Dismore: And outraged to hear that the Conservative party put a Whip on for private Members' business. This is a private Members' day; it is not an occasion for whipped business. Perhaps you could give guidance to those Members who may have come here under the false impression that they were on the Whip to do so, that they are free to leave if they do not wish to hear my speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Happily, this is not a matter for the Chair, but it is always a pleasure for the occupant of the Chair to see the House well populated, just as I am sure it is an assurance to the nation as a whole.
Lawrie Quinn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek some guidance in terms of the proceedings on which we are about to embark. I went to the Vote Office to seek explanatory notes for today's business and I found that no explanatory notes had been published. I wonder whether you could advise the House as to whether we are in a position to proceed in the absence of those notes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is absolutely no requirement for an explanatory memorandum to be provided for a private Member's Bill. There is nothing unusual about the situation with which the House is—[Interruption.] Order. There is nothing unusual about the situation with which the House is faced.

Retirement Income Reform Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to announce that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
9.39 am
Mr. Edward Garnier: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Although perhaps unusual, a touch of humility and candour from a Member of Parliament would not go amiss at this stage—particularly from this one. I am not sure whether I can feel the heavy hand of history on my shoulder as I move my Bill on Second Reading, but history has a habit of repeating itself. The Bill is not my idea: it is an almost exact replica of the Pension Annuities (Amendment) Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in 2002, and it is very closely related to the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) the year before.
The difference between my hon. Friends and myself is that they—through the application of their powerful intellects, industry, experience and pre-existing knowledge—were able to inform the House in a coherent fashion of what lay behind their Bills and why it was necessary and in the public interest to amend this aspect of pensions law. I will do my best, on this third occasion—perhaps ineptly and, I hope, briefly—to persuade the House that the policy behind the Bill is worthwhile and sensible and that the Bill itself is worthy of support.
Mr. Frank Field: I am very pleased that the promoter of the Bill has said that he wishes to present his ideas as succinctly and briefly as possible. Perhaps the Government have a plan to try to talk out the Bill today, thus preventing the House from reaching a decision on it and, equally importantly, on the Pensions (Winding-Up) Bill, which I hope to introduce a little later. Perhaps the Whips will rejoice that their schemes have met with short-term success, but does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that those of our constituents for whom the greatest worry, apart from the war, is that their pension promise is being snatched away from them may have very different views about parliamentary procedure and those who are behind it if they attempt to prevent the House reaching decisions on the first, second and third Bills on the Order Paper today?
Mr. Garnier: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The one shred of comfort that I will draw from today's proceedings if they are unsuccessful is that I have all-party support for the Bill and particularly the support of the right hon. Gentleman, whose reputation in this field is unsurpassed. I hope that, if not the Financial Secretary,
1056
at least the men Friday who sit all around her will pay some attention to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his success in the private Members' Bill ballot. Earlier, on a point of order, I sought to find out about the Bill's explanatory notes, and one of the reasons why I wanted to explore that was the status of recent correspondence that I and perhaps the hon, and learned Gentleman have received from the Association of British Insurers with regard to the consumer survey that it has undertaken on such issues. The hon. and learned Gentleman would help me to understand the purpose of the Bill better if he could tell me whether he has received that correspondence and what his reaction to it is in relation to the Bill?
Mr. Garnier: I am always delighted when people take an interest in any legislation. I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman has done his homework, which I am sure he has, and read the Bill and related it to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, he will not be in any doubt about the Bill.
Lawrie Quinn rose—
Mr. Garnier: I wish to make some progress; I have only been speaking for about two minutes. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to get back to Scarborough and I do not want to delay him for any longer than is necessary, so if he will contain himself for a moment—
Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garnier: I shall give way in a moment, perhaps, but I want to make some progress so that other hon. Members, such as the hon. Gentleman, who have a lot to say will feel that enough time has been permitted for them to speak.
In moving my Bill on Second Reading, I am immensely encouraged by the support that it has engendered both inside and outside the House of Commons. In saying that, may I remind the House that the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was given a Second Reading by a large margin and was not defeated in Committee? It simply ran out of parliamentary time. I would be the first to admit that this is not a perfect world and that this is not a perfect Bill, but its imperfections are mine, not those of my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West. Any imperfections can be dealt with in Committee, and I hope that the House will let the Bill get to the next stage.
Like my predecessors, I have benefited from the invaluable help of the retirement income reform campaign and in particular from that of Dr. Oonagh McDonald CBE, a former Labour MP and shadow Treasury Minister in the 1980's, and Mr. lain Anderson of Cicero Consulting. I have received a large number of letters from my own and other hon. Members' constituents, wishing the Bill success and asking me why it has taken so long to reform this aspect of the law. Our constituents are suffering from the present low annuity

1057
rates, and share the concerns of so many of us that the pensions system in this country is now in a state of crisis and that the lofty complacency that this country has shown towards the pensions systems of continental Europe is no longer justified, if it ever was.
Hardly a day goes by without our reading of large public companies—many of them household names and bywords for integrity and financial probity—announcing that their pension funds are in deficit, that they do not have sufficient resources to honour their obligations to their present or future pensioners and that their boards' strategic and day-to-day decisions about the management and direction of the company are now governed as much by the needs of the company's pension fund as by the commercial needs of the company itself.
Clichès about dogs and tails, carts and horses come to mind, but this is the real world of modern industrial and commercial Britain: a sclerosis has beset our economy that is almost exclusively caused by the collapse in the pensions system. Added to the recession in the manufacturing sector and the export of capacity and jobs to Asia and eastern Europe, we now see at every level of the industrial and commercial parts of our economy enterprises that are in reality no more than overdrafts attached to pension deficits.
Young people years away from pensionable age are not investing in their future security through the pensions system, and the state recognises that before very long it will no longer be able to continue to pay tax-based benefits to pensioners at levels which by themselves will provide a living wage to those not at work. The need to deal with that picture is obvious, but the incentives and the vehicles to do so are either absent or have been damaged by the Government.
I do not want today's debate to become a party political point-scoring exercise because that is boring, it produces no new thinking and it is often unedifying, but it cannot go unremarked that the Chancellor's removal of £5 billion a year from the pensions system through his advance corporation tax changes has had a direct and immediate effect on the ability of this country, its citizens and its financial institutions to provide a sustainable and affordable pensions system through individual and corporate schemes.
Mr. Andrew Love: I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman has already become party political in raising the ACT issue, but does he accept that by far the most important reasons for the difficulties in the pension regime are people's increasing longevity, meaning that their annuities have to last longer, and the collapse in the stock market?
Mr. Garnier: I shall not impose an order of precedence on the factors that affect—
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Garnier: May I just finish the sentence? I shall not impose an order of precedence on the factors that affect the current pensions market, but, clearly, annuity
1058
providers will be influenced by the increasing life expectancy of people at the age of 65, 70 or 75. That is not particularly controversial.
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that those who are independent commentators, such as the Association of Chartered Certified Accounts, describe the Chancellor's tax raid as the most significant factor is the current troubles that we are experiencing?
Mr. Garnier: Yes, I am sure that that is entirely right.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garnier: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is a man of no few words, and I am sure that he will want to give full rein to all his concerns about the pensions system. He tabled, with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), an amendment, which has not been selected, and I have a suspicion that he is itching to tell me all about it, but he can do so in his own time.
There are a number of difficulties facing the pensions system and, added to the matters that I have mentioned, the collapse of final salary and funded workplace schemes has brought to public attention the dangerous state of affairs in the pensions system. The ABI's latest estimate is that the savings gap is £27 billion and the savings ratio is at a 50-year low. The imposition of over-rigid accounting rule FRS 17 has been unhelpful, as has the Financial Services Authority's reluctance to deal with the current rules relating to the solvency requirements for insurance companies that have sold equities in the past 18 months, so impacting on pension portfolio values.
Millions of people are being forced to take out private defined contribution schemes and are thus forced into poorly performing annuities. On top of that, we learn of the Chancellor's decision to tax pensions savings of more than £1.4 million at 60 per cent., which will hit tens of thousands of people retiring on £100,000-plus salaries.
That may not affect many today, but as inflation increases feed into the system, that tax on pensions will hit millions of middle-income earners in 20 years or so.
Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garnier: No, I will let the hon. Gentleman make his own speech, as I am very worried about his train to Scarborough.
Set against a context in which public sector employees, including Members of Parliament, are protected from new rules designed to allow pension fund trustees to reduce the retirement benefits of workers who leave company schemes early, we have a recipe for public disenchantment with the governing class and the Government in particular.
Another reason why I do not want the debate to descend into party political point scoring is that the Bill has cross-party support, as we heard a moment ago. That is valuable in itself for a private Member's Bill, but when one considers the names of those who have agreed

1059
to sponsor the Bill, the calibre of that cross-party support is made clear. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), an expert on welfare reform, whose writings and speeches on pensions and other aspects of the welfare agenda have proved to be insightful and thought-provoking, has put his name to this Bill, and I am most grateful to him. He has his own pensions measure on the Order Paper today, and I hope, as he does, and, I am sure, many hon. Members do, that the Government will permit it to be debated and passed. He rightly wants to help people trapped in distressed pension schemes that could be closed or have their terms altered, by giving them rights to protect their interests against companies that walk away from their pension obligations.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), an acknowledged expert on welfare and pension policy, has also given my Bill his support. I am grateful to him for telling me that although he cannot be here today, he has asked the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), an economist of no little repute, who spoke in favour of the last such Bill in January 2002, and in Committee, to speak for the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has also signed the Bill.
From the official Opposition, I have the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), who leads on issues relating to young people: the very people who will be most directly affected by the continuing crisis in the pensions industry. To underline the Conservative party's express support for the policy set out in this Bill, I am pleased that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is here and will endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is an expert in many areas of financial policy, and has a particular knowledge of the issues behind this Bill. Furthermore, he has knowledge of the concerns of the Christian Brethren, and he will speak about the measures in the Bill that assist them. Importantly, the Bill is signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, its parliamentary parents, and I am grateful to them both.
Formidable supporters, all of them, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that are in front of me. The Financial Secretary, in her short but highly productive life, both in politics and elsewhere, has probably forgotten more about pensions and annuities than I, in half a century, ever knew. She also has the resources of the Treasury and the Government machine at her disposal.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Garnier: May I just finish off praising the Financial Secretary, as I am rather warming to it.
1060
The Financial Secretary can crush this Bill in a trice by sheer force of numbers with the votes of her loyal and ambitious supporters, although I trust that she would not do so without at least considering the arguments, many of which she may have heard before.
Mr. Waterson: First, may I say how much I support this Bill, not least as co-chairman of the all-party group on ageing and older people? Will my hon, and learned Friend tackle head-on, later in his remarks the only half-decent argument that the Treasury ever put forward on the series of similar measures: the worry that it purports to have about people falling back on the public purse if they are allowed, in effect, to dissipate their pension funds through relaxation of the rules on annuities?
Mr. Garnier: That is dealt with pretty clearly in clause 2 on minimum retirement income, on which I shall touch briefly as we make progress this morning.
My hunch is that the Financial Secretary has much regard for the thrust of this Bill, not least because it is gender-neutral and recognises that the gap in life expectancy at 60, 65 and 70 nowadays is not so much between the sexes but between the different regions of the country. In 1970, a woman of 60 could expect to live six years longer than her male counterpart. By 2000, the gap was down to two years. Male life expectancy for a 60-year-old has been improving by three years every decade, and for a 60-year-old woman by two years. That suggests that before very long the idea of a unisex annuity rate may have little or no impact on either sex: it may also suggest that, with the increase in numbers of women working over that age, work is bad for their health, but I will not pursue that further. Men and women in Manchester have, according to a recent Office for National Statistics survey, the lowest expectation of life, whereas men in north Dorset and women in west Somerset have the longest expectation of life. There must be room for a sophisticated dating agency in the south-west.
The Financial Secretary represents a constituency that is by no means at the top of the income pile, and must realise that a measure such as this will do something, if by no means everything, towards solving the pensions crisis. I accept that the Secretary of State made a statement to the House at the time of the publication of the Green Paper charmingly entitled "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement" on 17 December, and that there are indications that the Government are moving slowly towards some type of annuity reform. But it is far from clear what their real intentions are, how developed their thinking is and when, if at all, we will see a Government Bill to deal with the glaring problems that currently exist and that will only get worse if things are allowed to carry on as at present. The Government have promised reform previously, but nothing has come from that.
Pensions draw-down, to which the Government appear to have attached some importance, is not the only answer, since it is available in real terms only to those with very large pension pots, and in any event pensions advisers and consultants may start to take regional differences into account when recommending either an annuity or draw-down. It might be good advice to offer Mancunians draw-down and those in the southwest annuities: perhaps not my most serious point but

1061
an indication of the need for the Government to apply their collective mind to the pensions crisis sooner rather than later.
Let me now turn briefly to the provisions in the Bill. I accept that it is not a candidate for Radio 4's "Book at Bedtime" or even, if I look across at the Financial Secretary, "Listen with Mother", but perhaps that was well before her day. I do not want us to get stuck in a quagmire of interlocking sections and subsections, so I will not attempt to unravel the relationship between this Bill and the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 more precisely than to say that clause 1 sets out the required amendments to the 1988 Act to end the current system that allows people to choose when to annuitise and what type of annuity can be acquired. It amends the sections of the Act relating to the purchase of annuities from a personal pension fund.
Needless to say, public interest in the part played by annuities in private pension schemes has grown considerably in the last few years because of the declining rates offered by annuity providers, mostly insurance companies, as a consequence of lower long-term interest rates and increased life expectancy. To give just one example provided by the Annuity Bureau, in 1990 a fund of £100,000 would have bought an annuity producing annual income of around £10,000. Now, it would produce only £4,500.
Ms Meg Munn: I have been following what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying, and, in the absence of explanatory notes, I have relied on information from the House of Commons Library. I am bit confused by what is being said, because the information from the Library states:
the Bill as currently drafted would not alter the current arrangements for annuity purchase from defined-contribution occupational pension schemes, including AVC policies."
Given that information, will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain in a bit more detail exactly what the Bill will do in terms of changing the arrangements about annuities?
Mr. Garnier: I have a suspicion, which may be unworthy, that the hon. Lady has read neither the Bill—[Interruption.] Yes, I can see that she has a copy of the Bill; nor do I believe that she has read from start to finish the very useful House of Commons Library brief. I suggest that she does so. In any event, if she wants further tuition, now is not the time to receive the kind of detailed information on the Bill that she might like. I will happily see her afterwards if she wants further assistance. Equally, if she volunteers to serve on the Committee, I shall be happy to see her there. I trust that, in due course, she will allow the Bill to proceed to Committee.
Mr. Love rose—
Mr. Garnier: Some will say that steady economic indicators mean that falls in annuity rates are not as significant as they might appear to be, but my constituents' pensions are increasing less steeply than their council tax bills and their other day-to-day living costs. Although the immediate future may bring low inflation, they do not feel secure that their pensions will carry them through increased local and Treasury tax
1062
demands, evidence of which we see in every Budget statement under this Chancellor, or residential care costs. The pension prospects for a young person now are terrible compared to only a few years ago as a direct result of the fall in the stock exchange indices and rates of return on equities.
It is now compulsory for at least 75 per cent, of a money purchase pension fund to be used to buy an annuity by the age of 75. I and those who agree with me want that rule to go so as to allow pensioners the freedom to choose the method of funding their retirement that best suits their particular circumstances, so long as they maintain a minimum retirement income above the level of income support to prevent them from becoming a burden on the state.
Clause 2 would give the Chancellor the power to set the level of the minimum retirement income annually. It would be secured through an increasing annuity. I accept that further work needs to be done on the sensible level at which to set the MRI each year, especially if the Government's state pension credit, which starts next October, produces a complication. However, as a matter of principle, I am of the opinion that the concept can work to the advantage of both the pensioner and the taxpayer.
Tensions surely exist between family-based and individually based welfare benefits and single pensioner households, and married pensioner households. However, the issues are there to be discussed, and they should be creative, not destructive, tensions. They can be that if imagination and good will on the part of the Government is brought to bear.
Individuals with a pension pot in excess of that needed to meet the MRI would be able to invest their additional savings in a retirement income fund and there would be no restrictions on when and how much income could be withdrawn. The Bill would also require the MRI annuity to be gender neutral and would abolish the provisions relating to income draw-down—the main alternative to annuities at present—as the Bill's arrangements for the MRI and the retirement income fund would give individuals both security for a given level of income and freedom to invest and draw from the remaining fund. The RIF, as defined under Clause 1(7), would allow for withdrawals to be classed and taxed as income, albeit that the investment growth would be protected from tax as part of an approved pension scheme.
I dare say that the Bill is complicated for some people, but it contains one or two simple themes. It is time to put those themes into practice. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that today's Order Paper contains notice of a written ministerial statement to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That statement has now been made, and it discloses that the Finance Bill will be published on Wednesday 16 April, which will be in the middle of the Easter recess. Can you give the House any guidance as to whether there is a precedent for publishing the Finance Bill during a recess? Is it not absolutely clear that that will be materially inconvenient for Members in

1063
the scrutiny that they will wish to give to the Bill? Is it not yet further evidence of the complete chaos that currently reigns in Her Majesty's Treasury?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I cannot instantly offer advice on his question about precedent. He has put his remarks on the record, but my first instinct is to suggest that this matter should be pursued through the usual channels.
10.4 am
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.[Interruption.] There they go.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on securing such a high slot in the private Members' ballot. I am afraid that I will not be able to support his Bill, and I regret the fact that he did not choose the subject of the third Bill on the Order Paper selected by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). That has rather more merit than this Bill.
Lawrie Quinn: May I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend on the sterling job that he does every Friday? We have just had clear evidence of the effect that he has. Does he agree that when moving the Bill's Second Reading the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) failed to get to its core? The absence of explanatory notes for such an important and technical measure does neither him nor the debate any credit.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not go through the Bill in any detail.
Mr. Bryant: He does not know what is in it.
Mr. Dismore: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The only option available to me is to do the job for the hon, and learned Gentleman, and go through the Bill and explain what the problems are. Unfortunately, that might take me a little longer than I like.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) referred to the fact that Conservative Members have deserted their Benches, and that reinforces the point of order that I made. Conservative Members are not here to consider the Bill or to listen to the debate. They have been whipped in as Lobby fodder in an attempt to force the Bill through without their having any idea of what they are voting for.
Ms Munn: My hon. Friend will have heard how my genuine query was dismissed quite rudely by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I know that my hon. Friend will consider the matter in detail, so will he deal, at a relevant point, with my query in the way that I expected the Bill's promoter to do?
Mr. Dismore: When I come to my comments on tax implications and annuities—I regret to say that that will
1064
be much later in my speech—my hon. Friend may hear the answer. If not, I am sure that she will remind me at the appropriate point.
I declare an interest: I have several money purchase policies from my previous life as a lawyer. When we debated a similar Bill last year, I had a couple of Equitable Life policies. I am pleased to say that I have been able to divest myself of them—albeit at great expense—and I am no longer locked into that company. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not declare an interest. I know that he is an eminent Queen's counsel, so he will probably have pension arrangements similar to mine.
Mr. Garnier: I am very happy to sit here for the next five hours listening to the hon. Gentleman explaining the Bill. He is right: I have a number of private pension arrangements. However, I also pay income tax, and I do not declare that during Budget debates.
Mr. Dismore: The Budget is of general application to us all. However, if one has a particular personal interest or personal pension policies—not everyone has them—it is incumbent on him or her to declare an interest, particularly if he or she is introducing a Bill. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not think it appropriate to do that at the start of his remarks. He has now put the record straight, and I am sure people will be grateful for that.
I accept the need for reform of the law on annuities. There is little doubt about that. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member, has embarked on a wide-ranging review of future pension provision in the United Kingdom. I am absolutely amazed that not a single Conservative member of the Committee has raised the issue of annuities. I have raised the issue, and I hope that when we produce our final report, it will contain a mention of them. That remains to be seen.
Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not only declaring an interest but reminding the House of his expert work on the Select Committee. Has the Association of British Insurers been along to the Committee and made representations on the issue? Has he had an opportunity to consider the important research that it has conducted on consumer attitudes to the provisions before the House?
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. He has the briefing document with him and will be able to comment on it at length if he is called to speak, although I will touch on that subject tangentially. The ABI did give evidence to the inquiry, but I do not recall it spending much time on annuities. That may reflect how seriously it takes the problem.
I accept the need for change, but a private Member's Bill is not the right vehicle to introduce such a complex tide of reform. The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals would have a series of ramifications for the tax system which he was unwilling or, I suspect, unable to explain properly. The changes would affect the pension rights of millions of people, for good or ill, but

1065
he skated over them. They would have implications for our benefits system that could cost billions of pounds, but he made no mention of that.
Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the complexity of altering pension systems. What we do has an impact not only on pensioners today but on the pensioners and working people of tomorrow. The subject is important and the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals would create a generational policy change. In those circumstances, it is unwise to nit-pick about aspects of the pension law. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an holistic approach that can stand the test of time?
Mr. Dismore: I very much agree. The Government have made a detailed series of proposals on the future of pension reform with particular reference to annuities. If there is to be reform, it is appropriate that it should be set out in a Government Bill. I understand, subject to the consultation procedure, that the Government intend to introduce a Bill in the next parliamentary Session—but more of that later.
Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend deal with the claim that the primary cause of the pension difficulties relates to changes in ACT that were agreed in an earlier Budget? Does he recognise that the official Opposition have not said whether they would reintroduce ACT in its old form?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Conservative party jumped up and down about the change to ACT, but failed to say whether it would repeal the provision. My hon. Friend is right to ask whether that is the root cause of what has become known as a pensions crisis.
Mr. Bryant: Is it not also true that additional Government money for the health service serves, in part, to rectify the mortality differences in different parts of the country? That is essential if we are to give old people in parts of the country where people die much younger—my constituents are 10 years younger than the national average when they die—an opportunity to enjoy a retirement of any kind.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual erudite way.
It is clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman has cribbed the Bill from last year's legislation. Believe it or not, I kept a copy of last year's Bill and my notes on it. One never knows when such things might come in handy. Indeed, the second Bill that is up for discussion today, if we ever get on to it, is identical to an earlier one, and this Bill is identical to one that reached Report in the last Session. The only difference is its title.
Lawrie Quinn: I served on the Committee that considered the Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and must disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has copied the earlier Bill because, if he had, he would certainly have done something about updating and
1066
producing the explanatory notes. He accused me of not doing my homework, but I wonder whether he did his homework or even talked to the industry.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right. The absence of explanatory notes is serious. Not only did the hon. and learned Gentleman not deal with the issue of updating the explanatory notes, but it has been almost a year since the previous Bill ran out of time and he has taken no steps to address our criticisms or the lacunae in the provisions. I would take him more seriously if he had considered some of the criticisms that we expressed last year and taken steps to deal with them, but all those criticisms still apply. Since then, I have studied the issues in more detail and now have new criticisms to put to him.
Ms Debra Shipley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn)? That was probably because he was talking to two of his colleagues and not listening.
Mr. Dismore: The hon. and learned Gentleman is in the Chamber to defend his Bill, but he does not seem interested in the arguments.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned the pensions crisis. The Select Committee's inquiry has been considering that and the overwhelming body of evidence leads one to say, "Crisis—what crisis?" The problem is that it is not a crisis in the true meaning of the word. A crisis is an immediate problem that requires action to he taken straight away to put it right, but we have a long-term problem that requires long-term solutions over the next five, 10, 15, 20 or so years. It is nonsense to think that without a knee-jerk reaction to the problem, everyone will end up in the workhouse when they retire.
Mr. Bryant: Surely the real pensions crisis was when the Tories so liberalised the financial services industry that thousands of people were sold pensions that they should never have been sold in the first place.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, which leads me to the matter of confidence. Although there may not be a pensions crisis per se, I accept the argument put to us by a number of people in the Select Committee hearings that there is a crisis of confidence in the private pensions sector. That is a different issue altogether. The evidence shows overwhelmingly that the fundamentals of pensions in Britain are sound. Compared to Europe and the rest of the western world, we have a well funded pensions industry that is sufficiently robust to cope with most of the trials and tribulations that bash it from time to time. We are in a much stronger position than anywhere else in Europe.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman goes on about the £5 billion pensions tax, he misses the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) mentioned mis-selling. That is one of the problems at the

1067
root of the crisis of confidence. Equitable Life sold pension policies that were attractive at the time. Indeed, I bought its policies—
Mr. Bryant: And me.
Mr. Dismore: I am sure that that company sold policies to other hon. Members as well, but they could not be sustained in the long term. The failure of private sector work-based schemes when companies go bankrupt is another problem that has helped to generate the crisis of confidence in the pensions market. Couple that with the problems on the stock exchange and the falling value of pension company holdings, such as at Standard Life, and people inevitably start to wonder whether it is worth while saving for the long term. That is completely different from saying that there is a crisis in pensions themselves.
There is nothing in the Bill to increase the savings pot for anyone—except women, who will benefit at men's expense, and I shall come to that in a moment—unless the hon. and learned Gentleman's claims of tax neutrality prove not to be correct. The Bill is not a panacea for problems with annuities. Moreover, it would provide very little benefit to the overwhelming majority of pensioners who, if they do buy an annuity, have relatively small funds.
As you mentioned earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my reasoned amendment was not selected, but that does not mean that the arguments behind it are not valid. I turn to those now in explaining why the House should decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. Clause 1(4)(c) provides that section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall not apply to the minimum retirement income annuity, which is one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's inventions in the Bill. I shall deal with that in more detail later.
The purpose of the clause is to remove the defence allowed by that section for sex discrimination in annuity rates. It would prevent annuity providers from setting the annuity rate by reference to the different average longevity of men and women. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest as a man—at least, I was a man the last time that I looked. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to declare the same interest.[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has no sex at all.
Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman must try not to behave like the Friday afternoon lawyer that he is. I said that I had absolutely no interest in his sex.
Mr. Dismore: Perhaps I ought to remind Conservative Members that there are certain biological differences between the sexes, one of which is that women live longer than men.
Mr. Love: There was some confusion earlier about the current differences in life expectancy. According to a useful House of Commons research paper, even in 2001 the difference in life expectancy between men and
1068
women was three years at age 65. Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a major difference, and it must be recognised?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope later in my contribution to look at those tables in a little more detail and to point out some of the anomalies that the Bill throws up.
When we debated the previous Bill on this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) eloquently described the effect of that difference on the arithmetic of calculating annuities. I assume that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough failed properly to prepare for his speech, because if he had he would have read those arguments, which are very cogent, in the Hansard account of that debate.
I also remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of a point that I made on the Second Reading of the Bill presented by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), because I have not yet had an answer to it. I said:
"What about the sex discrimination legislation and the double exemption? Is it the role of private sector provision to level up between Peter and Pauline…or is that the responsibility of the state? There is nothing wrong with the state's involvement in pooling risk between the sexes. I take the point that when each sex reaches the age of 65 the differences between life expectancy are somewhat lower. However, I question whether it is right for the private sector to adopt this position, bearing in mind how annuities are currently calculated for pooling risk." —[Official Report, 11 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 848.]
That is the essence of the argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman is at risk of creating, rather than correcting, inequality between the sexes.
It may seem paradoxical that Labour Members such as myself should advocate a position that on the face of it is contrary to our deeply held belief in equality for everyone. To achieve that, however, we must recognise that people are not equal in certain biological respects, such as ageing, and that can be done within the existing annuities system. I passionately believe in equality, and the state clearly has a role to play in achieving it, but should we regulate private sector rights in this way? At the risk of going down the highways and byways of equal opportunities, I should say that the Bill points up the distinction between the right role of the state in trying to regulate the balance between the sexes, and the wrong role.
If a woman is doing work of equal value to that of a man, she should get the same rate of pay. If a woman buys an annuity, she should have the product of that annuity, and the same is true of a man, but to achieve the same amount as the man, year on year, the woman would have to pay more. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not trying to achieve equality through equal work for equal value or, in this case, equal pension for equal contribution. He is taking money away from the man to meet the aspirations of the woman for her annuity.
Is there not a difference between the pooling of risk between the genders by the state, which carries that process across the whole economy, and the pooling of risk between individuals who happen to be men or women? It is clear that it is part of the state's

1069
responsibility to consider the issue, but does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that as matters stand we run the risk of robbing Peter to pay Pauline?
Mr. Stephen Pound: I apologise to my hon. Friend, to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and to the House for my late arrival, which was entirely the fault of the Mayor of London, whose policies are so successful that the streets are now full of cars.
Is there any evidence that people over the age of 75 want to buy annuities? I understand that research by the Association of British Insurers implies that, at most, 5 per cent. want to do so. Are we not in danger of creating a system that will be of interest to the more wealthy members of society, and of doing nothing for the majority of people who have real needs?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend presages my remarks. The Bill is a complex vehicle—the hon. and learned Member for Harborough claims simplicity for it, but it is far from simple—for solving a problem, which, if it exists, applies only to a few wealthy people, like the hon. and learned Gentleman himself perhaps.
The Bill does not recognise the differing life expectancies that insurers take into account in setting annuity rates. It would remove the right of insurers to underwrite personal pension annuities on the basis of sex or to allow sex to be taken into account as a risk factor. Instead, it would force providers to use composite annuity rates averaging male and female factors. Another effect would be that any provider, when setting a composite rate, would face the risk of the male and female take-up not matching the assumed mix, so it might build in a margin that would lower annuity rates in general for both men and women.
The Bill would also introduce inconsistency between different types of pension arrangement. If an annuity was bought to secure benefits from an occupational pension scheme or a retirement annuity contract, the Bill would not prevent the rates from taking account of the annuitant's sex. That is particularly important in view of the alleged flight from defined benefits to defined contributions as a basis for occupational pension schemes. The Bill would, I assume, apply to pension schemes based on defined contributions. We understand from the media that there is a groundswell of movement towards such schemes, but the evidence taken by the Select Committee shows that the movement is not as great as one might believe. The assumption seems to be that no more than a quarter of pension schemes would move in that direction, which would not necessarily be a bad thing—it would depend on the total contributions to the scheme. The Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough would have an unfair effect on an employee on a defined contributions scheme working alongside a colleague on a defined benefits scheme, as it would catch one but not the other.
Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend accept that a major factor in the shift away from defined benefits to defined contributions pension schemes is the pension holidays instituted under legislation that was introduced by the previous Government?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not entirely sure that the case he sets out is
1070
correct, but I can certainly understand why people might think it is. There would be a great injustice in an employer avoiding his responsibilities if, when times were good and the value of investments was rising, he kept the pension fund topped up but, when their value fell, he said that he could not afford to maintain it, perhaps because of the pension holiday—the point made by my hon. Friend. He might then stop maintaining the defined benefits scheme and switch to defined contributions.
As I have said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the defined contributions system. The problem is that employers are using the defined contributions switch as a sneaky way of cutting their wage bill. They often pay only 2 per cent, towards the defined contributions scheme, when they may have been paying 8, 9 or 10 per cent, to the defined benefits scheme. In other words, there is a wages cut behind the scenes, and the Opposition may wish to consider whether they need to talk to their friends in the City about that.
The Library has produced a useful briefing on the issues, including unisex annuities. It says:
"The Bill required annuities to be provided on a unisex basis, instead of the present rules, under which annuities are calculated separately for men and women. As female life expectancy is longer than men's, the level of income women can expect for a given pension fund is significantly lower. According to the Annuity Bureau, a man aged 65 with a pension fund of £100,000 will be able to get a level annuity of £7,556.40 a year, but a woman would only get £6,948.00. However, as the annuity would on average be paid for longer to the woman, the capitalised value of the annuities is the same."
I am not sure that that is correct, and I shall give a different set of figures later.
Lawrie Quinn: I served on the Committee considering the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), when our hon. Friend the Financial Secretary tabled a relevant amendment. Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the arguments deployed on that occasion? Is it not lamentable that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has failed to deal with the key arguments that the Government made then, and should he not have altered the Bill instead of producing a copycat measure?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right, and I have with me copies of Hansard recording the Committee stages of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough may care to borrow them. He has obviously not read them, otherwise, as my hon. Friend said, he would have altered his Bill. He simply copied his right hon. Friend's Bill without any consideration of the cogent arguments made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who I am sure will speak about them later.
Returning to the capitalised value of annuities, as has been said, women receive a lower annual sum because of their longer life expectancy. I have briefly referred to the table on page 13 of the Library briefing, and hon. Members may find it a useful illustration of my argument. It demonstrates clearly how the gap has developed and how long it will take for changes to be made. One hundred years ago, the difference in life

1071
expectancy for men and women was much smaller. In 1901, there were 10.6 males to 11.6 females at age 65, showing a difference of only 1. If the hon. and learned Member for Harborough had introduced his Bill 100 years ago, he might have had a case for equalisation, but in 2001, there is a different life expectancy beyond 65 for men and women, with 16 males to 19.1 females—the difference has increased to 3.1. In the next 20 years, that figure is predicted to fall by only 0.3, so the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasons for introducing the Bill simply do not stack up. The differences are not predicted to change dramatically in the medium or long term. In the past 100 years, the differences have grown, as the chart in the Library briefing shows.
The key issue is how that translates into pensions. Under the top rates currently available, as shown in the annuity direct rates table for March 2003, a 65-year-old man who purchases an annuity for £100,000 may receive £603 a month. The comparable figure for a female purchaser with £100,000 to invest is £565 a month. For simplicity's sake, I am working with figures for level annuities. To look at the whole range of annuity products would only complicate matters, and would not change my basic argument. Over his expected remaining lifespan of 17 years, the male would receive £123,046, whereas the female over her remaining lifespan of 20 years would receive £135,720 because of the accruing interest on the capital in the investment period. The Library briefing was therefore not quite right. Although the value of annuities is the same for men and women, the net product is better for women even though their annual annuity is slightly lower. Women are quids in at the end of the day.
Mr. Pound: As ever.
Ms Shipley: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is living dangerously.
Mr. Dismore: I shall not intrude on the arguments of my hon. Friends. Having declared my interest as a man, I shall, like most men, avoid that dangerous territory.
Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend accept that sometimes men do very well from annuities? My father bought an annuity for £5,000 and, as he approaches his 96th birthday, has received 102,119.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I ask him to give my heartfelt felicitations to his father when he reaches his 96th birthday. However, he is not typical, as 96 is not the average male life expectancy. Annuities work on the principle of pooled risk across age, gender and a range of other factors. It is swings and roundabouts—if people die younger, the money goes back into the annuity pot for payouts to people who live longer. I believe that that point has been missed.
Before my hon. Friends entered the battle of the sexes, I was saying that women would receive about £12,500 more than men over their lifetime on an initial investment of £100,000. As I said, that is because of the accruing interest on capital during the investment period, which would be longer for women. Interest and
1072
inflation rates play a large part in assessing the value of those respective amounts, but the figures demonstrate that the value of a woman's annuity is no less than that of a man. Other aspects being equal, although an annuity payable to a woman may be smaller than that payable to a man, on average it will be paid over a longer period, producing a higher figure. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that women get a raw deal because the annuity rates that they receive are lower than the men's. It is not difficult to see that unisex annuities would generally favour women and disadvantage men. On average, a man will not live as long as a woman, so a man's annuity will be paid for a shorter period than a woman's for the same outlay.
That is simply demonstrated by looking at the reverse side of the coin. If a unisex annuity paid £580 a month for an outlay of £100,000, a man would receive £118,320 over his expected lifespan, whereas a woman would receive £139,200. In round figures, the man would receive £5,000 less and the woman would receive £4,000 more. The difference is probably explained by the exorbitant charges that those who run annuity schemes sometimes levy. However, the net result is that for the same outlay, through the unisex pension, the man is £5,000 worse off and the woman is £4,000 better off. The Bill would prevent a man from entering into a personal pension annuity contract and buying with his own money a pension that reflected his own life expectancy. Unless and until the hon. and learned Gentleman can introduce a Bill to equalise life expectancy, the Bill before us would rob Peter to pay Pauline. In the end, there is no extra money in the pot.
Mr. Garnier: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has studied this issue so closely. During the 35 minutes or so in which we have been listening to him, I am sure that we have all been greatly assisted. Is the short point that he is against choice, whereas I am in favour of choice? The Bill does not require people to buy an annuity except for the purpose of a minimum income guarantee. They can do what they like with the remainder of their finances. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that people should not be allowed to do what they like with their own money. Is that right?
Mr. Dismore: All that I can say is watch this space. I shall certainly be coming to the issue of compulsion. The Bill would create a new raft of compulsion for the vast bulk of people who are in the position that we are discussing, while providing freedom for a tiny proportion of people, including the hon. and learned Gentleman's rich friends. He has a cheek to raise the issue of compulsion.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not really a question of choice? However, there would be choice for the few individuals who would benefit by exercising choice at the expense of the taxpayer. That would be the choice.
Mr. Dismore: As always, my hon. Friend is right.
I would challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about choice. I suspect—we have had the argument before—that he has not read his Bill. He did not write it, and he has obviously not read it either. Clause 1(4)(c) says:

1073
"after subsection (6) there is inserted—
`(7) Section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall not apply to the annuity provided under subsection (IA).
In other words, there is no choice. The provision of the Sex Discrimination Act is removed, so the only choice is to buy one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's unisex policies. He is entirely wrong in that respect, and he has obviously not read his own Bill.
Ms Oona King: Is it not the case that people do have the freedom to put their money where they want, but not if they want my taxes or anyone else's to provide them with a tax benefit in return?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a useful point. I shall be dealing with tax implications later in my remarks. However, the issue goes beyond that. Why should my pension contributions pay for my hon. Friend's pension? That is my big issue in terms of my personal pension. I would be compelled to make those contributions whether I liked it or not. I take objection to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong when he talks about compulsion. As I have said, his Bill is full of compulsion for the average, ordinary working man and woman, but there is no compulsion for the very few rich people with multi-million pound pension schemes. That is at the nub of the Bill. I shall say a little more about that in a while.
In the end, there is no extra money in the pot. The Bill takes money away from a man to give it to a woman—a woman whom he probably does not know and has never met. Money would be taken from one gender unjustly to enrich the other.
As we know, the Bill has been introduced by an hon. and learned Member.
Mr. Pound: You could have fooled me.
Mr. Dismore: Given the Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman could have fooled me, too.
I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not done his legal homework, either. The Bill undoubtedly has a human rights implication. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not considered the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, especially part II of the first protocol, article 1, which deals with the protection of property. The provision is straightforward and it bears reciting to the House. It reads:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
The Bill would not achieve the hon. and learned Gentleman's objective through the state mechanisms of taxation, national insurance or the benefits system, which would be permitted by the Human Rights Act; it
1074
would effectively deprive men who have made contributions towards their annuity costs of their possessions, namely, their annuity fund. That is because their possessions include their stake in the fund. There is little doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman is falling foul of human rights legislation.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt an avid reader of the law reports.
Lawrie Quinn: I apologise for disturbing the flow of my hon. Friend's speech. However, he knows that I am but a simple engineer. From my professional perspective, to ignore central core tenets of a profession by disregarding major legislation and major statutes would have the most serious consequences. If I ignored principles while designing the foundations of a bridge, I would be construed within my profession as being negligent. My hon. Friend is from the legal profession. Would he go so far as to accuse the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) of being negligent in ignoring the key, central tenets of his own profession by ignoring such an important part of statute law and of the British legal system that involves human rights?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I would not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of professional negligence in the Chamber. He sits in the Chamber in connection not with his part-time job as a QC in the law courts, but with his other part-time job as a Member of Parliament. However, I would say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that had he advanced his argument before a judge without dealing with all the relevant points under the Human Rights Act and the case to which I shall shortly refer, his clients would at the very least have had something to say about it.
Lawrie Quinn: I shall again use the analogy of designing a structure. Is my hon. Friend saying that the very foundations of the Bill are flawed and that the case is undermined? Is it not deeply regrettable that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not provide explanatory notes, did not do his homework—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the question of explanatory notes. The hon. Gentleman has repeated the point more than once, which is unnecessary. We would do better dealing with the substance of the Bill.
Mr. Dismore: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby—not on the question of explanatory notes, but on his engineering analogy—I would simply say that the hon. and learned Gentleman's structure is built on foundations of sand.
Lawrie Quinn: Technically, that is not a problem.
Mr. Dismore: That shows that my hon. Friend is an engineer and I am a lawyer.
Mr. Bryant: And I am a theologian.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should remember that for the purposes of today's debate, everyone in the House is a parliamentarian.
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you for calling us to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to say that we

1075
are all parliamentarians. That is the point I was making before the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby—if the hon. and learned Member for Harborough had been speaking in his other capacity, his clients might have had something to say about it.
I have dealt with the Human Rights Act implications, but there is another legal aspect that we should consider. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman reads The Times he probably does. This morning, he may well have read, as I did, yesterday's edition of The Star Sheffield, which reports an important case that is not on all fours with his argument for equalisation of the pension rules between the sexes. The newspaper reports the judgment of Mr. Justice Elias on a judicial review application by Barnsley equality campaigner Mr. David Moody, who claimed that recent increases in pension unlawfully discriminated against men, in that women started collecting their retirement pension at 60, whereas men have to wait until they are 65. Mr. Moody and another man, both in their 60s, sought judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Mr. Moody argued that the increases were unlawful and that women benefited from them while men of the same age got nothing.
That is the mirror image of the argument in the Bill.The Times reported that the High Court judge, Mr. Justice Elias, threw the case out as lacking in merit. I believe that there is an argument for equalisation of state benefits, based on the material to which I referred, but if that does not apply, it surely does not apply with knobs on to private sector pension arrangements, which is what we are discussing today, in the context of the Human Rights Act.
Gender is a recognised factor in the setting of risk premiums by insurance companies in many contexts, not just in relation to annuities. I do not see women queuing up to argue against better car insurance rates, for example, because women as a group are less likely to commit motoring offences. As far as I am aware, the gender differential has not been contested in other areas where women do better than men out of insurance arrangements.
However, gender is but one factor that insurance companies take into account when setting annuity rates and determining risk premiums. When a person requests an annuity, they also consider general health, lifestyle, and whether he or she has a disability. Over the years, there has been much coverage, of people who are at risk of contracting HIV and their relations with the insurance industry, which has often tried to be intrusive in these matters when it comes to setting annuities. Insurance companies may also take into account whether someone is a member of a certain ethnic minority. Indeed, insurance companies have been specially designed and set up to cater for certain ethnic minority groups, as they are able to offer higher rate annuity products to those people, recognising that generally speaking, they have, a shorter life expectancy.
The fact remains that as far as they can, insurance companies set rates on the basis of what they consider to be individual risk premiums. When they cannot set individual risk premiums, they look across broad classes, use proxy and set risk premiums on that basis.
1076
Insurance companies' ability to determine risk and to attach it as closely as possible to the individual determines their competitive advantage in an extremely competitive market. That is how insurance companies and the insurance market work.
To wander into such terrain without well-thought-out and coherent proposals would be foolhardy. It would have ramifications and implications right across the insurance industry. The hon. and learned Gentleman has neglected to examine how risk is assessed by insurers. It is important to consider the impact that the imposition of unisex annuity rates would have on individual insurance companies. If insurance companies were forced to offer unisex rates, as the Bill provides, and only unisex rates, they could face an unpalatable choice. For the reasons that I explained earlier, they might have to set cautiously low annuity rates, so everyone would lose out. The reason behind that is that companies could not be sure that take-up of their annuity products between males and females would match the risk that they assumed at the outset. In the end, everybody would lose out—not just men; women would not gain as much as the hon. and learned Gentleman envisages.
Alternatively, insurers could face risks to the solvency of their businesses. With all the problems facing the insurance industry, this is hardly the time to consider any risk or threat to the solvency of any of the life insurers. Everyone would risk losing out. As I mentioned, I lost out dramatically from Equitable Life, and we see from the press that one or two other insurers potentially face the same problems.
Why is it desirable to force insurance companies to discount just one factor, when they can take account of so many other factors? Why should they discount only the gender of the annuitant, yet still be able to take account of whether people smoke, or their occupation. For example, if somebody is a fit SAS man, he may have a long life expectancy, as opposed to a fat, overweight Member of Parliament, who is doing his best to improve his health. My life expectancy may be very much less, and that factor may be taken into account.
Mr. Pound: I apologise for interrupting the grand, glorious stream of my hon. Friend's argument, but I felt summoned to speak on the subject of overweight Members of Parliament and appalling ill-health. Has my hon. Friend studied the December 2002 working paper by the magnificently named Continuous Mortality Investigation Bureau of the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries, which concluded that life expectancy is changing so rapidly that what was once a science is becoming extremely difficult to map? We get into dangerous waters on this subject, because life expectancy is varying so quickly that even the Continuous Mortality Investigation Bureau has had to recast its figures—the last time in 1999, and again as recently as 2002.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Should he catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt be able to develop his argument at length. There are so many factors in play that it is very difficult for insurers to set annuity rates. To add one more complication would make the job more difficult and

1077
potentially threaten their solvency or put even greater pressure on the net annuity product, which in the end is what we should all be concerned about.
Another factor that is taken into account is where people live. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned that people in Devon live longer than people in Manchester. That might have something to do with the fact that people often retire to the coast. The Country Life survey shows that Devon was the most popular county for retired people to go and live in, as opposed to Staffordshire—
Mr. Garnier: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, as I know that he is enjoying himself. I mentioned Somerset and Dorset, not Devon.
Mr. Dismore: We can check that tomorrow, but Devon definitely came first, and Somerset came second. I remember, because I was surprised to see that Yorkshire, my home county, was fifth or sixth. I always thought that everything was bigger and better in Yorkshire, and that Yorkshire would undoubtedly be No. 1—after London, of course.
Mr. Love: It was interesting that in the introduction to the debate, no mention was made of social class as a determinant of life expectancy. Perhaps my hon. Friend could tell us how important social class is in that regard.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right. Socioeconomic indicators are extremely important. Occupation is probably the principal determining factor. A miner who suffers from emphysema has a very short life expectancy, whereas a lawyer, or better still a judge, seems to go on forever.
Mr. Love: Or a barrister.
Mr. Dismore: Indeed. Occupation is relevant not only to life expectancy for the calculation of annuities, but to the size of the pot that people are likely to have to invest. I shall come to that later.
Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend recognise that pensioners are the largest group of national health service recipients? It is interesting that the Bill not only seeks to reward the few against the many, but is being promoted by an hon. and learned Member who wants 20 per cent. cuts in public services. Undoubtedly, that would affect the NHS—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) will not deal with that matter.
Mr. Dismore: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker; my hon. Friend was entirely out of order and I certainly do not want to take that route, which might throw me off my stride and shorten my speech.
Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend was addressing health inequalities according to class and their clear effect on mortality rates in particular areas. He also referred to miners. Mining constituencies have some of the worst mortality rates not only because men had to work in the mines, but because of all the other social and economic
1078
factors that affect those areas. Does my hon. Friend think that more could be done to ensure that those people get a decent retirement?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right. All I say to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough is that his Bill does nothing to help people such as my hon. Friend's constituents. Indeed, I suspect that most miners were in the miners' pension fund, which raises all sorts of arguments about surpluses. I also suspect that any who opted out and bought their own private pensions would be significantly worse off as a result of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals.
Lawrie Quinn: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study some of the mortality figures from the recent census? I was horrified to see that mortality rates among women who live in coalfield communities are significantly higher than the national average. Does my hon. Friend agree that the workplace eventually shortens the lives not only of the men but of the women? They often had to clean the men's backs, and they also inhaled coal dust and had the same industrial disease visited upon them, which means that they have lost out in terms of life expectancy. Is that not a national scandal?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently and I do not think there is anything that I can add. As I mentioned, when an insurance company sets an annuity, it takes into account variations in respect of where people live. My hon. Friend refers to precisely the sort of factors that are relevant. It is a question not only of whether people live somewhere nice beside the sea now, but of where they lived all their working-age lives and the stresses and strains relating to that area, their diet and so on.
I do not think that the action that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough proposes in trying to interfere with such arrangements will create a more favourable environment for insurance companies. He proposes stringent regulation of an industry that can currently offer diversity of service to its customers. If an insurance company wished to pursue his proposals, and thought it commercially viable to do so, it would be free to adopt such a policy. However, not a single company wishes to take that course of action. As a good free marketeer, I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that that is one reason why his proposal is wrong. There is a good reason why a company would not adopt such an approach—it would go out of business extremely quickly, as it would not be meeting the needs of its customers, whether they were men or women.
Getting rid of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in respect of the provisions raises another issue—retrospection. The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals are entirely silent about that. As I mentioned, I was with Equitable Life for 20 years. Others have been in pension funds for longer. Mercifully, I transferred out at great expense, but that is another story. When I joined Equitable Life in the late 1970s or early 1980s—I forget exactly when—I entered into the arrangements on the basis of the projections at that time. Obviously, we have since found that they were wrong for reasons that were not envisaged. Are we now to say that all the people who

1079
entered into contracts on that basis 20 or more years ago should accept that those numbers have to be unscrambled and rescrambled to meet the requirements of the proposed change in respect of the Sex Discrimination Act, or is the provision intended to apply only to new insurance contracts that take effect 40, 50 or 60 years into the future?
The hon. and learned Gentleman may not have thought through the implications of his measure in that respect. If it would be retrospective and apply to annuities paid for over the past few decades but not taken out, it would have major implications for people's lifestyle projections. Most people approaching their late 40s will start to think about the age at which they can afford to retire and what their annuity will be. We know that, in practice, people now have to work longer and retire later, but they start to think about such things as their 50s approach. They will have been making their contributions throughout their working lives on the basis of where they want to be when they retire.
We know from problems in the pensions industry that many people have to think about topping up their policies, whether they are endowment policies, life policies or whatever, because of the falling value of the funds. On that basis alone, people have to think about topping up their policies. Are we now to say to people not only that they need to consider topping up their pensions for those reasons, but that they have to top them up because of the redistributive effect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill? Is he telling me that I must now put in more money not for my benefit, but for that of a woman whom I have never met? That is what his Bill implies, because it does not deal with retrospection.
Ms Shipley: Does my hon. Friend agree that poorer women in our society get pitifully low pensions, that even those with a moderately good income may still receive a very low pension because of career breaks and that, far from helping women in that regard, the Bill harms them?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right; the Bill does nothing about that. There are many other things that we should be doing and I hope that the forthcoming work and pensions report will address some of those issues. As things stand, the Bill does nothing except perhaps add to the pensions myth by telling people that they will be better off than they will be. The hon. and learned Gentleman has issued a press release saying how wonderful things would be if the Bill were passed. That raises expectations, which is one of the problems that we face in the pensions industry these days. We should be doing entirely the opposite. We should be bringing people down to earth with a bang and saying, "Unless you start to put more money into your pension scheme, you will be in trouble when you retire." The hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill is a con trick; my hon. Friend's intervention was entirely correct.
The problem extends further, as it also affects insurers. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that a person's insurance provider should have to recalculate the figures and share out the money to ensure equality between the sexes? Under such an arrangement,
1080
men might find that the projections of future pension provision, on whose basis they have been living their lives, were drastically wrong, while women in a similar position might find themselves better off. The proposals do not deal with retrospection or sorting out decisions often taken decades ago.
The disincentive to save is another important aspect of the Bill. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has been carrying out a detailed study of pension reform and we have heard a lot of interesting arguments from experts and from the Minister. Professors have given us a detailed analysis of why some aspects of the pension credit might be an incentive and others a disincentive. The matter became extremely complicated. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been entirely lost, bearing in mind how little information he has given us about his Bill today. None the less, I can be sure of this: if we tell a man that he can put a pound into his pension fund but will get back only 80p when he retires, while the other 20p will go into the pension of a woman whom he may never have met to ensure that she receives the same provision, for much longer, that will be a disincentive to save.
The fact remains that the Bill would create a serious disincentive to men that would deter them from providing for their future. In the end, the breadwinner, who even in this day and age is generally the man of the family, must make such provision. If there is a disincentive to save, he simply will not do so. A terrible confidence gap already exists, for the reasons that we have discussed, and it is already difficult to convince people that they should not live on credit but put money aside for their retirement. It will be much more difficult to persuade them that they should be putting away far more money if this proposal is adopted. It would achieve entirely the opposite effect and incorporate a huge disincentive to save.
I have come to the end of my first point on the Bill and now move to my second, which concerns the Bill's effect on the size of the pot. I repeat that the Bill is a con trick. Today's pensioners face much lower nominal annuity rates than did earlier pensioners. The expectation of low and stable inflation, incorporated in the bond yields underlying annuity rates, means that they face less inflationary risk. Their income will retain its purchasing power much better than has been the case in the past. Nevertheless, the perception remains that it is unfair for people to retire with annuity income based on rates half those of 10 years ago.
Research by the Association of British Insurers stresses the extent to which the determination of income in retirement is a two-stage process, encompassing annuity rates and pre-retirement investment growth. People retiring today face low annuity rates, but their pension funds will have benefited from high growth in equities in the period before they retired. The net effect of those countervailing forces is that, for a given level of contributions relative to average earnings, an individual retiring at the end of the 1990s has a higher income in retirement than someone who retired at the start of the decade. The coincidence of high pre-retirement growth and low post-retirement returns may not continue. Life expectancy is important in that regard and I will return to the life expectancy tables from the Library to illustrate that point.

1081
Earlier, we considered the tables on the differences between the sexes on page 13 of the research paper. I want to use the same tables to consider the differentiation over the decades for each sex. In 1901, a man's life expectancy was 10.6 years, but the projections for 2021 show a man's life expectancy to be 18.1 years. In other words, male life expectancy has gone up by 7.5 years.
Mr. Bryant: I hate to correct my hon. Friend but I do not think that he means that people were dying at the age of 10 in 1901; he means that they lived 10 years beyond the age of 65.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is correct. None of us would have been here, based on what I said. In 1901, men lived to the age of 65 plus 10.6 years, which is 75.6. In 2021, men are projected to live to 65 plus 18.1 years, which would be—[HON. MEMBERS: "83.1."] That is O-level maths for you.
Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend could be an actuary.
Mr. Dismore: I am not sure that I could.
Between 1901 and 2021, the differential is 7.5 years. In other words, in 2021, men will live 7.5 years longer than they were living 100 years ago.
For women, the differential is even greater. In 1901, women lived 11.6 years beyond 65, to 76.6. In 2021, they are expected to live 20.8 years beyond 65, to 85.8. The differential between 1901 and 2021 for women is 9.2 years. As life expectancies continue to improve for each sex, they affect the annuity pot necessary to provide for long-term retirement.
Mr. Bryant: The actuarial expectations in the 1930s and 1940s, notwithstanding the second world war, of how long people who were born in 1926 would live, have been far outreached. People who were born in 1926 have lived far longer than was expected. It is therefore especially difficult to make clear and unambiguous forecasts.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a good point that goes back to the vagaries of the actuarial market when it comes to how annuities should be calculated. The Bill does nothing to address his point or increase the pot.
To increase the pot, and so allow a greater distribution for most people, one has to do one of several different things. One could increase one's contributions during one's working life. We all know how difficult it is to convince young people of the need to invest for their future. I made my pension arrangements when I became a partner in my law firm. I did not do that voluntarily, but because it was a requirement of the partnership. When I was in my late 20s, my partnership share was not sufficient for me to consider it easy to make those contributions, but in those days interest and annuity rates were high, as shown in all the research material made available to us by the Library, although not by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.
Other sources of additional money are tax breaks—I will refer to taxation later—and better investment of the overall pot. The latter suggestion is far better than the
1082
proposals in the Bill for annuity reform. We will have to consider other forms of annuity. An annuity does not have to be purchased from the firm with which an individual has saved for their pension. We now have the open market option, which allows individuals to compare different annuity providers to maximise their retirement income. It is estimated that 90 per cent, of people would receive a higher annuity income if they exercised their open market option, but only around 30 per cent, of people who purchase annuities do so.
Mr. Pound: Like all hon. Members present, I have been educated by my hon. Friend's speech as he approaches his record. He has clearly done an enormous amount of homework—perhaps unlike some people—but has he considered the impact of the state pension credit? Everything that we are discussing will have to be recast because of the introduction of the state pension credit in October 2003. That will be immensely significant, will it not?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point that drives a coach and horses through parts of the Bill. Much later in my speech, I have a lot to say about pension credit.
Mr. Pound: I can hardly wait.
Mr. Dismore: I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to wait a little while yet.
I have considered alternatives to the Bill's proposals for annuity reform. I think that the alternatives would achieve far greater benefits for a far greater number of people. They require little, if any, legislative reform.
The Government have taken the view that many of the perceived problems with annuities could be addressed by product innovation within the existing legal framework. The Treasury economic and fiscal strategy report 2001 states:
"The Government…welcomes recent moves by annuity providers to develop more flexible annuity products that will enable those pensioners for whom it is desirable to remain invested in equities. As the annuity market grows, it should aim to meet the demand for greater investment choice and higher returns. The Inland Revenue will continue to work with the industry to ensure that the tax rules do not unnecessarily restrict the development of these products and this market."
Those variable or investment-linked annuities go some way to increasing the investment choice of annuitants. Recent growth in the market has been rapid, with investment-linked annuities' share of the overall pension annuity market rising from 5 per cent, in 1998 to nearly 20 per cent. in 2000.
More recent innovation has focused on schemes that enable annuitants to purchase an annuity consisting of a series of temporary and deferred annuities. The deferred annuity guarantees income throughout retirement—a key Inland Revenue requirement for annuities purchased from approved pension schemes—while the series of temporary annuities enables annuitants to choose from a range of investment strategies appropriate to their personal circumstances and stage of retirement.
The aims of such products, from the annuitant's viewpoint, would be to increase potential lifetime income through greater freedom to choose optimally

1083
performing assets; to vary that choice during retirement to reflect any change of attitude to risk and reward any change in financial circumstances; to provide insurance against longevity, but with flexibility as to the extent of the cover chosen; to generate stable income but allow flexibility about the level of income generation; and, to allow transparency, which is extremely important in a stakeholder culture.
Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend comment on the risk and reward of the new flexible annuity products, which are based on equities and the stock exchange? There is anxiety that risk may overtake reward, and that the traditional annuity may be a better product.
Mr. Dismore: Most people who hold annuities have small ones. I shall deal with that point later. The products that we are considering are vehicles for the better-off. People should not get involved in them without good, independent financial advice. However, the Bill is supposed to help the better-off. My hon. Friend made a telling point about the alternatives that I was describing, but they are genuine alternatives to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. Unlike the Bill, they provide greater flexibility for the people whom he is trying to help without screwing things up for everybody else.
Let me give some examples. The flexible annuities that the Prudential and Canada Life offer provide increased freedom for individuals to alter their income in retirement. The Canada Life annuity growth account enables individuals to purchase five-year annuities while the rest of the fund is invested. If an individual survives the five-year period, a survival bonus is added to the account. That is the cross-subsidy from other individuals who die during those five years. At the end of the five years, another temporary annuity can be bought at a different level of income. At age 85, the fund must be used to purchase a life annuity.
The Prudential flexible annuity allows individuals to continue to invest in the stock market and vary their income within limits until the age of 90. Had the products been around at the time, they might have been of interest to the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), although he appears to have done well out of his investment.
The insurer London and Colonial launched a different sort of annuity, which financial advisers have welcomed as an even more revolutionary form of annuity provision. The open annuity offers a range of investment options and manages an annuitant's fund in isolation rather than pooling funds, which the traditional annuity product does. The product has been structured in such a way that any capital that remains on death can form part of the investor's estate. The Inland Revenue's approval of the annuity suggests a new flexibility in dealing with the problems that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough identified but failed to tackle. I have therefore shown that there is much better way of achieving the honourable and learned Gentleman's objective and that his Bill is not necessary.
1084
My third point, which is the longest and most important, deals with the honourable and learned Gentleman's definition of minimum retirement income. It is the key to the Bill because without it, the measure falls apart.
Mr. Pound: It has fallen apart.
Mr. Dismore: It has fallen apart in other ways, but I shall put another nail in its coffin.
The honourable and learned Gentleman announced the Bill in a press release, which stated:
"In order to prevent or discourage pensioners from wasting their funds and becoming dependent on the state, the Bill provides for a minimum retirement income annuity that is designed to give pensioners a guaranteed income for life above the level of state income support. The income from this will come from a retirement income fund."
Of course, that prompts the question of whether there is sufficient money to buy the fund in the first place. The honourable and learned Gentleman has lamentably failed to give a figure at which the minimum retirement income threshold should be set. Not only does he fail to do that, but the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon also failed to do so throughout proceedings on an identical measure that he promoted. They have not got a clue because they do not understand the way in which the benefits system works for real people. I suspect that the honourable and learned Gentleman rarely comes across real people.
I have had to fall back on the Library briefing, which gives a best guess at a figure, should the Bill be enacted. I am happy to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would like to say what he has in mind. He does not want to intervene, so he obviously has no figure in mind. We therefore have to fall back on the Library briefing's best guess, based on the work of the retirement income working party, to which the honourable and learned Gentleman paid great tribute.
The RIWP considered three broad options for setting the minimum retirement income. The first was based on the minimum income guarantee for a single pensioner. It was £75 a week at the time, but as of this month, it will be £98.15. From April, it will be £102.10. That shows the Government's generosity to the least well-off pensioners. However, the RIWP rejected that option because it would not provide certainty that the annuitant would remain off means-tested benefit throughout retirement. After retirement, the components of an individual's retirement income will increase in line with inflation. For this Parliament at least, the Government are committed to increasing the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings. When we are re-elected, the policy will undoubtedly continue. A minimum retirement income set at the level of the minimum income guarantee at the date of an individual's retirement would quickly fall below it during retirement.
The second option that the RIWP considered was setting the minimum retirement income at a level that represented the average income from the basic state pension and membership of an occupational scheme. At the time, the figure would have been £220. It was rejected as being too high to secure the required flexibility. Is £220 too much?
Mr. Pound: I think not.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right.

1085
The third option was setting the MRI at a level that represented the income produced by the basic state pension and the state earnings-related pension scheme for someone who was formerly on national average earnings. At the time, the figure was £140 a week, and will be £160 from 2003. The RIWP recommended that option on the ground that it struck a suitable balance between flexibility and certainty and marked a link between the income from contracting out SERPS and the income that would be produced by remaining contracted in.
However, £160 a week would not achieve the honourable and learned Gentleman's express policy objective of preventing dependence on the state, as I am about to demonstrate.
Martin Linton: Will my hon. Friend explain how MRI could take account of high levels of housing benefit, which are often paid in constituencies such as mine and his? How could it take account of the fact that many people do not receive full state pension? It is impossible to predict precisely the contribution that every individual will make during their lifetime to entitle them to a full state pension.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is ahead of me. I am about to develop that point at some length to explain to the honourable and learned Gentlemen where he has gone wrong in his definition of dependence on the state. His press release includes the words
"becoming dependent on the state".
Using the minimum income guarantee or the other options that the RIWP considered will not plug the gap or prevent people from depending on the state.
As I understand the honourable and learned Gentleman's policy objective, the purpose of MRI is to ensure that anyone who buys one of the products that he is promoting will not have to fall back on the state's resources. I question that because of the wording of the Bill, which appears contradictory. Clause 2(1) states:
"The amount of the Minimum Retirement Income shall be set for each financial year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by order before 31st January in the preceding financial year, and he shall set the amount for the financial year in which this Act comes into force within two months of the date on which this Act is passed".
In other words, the Bill passes the buck to the Chancellor. However, we will put that to one side.
Clause 1(4)(c) introduces subsection (8) to proposed new section (1A) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. It states:
"The income provided each year from the annuity under section (IA) must increase by reference to increases in the retail price index, so far as not exceeding 5%."
That is a rather convoluted way of describing it. My question to the hon. and learned Gentleman is this: is the Chancellor's discretion under clause 2 fettered by this 5 per cent. RPI rule? The Bill is entirely silent on the interaction of those two provisions.
Lawrie Quinn: Is my hon. Friend aware of the detail of the letter that every hon. Member has received from the Association of British Insurers? It states that the minimum retirement income would have to be set at a level in excess of £200 a week if individuals were not to
1086
find it necessary to claim a means-tested benefit during their retirement. Should not the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) have done his homework and been conscious of this, and should he not have factored it in to the significant repair work to the original Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) some time ago? These were the key points that we made on many occasions in Committee at that time.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is one of the major criticisms of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill: he has entirely failed to say what he thinks the figure should be. He has passed the buck to the Chancellor, while giving the Chancellor conflicting provisions that say neither one thing nor the other and do not interact. He has given no explanation whatever for that. If he is seriously asking the House to approve his Bill, I hope that, when he responds to the debate—which may not happen for some time—he will at least have thought up a figure which he thinks is the minimum that someone should be expected to live on.
Mr. Love: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could also comment—he did not do so during his speech—on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in relation to the pension credit. This important new benefit is now being introduced, but it does not seem to figure anywhere in the hon. and learned Gentleman's calculations.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. There is a whole series of questions relating to the detail of the pension credit, which I am afraid I shall have to pose to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he took so little time to introduce his Bill and made no effort to deal with these issues.
Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) referred earlier to repairs to the Bill. May I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) to exercise great caution on the issue of repairs? Of course, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) could, if he were still interested in this debate, say that these issues could be repaired in Committee. Is not the truth, however, that the failure to consider the issue of how the MRI might stand goes to the very heart of the Bill? Is that not a reason why the Bill should not go any further, and should not go into Committee at all?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right. This repair job needs to involve demolition and complete rebuilding. The hon. and learned Gentleman might be left with the facade of the long title, but everything else will have to go. He should start again. Frankly, the House would be well advised to reject his Bill in those circumstances.
Getting back to the point about minimum retirement income, I am concerned that the Bill contains no provision to require the Chancellor to consult anybody about what rate he should set for the MRI. In these days of political inclusiveness, I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not included in the Bill a suggestion that the Chancellor should consult the insurance industry and pensioners' groups, some of

1087
which are very active in private sector pension provision, before deciding what rate should be set. All sorts of different figures have been suggested already, before I even started to outline the problems involved.
I am also surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that the appropriate rate should be linked to the retail prices index. I am sure that he is serious about making sure that the provision that people make is sufficient to ensure that they are not dependent on the state, but the Bill simply would not achieve that. He might not like to hear it, but the Government have been very generous to the least well-off pensioners through the minimum income guarantee, which increases every year in line not with inflation but with earnings. We know that the intention is to increase it to more than £102 a week for 2003, and it will continue to increase and overtake the RPI increase.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and his party are not keen on the earnings link. They abolished it for the basic state pension in the early 1980s. If, at some remote date in the distant future, the Conservatives should return to government, it is possible that they might not continue this Government's policy of generosity to the least well-off pensioners by maintaining the earnings link for the minimum income guarantee. I would be happy to take an intervention from Members on the Opposition Front Bench, if they would like to give us an assurance that they would continue that policy. I see no one seeking to intervene, so it would seem that my assumption that they have no intention of continuing that policy should they ever return to government is correct.
Assuming that the present Government's policy continues, the Bill in its present form would mean that pensioners would quickly find themselves falling behind the hon. and learned Gentleman's targets and becoming dependent on the state. I am about to come to the point about housing and council tax benefit raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, but before I do—
Mr. Howard Flight rose—
Mr. Dismore: Ah, here we go!
Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree with the Government's own proposals in section 5 of the revenue Green Paper to end the obligation to buy an annuity?
Mr. Dismore: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will hear me refer to the Government's policy at some length, because it is important that we understand where the Government are coming from. However, I am afraid that he might have to wait a little while—possibly quite a long while—for me to get to that.
Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me, I think for about the eighth time. May I remind him that he has been on his feet for almost 90 minutes? Does he not agree that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has scored a
1088
classic own goal, just as the Conservatives did during their 18 years of government through their terrible treatment of pensioners?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right. I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to the clock. If the hon. and learned Member for Harborough had introduced his Bill properly, I might not have had to take so long to expose all the loopholes and failings in it. As things stand, however, I am about halfway through, so I am afraid that we have a little way to go yet before I finish with the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill. It has so many loopholes, and they all have to be pointed out.
Before that last intervention, I was talking about minimum retirement income and dependency on the state. The assumption behind the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill seems—although we do not know, because he did not tell us—to involve something around the minimum income guarantee level. But dependency on the state comes in a variety of forms. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned housing and council tax benefit, and that is an important point. The hon. and learned Gentleman might think that such benefits may not be of much interest to the kind of people who would have the policies that he is talking about, but a relatively large number of well-off people in London choose to rent their property. Indeed, luxury property in London is often available only for rent and not for sale. If such people were to fall on hard times, they could be thrown back on to state provision, and the Bill makes no provision for housing benefit, let alone council tax benefit, in its consideration or definition of what is or is not dependency on the state.
Dependency on the state does not simply involve central Government; it can also involve local government. Many benefits that people get from local authorities are passported through the minimum income guarantee. Should social services charges be levied, for example? In my own area, if pensioners want to get their gardening or decorating done but are physically unable to do it themselves, the council will pay for that work to be done—or it used to when it was under Labour. I do not know whether that will still be the case following the massive cuts being brought in by the Tory council in this year's budget. That could be dependency on the state, and there is a price-tag attached to it. Social services make a charge, but not for those who cannot afford it: further dependency on the state. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill is entirely silent on these matters.
I now come to the biggest problem of all. What about the cost of long-term care for the elderly? That issue has taxed the House at great length over the last few years. Such care is phenomenally expensive, as we all know from our debates on the royal commission reports and the changes that have come in since. We also have the added complication that, although taxation arrangements are United Kingdom-wide, different arrangements for long-term care pertain—for good or ill—in England and Wales, compared with Scotland, as a consequence of devolution. In Scotland, it has been accepted that the state will meet the cost of long-term care. I am not sure whether the Scottish Parliament has the money to do that, but that was its policy decision.
The policy has not, however, been accepted in England and Wales, where the means test still applies to

1089
the personal care element of long-term care for the elderly. As we all know, and as Opposition Members frequently point out, that cost continues to rise. The hon. and learned Gentleman provided no answer to that problem and we do not know whether he believes that the cost of long-term care for the elderly should be borne by the state or by setting his minimum retirement income at such a level that individual pensioners could absorb the cost. The Bill is entirely silent on that point, as it is on everything else to do with the definition of minimum retirement income.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North is not in his place at the moment because I am about to deal with his point about the pension credit to be introduced in October. We canvassed that issue during debates on the Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon last year, and I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough would at least have studied those debates and provided some answers to the extremely difficult problems related to pension credit.
The starting point for that issue is the Library briefing paper. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had done nothing else, he could at least have read that document before he came to the House, as it would have given answers to important questions. The briefing paper states:
"The introduction of the State Pension Credit in October 2003 complicates the situation further, by splitting means-tested provision for pensioners into two parts. The guarantee credit will be broadly equivalent to the MIG and will be £102.10 for a single pensioner in 2003; the savings credit would top-up the incomes of pensioners with modest incomes other than the basic state pension, and is expected to be payable to single pensioners with incomes of up to £139 in 2003. It is not clear whether the policy intention of ensuring that the MRI provides an income above means-tested levels refers to the level of the guarantee credit or to the level at which entitlement to the savings credit would run out. As the current government is committing to increasing the level of the guarantee credit in line with earnings, the cut off point for the Pension Credit will continue to increase. Therefore the rate of the MRI would have to be significantly higher than the upper limit of the Pension Credit to reduce the chances of someone falling on to the Pension Credit after a number of years, as the MRI annuity will only be increasing in line with inflation not earnings."
But what about the savings element of pension credit, which is equally important? I do not understand whether the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the subsidy from the pension credit, which is aimed especially at middle-income pensioners, should be covered by his MRI figure, or whether that figure should be set at a level such that people who purchase an annuity under the MRI should not have to make provision for that so that they could maximise their entitlement to pension credit.
At present, there is no incentive for that sort of fiddle because one can arrange one's affairs so as to maximise one's entitlement to pension credit. Either one is entitled to it, through the purchase of an annuity, or one is not. The hon. and learned Gentleman's provision could enable people to make a benefit planning arrangement whereby they set their annuity under the MRI at a level that maximised their benefit, which could increase the burden on the state in respect of the people to whom the Bill is supposed to apply. The pension credit raises complicated questions for the hon. and learned Gentleman and, so far, he has lamentably failed to answer them, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon also failed to do last year.
1090
The system that we inherited from the Tories was simple: there was the basic state pension and a low level of what was then supplementary benefit—now the minimum income guarantee. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has kept up with the times. The Labour Government have been generous to the least well-off and are about to be generous to the next band of pensioners. The questions for the hon. and learned Gentleman arise from the pension credit, longterm care of the elderly and ancillary benefits such as housing and council tax benefits. If the Bill is to be revenue neutral, he must answer those questions.
How will couples be treated under the Bill? The difficulty that the hon. and learned Gentleman must face is that couples are taxed independently, but benefits for the elderly, including pensions, are assessed on a family basis. He has not dealt with that problem. I refer him again to the Library briefing, which states:
"The treatment of pensioner couples is a further complicating issue. The MRI proposals—like the income sources which would constitute any MRI—are based on the individual. However, the means-tested benefit system which the MRI seeks to maintain pensioners above is based on the family. The interaction between individual income and family assessment of benefit entitlement raises the issue of the MRI over-providing for couples where both have pension entitlements from the defined-contribution pension scheme."
Let us assume an illustrative minimum retirement income of £140 per week. For taxation purposes, both partners
"would be required to purchase an annuity sufficient to provide them with individual income of £140 per week, producing a joint income of £280 per week. Given that to avoid dependence on the MIG, they only require a joint income of £155.80 in April—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that if he wishes to cite quotations and read extracts from documents, such extracts and quotations should be reasonably short? The purpose of that, as "Erskine May" explains, is to maintain the cut and thrust of debate, which depends on successive speakers meeting in their speeches, to some extent, the arguments of earlier speeches. I hope that for the convenience of the House as a whole the hon. Gentleman will bear those rulings in mind.
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you for reminding me of "Erskine May", Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject is complicated and I needed to set out the figures before I developed my argument.
Mr. Love: It is now just over 100 minutes since my hon. Friend began his speech. That is a reflection of the complexity of the Bill. Is not it sad that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough did not take the time to explain all the ramifications—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being repetitive with his interventions and I can easily rule those out of order.
Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully accept your constraints, but I had to read that rather lengthy extract to try to set out the figures accurately so that I could illustrate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been extremely generous to the hon. Gentleman; more than 100 minutes

1091
passed before I intervened to make that point. However, he will be testing the patience of the House if he continues to read extracts at length, and I have therefore reminded him of what "Erskine May" says on that subject.
Mr. Dismore: I fully understand that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to develop the argument that comes from those extracts.
The Library briefing illustrates that the tax system is based on the taxation of individuals, unless the hon. and learned Member for Harborough proposes that we should return to a joint taxation system, which would have a series of other ramifications and would open up a huge can of worms. Each member of the couple would have to have £140 a week, if we assume that to be the illustrative figure. The problem is that that would create a combined income of £280, which would be an over-provision if the hon. and learned Gentleman's test is the minimum income guarantee limit. If my previous arguments are correct and one has to take account of housing benefit, council tax benefit, long-term care for the elderly and so forth, £280 a week may not be sufficient. However, the Bill is silent on that point, which is part of the problem.
The hon. and learned Gentleman challenged me on the question of compulsion. He said that I was in favour of compulsion, and in a press release announcing the Bill, he stated that it would get rid of compulsion. I want to develop some of those arguments. The press release stated that at present it is compulsory to buy an annuity at 75 years of age with a pension pot that has been saved up over the contributory years, subject to a 25 per cent. tax-free lump sum. I stress that point: the hon. and learned Gentleman states that it is compulsory to buy an annuity at 75. However, that is not correct. It is compulsory to buy an annuity by the age of 75, but not at the age of 75. At present, one can buy an annuity from the age of 50—from 2010 that will rise to age 55—until the age of 75. There is flexibility during two decades as to when one buys one's annuity. The Bill compels everyone, whether they like it or not, to buy their annuity at the age of 65.
There is a reason for the choice of age 75. It is something called "mortality drag". Some people believe that it is better for a pensioner to wait to buy an annuity because annuity rates are higher for older people. That is a false conclusion, as that feature is only part of the story. Annuity providers set their rates by judging the life expectancy of their customers. That judgment determines how much capital they can afford to return each year along with interest to people who buy the annuities. Because older people are more likely to die, the provider can give a bigger capital boost to its older annuity customers. That is why annuity rates rise with age.
If someone decides to start taking their benefits from their pension savings, delays buying an annuity and draws income from their fund while part of the fund remains invested, after a period they could use the residual fund, with any investment growth, to buy an annuity at the rate for their age then. The residual fund needs a strong growth rate if it is to allow that to happen, and the optimum maximum age, because of mortality
1092
drag—bearing in mind your constraints, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not quote at length from the large amount of source material that I have to justify this—is 75. The critics of the present system, who have said—at length—that age 75 is an arbitrary figure, plucked out of thin air, simply have not studied the actuarial evidence that justifies it.
Compulsion at age 65 is at the heart of the Bill for all but a wealthy few. I believe in flexibility. We need to work towards the flexible decade of retirement. People increasingly live longer and want to work beyond 65. We have received plenty of letters from people who object vehemently to being forced to retire at 65. They think that that is the worst sort of ageism, and I agree. In some jobs it may be appropriate to retire at 65, but in others it may not. By specifying 65, the Bill does not provide the flexibility that the modern age requires.
Being an hon. and learned Gentleman, the promoter of the Bill will be aware of the requirements of European Union law. I am not sure where he stands on the Eurosceptic front, but the Government are developing proposals to outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training by December 2006. The hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to address that serious point. The present system provides 20 years' flexibility; his provides none at all.
The Bill would remove people's current choice and instead force them to buy an index-linked annuity for each personal pension arrangement that they hold. That may not be what they want. It certainly may not be in their best interests. The opportunity, if a very small pension arrangement is held, of taking different annuity types at different times to spread risk would be removed. Using their open-market option for annuity purchase, people have the freedom to decide which type of annuity best suits their needs. The proposals in the Bill would take away that choice.
The Bill would also require the annuity to be bought by age 65, so that most people would have no option but to draw all their pension benefits from that age, whether retired or not, again limiting choice. That would introduce inconsistency and unfairness, as the requirement to annuitise by 65 applies only to personal pensions and not to retirement annuity contracts or defined contribution money purchase occupational pension schemes, which are not affected.
The age 65 rule also introduces a much larger issue. People who were saving in a personal pension scheme would not be able to contribute it to it past 65, and would have to take an annuity from that age. Those who have not made provision earlier in life or are still active and working would be allowed to continue in employment but not to save any of their earnings in a pension scheme for their future retirement unless they have a retirement annuity contract or are in an occupational pension scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, this is a typical Tory Bill—for the few, not the many. In fact, most people would be considerably disadvantaged by a requirement to use their fund to purchase an index-linked annuity. It would remove choice, hitting particularly those with small funds who might need to maximise their income. At present they can choose whether to have a higher-income flat-rate annuity or a lower starting income but

1093
index-linked annuity, or they can utilise a number of with-profits or investment-linked annuities that are available on the market. The Bill would force everyone to buy an index-linked annuity whether or not it suited their preferences or needs.
A major criticism of the Bill is that it benefits only rich people. We have been accused of bringing the politics of envy into the debate, but I am not bothered whether the Bill would benefit only rich people; my main concern is whether it is fair between the different income groups, and between the annuitant/taxpayer and the Exchequer. If the measure is genuinely revenue neutral, I am quite laid back about it—there is not a problem. My concern is whether the proposal could penalise the less well-off, which takes us back to the relationship between pension credits and the minimum guaranteed income.
I am also concerned about whether there is equity between the different income bands. I pray in aid the comments of the ABI, which were reported as long ago as 17 December 2001 in the magazine This is Money, under the headline "Insurers welcome pensions Bill":
"The Association of British Insurers said that this was a contribution to the debate on the compulsory purchase of annuities. However, association spokeswoman Emma Grainge said: 'Our general fear is that most people will have insufficient savings to take advantage of it.'
She said that to get an income of more than £140 a week people would have to spend around £50,000 on any annuity, and many people's retirement funds were less than this."
We have seen that £140 has already been overtaken.
However, if the yardstick—we do not know what it is—were an income equivalent to the full minimum income guarantee amount, the fund needed to buy an annuity income equivalent to its April 2003 level of £102.10 a week, or £5,309.20 a year, for a male aged 65 would be around £70,000. Assuming that people would take their maximum tax-free lump sums, the necessary fund size would be some £94,000. If the annuity were to be index-linked, a fund before lump sum of about £120,000 would be needed. If the minimum income required to be secured under the Bill were only the difference between the state retirement pension and the minimum income guarantee—£24.45 a week or £1,281.80 a year—the fund needed before the lump sum is taken in order to provide an index-linked annuity would be about £129,000. None of those examples, which come from the hon. and learned Gentleman's previous briefing materials, would necessarily suffice to protect the state as the minimum income guarantee is earnings linked and would increase at a faster rate than the minimum pension income.
Who would benefit from all this? Most of those retiring now have pension funds of far less than those amounts. ABI figures show that in 2001 the average fund used to purchase an annuity was about £25,000, and that around 45 per cent. were less than £10,000. Incidentally, that shows why pension credit is so important. Precisely those sort of people will benefit from the pension credit. The ABI's evidence shows that most people do not have more than one pension pot. The changes proposed in the Bill would therefore benefit only the wealthier sections of the population who are able to build up larger funds. The vast majority would remain compelled to use the whole of their pension fund
1094
to buy an annuity and would gain nothing from the changes except the compulsion that removes the freedom of choice that they already have.
Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend is making a very important point about people who may have funds in the region of £5,000, £7,000 or £10,000. Is he attracted to the idea of allowing them greater choice of serious ill-health commutation for instance, so that they could receive their amount as a lump sum, which is not of course allowed for in the Bill?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a very important and telling point. We could have proposed a series of flexibilities if the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought about the benefits to the whole population, as opposed to the relatively few millionaires whom the Bill is intended to help, and that point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. This is not a Bill for everyone; it is for a relatively small number of people.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now formed the judgment that the hon. Gentleman is engaging in a great deal of repetition. I remind him of the powers of Chair under Standing Order No. 42, and I may have to exercise them unless he can demonstrate in his remaining remarks that he is dealing with fresh points.
Mr. Dismore: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I can move on to deal with income draw-down, and I can do so in a relatively short time. The Bill would remove the choice of income draw-down—a benefit currently available to rich people, not poor people. I shall not deal with the draw-down provisions at great length because of the very fact that they do not affect most people.
Under the draw-down provisions, a policyholder may take a tax-free lump sum from an accrued personal pension fund, draw income from that fund subject to specified limits and defer the annuity until the age of 75, but, in practice, relatively few people use income draw-down policy to defer annuity purchase—about 16,000 people in each of the past three years. According to the Inland Revenue, the average annuity is bought with a fund of £25,000, but funds used for draw-down average about £140,000. The Bill would remove that important choice, but that would affect only relatively rich people, so I do not intend to dwell on it.
I shall now move on to my next main, substantive point, which relates to a very important minority: the Plymouth Brethren. I understand that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) may also want to deal with this issue because he was very exercised about it previously. Last time round, we had a lengthy debate on Report on several different biblical references, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) found the right one in the end.
The Plymouth Brethren are a group of about 14,000 people who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and seek to maintain faith and a good conscience, living by scriptural principles. The basis of their objection can be found in St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 6, verses 19 and 20:
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and you are not your own?

1095
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
Nevertheless, they believe that they are under an obligation to provide for their retirement, on the basis of St. Paul's first letter to Timothy, chapter 5, verse 8.
Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend brings to mind the debate in Committee on the previous incarnation of this legislation. Indeed, we had a considered and full debate. The Christian Brethren have proposed certain solutions to the theological problems that they have. Is it not surprising that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not prepared to take interventions or scrutiny on that point, which is important to a key minority group?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right. The problem is that the Bill purports to suggest a proposal that would deal with the position of the Plymouth Brethren, but it would create a series of other problems. We have to understand where the Plymouth Brethren are coming from, so we can understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals do not deal with their problems and how alternatives, if he had had the courtesy to engage with them and consult them, might have achieved that objective if incorporated in the Bill. In fact, those alternatives would have achieved a much wider benefit for rather more people.
The Plymouth Brethren believe themselves to be under an obligation to provide for their future through St. Paul's first letter to Timothy, chapter 5, verse 8:
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
That is the basis of the Plymouth Brethren's problems, and if we do not understand the basis of their views, how can we be sure that any vehicle to cater for them is properly designed?
Of course there are no votes in this—the Plymouth Brethren do not vote—but we must protect minorities, and the problem goes back to 1828. We ought to pursue a dialogue with them to try to find a way to meet the requirements and tenets of their faith, while satisfying the requirements of the Inland Revenue, which has its own tenets and, I am afraid to say, they are sometimes even more obscure than those of the Plymouth Brethren. In the end, however, we must try to satisfy their requirements. In their submission to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, as part of our present inquiry, they set out in some detail—which I will not go through—alternative proposals for a locked-in individual savings account. The ISA proposals that they have put forward are something that the Treasury ought to consider as of more general benefit that just for the Plymouth Brethren. The Bill—I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of it has now left the Chamber—proposes what is called a retirement failsafe fund, which is exactly the same as was proposed last time. As with the last time, however, the retirement failsafe fund is not defined within the Bill. I would have thought that hon. and learned Gentleman would have his tackle in order by now, but the Bill is silent on that point. It simply provides a Henry VIII clause to allow the retirement failsafe fund to be defined by, I presume, the Financial Secretary, through regulation. It is simply not worked out.
1096
The proposed features of the failsafe fund, as I understand it, although they were not included in the Bill, were as follows: 150 per cent. of the fund would be required to purchase the mini annuity or the whole of pension savings would be sufficient; there would be an annual requirement to withdraw the minimum retirement income from the failsafe fund, the remaining fund would be kept separate but could be withdrawn at any time, and once an individual reaches 80 the two funds would be combined; the annual income would be the remaining fund divided by the number of years, until the individual reached 100—
Mr. Bryant: What I am confused about in relation to the position of the Christian Brethren is that the first letter of St. Paul to Timothy, which they cite as the basis for their concern on the issue, is about Church discipline and the treatment of widows. As my hon. Friend has said, they cite verse 8:
"And if anyone does not make provision for his relations, and especially for members of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
I do not see how the pooling process that is inherent in the process of annuities is a problem, unless one believes that that injunction is only to look after members of one's own household—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a convention whereby matters raised on Second Reading are of a more general nature. "Erskine May" advises that too much detail should not be attempted, as that is for a later stage of the Bill, if reached. I rule the hon. Gentleman out of order, as he is going into too much detail on a particular point in an intervention at this stage of the proceedings.
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rescuing me, as I would hesitate to engage in a theological debate with my theological hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. He was also quoting from a different version of the Bible, which made it even more difficult. I was working from the King James version; I am not quite sure what he was working from but no doubt we can talk about that afterwards.
The problem with the retirement failsafe fund is that one can call it a proselytising or evangelical fund. There are only 12,000 Plymouth Brethren in the entire United Kingdom at the moment, but if this proposal were to go forward, that number could increase dramatically. The people who are trying to back it up might find that there was a certain loophole, which clearly could not be confined to the Plymouth Brethren but would have to be more broadly and generally available. A large number of millionaires might suddenly sign up, and the net result might have damaging consequences to the Treasury.
My main concern about the proposal is therefore that, although, on the face of it, it is a vehicle to achieve a particular purpose, it does not specify in any way how that purpose should be effected. It says to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, "We want you to do something to achieve broadly this effect, but we are not going to tell you how to do it." That is perhaps one of the benefits of being in opposition: one can simply say that it is for the Minister to work out the nuts and bolts. It is very irresponsible of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to put the proposal forward without

1097
making any effort to define what it is, how it might operate, or, having consulted the Christian Brethren, whether it is what they would like. In fact, they have made clear that they do not want it after all.
Mr. Pound: My hon. Friend makes a point in connection with the number of people who might join the Brethren. From my knowledge of the Brethren, they are not an aggressive, proselytising group—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite outside the scope of the debate.
Mr. Dismore: In fact, the Plymouth Brethren have proposed a different solution to their problem in their submission to the Work and Pensions Committee. They propose a locked-in cash ISA, which would not be accessible until retirement: payments into the plan would be made out of tax income, but withdrawals would not be subject to tax.
Bearing in mind your previous ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not propose to go through the Select Committee evidence in detail. However, if the Bill goes forward, the hon. and learned Gentleman would be well advised—instead of copying slavishly from the previous Bill—to consider the evidence from the Plymouth Brethren. They offer an attractive solution not only to their own problem but to the problems of those with limited means, the people in whom I am interested. At a time of falling stock markets and equities, an alternative to an annuity would provide a useful mechanism for cash investment and would probably have a rather better yield. Similar schemes operate in countries such as America and Australia. The evidence can be found in volume III of the Select Committee minutes.
I now turn to the issue of taxation. In his very short introduction to the Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that it was tax neutral. However, he is asking us to buy a pig in a poke. The Bill makes no detailed mention of tax provisions. The proposed new section 637B(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 says:
"Any withdrawal from the Fund by the member under subsection (2) shall be regarded as 'income' within section 1 of this Act."
That is about as far as the Bill goes on the issue of taxation.
Although the hon. and learned Gentleman may claim that the Bill is tax neutral from the Inland Revenue's point of view, we have no way of knowing that other than in extremely general terms. We have no way of knowing whether it is tax neutral at an individual level. Even more important, we have no way of knowing whether it is revenue neutral across the piece. Although a reform may be tax neutral for the individual concerned, it can have very different consequences for the bigger global picture. That point should be borne in mind in relation to pension tax relief generally.
At present, the tax relief on pensions exceeds the tax on pensions by a huge sum£13 billion a year. On average, £30 of every £100 paid into people's pensions contributions comes from the Chancellor. More than half the tax relief on pension contributions goes to higher rate taxpayers who make up only 15 per cent. of the contributors. Removing the current annuity
1098
purchase requirement for those aged 75 and permitting the remaining funds to be withdrawn at will or to be passed on to the pension fund member's estate on death—which is what the Bill provides—could encourage the well-off to increase their pension fund contributions substantially, even with the tax charge that the hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about in general terms. However, that charge is not referred to in the Bill and was not mentioned in his remarks today. People currently saving for a private pension use only a fraction of the possible amount of pension scheme tax reliefs available with the potential take-up of another £14 billion of reliefs within the current tax limits.
Lawrie Quinn: I am listening closely to this point. Is not the key question whether there is fiscal neutrality linked to the important issues of consumer behaviour that were clearly identified in the letter that I mentioned? The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to fail to recognise that point in the context of this debate.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not thought through the real-life consequences. Although one can create a great superstructure in theory, how people react to it might be very different. Some £5.6 billion of the unused tax relief relates to the high rate taxpayers who are likely to have substantial sums in other forms of savings and investment—big houses, for example. If only a small proportion of those savings were switched into pension schemes, the public cost of the pension scheme tax reliefs could rise by hundreds of millions of pounds each year, with the benefit going only to wealthy pensioners.
That would inevitably raise the question whether we should continue with higher tax relief for pension contributions. The only way in which the circle could be squared would, I suspect, be by abolishing higher rate tax relief. That would create far more problems than the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals could possibly solve.
Although there could be tax charges many years down the line, when the funds finally revert to the member's estate on death there would be significant cash-flow problems for the Exchequer. Little, if any, of that extra up-front Exchequer cost would benefit the majority of people with modest pension funds who hold only limited amounts in other forms of savings.
Pensions should not become a tax-favoured savings vehicle for non-pension purposes. Tax-privileged pensions savings must be used to provide retirement income for life from no later than 75. For those with personal pension schemes, the most financially efficient way of achieving that is to buy an annuity. That is because annuities pool people's risks and ensure that they continue to receive an income from savings no matter how long they live, even if they have the great longevity of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) and, I hope, my hon. Friend in due course.
The press release issued by the hon. and learned Gentleman also covers what happens on death. It states:
"On death, the capital sum, rather than going into the pensioner's estate for distribution under his/her will, is returned to the annuity provider."
That simplifies the true position to such an extent that it is just plain wrong. Any money that is left over becomes part of the overall pooling arrangement. So if someone

1099
dies early, the money goes back to the annuity provider for redistribution to people like my hon. Friend's father. It is a case of swings and roundabouts. The moment we begin to interfere with that, we start to undermine the whole system of pension funding in this country.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has come up with little more than a sophisticated inheritance tax avoidance scam. The proposals' underlying aim is to allow access to a fund that is not used in order to secure the minimum pension or to stockpile it for inheritance by heirs. The majority of people have pension funds way below the amount needed to provide the minimum income and would not benefit from the Bill's proposals. It would be elitist in effect, allowing the affluent to build up tax-privileged bequests in addition to providing a retirement income. That is not the purpose for which the pension tax reliefs, which are to become even more generous, are given. Research by the ABI on reasons for delaying the purchase of annuity funds found that only 1 per cent. of those who deferred cited inheritance motivations as a reason for delay. That suggests that the problem of inheritance is not widespread, but confined to a relatively small number of extremely wealthy people.
Having said that, it is an understandable concern that the funds used to buy an annuity could be completely lost on early death. That is addressed in the Inland Revenue's simplification review, which includes the
proposal that pensions that start before age 75—the vast majority begin many years earlier—will be value protected. In the case of an annuity, the death of an annuitant before 75 would, subject to a tax charge, return the difference between the original purchase price and the total of annuity payments made before death.
The Government have produced sensible alternative proposals, which is another reason why the Bill is inappropriate. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had the opportunity of reading their proposals on simplifying the taxation of pensions in the Treasury document published at the same time as the pensions Green Paper. I am equally sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to read it because, if he had, either he would have drafted his Bill differently or he would have given it up entirely. When coupled with the Green Paper, the document proposes a series of important changes to the tax regime and future pension provision which will completely change the pensions landscape.
Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time spent on the debate and, indeed, the time that the hon. and learned Gentleman put into the Bill would have been better spent composing a response to the Government's consultation paper, given that we have until 11 April to do so? That is clearly the way forward and would have ensured that our time was better rewarded.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and many people have made representations. Had the hon. and learned Member for Harborough not been so bullheaded, or so lazy as to pinch somebody else's Bill without even considering all the problems that arose from it, he might have done some homework and come to the same conclusion. As my hon. Friend says, the
1100
Treasury document is still open for consultation, and those who are concerned about annuity provision can still make representations. Both that and the Green Paper, which also deals with the reform of annuities, provide credible, practical alternatives that would benefit all, not just the few very wealthy people who would benefit from the Bill.
I do not intend to go into those other documents in great detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker, bearing in mind your earlier constraint, but I will indicate a few things that will happen. The Treasury document proposes radical simplification, which will sweep away the existing complexities of the tax rules and replace them with a straightforward lifetime limit on the amount of pension savings that can benefit from tax relief. It will allow top-ups to adjust for the vagaries of the market that we discussed earlier, and it will provide greater choice and flexibility. For the vast majority of people, the tax rules will cease to be a consideration in their pension planning.
If things go to plan and the proposals find general favour in the consultation, we will not have to wait long for reform. The Government have said that they will change the tax regime in the 2004 Finance Bill. The open-market option to which I referred earlier will become more widely available, enabling people to shop around and purchase a pension that is more advantageous to them. There will be tax simplification, including the lifetime limit of 1.4 million, which should be enough for anybody—except perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. There will be limited-period annuities and value-protected annuities. Income draw-down, which was referred to earlier, will be reformed.
The one proposal that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have been aware of, because it is the direct alternative to his Bill, is the permission to use income from unsecured funds in certain circumstances. People will no longer have to purchase an annuity when they reach 75, but their pension fund will still have to be used for pension provision. That is the answer to the Bill, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would know if he had bothered to read the Inland Revenue's taxation proposals. I have to assume that he has not read them; otherwise he would not have introduced the Bill.
Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend seems to be recommending preparation that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough may want to make before the Bill goes into Committee. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending to the hon. and learned Gentleman the important document, "Annuities—The Consumer Experience", produced by the Association of British Insurers? For me, that underpins the debate on the future of annuities, but obviously the Member promoting the Bill has failed to recognise that.
Mr. Dismore: I am sure that my hon. Friend makes his point exceedingly well, and if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to develop those thoughts at length.
It would be regrettable if the Bill were to reach Committee stage because it requires so much heavy engineering that it would make the railways pale into insignificance.[Interruption.] I thought that that would

1101
wake up the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. The Bill is so flawed that if it reaches Committee, it will never come out again. The Inland Revenue proposals and the Department for Work and Pensions document "Modernising Annuities" will make it necessary to table so many amendments that it will take for ever to deal with them all.
For the purposes of the debate, I made an assumption earlier about multiple policies, but the Bill is entirely silent on the subject. At the last count, I had four private pension plans. The last time that we debated this matter, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that he had I 1 pension plans. We do not know whether we would have to put all our policies into the system proposed by the Bill or whether we could pick and choose. I can see that there would be many cunning tax-avoidance schemes—I could put one policy in the system but withhold the others to maintain my annuities. There could be all sorts of juggling as people bought different policies, which would not be sensible. If the Bill reaches Committee, I urge the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to consider how multiple policies ought to be dealt with.
I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider transitional arrangements because, as far as I can see, there are none in the Bill. It will straddle the introduction of pension credit and the continuing growth of stakeholder pensioners, so there is inevitably potential for loopholes to be created. There is also the problem of people's existing policies. It is incumbent on the hon. and learned. Gentleman to tell everyone with a pension policy where they stand and whether their policy will have to be changed. On the other hand, he may wish to introduce transitional arrangements, in which case the Bill would apply only to pension funds to which people sign up from next year or the year after, giving them time to adjust. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman intends to introduce retrospective legislation, of which the House has almost always fought shy. I think that there have only been two pieces of retrospective legislation—I can remember the name of one but not the other.
Regrettably, the hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to examine the security of investments. The Bill refers to schedule 10 of the Insurance Companies Regulations 1994, which specifies permitted investments. However, those investments could be risky. We have already discussed certain aspects of investment, and annuities are generally secured against gilts. Schedule 10, which could be used to liberalise the investment regime, may go too far the other way, so I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider restricting his implementation of that provision. That matter is very serious. We have seen, for example in Equitable Life, what happens when projected returns from investment are too high. We have seen the problems that arise when pension funds rely too much on equities, and we have read in the financial pages of the Sunday papers about scandals. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, instead of providing more security of investment, provides less. He is in favour of a wild west form of annuity, not the security that people want for their retirement.
1102
As I draw my remarks, regrettably, to a close, I shall return to the hon. and learned Gentleman's press release, in which he sets out what he hopes to achieve in his Bill:
"I have tried to design a Bill whose principles are simple to understand and which is free of unnecessary technicalities or detail £ Whilst it does not cure all the problems faced by pensioners it goes some way to offering practical assistance."
I have demonstrated that the Bill achieves none of that. It is not easy to understand—although there is nothing in the Bill to understand—and is riddled with Henry VIII clauses. Definitions and figures are entirely absent. From the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, it is conveniently free of technicalities and detail, because he has not had to deal with them. However, when one is dealing with such issues one cannot help but get into technicalities and detail.
Lawrie Quinn: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and regret that he is coming to the end of his speech. Obviously, longevity is an important part of our debate. Does he agree that that press release can only be characterised to use the language of my own industry, as a shoddy piece of cowboy workmanship?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, that is entirely and unnecessarily repetitive.
Mr. Dismore: I would not go down my hon. Friend's line, except to say that perhaps it is negligent with a small "n", or misleading with a small "m", or perhaps with a capital "M", to suggest that the Bill is simple to understand and free of unnecessary technicalities. The hon. and learned Gentleman has skated over all the technicalities and details that inevitably have to be addressed. I hoped that when he introduced the Bill he would fill in some of the gaps, but he lamentably failed to do so.
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Bill does not cure all the problems faced by pensioners, but that it goes some way to offering practical assistance. What utter poppycock! It does not provide practical assistance to 99 per cent. of pensioners. It may provide practical assistance to a tiny minority of extremely wealthy pensioners, but that practical assistance can be delivered much more effectively through taxation changes on which the Government are consulting. Such changes will not remove the flexibility and the existing practical assistance that it is available to everybody, and will not impose great restrictions on the majority for the benefit of the wealthy few. How can it be right to remove compulsion at the age of 75 from a few millionaires, and to introduce compulsion at the age of 65 for everyone else? That is not meeting the hon. and learned Gentleman's objectives.
We have no real way of knowing whether the Bill would provide practical assistance because there is no detail. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not defined his minimum retirement income. Perhaps he might have provided some benefit to the Plymouth Brethren, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not defined his fail-safe retirement fund. We have no way of knowing about that. The fact remains that the Bill is a shoddy piece of work. It should never have seen the light of day in the previous Session. I should have thought that the hon and learned Gentleman would do a bit of learning and realise that the Bill cannot be allowed to proceed.

1103
I know that I have spoken at great length. I had to, because the hon. and learned Gentleman wasted time in his relatively short introduction. That time would have been far better spent in setting out some of the detail, instead of engaging in party political point scoring, which he said he would not do but which he inevitably did. I think I have been extremely restrained in avoiding such point scoring. I have tried to present a logical and basic analysis of the Bill. Apart from one or two occasions when I wanted to make sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman was awake, I have not engaged in the party political wind-ups in which he engaged at the beginning of his remarks, when he advanced silly arguments. Had he wasted less time on that and spent more time on the substance of the Bill, he might have made much more progress and I might not have had to speak at great length in posing so many questions to him. The fact remains that he has done a shoddy piece of work.
There are one or two other aspects of the Bill to which I should refer before I resume my place. The starting point is the commencement date. It is not a major point, but it is an important one. The commencement date for the Act will not be set by the Minister by statutory instrument or by other forms of delegated legislation, as normally happens. Clause 3(2) provides for the Act to come into force on 6 April 2005. That being so, why are we wasting time on the Bill? The Government have already said that they intend to make their own proposals in the Finance Bill in 2004. Assuming that that will happen and that the tax regime for annuities will be greatly simplified in April 2004, clause 1 of the relevant section of that Finance Bill will provide, should this shoddy Bill ever reach the statute book, for the repeal of this shoddy piece of work. That has to be. If enacted, the Bill would be entirely inconsistent with the tax reforms that the Government are already consulting on. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have read the proposals. Had he done so, he would have seen that what I have said is the case.
The Bill cannot be allowed to proceed. I am sorry that I have had to speak for so long, but I hope that hon. Members will understand the reasons for my doing so.
12.34 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I declare an interest as a beneficiary of a money purchase pension scheme.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on securing the Bill. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) entirely missed the point. The purpose of the Bill and the intended purpose of the debate is to allow a constructive discussion about abolishing the obligation to buy an annuity.
The Government proposed that that be abolished. Paragraph 5 of the Green Paper on revenues clearly sets out the proposal that draw-down should continue beyond the age of 75 until death. The capital protected annuity that the Government allegedly support is a slightly different way of meeting part of people's objections to the present compulsion. The hon. Member for Hendon, who is obviously a keen authoritarian,
1104
ignores the fact that people object to compulsion. For the past 10 years, I have campaigned on that issue of principle. It is a great pity that as a result of the hon. Gentleman's extreme long-windedness, the House has lost the opportunity today to discuss how we could sensibly pull together the strands that are in place.
It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman endorsed the Inland Revenue's approval of a Gibraltar-based offshore annuity contract that costs 3.5 per cent. and effectively achieves the underlying objectives intended by abolishing the obligation to buy annuities. That is contrary to the objection on the part of the Government and the Financial Services Authority to over-expensive insurance wrappers. Furthermore, it is pathetic to support a product that is both expensive and outside the control of the UK authorities, even though it meets the objective, rather than considering how to address the underlying problem.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said that I would say a little about the Plymouth Brethren. For better or worse, the religious principles of the Brethren mean that, as a matter of conscience, they are not permitted to buy insurance products, and the failsafe alternative to the retirement income annuity referred to in the Bill would be a simple cash pot that would need to be substantially greater than the retirement income annuity, with rules to ensure that there would always be sufficient in it so that people could not blow the money and become dependent on the state.
Times have changed as the debate has gone on. The big issue is the pensions crisis, which has many aspects but is, above all, about millions more people ending up with money purchase pensions, the fact that fewer than four in 10 final salary schemes are now open to new members, and the failure of stakeholder pensions, which have achieved only 2 per cent. of the market of 5 million people earning between £10,000 and £20,000.
All that has been caused by several factors, principally the weakness and decline of corporate profitability under excessive taxation and regulatory costs. The UK market has underperformed America's by 50 per cent., substantially as the result of the Chancellor's famous £5 billion tax on pension schemes. There has been a dramatic fall in annuity pension yields.
When the subject was last debated, the Minister referred to the Inland Revenue paper on modernising annuities and in particular to graph 2, and argued that, although that showed that annuity yields had fallen from some 14 per cent. to 8.5 per cent. since 1986, in real terms, the pensions delivered for 30 years of money purchase pension saving had risen.
Given that I spent 30 years of my career in this territory, I found those figures strange, so I asked various questions of the Treasury. Although it had not been disclosed at the time, it turned out that those data were based on the extremely unlikely assumption that, over the last decade of a money purchase savings scheme, 10 per cent. per annum would have been moved into gilts, ensuring that the fund would be 100 per cent. invested in gilts on retirement. The truth of the matter is that very few people proceed in that way. The much more typical balance will be 50 per cent. gilts and 50 per cent. bonds.
Even on the basis of the assumption that was used, which should have been disclosed at the time, the pension in 2001 was the lowest in real terms since 1994

1105
and 1990. However, in answer to my question about the position on the assumption of a balance of 50 per cent. gilts and 50 per cent. equities over the five years prior to retirement, I was told that the pension delivered in real terms was 20 per cent. lower than in any year since the Government table started in 1986, and was indeed the lowest for 40 years. With the greatest respect, overlooking the fact that the annuity pensions available from money purchase pensions have fallen dramatically is a major issue at a time when the majority of the population—some are privileged because they are in the public sector—are being forced into money purchase savings. Candidly, that is ridiculous.
What is this all about? Why is there a view out there—the ABI survey subtly reflects this position, and as it represents annuity providers, it obviously wraps it in a particular way—that it is wrong for people to be forced to buy annuities? First, there is an objection to compulsion, but there is also an objection to the risk of loss when people die shortly after retirement. Of course, people can buy annuity contracts that cover such eventualities, but the overwhelming majority do not and buy a straight annuity. There is a fear that all their pension savings can quickly be lost if they should die shortly after retirement.
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flight: Labour Members used a great deal of the time of the House and I wish to finish my speech fairly briefly, so I am afraid that the answer is no; the hon. Gentleman has had his turn.
The second great fear is that people are being forced to buy annuities at or near the bottom of a long-term inflation and interest rate cycle. Nobody knows what the future will hold, but it is self-evident that people who bought annuities when even straight annuity yields were 14 per cent. or more bought them at a favourable time after which there was an era in which inflation was not as high as expected, so they did very well. Indeed, people were mainly happy to buy annuities for that reason. At present, people fear that in five or 10 years' time, or perhaps sooner, inflation will rise, the purchasing power of their annuity will contract and they will have bought a product at the bottom of the market. Indeed, until and unless the Government address that problem, there is a risk that, in 10 years' time, a whole generation will feel that they have been profoundly mis-sold to as a result of Government compulsion.
The straight annuity yield is down from 14 to 7.5 per cent. However, there is a better illustration of what faces someone who is retiring. Consider a man with a wife of 62, who retires at 65, and consider that he wants a pension that will provide 50 per cent. for his wife and a degree of escalation of 3 per cent. for five years. In 1990, £100,000 bought an annuity pension of £12,500, but now it would only buy one of £4,500. That illustrates the magnitude of the increased cost of annuities and of the long-term economic cycle risk.
We must take into account the rising tide of money purchase pension savings. The amount going into annuities is already around £12 billion each year and it is growing compound at 20 per cent. As I have already said, the final salary schemes have closed in a rush after the Chancellor's £5 billion pension tax. More and more
1106
people will have money purchase pensions and it will be essential for us to work out the best way for money purchase pension savings to be converted into pensions.
There was a concern that the yields on gilts that underlay annuity investments were artificially low; there was a rising tide of money but the supply of new gilts was relatively frozen. However, the Chancellor's wrong estimates, and the potentially excessive borrowing that will now be required, look as though they will solve that problem. There may end up being an over-supply in the volume of gilts. The return on an annuity reflects gilt yields as well as longevity. Real gilt yields are in essence about the supply and demand of gilts.
The other powerful argument for addressing this issue is that the Government and the country want much greater private sector pension saving. We remember the famous objective of moving from 40 per cent. private to 60 per cent. private, and not moving in the reverse direction—although that is what we are now doing.
Fifteen years ago, when Canada effectively abolished the obligation to buy an annuity on a pension product that is very close to the stakeholder pension, and when it put in a retirement income fund that is essentially similar to the one proposed in the Bill, a product that had had no support suddenly became extremely popular. A total of 40 per cent. of Canada's population now save through the equivalent of a stakeholder pension. In Canada, it was found that the main psychological problem—until the obligation to buy an annuity was abolished—was that people had a fear and dislike of the perceived risk of losing all that they had saved in their pension vehicle if they were to die early.
South Africa, as a result of the miners' union quite rightly having had no truck with the apartheid Government, has now had for 25 years a clean and straightforward money purchase saving regime with no obligation whatever to buy annuities. That has had substantial success in delivering capital for people who are retiring—in particular, from the mining industry—to allow them to start their own businesses.
The Government's arguments against a radical approach have been that such an approach would only benefit the better-off. The underlying case is that, if anything benefits only the better-off, it should not be considered. I want to illustrate why I consider that wrong thinking. Three constituents of mine had a self-administered pension scheme that went with the business for which they had worked. The scheme had invested in all sorts of local businesses. It was extremely successful as a venture capital investor and had accumulated far more than would ever be needed for those people's pensions. They wrote to me saying that it was wicked that they had to abandon supporting small businesses simply because they were 75. They have to sell the scheme, put the money into an annuity and cannot do as much as they did in the past. That example shows why forcing people is wrong.
The Government's second argument is that the Bill would encourage too much pensions saving, but their first problem is too little pensions saving. They could not even get the figures for it right. A universally applicable exit tax on capital that leaves a pension fund renders anxieties about avoidance and excessive pensions saving by the better-off false. People's natural behaviour shows that they tend to save what they can afford for pensions.

1107
If so-called clever schemes that can use pensions saving to avoid tax are outlawed, the motivation for avoidance goes away.
The key development in the Green Paper is the Government's acceptance of the principle of the argument. I have already referred to their proposal that people should be able to continue to engage in draw-down schemes after the age of 75. I believe that the Government also accept capital-protected annuities—an annuity product that allows people's estates to get back the capital if they die early.
For some extraordinary reason, the Government's position on both those matters is to require that any capital that remains after a person has reached 75 should go to the pension provider and not the beneficiary's estate. I do not understand why it can go to the estate before but not after the age of 75. Subject to a universally applicable pension exit tax, which is currently 35 per cent.—inheritance tax is paid on top of that—why is there anything wrong with allowing the residual capital to go to the estate?
As the industry pointed out, the proposals in the Green Paper are almost unintelligible. They say that the capital should revert to the provider. Can the trustee of a statement of investment, who is the provider, pay the tax and pay on the proceeds to the beneficiary's estate? That is not stated. The pension actuaries to whom I have spoken consulted the individual who wrote the Green Paper, and even he does not appear to know the precise intention.
Again, we are considering an issue of principle. There is nothing wrong with people saving for pensions and, subject to paying a fair amount of tax, for any residue to pass to their estates, which suffer inheritance tax. For some reason, the Government take a dogmatic view that, beyond the age of 75, it is morally wrong for any pension savings, even after adequate tax, to pass to someone's heirs.
The purpose of the Bill and the debate is to tell the Government to get a move on and sort out their proposals. They have introduced a bit here and a bit there, but they do not fit together or work. If the Government end the obligation to buy an annuity on draw-down and allow people to get capital back through annuity contracts, there is no logic for having one rule up to the age of 75 and another afterwards. There would also be no problem involved in tightening the tax regime to ensure full and fair taxation of any capital that exits from a pension scheme.
It is a great pity that the House has not had the opportunity today constructively to debate the issues that the Bill exposes. I hope, therefore, that it will go into Committee to enable that to be done.
12.55 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Bill, not least because it seemed a bit ungracious of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to condemn the House for not allowing proper debate when he took no interventions himself. Anyway, be that as it may, I should make some declarations, although I am slightly uncertain as to exactly what level of declaration one has
1108
to make when talking about pensions in the generality. If I get to the age of 65, I anticipate drawing pensions from the BBC, the Labour party and the Church of England.
Mr. Flight: Fat cat!
Mr. Bryant: A church mouse, I fear, rather than a fat cat.
I do not think that there can be many who have that combination of pensions. I also have some AVCs with Equitable Life—sadly—and with the Prudential, and a private pension with Virgin. I do not know whether there are any financial advisers in the House who can tell me whether that is good provision or not, but if there are, perhaps they could see me afterwards.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): It is certainly comprehensive.
Mr. Bryant: I am not sure that it is very comprehensive.
The important thing that we have to decide today is whether to send the Bill forward into Committee. As in all Second Readings, the important question, first and foremost, is: is the Bill necessary in the present context? If a Bill is necessary, is this the right Bill? Is it legally correct, and, for that matter, is it politically desirable? Finally, is it amendable? If it were broadly acceptable but needed just a few amendments, it would be right for the House to send it into Committee, where we could amend it, do our bits and pieces and come up with the perfect Bill. I note, however, that when the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) introduced it at the beginning of the day, he said that it was not perfect. It is unusual to hear Members start such a speech with an announcement that their Bill is not perfect. When we consider that this Bill has been before us in various different forms over the past few years, one might have hoped that it might have achieved a sufficient degree of perfection by now for him to have the confidence to stand up in the House and say that he had got it at least pretty well right. Clearly he did not feel that confidence.
Let me go through the issues. First, is the Bill necessary in the present context? I believe that it is not, first for the obvious reason that divergent mortality rates are significant in the United Kingdom. Several hon. Members have referred to the divergence of mortality rates between men and women and noted that there is roughly a three-and-a-half-year difference between them. It is also significant that there is a dramatic difference between mortality rates in different parts of the country and different types of constituency. My own constituency is a former mining constituency, as many hon. Members will know, and many people would assume that the poor mortality rate in the Rhondda is directly associated with the fact that people worked in the mines, even though the last mine closed in 1991, in Maerdy. In fact, industrial disease is not the sole, or even the primary, reason for the difference in mortality rates. The primary reason is the socioeconomic conditions in which many people in the Rhondda live. Historically, through the rough and tough 18 years of Conservative rule, people found it very

1109
difficult to live in anything other than poverty. For many young people brought up in households with not one but two generations of unemployment, there was a general supposition that a life on benefit was the best that people could aspire to. That has meant that many people growing up in the Rhondda suffer from a whole host of medical conditions, which have led to our mortality problems. For example, there are high rates of coronary heart disease, partly due to poor diet and partly due to smoking and other problems associated with poverty.
In the Rhondda, 86 per cent. of households own their home—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman has given a little bit of background, but now he should come back specifically to the Bill.
Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for steering me away from steering away from the Bill.
The point that I am keen to make is that the divergences in mortality rates, which are obviously essential to the process of establishing an annuity, are important in determining whether hon. Members should choose, on unwhipped business, to support the Bill. The pooling of mortality rates, which is essential in buying annuities, is an important principle and we should adhere to it, contrary to the views of the Plymouth Brethren to which some hon. Members referred earlier.
The establishment of a separate annuity rate for men and women, as opposed to the Bill's provisions, is also important. About 40 per cent. of my constituents are pensioners and many of them are women who live on their own. The maintenance of divergent annuity rates for men and women would be very much in their interests.
As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out, we have low annuity rates at present. That is the second important point to explore in considering whether the Bill is necessary. However, inflation is also low. That is a double-edged sword. Low inflation means that there are low gilt returns, which affect annuity levels, but, because the majority of people who buy annuities buy a fixed annuity, the prospect of low inflation in the future means that their annuity is likely to be worth more in the years to come than would otherwise have been the case. At present, there is an unusual convergence of good and bad news for annuities. I think that the vast majority of pensioners would assert that low inflation can only be a good thing for pensioners and that the Government should be congratulated on their running of the economy.
As many hon. Members would agree, we also have a strong and effective annuities market. There are more than 100 annuity providers although the majority of annuities are sold by the top 10 or 20 companies. However, the market shows that those companies provide good value and that there is strong competition. None of the changes proposed in the Bill would be of assistance in maintaining that strong and competitive market.
A further point to consider in relation to any private Member's Bill is whether other changes declared or proposed by the Govt are already in the pipeline and
1110
would make the suggested legislation unnecessary or wrong. Several changes have already been enacted, or will come into force, which make the Bill both unnecessary and wrong.
The first is the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. Several hon. Members have referred to its provisions and have pointed out that the relationship between it and the minimum retirement income suggested in the Bill would be extremely problematic. The Government have committed themselves, in the lifetime of this Parliament, to raising the MIG not in line with prices but with average earnings. I hope that that commitment will continue into another Labour term. It would be very difficult to match that commitment with the provisions in the Bill, which are very sketchy regarding the increases in minimum retirement income; the Bill simply provides that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will decide annually the level of the minimum retirement income. Despite a concerted campaign over the past 10 years for reform—which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned—that has been waged by certain organisations in certain parts of the industry, and despite considerable discussion on the Floor of the House and in Committee of issues relating to a minimum retirement income, a major problem with the Bill is that it makes no clear and direct provision as to how the Chancellor of the Exchequer should determine that minimum retirement income.
It is not only the minimum retirement income that gives rise to difficulties. The second difficulty arises from the pension credit, which will come into force later in the year. The credit will be of advantage to many of my constituents, who have argued for a considerable time that one of the bedrocks of pensions policy must be the fact that it rewards, not penalises, those who have set a little bit aside during their lifetime, otherwise we shall be sending young people the message, "Spend as you go; do not worry about the future because in the end the state will provide." That is another danger with the Bill. Its broad message is, "Do not worry about the future. Spend. We shall try to ensure that there is some kind of failsafe arrangement, but broadly speaking use your money as you want and do not worry for the future." It is a vital and essential principle of all our pension policy that we should encourage our young people to make long-term and secure financial provision for themselves; the Bill does the opposite.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly the clause relating to how the Chancellor of the Exchequer would set the rate of minimum retirement income each year does not say how that would fit with the pension credit. The pension credit was deliberately intended to increase the amount of money in the household, and not to impact on benefits. But if the minimum retirement income is intended to ensure that people are not reliant on the state, as a result of not having used the whole of their pension fund to buy an annuity but having used some of the additional capital for some other projects, or for some other form of investment, how would one ensure that individual pensioners did not fall foul of the pension credit provisions?

1111
The other problem that I have with the Bill in terms of legal changes relates directly to clause 3, which is the provision for the short title and commencement of the Bill. It says:
"This Act shall come into force on 6th April 2005"—
one year after many of the provisions that we hope will come along as a result of the changes in "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement", the Department for Work and Pensions document, which I am sure that all hon. Members have read. It seems very curious to suggest that the Bill should come into operation in 2005, before things that are already in the pipeline have been legislated for.
If asked for my analysis of whether the Bill is necessary in the present context, I would have to say no. Is this the right Bill? No hon. Member who supports the Bill—only two have spoken so far—has said this, but, as far as I can see, the aim of the Bill is, broadly speaking, to avoid the pooling process that occurs by virtue of people taking out their annuities and, instead, ensure that people can either use their money for other investments of whatever kind or hand on money to their estates.
What would the Bill do for the people of the Rhondda and ordinary working families in return for that change? It seems clear that the first and perhaps most dramatic effect of the Bill would be to deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a significant amount of taxation. The two Conservative Members who have spoken referred to the notorious £6 billion—or was it £5 billion?
Mr. Flight: What's £1 billion?
Mr. Bryant: I can tell the hon. Gentleman; perhaps it is about time that we started to inform him that £1 billion could make a dramatic difference, especially to the people of Wales and, for that matter, 20 per cent. could make a difference to them.
Mr. Flight: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman lacks a sense of humour. I was pointing out that it did not seem to matter to him whether the sum was £5 billion or £6 billion.
Mr. Bryant: I merely note that adding £1 billion to £5 billion increases the sum by 20 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well used to that percentage. He accuses me of not having a sense of humour, but he might at least smile at that.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Does the fact that that act of grand larceny on behalf of the Government only amounts to £5 billion make it better or worse than if it had amounted to £6 billion?
Mr. Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take out of public finances £5 billion or £6 billion, I would dramatically contest what he says, for the very simple reason that investment in our public services is absolutely essential to the livelihood of my constituents, who rely in very large measure on the health service, education services and so on. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might suggest that I am veering rather far
1112
from the Bill, so although I should be very happy to debate that issue with the hon. Gentleman at great length elsewhere, it is important that I return to the Bill.
None the less, the important point for the people of the Rhondda is whether it would be good to remove that money from the Exchequer because it would deliver another benefit to society as a whole.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs is chuntering from the Front Bench. I think that he says that no money would be taken from the Exchequer. I therefore assume that he is trying to assert that the proposal is wholly tax neutral, and we shall hear from other hon. Member who want to contest that assertion at considerable length and with the benefit of secure figures.
The second half of the equation—this is important—is that given the way that the Bill has been drafted as opposed to the way that last year's Bill was drafted, it would leave more people eventually dependent on the state for the very simple reason that the process of determining minimum retirement income allowed under the Bill is so woolly, imprecise and ambivalent.
Roger Casale: My hon. Friend is making an excellent job of demolishing the case for the Bill and he did so in commenting on the intervention, which I saw on a monitor elsewhere, made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). In listening to the earlier speeches, was my hon. Friend able to form an impression of whether supporting the Bill is the official policy of the Conservative party or whether just one Member and some of his hon. Friends support it?
Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is always rather difficult to determine precisely what is Conservative party policy on any individual issue. I noted that a considerable number of Conservative Members were in the House at the beginning of the day, which, clearly, was a delight. It is good to see a full House, and parliamentary scrutiny of Bills is very important. It is only a sadness that so few Conservative Members have chosen to stay and listen to or engage in any of the debate, or, for that matter, to take interventions. It seems to me that that is an essential part of the rightful parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill.
Mr. Boateng: How many Liberal Democrats are here?
Mr. Bryant: There is only the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in the Chamber. He has been the only Liberal Democrat present, and he is standing in for the hon. Gentleman who should be here.
On the face of it, the Bill is attractive. It was described as all about choice. Who could vote against choice? It is meretricious, however. As we know from "The Merchant of Venice", all that glitters is not gold. That is certainly true of this Bill, as it does not provide choice for everyone. There are many areas where we could extend choice of pension provision and how people buy annuities. In my constituency, very few people will manage to achieve the £150.000 fund that Conservative Members think of not so much as a fund but as a salary. For my constituents, a pension fund may be in the region of £5,000 to £9,000. For miners or people who

1113
have diseases that are likely to lead to their death in the next three to five years, it seems patently unfair that they cannot take the whole figure as a lump sum and be able ever they want with it.
To be honest, I am grateful that the document, "Simplicity, security and choice" includes the suggestion that we should allow for commutation of the whole pension fund sum for long-term and serious ill health. I hope that the Government will make proposals along those lines, as that will be in the interests of the poorest and the most vulnerable in society. The chairman of the Conservative party, who as one of the most vulnerable members of her Front Bench is speaking on behalf of the vulnerable today, may advance arguments to that effect. I only wish that there were such arguments about choice for poorer constituents such as mine and for those who have not accumulated enormous pension funds because they have not had enormous salaries throughout their lives. Unfortunately none of that is in the Bill.
It would also be nice if not just those with serious ill health but those with small funds, which would probably not fall foul of any benefits anyway, were able to commute the whole of their pension fund. Again, that provision is not in the Bill. The only people who are to be allowed greater choice are those who will have significantly larger amounts of money in their pension funds.
Mr. Love: Is not the Bill even more insidious, in the sense that by increasing choice for a very small number of people it reduces choice for the vast majority?
Mr. Bryant: Absolutely. I am proud to call myself a socialist, and I happen to believe that the present system of annuitisation—not an attractive word—is in principle socialist, as it makes provision for all on the basis of need and the length of their lives. In contrast, 100 years ago, before the Liberals introduced the idea of a national pension, and before the Tories went through two general elections and battled through the House of Lords to make sure that we did not have pensions for everyone, what people did was what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs wants: they had an amount of money, and they spent a bit of it until they died. They hoped that they would have accumulated enough by the time that they retired or by the time that they could no longer work—keeping their noses to the grindstone—to keep them going for enough years before they died. If, by good fortune, they lived for many years, they would fall into abject poverty. Conservative Members would be quite content if such a system continued today.
Ms Munn: Although my hon. Friend will be aware that I have not had the pleasure of visiting his constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not yet."] Not yet. There are probably considerable differences between our constituencies, but I am sure that the problems of our constituents are not that dissimilar. People do not come to my surgeries or to street stalls in my constituency to raise the concerns that have been expressed by the Bill's supporters. I hear the concerns of
1114
those who have very small occupational pensions. They fear that they will be disadvantaged in comparison with others. Does the Bill do anything for them?
Mr. Bryant: I am happy to extend an invitation to my hon. Friend to come to the Rhondda, especially in the next few weeks. We will be delivering leaflets tomorrow morning in Tonypandy so, if she wishes to join me, she will be very welcome.
My hon. Friend is right. It is fair to say that not many people approach one at street stalls and start to ask about annuitisation rates. However, people are clearly concerned about pensioner poverty, and an element of that is fuel poverty. Many of my constituents live in houses that are not well insulated. Many of them still do not have gas central heating and some have outside toilets. We have a long way to go to make sure that we prevent pensioner poverty.
I know that pensioners in my constituency say, "To be honest, if my grandmother knew how well off I am now as a pensioner thanks to all the measures that the Government have introduced since 1997, she would be amazed." They are proud that this country has taken dramatic steps forward. However, there are still things that we need to do to encourage more people to stand on their own two feet. I cannot remember which pop singer sang about—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not remember the name of the pop singer. Will he return to discussing the Bill?
Mr. Bryant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you have rescued me from my amnesia.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bryant: I will give way, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been here for much of the debate.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I apologise for that, but I came in especially to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech. It has been extraordinarily interesting so far, but an absolute travesty of the truth.
I declare an interest: my stockbroking firm advised the National Coal Board's pension fund for many years from the 1950s. One reason why the widows of miners have such relatively good occupational pensions is that that pension fund was excellently run. The Conservative party's achievement over a long time is reflected in the fact that, when I entered politics, very few people had occupational pensions but, by 1997, about 80 per cent. qualified for them. That great social advance is now under enormous threat.
Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the people of Rhondda are particularly delighted with the Conservative Government's record in mining communities. If he wants to join us on the street stall tomorrow, proclaim himself to be a stockbroker and explain to the people of Rhondda what the Conservative Government did for them through denying miners compensation—
Sir Peter Tapsell: I was talking about pension funds.
Mr. Bryant: Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman suggested that he did such a good job by the miners that

1115
we should be downright grateful. He mentioned travesties. He should be ashamed of himself and, for that matter, of his Government's record in mining communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and I tabled a reasoned amendment to the motion, although it has not been selected for debate. We did that partly because we were worried about how the Bill would affect the way in which men and women are treated in pension provision. Superficially, the Bill seems attractive, but the arguments are meretricious and all that glitters is not gold. By guaranteeing one annuity rate for men and women, the implication is that we would establish parity between them. The present system sets annuity rates separately for men and women. On the whole, men have a higher rate for the obvious reason that they are likely to die earlier, while women are likely to outlive their husbands and other male contemporaries.
According to annuity director rates of March 2003, a 65-year-old man who purchases an annuity for £100,000, which is rather more than many of my constituents would spend, might receive £603 a month. The comparable figure for a female is £565 a month, a difference of £38. I use those figures for simplicity's sake. They are for level annuities, but I could give other annuity figures because, broadly speaking, the same principle arises. It seems unjust that a women would receive less than a man on a monthly basis, but a man's total payments for his expected lifespan after retirement—about 17 years—would come to £123,012, whereas a woman could expect to receive £135,720 for her life expectancy in retirement of 20 years. That puts her ahead by some £12,500, which makes a significant difference.
Far from the present system militating against women, I contend that the many thousands of women in my constituency who have long outlived their husbands have done better under the present system than they would under that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If we were to pay on a unisex basis, as the Bill recommends, a man would receive a mere £123,012 and a woman would receive £144,720 if they lived to their life expectancies, but the annuity companies would say that they could not afford that and would cut annuities for men and women. As a result, the men would do considerably worse than the £123,012 and annuity rates would be cut overall.
I asked what the Bill would do for women and for men. The simple answer is that it would militate against the best interests of men and it would not improve the prospects for women. Women would not get higher annuity rates; instead, they would probably receive the same annuity rate that they get at the moment. At the end of the period, they would not have increased their amount of money and the men would probably have lost out. On the basis of justice for men and women, the Bill might seem just and desirable, but it would be wrong.
Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure may prove to be a disincentive to saving, and as there is already a savings gap of between £20 billion and £30 billion, that would be of concern to the Treasury?
Mr. Bryant: I wholly support what my hon. Friend says. It is important that the Treasury and Labour Members who are concerned about these matters rigorously pursue them and give them due scrutiny.
1116
I started my speech by asking three basic questions. The first was whether the Bill is necessary in the present context. I simply believe that it is not, for several reasons, including not least the fact that the minimum retirement income process it lays out is so woolly and non-specific that it would be counter-productive. Secondly, I asked whether it is the right Bill to be advancing at this stage. I do not believe that it is legally correct, because it would be difficult to make it work with the pension credit, the minimum income guarantee and any of the other changes likely to be made in the next year.
Thirdly, I asked whether the Bill is politically desirable. For me, to be politically desirable, a pensions Bill would have to deliver to the people of Rhondda a choice equal to that of everyone else in the country. As a socialist, I want a system that makes sure that we abolish pensioner poverty rather than simply benefiting the wealthiest in society who have accumulated funds in excess of £150,000. That is why I say that the Bill is politically wholly undesirable.
In addition, I ask whether the Bill is amendable. Despite the fact that many Tory Members are suddenly appearing in the Chamber, there is no Whip on a private Member's Bill. That means that the House must simply ask itself whether the Bill is broadly okay, even it has some imperfections, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough admitted earlier. I do not think that the Bill is amendable. The fundamental principles on which it is based are wholly inequitable, and it is in the interests of the few and not the many. Hon. Members should not give it a Second Reading because it cannot be amended to make it acceptable to the vast majority of people in this country.
1.32 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rewarding my four-hour wait by giving me an opportunity to put my views on the record. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on introducing the Bill, although I suspect that by now he is wishing that he had taken the more cowardly route that some of us took when we drew a high place in the ballot on private Members' Bills and checked out his Bill with the Government Whips.
Perhaps I should also congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on his great ingenuity and stamina. Most hon. Members will be gratified that he did not get his hands on a document that I started reading to keep myself sane during his speech: "Reinventing Annuities", by the Staple Inn Actuarial Society.[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Gentleman does have it, does he? It contains a world history of annuities, and I was having nightmares about him starting to read it to us.
That document equipped me with one or two party political points. I was not aware, until I read it, that apart from Lloyd George's contribution on pensions, William Ewart Gladstone, the great Liberal Prime Minister, took the first step to introduce state annuities in 1864; however, the Tories repealed the measure in 1928. The document also reminds us that although today we are talking about compulsory annuities, for a

1117
long period in British history not only were annuities not compulsory; they were illegal because of the attitude of the Church. Of course, we now have an historical echo of that in the attitude of the Brethren.
Of course, the history of annuities goes back much further. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could have reminded us that a similar debate reverberated around the Roman Senate, where annuities policy was a major issue as a result of changes introduced in 40 BC, so we have a long lineage of argument on the subject.
I support the Bill, and I am sure that the Conservative Chief Whip will be gratified to know that my troops are massing outside the Chamber ready to vote for its Second Reading.
Mr. Pound: Both of them.
Dr. Cable: Indeed. In fact, I think that there is only one, but the spirit is there none the less.
I want to emphasise the fact that there is a serious problem. There has been an attempt to caricature the Bill as a measure that is only of interest to the rich. However, there are about 4 million private pensioners and about 1.4 million occupational pensioners on money purchase schemes, many of whom are affected by the adverse trend in annuities. Not all of them would necessarily benefit from the Bill, but the number of beneficiaries would be millions rather than tens of thousands, so it is not simply a Bill for the rich.
First, I should stress that although the debate has been party political, there has been a good deal of convergence. The hon. Member for Hendon rightly pointed out that the advocates of reform have effectively abandoned the moral high ground, as they no longer argue for the abolition of compulsion, which is written into the Bill. Indeed, it would start at 65 instead of 75. The Bill therefore goes a long way in trying to meet the Government's concern. The Conservative spokesman pointed out that the Government have gone quite a long way towards accepting the need for annuities reform. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary will have a chance to confirm that, but the Library briefing says of her proposal for income draw-down:
"It will be possible for individuals not to purchase an annuity when they reach 75".
Compulsory annuitisation is implicitly withering away as the result of the changes, which is welcome.
The problem associated with annuities is serious and is getting worse. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough spoke about the annuities calculation, and gave the example of the £100,000 pension pot which produced a £10,000 annuity in 1990. By the late 1990s, when we first started to debate the issue in the House, its value had gone down to £5,500. Now it is worth £4,500, so the position is deteriorating. The counter-argument is that people who retired in 1990 did not have such a large pension pot because they did not have the opportunity to benefit from the stock market appreciation of the 1990s. We are therefore not comparing like with like. None the less, a generation of pensioners have been ravaged by a combination of the stock market collapse of recent years and low annuity rates, and are now seriously disadvantaged.
1118
Secondly, it is not simply the nominal rates that have fallen—there is also a problem with the real annuity rates. In previous debates, we heard the complex reasons why there is a low return on annuities. The combination of increased demand for annuities and reduced supply is to blame. In other words, the Government are not borrowing as much because of their fiscal policy. The problem will get worse, because more annuities are coming on to the market. There is currently about £2 billion-worth of annuities, which will probably rise to about £12 billion-worth by 2005. It is predicted to go on to rise to £35 billion-worth. With the collapse of defined benefits schemes and the rise of defined contributions schemes, the annuities market will grow and drive down real annuities even further, adding to the problems that have been described.
Thirdly, on the deteriorating position, for the first time it is becoming clear that there is a genuine risk associated with annuities. Until recently, annuities were seen as a safe investment. There are risks associated with inflation, but we know from the Equitable Life experience that annuities can be savagely cut. Although they are underpinned by Government securities they depend on the viability of financial institutions. If they are dodgy like Equitable—many others are drifting towards insolvency—people's annuities can be substantially capped. There is therefore a risk associated with annuities, as well as poor returns.
Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman has shown that he has done considerable preparation for his contribution. Did he study the important ABI document entitled "Annuities—The Consumer Experience", which suggests that only one in 20 pensioners will benefit from the measure? What is his party's position on that?
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right that as of now only a small minority of pensioners would benefit. However, more and more pensioners are being thrown into money purchase schemes. For that reason, in five or 10 years' time, the number of people affected will have grown. The hon. Gentleman is also right that I spent some time preparing for the debate. I know that I am stretching your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would like to bring my remarks to an end. I am happy to debate these matters but I believe that I am required to draw my remarks to a conclusion, so I will.
I know that the Government want to deal with the issue by developing the annuities market. That is their solution to the problem. It is Interruption.] I know that I could speak for 80 minutes, but I am trying to be fair to other Members. I know that there are many Labour Members who would like to speak. The Government wish to deal with the issue through the annuities market, and there have been positive developments there. I noticed in the Green Paper that there are attempts to introduce new, more flexible, instruments, and that is welcome. There are attempts to extend the income draw-back scheme in ways that are also welcome. The problem is precisely the problem that is raised in objection to the reforms proposed from the Opposition Benches. The proposed flexible annuities can really only be accessed by people with very large pension pots. They are also very expensive—the fees are expensive and the annuities are complex. Precisely the same objection can be raised to the Minister's approach as can be raised to the Bill.

1119
The effectiveness of annuities depends heavily on people having access to good financial advice. We should be having a debate—I do not think that we have ever had it in the Chamber, although we have numerous debates on pensions—on what is happening to independent advice. The Financial Services Authority is moving in directions that seem to me to bring to an end, or threaten to bring to an end, genuinely independent advice. I am also concerned that the Government, having declared their intention, I think two years ago, of trying to introduce the genuinely enlightened idea of pro bono advice, working with the citizens advice bureaux, seem now to have dropped the idea. That would be a useful adjunct to pensions policy to help people navigate their way through the complexities of annuities.
I have already taken 10 minutes, and I have much else to say, but I shall be happy to give way to Labour Members—
Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cable: —including the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who would like to say something.
Caroline Flint rose
Dr. Cable: I would rather give way to the hon. Lady to enable her to make a speech, which I am sure she wishes to do.
1.42 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I start by congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on his success in the ballot. However, I would say that even before the ballot had taken place, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) had made it clear that the Conservative Member who achieved the highest place in the private Members' ballot would have the privilege of relaunching the Bill that was introduced last year by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). That being so, I am not quite sure that congratulations are in order. Perhaps I should extend my commiserations to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Gentleman introduced his Bill eloquently but also with great brevity. Indeed, he did so with such brevity that I am tempted to wonder whether he learned anything from the debate that took place on these matters last year. Indeed, he admitted that the Bill was an exact replica of the measure that was introduced last year. He has not even attempted to correct any of the obvious deficiencies that became apparent during last year's debate.
I shall mention a few. I intend to expand upon them in greater depth as I develop my argument. First, there is the cost to the Exchequer, which could run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Secondly, there is the restriction of choice for the vast majority of pensioners, albeit with the extension of choice in certain directions for a few privileged pensioners. Thirdly, there is the impact on the gilts market. It is not at all clear that the
1120
gilts market would in any sense be able to cope with the hon. and learned Gentleman's requirement for index-linked annuities for everybody at the age of 65. Fourthly, there are arguments surrounding the compulsory introduction of unisex annuities, and those were well rehearsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). Fifthly, there is an inherent conflict between the Bill and the Government's desire for flexible retirement and active ageing.
Despite those obvious deficiencies in the Bill, it is helpful to have the debate in order to set out the Government's approach to some of the issues. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) admit that the Bill's purpose was to provoke debate, and that he did not stand by the substance and detail of the Bill, despite the fact that the Bill is, as far as I understand it, current Conservative party policy—a surprising admission.
As hon. Members know, the Government encourage people to make private pension provision for their retirement by offering generous tax incentives. Contributions paid by both individuals and employers to occupational and personal pension schemes, including stakeholder pension schemes, get full tax relief, as do pension fund investment returns and capital gains. After—
Mr. Garnier rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One Lobby has been emptied but there seems to be a delay in the other Lobby. Is there any chance of checking that out?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can leave such matters to the Chair. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 127, Noes 29.

Division No. 105]

[1:47 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

Clappison, James

Arbuthnot, rh James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

Conway, Derek

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bacon, Richard

Curry, rh David

Baldry, Tony

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

Barker, Gregory

Bellingham, Henry

Djanogly, Jonathan

Bercow, John

Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Nigel

Blunt, Crispin

Fabricant, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Fallon, Michael

Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

Brady, Graham

Brazier, Julian

Flight, Howard

Browning, Mrs Angela

Flook, Adrian

Burns, Simon

Forth, rh Eric

Burt, Alistair

Fox, Dr. Liam

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Francois, Mark

Cameron, David

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

Garnier, Edward

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Chope, Christopher

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

1121

Goodman, Paul

Paterson, Owen

Gray, James(N Wilts)

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

Grayling, Chris

Randall, John

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Redwood, rh John

Grieve, Dominic

Robathan, Andrew

Hague, rh William

Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

Hammond, Philip

Hawkins, Nick

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

Heald, Oliver

Roe, Mrs Marion

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Rosindell, Andrew

Hendry, Charles

Ruffley, David

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Selous, Andrew

Horam, John(Orpington)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Howard, rh Michael

Simmonds, Mark

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Hunter, Andrew

Soames, Nicholas

Jack, rh Michael

Spicer, Sir Michael

Jenkin, Bernard

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Johnson, Boris(Henley)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Steen, Anthony

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Swayne, Desmond

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

Leigh, Edward

Syms, Robert

Letwin, rh Oliver

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

Lilley, rh Peter

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Loughton, Tim

Tredinnick, David

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Tyrie, Andrew

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Walter, Robert

Mackay, rh Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

Maclean, rh David

Whittingdale, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Malins, Humfrey

Wiggin, Bill

Maples, John

Wilkinson, John

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Willetts, David

Mercer, Patrick

Wilshire, David

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Moss, Malcolm

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

Norman, Archie

Young, rh Sir George

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Ottaway, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Page, Richard

Mr. George Osborne and

Paice, James

Mr. Nigel Waterson

NOES

Allen, Graham

McIsaac, Shona

Bryant, Chris

McKenna, Rosemary

Buck, Ms Karen

Mandelson, rh Peter

Byers, rh Stephen

Munn, Ms Meg

Casale, Roger

Pound, Stephen

Corbyn, Jeremy

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

Dismore, Andrew

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Quinn- Lawrie

Shipley, Ms Debra

Fitzpatnck, Jim

Skinner Dennis

Flint, Caroline

Vis Dr Rudi

Keen, Ann(Brentford)

Wright Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

Kemp, Fraser

Wyatt, Derek

Lammy, David

Linton, Martin

Tellers for the Noes:

Love, Andrew

Mr. Nick Ainger and

McCabe, Stephen

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 127, Noes 26.

Division No. 106]

[2:04 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

Loughton, Tim

Arbuthnot, rh James

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Mackay, rh Andrew

Bacon, Richard

Baldry, Tony

Maclean, rh David

Barker, Gregory

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bellingham, Henry

Malins, Humfrey

Bercow, John

Maples, John

Beresford, Sir Paul

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Blunt, Crispin

Mercer, Patrick

Boswell, Tim

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

Brady, Graham

Moss, Malcolm

Brazier, Julian

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Browning, Mrs Angela

Norman, Archie

Burns, Simon

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Burt, Alistair

Osborne, George(Tatton)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Ottaway, Richard

Cameron, David

Page Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

Paice, James

Chope, Christopher

Paterson, Owen

Clappison, James

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Randall, John

Conway, Derek

Redwood, rh John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Rendel, David

Curry, rh David

Robathan, Andrew

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

Robertson Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

Evans, Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion

Fabricant, Michael

Rosindell, Andrew

Fallon, Michael

Ruffley, David

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Selous, Andrew

Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Simmonds, Mark

Forth' rh Eric

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Soames, Nicholas

Francois, Mark

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Garnier, Edward

Stanley, rh Sir John

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Steen Anthony

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Swayne, Desmond

Goodman, Paul

Gray, James(N Wilts)

Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

Grayling, Chris

Syms, Robert

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

Grieve, Dominic

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hague, rh William

Tredinnick, David

Hammond, Philip

Tyrie Andrew

Hawkins Nick

Walter, Robert

Heald, Oliver

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Watkinson, Angela

Hendry, Charles

Whittingdale, John

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

Wiggin, Bill

Horam, John(Orpington)

Wilkinson, John

Howard, rh Michael

Willetts David

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Wilshire David

Hunter, Andrew

Jack, rh Michael

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

Jenkin, Bernard

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Young, rh Sir George

Leigh, Edward

Letwin, rh Oliver

Tellers for the Ayes:

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Mr. Adrian Flook and

Lilley, rh Peter

Mr. Nigel Waterson

1123

NOES

Allen, Graham

McKenna, Rosemary

Bryant, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

Byers, rh Stephen

Pound, Stephen

Casale, Roger

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Dismore, Andrew

Quinn, Lawrie

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Skinner, Dennis

Flint, Caroline

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Keen, Ann(Brentford)

Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

Kemp, Fraser

Wyatt, Derek

Lammy, David

Love, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

McCabe, Stephen

Mr. Nick Ainger and

McIsaac, Shona

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Caroline Flint: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been here since early this morning for the whole debate, except for a few minutes when I left the Chamber. I represent a northern seat, and I feel that more representatives in the House should have had an opportunity to speak in the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I hope that she is not challenging the authority of the Chair.
Mr. Garnier: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) may address her remarks rather better to the hon. Member for Hendon(Mr. Dismore), who spoke for two and a half hours and managed to encourage 26 or 27 Members to support him.
Mr. Love rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Food Labelling Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.20 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to present and seek support for the Bill. This is the third attempt to address—albeit in amended form—and, I suggest, meet, the somewhat ill-defined objections to clear, simple and, above all, honest food labelling in England and Wales that the Government have thrown in the path of similar Bills on previous occasions.
I am very grateful to all the Bill's sponsors for their support. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who introduced a similar Bill in the last Session; my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry); my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), for Poole (Mr. Syms), for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham); my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who are here today; and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who is also in her place today and whose constituency neighbours mine in North Shropshire.
Shona Mclsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I do not have much time, so if the hon. Lady will forgive me I will not give way.
In the very truncated time that is left to me, I should like to find out whether the Government agree that the Bill should proceed to Committee, given that many of the arguments have been heard in the House already, not only in the 1999–2000 Session, but in the last Session. The Government's principal objection has been primarily that the Bill might possibly flout European Union law.
We must ensure that our farmers and consumers alike are served. We all know that British shoppers prefer to buy British if they can, but that fact does not underlie the Bill. What underlies the Bill is the fact that our farmers are blighted, and their stress and concern continue unabated. I have been privileged to represent the farmers and other constituents of Eddisbury for three and a half years, and the farming and rural communities have had a terrible time because the Government have chosen not to promote the rural economy. Indeed, they have taken specific actions that have damaged it.
I hope that the Government will now realise that the Bill provides a tremendous, wholly appropriate opportunity to tie together once again the interests of producers and consumers. That link used to exist until the Government decided to transfer the responsibility for food labelling to the Department of Health. Although I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), to his place, it is a shame, to say the very least, that the consumers and producers have not been regarded as part of the single value chain.

1125
Important and appropriate safety issues in relation to public health have sometimes been given over-dominance, which has inappropriately and unfairly decried the tremendous achievements of British farmers and food producers, who apply the highest production standards to all forms of foodstuffs. I have therefore deliberately amended clause 3, which caused the Government such problems.
The Minister will have noted the radical change that has taken place since a similar Bill was debated in the House. I therefore hope that, in the short time that he will have to reply, he will ask his colleagues to support the Bill in its progress to Committee, where we can at least debate such matters in detail. Unquestionably, private Members' Bills are not always perfectly drafted, but that is why they are fine tuned in Committee.
We could ensure that the current wording of clause 3 in no way damages our relationship with Europe, or flouts or contravenes EU law or regulations. On the contrary, the Bill is intended not to discriminate against or restrain trade, but to ensure that no unfair, anti-competitive provisions apply to our farmers. Indeed, in the three years since I first raised this issue in the House, France and other EU member states have stolen a lead on us. They have got ahead of us on the basis that they do not have a problem with country-of-origin labelling or with applying their requirements for minimum standards of production and making sure that that is understood, if they believe that they can get away with it, on their packaging. We should not therefore feel that we must resist that, as the marketplace has become even less of a level playing field. The proposal is intended not to restrain trade—I am a passionate believer in free trade—but to promote it. At the moment, our farmers are subject to an illegitimate restraint on their chances to export not only to EU member states but to other countries.
More importantly, our farmers face competition from imports that, even if they are legal—of course, illegal imports should be far better policed by the Government through other provisions—have labelling that causes a problem. Even today, outrage was shared by Members across the House that, for example, a Union Jack can appear on Danish bacon simply because it was cured and spiced in this country, even though the pork was raised in Denmark. I have nothing against Danish bacon other than that Denmark has not yet implemented the harsh and costly regime on stalls and tethers that we have applied, for animal welfare reasons, in this country. Our pig farmers are much to be congratulated. I am very pleased that not only the National Farmers Union but the National Pig Association have given full backing to the Bill, as they have done in the past. They have also applauded the amendments made to the Bill and its drafting.
1126
More importantly to Labour Members—who, I dare say, will have made the equation that consumers are more aligned to voters, on a crude political basis—consumers want the measure. The National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association both fully back the Bill. They cannot understand why there is such an objection from Government, other than that it may contravene EU law. Let us be clear: we should be able to apply public health and food safety standards for British consumers in this British Parliament. While the Bill is not in any sense intended to be Europe-bashing or Brussels-bashing, as has been claimed in the Government Whips' handout notes in the past, it is important to recognise that it is intended to promote both fair trade and free trade and, above all, to give us the right to look after the interests of our farmers and consumers and to stop the unfair, anti-competitive practices that are hurting our farmers unnecessarily by restraining free and fair trade.
I therefore urge the Minister to respond immediately after I finish my speech, as time is pressing. It is a shame that our discussion has been truncated, but that is the nature of Fridays. I hope that I have been able to focus precisely on the issue—as you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have prepared chapter and verse on the detail of EU law. As I am sure that the Minister will have done his homework, he may have the opportunity, in the short time remaining, to accept that the Bill should go to Committee for the sake of British farmers and British consumers alike.
2.28 pm
Roger Casale: I am delighted, in the short time that remains to debate this important Bill, to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). I agree that it is a shame that, because of the time taken on a previous Bill, we have little time left on this occasion to debate it. I part company with him when he says that he is quite prepared, despite the shortness of time, not to have his Bill debated, especially as we debated the Bill last year, and we discovered a number of flaws in it. That in itself is an indication of why we need to continue that debate. If we do not have time to complete the debate today, I am sure that there will be future occasions on which the debate can take place.
My constituents are extremely concerned about the issue of food labelling. So far, however, I have had no letters from any of my constituents complaining about the existing regime. The issue is important to them and we must consider it. However, if a proposal is likely to lead to considerable administrative changes and inconvenience, we must make absolutely sure that we get the changes right. I do not—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 March.

PENSIONS (WINDING-UP) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
To be read a Second time on Friday 21 March.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (OFFENCES) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 4 April.

ANIMALS (ELECTRIC SHOCK COLLARS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
To be read a Second time on Friday 14 March.

National Child Care Strategy (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
2.31 pm
Ms Karen BuckI am grateful for the opportunity to raise issues of grave local concern that have wider ramifications for child care strategy, particularly in London.
The importance of the early years agenda to the social and educational development of children, especially children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, does not need to be restated. More can be lost or gained by tackling the impact of disadvantage between the ages of two and five than at virtually any other stage in life. Important, too, is the contribution that quality affordable child care can make to enable parents to enter the workplace.
Progress made under the auspices of the national child care strategy is to be warmly applauded. A great deal has been achieved in recent years, especially for three and four-year-olds, and in the overall expansion of after-school and holiday provision across the country. However, in the time available, I would like to focus on two closely related sets of concerns regarding early years services in London, and, in particular, in my two home boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster.
The decisions now being taken by those councils—they are not isolated examples, because I understand that the London borough of Southwark is set on the same path—undermine the central objectives of the child care strategy. The situation is slightly complicated by the fact that elements of the child care strategy that are entirely sound in principle and work effectively in some parts of the country are less effective in London because of the combined impact of exceptionally high costs and complex demographics.
To take the most important illustration, if the child care tax credit reached a wider group of parents and was as capable of meeting the same proportion of costs in a mainstream community nursery in my constituency as it is in another equally deprived but cheaper part of the country, the situation could be different. That would not make right what I believe to be ill-judged and isolationist decisions by the councils, but there would be the potential—currently lacking—for ensuring that properly planned child care expansion works better than it is doing.
For the record, the sets of decisions that have led to where we are now are as follows. They are the proposed closure of two nursery schools—Maxilla and Ainsworth—by Kensington and Chelsea council; the withdrawal of Kensington and Chelsea council's subsidy to three community nurseries—Maxilla, Colville and Swinbrook; and reduced funding by Westminster city council to its pre-school learning alliance, its contracted play provider, Westminster Play Association, and a number of other grant-funded early-years projects. However, I am happy to say that, last night, Westminster council agreed to some offsetting additional funding to help with some of the cuts.
The package of cuts put forward by Kensington and Chelsea council two years after the deeply unpopular closure of the Ladbroke day nursery is virtually a

1129
masterclass in how not to model an early years policy or a strategy for working with the community. That is odd, given that the council was given the highest performance rating only a few weeks ago.
The package cuts across the model for integrated services set out in recently published guidance on new children's centres. The Maxilla nursery centre, which combines a nursery school and centre for the under-threes and provides extended care, is the prototype for the children's centres that the Government rightly want to develop across the most deprived wards. It offers nursery care and education under one roof and looks after new babies to five-year-olds, until the children enter school. The centre is complemented by drop-in and crèche facilities for parents. It also has the capacity to provide baby care, to which Kensington and Chelsea council has taken particular exception, and offers extended year and extended day provision, which is especially valuable for working parents. It takes a particular type of perversity to wreck the Maxilla integrated nursery centre when Government guidance on the promotion of children's centres is being issued, yet that is exactly what Kensington and Chelsea council is doing.
Alongside the proposed destruction of the Maxilla centre, the council intends to close a second nursery school, the Ainsworth. That is also a popular maintained school with scope for further development to offer extended day and extended year facilities as and when resources allow, but it is being sacrificed to save money. That decision also seems to run counter to the Government's preference for retaining maintained nursery schools, and I hope that the Minister clarifies that when she replies.
The removal of subsidy from three community nurseries—Maxilla, Swinbrook and Colville—will have two immediate effects and could cause longer-term destabilisation. Parents not currently attached to the labour market will be priced out of child care services in those nurseries, so polarising the general nursery user profile between relatively high-earning parents and those who are entitled to free places by virtue of social services need criteria. However, many parents are in the middle. Those who are attempting to rebuild their lives—perhaps after experiencing homelessness or other trauma, or because they are refugees engaged in study to convert the qualifications from their homeland for use in the United Kingdom—will lose out. Indeed, the removal of subsidy will even affect them while they are looking for a job to pay their child care fees.
Those parents who are working and entitled to the tax credit could face a shortfall not of the permissible amount—the 30 per cent. contribution anticipated by the rules—but of at least double what they receive from the credit. The child care tax credit assumes a maximum contribution of about £40 a week for one child, but the unsubsidised cost of a community nursery place is likely to exceed £200 a week, requiring a parental contribution of more than £100 a week, which is increasingly the case for nursery provision across inner London in particular. The incentive to join or remain in the labour market for lower-income working parents is not immediately obvious, yet we know from research carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions that there is a particular problem in London in respect of lone parents
1130
who work and that affordable child care and exceptionally high housing costs lie at the heart of the problem.
Before dealing with the wider implications of what is happening in North Kensington, I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that councillors for the majority Conservative group have explicitly and publicly stated that they want alternative sources of Government funding made available to the community nurseries to replace the subsidy that they are withdrawing. They expect the nurseries, all of which are sited in wards that are among the 20 per cent. most deprived in the country, to make up the shortfall from sources such as sure start, the neighbourhood nurseries initiative or even the new children's centre funding, while the council enjoys the benefit of retaining the subsidy.
Parents are understandably bewildered and upset. They see the new Government-funded programmes that are investing in their neighbourhoods offset by cuts in council grant. The nursery closures and cuts in existing provision take place alongside the opening of new neighbourhood nursery facilities. Those are welcome and excellent initiatives, but they, too, may run into similar funding difficulties when their revenue component tapers out, leaving them with unsubsidised charges that are likely to exceed hugely what can be offset by the child care tax credit.
I deliberately did not tie this debate to provision in Kensington and Westminster because, although the decisions on those local issues deserve to be challenged, some wider implications need to be addressed to close loopholes in the child care strategy. Before I close my remarks, therefore, I shall run through a few questions, some of which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to now and others, which are more detailed, that she could answer later.
In his covering letter informing me of the proposal to withdraw subsidy from three nurseries, Councillor Lightfoot, the executive member for social services in Kensington, stated:
"You will be aware that the decision in relation to the community nurseries reflects the emphasis of government policy, which is on providing funding for childcare direct to parents via the tax credit rather than to local authorities."
That raises several questions. Was it ever the Government's intention to see local authority investment in child care reduced as parents draw on the child care tax credit?
How are we to address the problem of child care where the cost significantly exceeds the maximum allowable claim under the tax credit, as it does, especially in inner London? What can be done to tackle the exceptionally low take-up of the child care tax credit, again especially in inner London, where only 2 per cent. of parents who receive child benefit are receiving it? Is it appreciated that, in any event, a flat-rate subsidy effectively discriminates against areas of higher cost, which is only partly offset by higher wages?
Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which local councils have funded children's information services, run by their early years partnerships but funded via an element in the local authority grant settlement? Those partnerships are likely to be at the forefront of take-up campaigns on the tax credit. Is the Minister satisfied that

1131
all that funding is being handed over, because that has certainly not been the case in the London borough of Westminster? Will she do what she can to make sure that local authorities are at the forefront of take-up campaigns on the child tax credit and its child care component?
Is the Minister aware of the exceptionally high capital costs that affect nurseries in London, feeding through into the much higher charges levied on parents? The capital allocation for the neighbourhood nurseries initiative did not recognise the cost of building in central London, and many sources of capital were already committed when the initiative was announced. If councils do not give sufficient priority to child care, it is exceptionally hard to make it sustainable. Without additional capital, Westminster's neighbourhood nurseries initiative could easily collapse. What provision can be made to assist with London's exceptional capital costs?
The questions that I have raised on capital and revenue costs need to be seen not only in the context of what is happening in Kensington but in light of the Daycare Trust's latest child care costs survey, which found that the typical cost of a nursery place in London is already £149 a week, which is £17 above the maximum set for the tax credit. What guidance are the Government giving to ensure that existing services are not lost to the community, and in particular, are not closed as a result of cuts in discretionary expenditure by local authorities? Is it acceptable for a local authority to seek directly to replace its own funding with Government funding linked to tackling disadvantage? Does the Minister believe that it makes sense for a local authority to close two popular nursery schools, as in Kensington, while overseeing the building of a new nursery under the neighbourhood nurseries initiative within walking distance?
Is the Minister aware of the susceptibility of discretionary early years services, such as play and playgroup provision, to cuts imposed by local authorities, and if so, what can be done to protect them? In Westminster, the recent grants round saw a 25 per cent. reduction in funding for the pre-school learning alliance, which has already led to many parents withdrawing their children. Within a few weeks, 72 parents have lost places as playgroups have closed and the effect of fee increases has bitten. Before the fees for after-school play services were negotiated down by parental and political pressure, they threatened to jump to around £400 a year, which for an unemployed family is an unrealistic charge.
Does the Minister accept that there is a problem with funding services for under-fives, holidays and after school that are provided to unwaged families, especially in disadvantaged areas? A modest charge for such services is not unreasonable, especially for working parents, and even more so when such charges can be offset by income from the tax credit for lower earners, but surely there is a real risk that the children whom we most want to benefit may be priced out when their parents only get by on income support or a comparable income. Obviously, there is scope for some funding to be put into services in sure start areas, but that does not always seem to work in practice. In any event, as we
1132
know, many low-income and unemployed parents live just outside the wards that fall into the category of 20 per cent. most deprived, but are themselves families in need. The ability to offset funding problems with sure start resources therefore does not exist.
Kensington and Chelsea council intends to proceed, as I have said, with plans to close two nursery schools and replace them with nursery classes. Research confirms that nursery schools provide higher quality and better outcomes than nursery classes, which is of great importance to parents and communities in areas of deprivation and social stress. Can the Minister clarify the Government's position on closure proposals for maintained nursery schools, especially in areas of deprivation?
The national child care strategy has brought both resources and a proper focus to the vital early years, which is important both for the sake of the children and in underpinning an employment strategy for parents. The national child care strategy is being seriously undermined in parts of London such as Kensington by blinkered policy making. Moreover, there is an urgent need to accept the impact of London's needs and costs on service provision. The range of child care services for people not currently in work is being squeezed hard, and that will hit our neediest children hardest. The working families tax credit is not reaching enough working parents on lower incomes, and may have a structural weakness that prevents it from doing so in high-cost areas. Child care costs, particularly in inner London, are so high that the child care tax credit is not plugging the gap.
I hope that the Government will help me and above all local parents to stop Kensington and Chelsea council destroying its excellent child care facilities. I also hope that we can find solutions to some of the wider problems facing us in our attempts to deliver top-class child care to our children.
2.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) both on obtaining this debate and on the clear way in which she has set out the issues. She asked me rather a lot of questions, so I apologise if I do not deal with them all this afternoon. However, I shall of course attempt to deal with them in correspondence after the debate.
My hon. Friend is well known in the House for the sharpness and assiduity with which she looks after the interests of her constituents. The children and parents of Regent's Park and Kensington, North have been well served by the way in which she has raised the issue of the national child care strategy in London. Unfortunately, they have not been well served by the plans for child care drawn up by Kensington and Chelsea council and Westminster council, to which she has drawn attention—quite the opposite, in fact. I am appalled by what Kensington and Chelsea council proposes to do. My hon. Friend set it out, but it bears repeating—it proposes to close two maintained nursery schools, Maxilla and Ainsworth. As my hon. Friend made clear, Maxilla nursery centre provides the kind of integrated service that the Government want to encourage and that

1133
parents in the area wish to have. It offers a wide range of services, including nursery provision, education and drop-in crèche facilities, and has the capacity to provide baby care and wraparound care. My noble Friend Baroness Ashton, who has ministerial responsibility for sure start, intends to visit it soon.
To close such a facility and replace it with nursery classes in schools will entail the loss of a range of services as well as integrated wraparound provision, which the national child care strategy sets out to encourage. Parents in the area rightly perceive the change as a cut in service levels. I am afraid that Kensington and Chelsea has form when it comes to the closure of maintained nursery provision because, as my hon. Friend mentioned, it closed Ladbroke day nursery two years ago. The Government recognise that maintained nurseries generally offer high-quality early education from experienced and able staff, and often have unrealised potential for providing more, so we do not want them to close. We are currently consulting on the revision of the existing regulations and guidance on school organisation plans as well as statutory proposals, about which my hon. Friend asked. The new guidance, which we intend to come into force by 1 June this year, emphasises the fact that nursery schools generally offer high quality provision and that
"closure proposals should not generally be approved".
That is a presumption against the closure of such schools. Once the guidance is implemented, any local authority considering the closure of a maintained nursery school would have to be satisfied that closure was in the best interests of local children and families, and would need to consider factors such as the impact on the community caused by the loss of any such facility, and alternatives to closure. It does not seem to me from the correspondence that I have seen, which my hon. Friend has kindly provided to me, and from the information that she has given this afternoon, that Kensington and Chelsea has any good reason to close this provision. If it does, I would be happy to have it pointed out to me.
I also deplore the fact that the council plan to remove subsidy from three community nurseries Maxilla, Swinbrook and Colville. I take the opportunity to make it clear to my hon. Friend that the council has not contacted the sure start unit or any Minister to discuss any of the plans to close or remove subsidy from those nurseries.
The fact that the council argues that nurseries should be able to make up their shortfall from sources such as sure start, the neighbourhood nurseries initiative or children's centres flies in the face of the aim of the national child care strategy and goes directly against the undertaking that statutory authorities, including local authorities, give when they receive sure start funding. That undertaking must be agreed to before sure start local programmes are approved. The statutory agencies that are responsible within the catchment areas are required, among other things, to give a commitment to sure start principles. These principles include a commitment that money will be used to provide additional services. So they undertake to maintain existing spending on services for children under four to ensure that sure start funds are not used to replace funding which is then withdrawn. That appears to be—it is certainly what my hon. Friend is suggesting—what is happening in this instance.
1134
Kensington and Chelsea has two sure start programmes, and it has signed up to the principles. My hon. Friend and her constituents may well want to ask it whether or not it thinks that it is honouring the commitment.
It seems that the arguments that are being used to justify these plans overtly admit that the council is in deliberate and flagrant breach of the promises which it made. If that is the case, that is reprehensible, and I hope that the council will reconsider its approach.
My hon. Friend made reference to a plan by Westminster council to reduce funding to its pre-school learning alliance. She asked me for the Government's view. She is of the view that it would result in the closure of playgroups and provide less money for holiday and after-school play services. These are the sort of services that are very valuable to parents when they are looking for child care. I emphasise that Westminster council is in receipt of sure start moneys in respect of three local programmes. It, too, has undertaken not to siphon money off but to use the resources to provide additional services. I fail to see how it can argue that it is meeting this commitment in view of what my hon. Friend has said, though I was pleased to hear her say that her representations and those of others may be leading to the council reconsidering its position. She mentioned that some offsetting moneys were being provided. I am glad to hear that.
The national child care strategy is there to ensure that every parent can access affordable, good quality child care. We know that this can help to tackle child poverty by enabling parents to choose work as the best route out of poverty. It can improve health, reduce crime and improve children's achievement levels at school. The child care review, which was conducted last year, found that children, parents and communities particularly gain when child care, early education, health and family support are offered together. There are significant payoffs in offering these services to disadvantaged young children.
The review concluded that there was a strong case for the Government to invest in new, good quality child care. Existing services should be expanded and should place more emphasis on health and family support. New investment in child care services needed to be backed by strengthening the role of local authorities in ensuring delivery.
So in the 2002 spending review, the Government committed themselves to just such an investment—doubling the money available for child care by 2005–06. Children's centres, which join up education, care, family support and health, will provide a better service for children, parents and communities. They will reach at least 650,000 children in the 20 per cent. most disadvantage wards in England by 2006. That is the aim.
The idea that the Government are somehow switching their resources to tax credits is nonsense. We are investing resources of £1.5 billion by 2005–06 direct to the providers of such provision, and that included local authorities. This should mean that there will be an additional 250,000 new child care places by March 2006, on top of the earlier target of creating new places for 1.6 million children by March 2004. We shall increase that through measures such as targeting assistance to a wide range of providers in disadvantaged areas, and a greater

1135
use of schools as bases for wider and family services, including child care. To the extent that local providers remove provision that is already in place, it is more difficult to achieve these goals.
The Government are not only interested in more places, however. We know that we need better places, too. Quality is important. That is why we introduced the new national framework of quality standards for child care, regulated by Ofsted. We shall continue to work with Ofsted to improve the quality of child care, so that parents can work, learn and study, confident in the knowledge that their children are in a safe and stimulating environment. We also know that child care needs to be more affordable. Some £370 million is available per year through the working families tax credit to help parents with child care costs. The new tax credits that come into effect next month will improve on the current system in a number of ways.
My hon. Friend asked me some specific questions and I shall try to deal with some of them in the remaining time available. She quoted from a letter to her from Mr. Lightfoot, who is the cabinet member for social services and health in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. He stated in that letter that
"the direction of travel of Government policy on subsidy to child care is for this to be channelled directly to parents either in the form of vouchers or tax credits rather than through local authorities".
That is a travesty of our policy. We are providing funding through tax credits, yes, but we are also increasing funding to local authorities.
My hon. Friend asked whether it was the Government's intention that local authorities' investment in child care should decrease as parents draw upon the child care tax credit. The short answer is no. Any local authority that uses that as an excuse to withdraw funding does not understand our policy. The child care element in the working families tax credit is a carefully targeted means of support. It does not cover all parents who use child care, and it was never intended to do so.
So, although the Government provide financial assistance to some parents to meet the costs of child care, and also offer pump-priming and sustainability funding to some providers, local authority investment is still central to providing child care services more generally. It is wrong of the council to represent such a position as Mr. Lightfoot does in his letter.
The new tax credits being introduced next month represent the latest step in the Government's strategy to reduce child poverty. The child care element of the new working tax credit will build on the child care tax credit, providing support for working parents using eligible child care. The child care element retains many of the characteristics of the child care tax credit, but improves on it by being more flexible when a family's circumstances change, and by it being paid direct to the person in the household who is mainly responsible for child care.
By extending the range of eligible child care to include approved or registered home child carers in the parents' own home, the new arrangements will be particularly
1136
beneficial to families with disabled children, and parents who work shifts when conventional forms of child care may not be available. The Government are currently considering how to extend this arrangement so that more working parents can benefit from Government support for this highly flexible form of child care. Given the difficulties that many central London boroughs are having with child minder provision, linked to housing costs, supporting the availability and affordability of child care in the parents' own home may be particularly beneficial.
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about levels of take-up of the child care tax credit. I can assure her that, since the introduction of the working families tax credit in 1999, the Government have been committed to maximising awareness of tax credits, and ensuring that all those who are eligible can make a claim. The child care tax credit has consistently been publicised by us as a key component of the working families tax credit. There has been a considerable amount of publicity for the new credits that begin next month, including a campaign with four distinct phases that began last September. This publicity campaign is backed up by a dedicated telephone help line and guidance on the Inland Revenue website. There is also a series of information leaflets, including one dedicated to the child care element of the working tax credit, aimed at parents and child care providers. So far, the response to the awareness campaign has been very encouraging.
Publicising the availability of the child care tax credit is not the job just of the Inland Revenue. As my hon. Friend made clear in her remarks, it is also the job of other statutory agencies such as local authorities. They, too, should play their part in encouraging take-up, and should not be withdrawing subsidies from nursery provision in circumstances where take-up of the child care tax credit is low.
My hon. Friend also has concerns about the extent to which the national child care strategy is concerned with helping parents who are not in work and not seeking work. As I have indicated, the Government want accessible, affordable and good-quality child care to be available to all parents who want it. We are putting in unprecedented resources to help us to get to that position, but we recognise that there have been problems with the availability of child care. There are shortages in most child care markets, and they are particularly acute in deprived areas, where providers often struggle to be financially viable. That means that we have to prioritise where resources go and we have targets to ensure that we do so, but inevitably, we must attach the highest priority to ensuring that accessible and affordable child care exists for those who work.
I know that my hon. Friend asked me more questions to which I need to reply. Given the time remaining, I fear that I shall have to undertake to write to her outwith this debate in order to satisfy her with regard to some of those points, but I hope that the remarks that I have been able to fit into the time available have at least answered some of her questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Spain
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the(a) Convention on the Future of Europe and (b) Gibraltar were discussed at his meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister on 27 February; what the outcome of the discussions was; and if he will make a statement. [101375]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: My talks with the Spanish Prime Minister on 27–28 February covered a wide range of issues, foremost of which was Iraq. We discussed the Convention on the Future of Europe, and issued a joint statement on the future institutional framework of the European Union. Gibraltar was also discussed briefly. Copies of the statements agreed at the summit have been placed in the Library of the House. The full texts are also available on the website of the British Embassy in Madrid, www.ukinspain.com.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Air and Seaports Police
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions his Department has had with the Home Secretary's Department with a view to creating a combined air and seaports police for the whole of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [90131]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Whilst security is kept under continual review, especially so following the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, there have been no discussions between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office to create a combined air and seaports police for the UK.

  However, on 19 December last year, and following a Governments led review of aviation security, the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport did announce the development of a capability to place covert, specially trained armed police officers aboard UK civil aircraft.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have been held with the Belfast Harbour Police about extending their jurisdiction to include providing an armed police presence at Belfast City Airport. [90130]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The need for an armed police presence at Belfast City Airport was identified as part of the continual review of security measures at the Airport. As the airport is located within the wider Belfast Harbour estate, it is right and proper that the Belfast 1236W
  Harbour Police should be included in consultations on how to meet the required level of service. These discussions are currently being taken forward by the airport authorities.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about security at Belfast City Airport; and when he intends that uniformed armed police will be introduced. [90132]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Security at Belfast City Airport is kept under continual review. The need for an armed police presence was identified as part of this on-going process. This measure should be in place in the very near future.

  Broadband Telecommunications
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when broadband telecommunications access will be made available throughout Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [100876]

  Mr. Pearson
  Telecommunications provision is a matter for the private sector. The Government's role is to work with the private sector to encourage the provision of broadband services across Northern Ireland.

  To this end the government, through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, is involved in a range of activities including: technology trials and pilot action work under the UK Broadband Fund; a satellite programme in non-ADSL enabled areas; and a flagship call to stimulate broadband applications, content and services.

  In addition, the Government is conducting a feasibility study into broadband aggregation in preparing a telecommunications strategy for the region, taking powers to enable it to provide supportive funding; and working on a Local Access Call which is consistent with EU State Aid Requirements. It is also working with the relevant RoI authorities on the preparation of a Call for cross-border telecommunications infrastructure projects with funding from the third EU Integrated Regional Development Programme (Interreg III).

  West Belfast Task Force
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the report of the West Belfast Task Force. [100426]

  Mr. Pearson
  The report of the West Belfast and Greater Shankill Task Forces contained a wide range of recommendations relevant to the work of most Northern Ireland Departments. The Executive provided an initial response in June 2002.

  An updated Government response document, detailing progress and planned actions, was provided to the two Task Forces in December and I met and discussed it with them on 23 January. There is regular contact between Departments and the Task Forces liaison group and I plan to meet local representatives again soon to ensure that this momentum is maintained.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Standards and Safety Board
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which organisations the proposed Railway Standards and Safety Board will report. [98338]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Office of the Rail Regulator has proposed that the Rail Safety and Standards Board will follow the company limited by guarantee model used for Network Rail and as such will be accountable to its membership drawn from the rail industry.

  Crossrail
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the completion date for(a) Crossrail 1 and (b) Crossrail 2; and if he will make a statement. [100898]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Completion dates for Crossrail 1 and 2 would depend on decisions yet to be taken on whether, and if so how, either project should be taken forward.

  Airports (South-East)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he estimates the demand forecast in the February 2003 South East and East of England Regional Air Services document for Packages 20 and 21 in Annex D would be affected by Packages 6 and 9 in Annex D on the basis of availability of capacity in(a) 2011 and (b) 2024; and how Packages 6 and 9 would affect the Internal Rate of Return and Net Present Value of Packages 20 and 21. [100859]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Although not specifically modelled, the impact of one or two additional Gatwick runways (package 6 or package 9) on package 21 (four new runways at Cliffe) would be to lower the economic benefits and financial internal rate of return from investing at Cliffe. Delaying the opening of a new Gatwick runway in package 20 (two runways at Cliffe in 2011 plus a narrow-spaced runway at Gatwick) from 2021 to 2024 reduces the present value of net economic benefits from that package by £180 million; there may also be a small impact on financial returns.

  Chancery Lane Accident
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what indications he has received that the Automatic Train Operation System was a contributory factor in the recent Chancery Lane accident on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [101321]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of Wednesday 5 March 2003.

  Low-cost Airlines
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, columns 625–26W, on low-cost airlines, if he will establish rules to provide for compensation for consequential loss to air passengers whose flights are cancelled more than two weeks before departure. [101804]
  1238W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Passengers suffering losses as a result of the cancellation of their flight may, if the flight was not part of an ATOL bonded package, seek redress via the courts. Determination of the extent of an airline's liability towards its passengers depends very much on the circumstances of each case, making the establishment of rules on compensation for consequential loss very difficult. The Government therefore does not intend to establish rules but to rely on existing judicial procedures for the settlement of claims.

  Invalid Carriages
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what representations he has received from suppliers of(a) invalid carriages, (b) electric scooters and (c) power chairs regarding the road safety implications of their use; and if he will make a statement. [101803]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have not received any representations from suppliers of powered wheelchairs or powered scooters (both of which are described in law as "invalid carriages") about their road safety implications.

  I will, however, shortly be launching a comprehensive review of the construction and use requirements of these vehicles and suppliers will be among those whose views we will be seeking.

CABINET OFFICE

  Smoking
  Mr. Grayling
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100948]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has a no smoking policy throughout the Department. Smoking is permitted in designated areas only.

  Departmental Staff (Industrial Action)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many working days were lost owing to industrial action by staff in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [101511]

  Mr. Alexander
  None.

  Resilience Strategy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent developments there have been in developing a UK resilience strategy; and if he will make a statement. [101643]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made on civil contingencies on Monday March 3,Official Report, column 7WS. This statement set out improvements in contingency planning that have taken place and announces the next steps in improving our resilience.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102058]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office promoted the following award schemes in both 2001 and 2002:

  Charter Mark

  Charter Mark promotes excellent customer service within the public sector. Applicants are required to demonstrate that they have met a demanding standard.

  All 2001 applicants have been notified of the outcome as have most 2002 applicants. Some organisations have been allowed additional time because of changes to the scheme that necessitate a suspension of the assessment process in 2003. The final judging panel for Charter Mark 2002 meets on 19 March 2003.

  Organisations are advised of the outcome of their application by letter, within two weeks of the judging panel meeting. hon. Members are then advised of any winners in their constituency.

  Central Government Beacon Scheme

  The Central Government Beacon Scheme helped share good practice across central government organisations. Beacons hosted study visits and other events. 2002 was the final year of this scheme.

  All winners were notified immediately after a final judging panel. The results were published in a directory.

  Public Servant of the Year Awards

  The Public Servant of the Year Awards, organised by the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy, recognise and celebrate individual's contributions to public service, promoting the exchange of ideas and good practice.

  Winners for both 2001 and 2002 were announced at a public awards ceremony.

  TNT Modernising Government Partnership Awards

  The TNT Modernising Government Partnership Awards, organised by TNT UK Ltd, celebrated and encouraged successful partnership working across public services. 2002 was the final year of this scheme.

  Winners for both 2001 and 2002 were announced at a public awards ceremony.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Global Fund
  Dr. Tonge
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Global Fund directors on the funding available for the third round of grants in October 2003; and if she will make a statement. [100632]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in regular contact with the Global Fund.

  The primary role of the fund is to provide drugs and commodities for the prevention and treatment of AIDS, TB and Malaria. The UK is firmly committed to fighting these three diseases. We have pledged $200m over 5 years to the Fund, $80m of which has been disbursed. In addition we have committed over £1.5 billion since 1997 to support the development of health systems in poorer countries. Strengthening such systems is vital if
  1240W
  the drugs and commodities made available through the fund are to be safely and sustainably supplied to the poor.

  Wherever possible the Global Fund should be providing support behind strategies that help deliver sustainable improvements in healthcare. The fund has strong founding principles in this regard but performance to date in this regard has been disappointing.

  Our future support for the fund will depend on its effectiveness. It is one of several possible instruments designed to improve basic health care in poor countries.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development which major construction projects are under way in Afghanistan with the support of the international community; and when they will be completed. [100986]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: There are hundreds of infrastructure projects that are currently underway in Afghanistan. Full details are held on the Afghanistan Transitional Administration's website: www. afghanistangov.org.

  In the construction sector the main Kabul-Mazar—Herat-Kandahar refurbishment is due to start this summer and is expected to take between four and six years to complete. Provincial road-repair projects are also underway. Kabul and Balkh airport runways are being refurbished.

  A German-funded nationwide rehabilitation of energy infrastructure has been completed. Other energy infrastructure projects are underway.

  The World Bank's Emergency Infrastructure project is providing water and sanitation infrastructure to Kabul, Herat, Kandahar, Mazar-I-Sharif and other secondary cities. A nationwide well construction scheme for rural communities is underway.

  Bridge, school and hospital rehabilitation and construction are all under way both in the provinces and Kabul, as is the construction of a nationwide network of Women's centres in 15 provinces. The construction of health clinics in provincial areas has begun.

  Iraq
  John Barrett
  (1) Asked the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact which military attacks on electricity stations would have on the humanitarian situation in Iraq; [100884]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact which military attacks on (a) roads, (b) railways, (c) bridges and (d) sea ports would have on the delivery of humanitarian relief to Iraq. [100883]

  Clare Short
  The people of Iraq are already in a fragile humanitarian situation. After years of misrule they are highly dependent on aid under the UN Oil For Food programme, which relies on an efficient distribution network and transport infrastructure. Many are also reliant on electrically pumped water and sanitation
  1241W
  systems, especially those in urban areas. In the event of military action, the greater the damage and the longer the disruption to such infrastructure, the greater will be the humanitarian consequences. My Department has been holding close discussions with the Ministry of Defence and US Government about planning to minimise the humanitarian impact of any military action in Iraq. Following any such action, a key priority would then be to repair any critical infrastructure which has been damaged as quickly as possible.

  Burundi
  John Barrett
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to avoid food shortages in Burundi. [100972]

  Clare Short
  Early warning systems set up by the Food and Agricultural Organisation and operated in collaboration with the Government of Burundi, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), World Food Programme (WFP) and UNICEF have predicted low output from the September to October 2002 agricultural season. The effect of this low availability of food will be compounded by epidemic disease and by further disruption caused by continued conflict in some areas. Access to the worst-affected areas is limited by insecurity. WFP are planning to distribute food relief. DFID stands ready to support relief agencies that are willing and able to assist those in greatest need.

  John Barrett
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the levels of malaria in Burundi. [100971]

  Clare Short
  Burundi ranks near the bottom of the international league tables in terms of life expectancy. This is due in large measure to the burden of disease, inadequate nutrition, and poor services. Malaria is one of the major causes of death.

  In January the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) quoted the Burundi Department of Epidemiology and Statistics as reporting an increased number of malaria cases for the period October to November 2002 in five provinces. The data are consistent with the occurrence of an epidemic.

  Recently after efforts by NGOs the Government of Burundi has agreed to recommend a new drug for treatment as resistance had developed against existing drugs. The new drug is not, however, currently available in sufficient quantities. DFID remains ready to support relief agencies that are able to intervene on behalf of those most affected.

  Malawi
  John Barrett
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Malawi regarding it's decision to sell 50,000 tonnes of stored maize; and if she will make a statement. [100919]

  Clare Short
  The Malawi Government has imported approximately 250,000 tonnes of the national staple grain, maize, for sale to the public with a 50 per cent. subsidy. Substantial imports by private traders from surplus areas in Southern Tanzania and Northern Mozambique are making available maize at prices even 1242W
  lower than the Government subsidised price. High levels of maize in the national grain reserves could seriously jeopardise the maize market following the expected harvest commencing in April.

  My Department's officials in Lilongwe have met with the Government of Malawi, other donors and civil society organisations, and have endorsed the decision to reduce maize stocks. This will limit potential market distortion and reduce the heavy fiscal burden associated with the initial purchases of maize and the subsidy. Maize is being offered at the subsidised price to NGOs for their humanitarian programmes and 50,000 tonnes has been offered to private traders for local sales, to supplement their own imports. The Government of Malawi will increase their Strategic Grain Reserve from 60,000 to 100,000 tonnes. Donor-supported humanitarian programmes continue to provide free grain to more than 25 per cent. of the population.

  John Barrett
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the projected levels of food production in Malawi. [100974]

  Clare Short
  The crop estimates issued by the Malawi Ministry of Agriculture at the end of January 2003 suggest a national maize crop of 2.05 million tonnes if the present good rains continue. The harvest will begin in April. Together with additional food from other crops, national self-sufficiency may be achieved this year. Substantial maize stocks in the strategic grain reserve and continuing humanitarian feeding programmes will mitigate localised areas of deficit.

  Burkina Faso
  John Barrett
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has given to the Government of Burkina Faso since the outbreak of meningitis. [100917]

  Clare Short
  We contribute to the World Health Organisation (WHO), which is working with national governments to tackle meningitis and other epidemics. In response to the latest meningitis outbreak WHO has provided 500,000 doses of vaccine to Burkina Faso with a further 1 million doses ready to be shipped. Our general assistance to Burkina Faso is provided through multilateral agencies, in particular the EU. Our share of the substantial EU programme is just over £5 million.

TREASURY

  Cigarette Smuggling
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs and Excise officers are dedicated to tackling cigarette smuggling; and how many are based at each port of entry. [100825]

  John Healey
  For the number of law enforcement staff within Customs and Excise I refer the hon. Member to the answer the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, columns 246W–47W.
  1243W
  Customs' law enforcement staff are deployed on the basis of risk assessment and intelligence, and regularly move between ports of entry and inland locations. No details can be given of the number of officers deployed in individual locations at particular times; Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel (Vaccination)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the vaccines given to troops preparing to go to the Gulf, stating in each case(a) whether they have been approved by the Medicines Control Agency and (b) whether they are administered voluntarily or compulsorily; and if he will make a statement. [92142]

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the current precautionary inoculation programme for troops likely to serve in the Gulf. [93200]

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the course of inoculations that are being given to HM Forces personnel being deployed for possible operations against Iraq; and which drugs are administered and over what period of time. [93646]

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what vaccines are being administered to UK troops deploying to the Gulf in addition to anthrax vaccine. [95926]

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inoculations are being offered to members of the British armed forces for the purposes of health protection prior to potential conflict in the Gulf. [99677]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer January 2003]: All vaccines offered to Service personnel are administered on a voluntary basis. The standard Service public health vaccinations or boosters listed below, all of which are licensed by the Medicines Control Agency, are offered to personnel deploying to the Gulf region if they are not already up-to-date with these vaccinations:

  Hepatitis A/Typhoid

  Meningococcal Meningitis C

  Poliomyelitis

  Tetanus/Diphtheria

  Tuberculosis

  Yellow Fever

  Rubella (Female/healthcare personnel only)

  In addition, all troops deploying on operations to the Gulf are being offered immunisation against anthrax. Immunisation against Hepatitis B is offered to certain groups at special occupational risk if they are not already up-to-date with this vaccination. Immunisation against Rabies is also offered to personnel deploying to the Gulf region who work with animals. These vaccinations are also licensed by the Medicines Control Agency.
  1244W
  Vaccination against smallpox is being offered to a cohort of specialist NBC personnel and certain medical personnel, some of whom are deploying to the Gulf region. The smallpox vaccine is not currently licensed, but has been tested for potency and is being used on the basis of expert medical advice.

  All Service personnel deploying to the Gulf region are also being provided with antimalarial tablets which should be started a week before deployment, and continue until 28 days after leaving a malarial area.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relative success rates using(a) in-vitro non-animal techniques and (b) animal experiments to develop antidotes to biological and chemical weapons in the last five years. [100403]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) at Porton Down has the remit to provide the United Kingdom and its Armed Forces with safe and effective protection in the event of Chemical or Biological weapons being used against them. Wherever possible, scientists at Dstl Porton Down are developing in-vitro models to replace and reduce the numbers of animals involved. However, to undertake this research effectively necessitates some research involving the use of animals.

  It is not possible to determine the relative success rates of the use of in-vitro techniques and animal experiments. However, both elements make an invaluable contribution to the medical countermeasures programme.

  In-vitro non-animal techniques are routinely used to screen candidate therapeutic drugs and treatments. These include the use of donated human skin to screen prospective barrier cream formulations, and the use of cell and tissue cultures to evaluate new antibiotics and improved anti-convulsant drugs.

  Over the last five years the research programme at Dstl Porton Down to develop new generation vaccines for plague and anthrax has continued to progress well: the candidate plague vaccine is already in clinical trials; and the candidate anthrax vaccine is expected to enter clinical trials later this year. Additionally, the results of several years' research has lead to the proposal for a new nerve agent pre-treatment and a change in one of the drugs contained in the triple therapy Combopen. These drugs are currently undergoing studies to satisfy the regulatory and licensing requirements. The Ministry of Defence is committed to these improvements in the provision of treatment for nerve agent poisoning as they offer not only an enhancement in survivability but also a significant decrease in incapacitation following poisoning by nerve agents.

  Depleted Uranium
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been undertaken of the effects of the use of depleted uranium during the Gulf War of 1991 on(a) coalition forces, (b) Iraqi forces and (c) Iraqi civilians. [100277]
  1245W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: Many independent reports have been produced that consider the battlefield effects of using depleted uranium (DU) munitions, but none has found widespread DU contamination sufficient to impact the health of the general population or deployed personnel. These include work by the US RAND Corporation, the US Institute of Medicine, the Royal Society, the European Commission, the United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). The two Royal Society reports on "The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions" (2001, 2002) support the Ministry of Defence's view that risks to the health of soldiers on the battlefield are minimal except for a small number of extreme cases.

  Under the auspices of the independent Depleted Uranium Oversight Board, a test for DU in urine is currently being developed and we aim to make it available to all those who wish to be tested later this year. In parallel with this, we will also carry out an epidemiological study which will examine the link between exposure to DU and health.

  No UK troops who served in the Gulf experienced the highest level of DU. However, thirty-three US soldiers were highly exposed when their vehicles were accidentally hit by DU rounds. Consequently, seventeen of them have retained embedded DU shrapnel for the last twelve years. The health of this group is closely monitored by the US Government and so far they do not show signs of health problems attributable to DU.

  At the end of August 2001, the World Health Organisation (WHO) despatched a technical team to Baghdad to establish specific projects to explore areas of health concern in Iraq. These discussions, carried out in an atmosphere of full collaboration and co-operation with the Iraqis, culminated in four project proposals covering health surveillance of cancers, health surveillance of congenital malformations and renal diseases, studies to explore health effects of environmental risk factors (including DU) and an implementation plan for cancer control. The WHO sent details of the proposals to the Iraq Ministry of Health in the last quarter of 2001, but a response is still awaited.

  Meanwhile, WHO has contracted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm to complete the first phase of extensive epidemiological studies to investigate environmental factors that may lead to increased incidences of various cancers. The first meeting to schedule and detail the studies has been called for mid-March. The Iraqis will participate in the studies, in full collaboration with these institutes.

  X-Bank Radar
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what research his Department will undertake into the radiation effects of an X-bank radar on UK soil; [100665]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the US on the siting of (a) an X-bank radar and (b) interceptor missiles in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [100666]
  1246W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence keeps in touch with the United States Administration on possible future developments in missile defence. The United States has undertaken to extend missile defence coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the United Kingdom, subject to technological developments and our willingness to participate in such a system. This would involve the siting of interceptors in Europe. Decisions on whether the UK should seek to acquire missile defences, and the location and provision of interceptors, are for the future, in the light of the prevailing security circumstances at the time. We have no reason to expect a request to site a missile defence X-band radar in the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence does not therefore intend to undertake or commission any research into radiation effects.

  Reserves Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Reserve Forces served with a call up notice have applied to the Hardship Fund; what percentage of Reserve Forces served with a call up notice this represents; how many applications to the fund have been approved; how many have been denied; and if he will make a statement. [100823]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: Only members of the Reserve Forces who have been accepted into permanent service may apply for Reservist Standard Award (RSA) and Reservist Hardship Award (RHA). As at 4 March, 4, 111 Reservists had been accepted into Service. As at that date the Ministry of Defence had received 638 applications for RHA, representing 16 per cent. of those accepted for service. Of those applications received, 571 had been awarded; 13 had been refused; and 54 were under consideration.

  Service Deaths (Property Return)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern the return of personal property, items and effects to the families of military personnel who die or lose their lives while on service at home or overseas; what items must be retained or held in order to send elsewhere; in what circumstances and at what rank discretion may be exercised over the return of property; what rules govern disclosure of information concerning withheld items; what remedy is available to families denied property; and what steps he will take to ensure that bereaved families are made aware of their rights. [101066]

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

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the backlog is of refresher training for constables and sergeants in the Ministry of Defence Police; and what the equivalent figures were in each of the last five years. [101152]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence Police Agency does not keep data for the backlog in training in previous years. Until 11 September 2001 all essential training identified in the staff reporting system was conducted. Since then a backlog for some refresher
  1247W
  training modules has built up. This is mainly due to officers not being available to undertake the training because of increased duty requirements, and a difficulty in back-filling essential posts for training because of restrictions on overtime working.

  Currently 78 per cent. of the Force is qualified in Personal Safety Training which is approximately 7 per cent. short of the requirement. The force target for Firearms qualified personnel is 87 per cent., whilst currently the percentage of officers qualified is 88.9 per cent..

  Territorial Army
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army reservists have(a) died and (b) been injured while on service in each of the last 10 years. [101155]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although work is in progress to establish a comprehensive database of deaths, the following figures come from a manual trawl of information held in the Casualty and Compassionate Cell. The figures include six Service personnel whose documentation indicates that they were serving as TA Non-Regular Permanent Staff at the time of their death. It is not possible to provide figures for injuries since this information is not recorded centrally.

  Year

  No. of TA & TA NRPS personnel deaths

  1992

  6

  1993

  2

  1994

  1

  1995

  1

  1996

  5

  1997

  1

  1998

  1

  1999

  7

  2000

  6

  2001

  3

  Total

  33

  Mr. David Johnson
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's treatment of Mr. David Johnson, a constituent, relating to his compulsory retirement. [101769]

  Dr. Moonie
  Mr. David Johnson is being retired at the normal retirement age for his grade in the Ministry of Defence, which is 60. I will write to the hon. Member about this case and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery Grants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the amount per head in National 1248W
  Lottery grants was in each (a) constituency and (b) county in the UK, in the last year for which figures are available. [100963]

  Mr. Caborn
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Paralympics
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the International Paralympic Committee's decision to ban events for athletes with an "intellectual disability" at the 2004 Paralympics in Athens. [101190]

  Mr. Caborn
  During the 2000 Paralympic Games in Sydney several athletes who were subsequently found not to have met the eligibility criteria competed in events for intellectually disabled athletes. As a result the International Sports Federation for Persons with Intellectual Disability (INAS-FID) had its membership of the International Paralympic Association (IPC) suspended and athletes with an intellectual disability were not able to compete in IPC events. Membership has since been reinstated. However, athletes with an intellectual disability will remain banned from IPC competitions until such time that the IPC are satisfied with the procedures regarding the eligibility of athletes with an intellectual disability.

  In October 2002 the IPC decided on the programme of events for the 2004 Paralympic Games in Athens in order to meet deadlines for the organisation of the Games. The INAS-FID were given additional time to continue with the development of a new eligibility system. The IPC recognised that some progress had been made by INAS-FID on a more stringent verification procedure, but other areas such as the development and implementation of protest procedures were still not in line with IPC policy. The IPC felt that these events could not go ahead in a fair manner at the 2004 Paralympics and that there was a risk of ineligible athletes competing. As a result, a final decision was made on 1 February 2003 that events for intellectually disabled athletes would not be included in the Athens 2004 Paralympic Games.

  The IPC has stated that they will continue to support the INAS-FID in its efforts to develop a system that does meet the conditions required by the IPC. Once an acceptable system is achieved the IPC will look at allowing athletes with an intellectual disability to participate in IPC events.

  National Lottery (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and what plans she has to devolve the distributor arrangement for the operation of the National Lottery in Scotland. [101744]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Scottish Executive already issue directions in relation to the distribution of Lottery money to their Arts and Sports Councils as provided by the 1998 Scotland Act.

  In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Elaine Murray, Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport in the Scottish Executive, to discuss

  1249W
  the ongoing Lottery Review, and to consider how best to ensure that the distribution of Lottery money in Scotland meets Scottish needs and priorities.

  My department intends to announce proposals in early Summer.

  European Capital of Culture
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what she estimates to be the cost to public funds of the process for identifying a candidate city to be European Capital of culture in 2008. [101806]

  Mr. Caborn
  The competition to select the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008 attracted twelve high-quality bids from cities across the UK. As part of the assessment process, the independent advisory panel met on several occasions and panel members visited all twelve cities, before recommending a shortlist. The panel is now considering the shortlisted bids in more detail. Panel members will visit the shortlisted cities and hold further meetings before deciding on their final recommendation to Ministers. Consultants have been engaged to support and advise the panel and the Department throughout the process.

  The competition process is estimated to have cost £125,000 up to 28 February 2003. This figure covers the costs of consultancy advice, meetings of the advisory panel, and panel members' visits to the competing cities. It does not include staff costs.

  It is not yet possible to be certain about the remaining costs of the process up to the final announcement of the UK nomination in June. However, we currently estimate that the overall total cost will be around £200,000 excluding staff costs.

  Mr.Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the recommendations of the independent advisory panel on which city should go forward as the UK nomination for European Capital of culture in 2008 will be published. [101805]

  Mr. Caborn
  We expect to announce the final choice of city to go forward as the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008 in early June. Each of the shortlisted cities will be given feedback and a report on the competition, including the panel's final recommendation, will be published.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will put a copy of the Annan 3, proposals for a Cyprus Summit in the Library. [R] [101248]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: We have received a copy of the UN proposals for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in Cyprus, in our capacity as Guarantor Power. However, we continue to abide by the UN Secretary-General's request for confidentiality while the settlement process is
  1250W
  ongoing. As soon as the UN Secretary-General makes his proposals public, we will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Economic Reform
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government has made of whether the EU is on course to meet the Lisbon target of making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010; what method of assessment is being employed; and if he will make a statement; [101480]

  (2) what evaluation the Government has made of the state of the Lisbon process; and if he will make a statement; [101478]

  (3) what assessment the Government has made of enlargement's effect on the Lisbon strategic goal of making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [101607]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 17 February 2003 HM Treasury published a detailed report entitled Meeting the Challenge: Economic reform in Europe. This report updates last year's White Paper Realising Europe's potential, evaluates progress on economic reform and identifies priorities for action in the short and medium term. It also considers the Lisbon process in the light of enlargement. The report finds that there has been clear progress towards the Lisbon goal in a number of areas. Nevertheless, there remains a great deal to be done. Copies of the Treasury report have been placed in the libraries of the House.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's welcome for the Franco-German contribution to the debate on Europe's future. [101604]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government welcomes the Franco-German contribution to the debate on Europe's future. Strong French and German engagement is essential to take the debate on the future of the EU forward towards a more democratic, accountable and effective European Union. The paper is good for the UK. It contains important proposals which the UK has advocated, such as a full-time Chair of the European Council. The UK will continue to engage with confidence in the debate on the Future of Europe.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the status accession countries due to join the EU in 2004 should have at the Inter Governmental Conference convened to agree any draft emerging from the Convention on the Future of Europe; and if he will make a statement. [101608]
  1251W
  Mr. MacShane
  We warmly welcomed confirmation in the Copenhagen European Council conclusions that the new Member States will participate fully in the work of the next IGC.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department has made of the effect on England of having different council tax bands in Scotland, England and Wales. [101367]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since the inception of the council tax, the bands have been different in Scotland, England and Wales. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made any assessment of the effect of this.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will bring forward legislation to make provision for differential regional council tax bands between London and the rest of the country. [101368]

  Mr. Leslie
  The existing powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 allows the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to create regionally different council tax bands. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that work will commence on a council tax revaluation in April 2005 coming into effect on 1 April 2007 and the banding structure will be decided nearer to the revaluation. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the capping of police authority council tax precepts for 2003–04. [100732]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Individual authorities, not central Government, set council tax levels. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be looking very carefully at the level of council tax this year on a case by case basis when all the figures from local government have been received. The Office of the Deputy Prime does not rule out using our reserve capping powers to protect local council taxpayers.

  Fire Services Act
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what reasons underlie(a) his proposal to remove his functions under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 and (b) his decision not to seek to amend section 19. [100716]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proposed amendment of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947— subsections 19(1) and (2) will be retained—is an essential element of the new framework for a modern fire service set out by the Independent Review of the Fire Service, chaired by Professor Sir George Bain. As the Review identified, the primary objective must be to make the service more responsive to local needs and better placed to deliver community safety. Moving to a flexible risk-based approach to fire cover, as part of a new integrated risk management planning process, offers a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire, and deaths and injuries from fire, as well as from other threats to community 1252W
  safety. The repeal, rather than amendment, of part of section 19 will assist the early implementation of this approach.

  The proposed repeal is also consistent with the principle of cutting back on consent regimes and red tape set out in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", published in December 2001. Repeal will place responsibility for decisions on local fire cover with democratically accountable local authorities, after consultation with their local communities.

  Women's Unit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual cost of the Women's Unit was for each of the past three years; what the projected cost is for 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [99894]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The budgets for the financial years specified were:

  Year

  £

  1999–00

  1,689,575

  2000–01

  1,742,557

  2001–02

  1,996,000

  2002–03

  2,631,000

  For the financial year 2003–04, the budget figures are yet to be confirmed by DTI.

  The Women and Equality Unit supports the Ministers for Women to bring about measurable improvements in the position of women which benefit society more generally and to promote equality for all.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Chorley Magistrates Court
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what categories of benches there are at Chorley Magistrates' Court. [100841]

  Yvette Cooper
  Family Panel, Youth Panel, Drug Testing and Treatment Order Panel, Out of Hours Applications Panel, Licensing and Betting Committee and the General Purpose Committee.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates operate on the bench at Chorley. [100840]

  Yvette Cooper
  Sixty four.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many courtrooms are available in Chorley. [100837]

  Yvette Cooper
  Three.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what policy the Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100953]
  1253W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department's smoking policies aim to provide smoke-free working conditions for those staff who want them, while offering limited facilities for smokers, and help for those who wish to stop smoking. Local arrangements may differ, but in general, those offices and courts with a smoking policy will enforce "no smoking" in staff corridors, toilets, lifts and other common areas, and at meetings and seminars. Before local arrangements are introduced the views of smokers and non-smokers are sought and any differences resolved by agreement.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what complaints procedure is in place in the event of the Public Guardianship Office breaching its charter. [100930]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office (PGO) will shortly be publishing a new guide to complaint handling entitled "Putting Things Right". Copies of this booklet will be made available to customers of the PGO who ask for guidance on how to complain. The information contained within the booklet will be available on the PGO Website and the booklet will be capable of being downloaded from the website.

  I will write to all MPs providing a copy of the booklet, and place copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Court of Protection
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken to monitor the quality of judicial decisions, with particular reference to those of the Court of Protection. [100929]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Judicial decisions of the Court of Protection are subject to appeal in the ordinary way. There is a system for internal review under Rule 54 of the Court of Protection Rules 2001 of judicial decisions made (whether by the Master, Assistant Masters or Nominated Officers) without an attended hearing, and for appeal to the High Court and beyond under Rule 55 and section 105 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  The rules on appeals apply equally to appeals against decisions made under the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985.

  There are some schemes to appraise part-time judges. However, independence of the judiciary is paramount and the aim of any appraisal is not to question judicial decisions but to observe the judges approach to, and handling of, the case.

  Financial Penalties
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the(a) maximum and (b) minimum penalties for non-payment of financial penalties imposed by magistrates' courts. [99874]

  Yvette Cooper
  When a defaulter is brought before the court, the magistrates will have a number of enforcement options available to them. The sanctions to 1254W
  ensure the payment of fines include an attachment of earnings order if the defendant is in employment or deductions from social security benefits if they are not working. The maximum amount that can be deducted from an unemployed person is £2.70 per week. Other options include the issue of a distress warrant, (which empowers the person executing it to seize a person's goods or money to the value of the sum owed), or as a last resort, the court may decide to commit the defaulter to prison. The Courts Bill currently before Parliament proposes a number of new arrangements to facilitate the enforcement of fines, including new penalties such as clamping vehicles and entering the fine in the Register of County Court judgments.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he plans to change the capital limits in housing benefit. [100751]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have no plans to change the capital limits in Housing Benefit.

  However, with the introduction of the Pension Credit from October 2003, the upper capital limit will be abolished for those pensioners receiving the guarantee credit, and savings below £6,000 (£10,000 for care home residents) will have no effect on entitlement.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the expected changes to the IT that local authorities use following introduction of the housing benefit allowance pilots. [100748]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are working with the pathfinder authorities and their software providers to identify the IT changes needed to introduce the new scheme and to collect the information required to evaluate it.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the new combined housing benefit/council tax benefit claim form to be introduced from April 2003; and whether it will be used for all claimants. [100753]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are launching a new combined Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) claim form from April 2003. The new form, called the HCTB1,will replace the NHB1(HB) and NHB1(CTB) forms currently issued to customers who claim Income Support, income-related Jobseeker's Allowance or the Minimum Income Guarantee, and the new Pension Credit from October.

  The new form has been developed in consultation with local authorities and is designed to collect all the information needed by authorities to decide on a claim, thus removing the need for them to issue their own claim forms and for customers to complete three different forms to claim HB and CTB.

  Local Authorities are responsible for administering HB and CTB, and remain responsible for designing and issuing their own claim forms to people who are not claiming another income-related benefit.
  1255W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional training is planned for rent officers in preparation for the housing benefit allowance pilots. [100749]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Standard Local Housing Allowances will be based on Local Reference Rents, which are currently determined by Rent Officers. Rent Officers therefore already have the necessary expertise to calculate the standard allowances. Detailed guidance will be issued to Rent Officers in the pathfinder areas before the pilot starts.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce the housing benefit allowance reforms to the social rented sector using different timetables for Scotland, Wales and England. [100750]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are considering developing a system of standard housing allowances for tenants in the social rented sector to be tested in a suitable pathfinder area. A timetable for introducing this scheme has not yet been decided.

  Health and Safety
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment has been made of the potential health impact to employees of industries and businesses, with specific reference to dry cleaners, resulting from the use of perchloroethylene in day to day operations. [99267]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Executive has undertaken a comprehensive human health risk assessment of perchloroethylene(perc) under the EU Existing Substances Regulation (ESR). HSE acts jointly with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to form the UK Competent Authority for ESR activities. The assessment, European Union Risk Assessment Report: Tetrachloroethylene. Draft ESR Risk Assessment Report, August 1996, includes workers exposed as a result of dry cleaning, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  In the workplace, perc is subject to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. Employers are required to ensure that exposure to perc is reduced to at least the level of the Occupational Exposure Standard assigned to it (50ppm averaged over an 8 hour reference period, and 100ppm for a short-term exposure averaged over 15 minutes).

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money was spent last year on winter fuel payments. [101616]

  Mr. McCartney
  Latest estimated figures for Winter 2001–02 show that expenditure on Winter Fuel Payments was £1.7 billion.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason people must obtain a personal invitation document before requesting a Post 1256W
  Office card account application form; and why the application form is not sent out alongside the personal invitation document. [100792]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Post Office card account is only available to benefit, state pension and tax credit recipients. A Personal Invitation Document from one of the Paying Departments is the means by which the Post Office can identify such people and will be used by the Post Office as one form of identification for opening an account.

  The Post Office card account is only one of three options available to customers wishing to access their money at the Post Office. The other options are a basic bank account or certain standard accounts.

  The Post Office card account is a service provided by Post Office Limited and not the Government. It is, therefore, the role of the Post Office, like any other account provider, to issue application forms for its own products.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report column 522W, on the Direct Credit Scheme (Pensions)what methods of payment will be available under the exceptions service. [98115]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Progress is being made towards an alternative method for paying those customers who we are unable to pay by Direct Payment. This is expected to be available from October 2004. The options for this service are still being developed and it will be available at a range of outlets which will include Post Office branches.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Derbyshire have migrated from over-the-counter benefit payments to direct bank transfers. [98892]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of pensioners in Derbyshire that have migrated from payments collectable over the counter at post offices to payment into a bank or building society account is 293 as at 28 December 2002 compared with the same records from data available 4 weeks earlier.

  Some customers who are paid direct into an account can also collect their benefit in cash at post offices through network banking arrangements at the Post Office. There is no data available on the number of benefit claims collected in this way.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether benefit claimants who have agreed to have their benefits paid direct into a bank account under the payment modernisation programme are allowed to change their mind and apply for a Post Office Card Account. [96599]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Customers will be provided with information to help them make an informed choice as to the type of account, most suited to their needs. Some customers may subsequently decide that their needs have changed and choose another type of account, including a Post Office card account.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if all non-ACT pension payments to UK citizens living abroad are being made on time; and if he will make a statement. [99730]

  Mr. McCartney
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of The Pension Service to reply. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 26 February 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if all non ACT pension payments to UK citizens living abroad are being made on time; and if he will make a statement.
  During 2002, the Department for Work and Pensions International Mail contract was responsible for over 115 million items of mail to overseas destinations. Of these, 1,565,172 items related to retirement pensions.
  Whilst every effort is made to ensure items destined for overseas customers arrive at their destination within the designated timescales, (5 calendar days for Europe and 10 calendar days for rest of the world destinations) unfortunately, sometimes delays are experienced.
  The most common causes of delay to overseas customers payments are: problems within foreign postal authorities. For example, strikes and adverse weather conditions, which affect the transportation of mail. Also national holidays in the receiving country can add delay. In addition to this, many foreign destinations have introduced an increased security policy at ports and airports, which is resulting in delays before the mail enters the recipient country.
  The Department for Work and Pensions has little influence in preventing delays in the receipt of payments once the items are handed over to the foreign postal authority.
  However, all delays reported by customers are taken very seriously and every effort is made to ascertain the reason for the delay, and an estimation of the severity of the problem, although we are reliant on foreign postal authorities communicating delays or problems within their delivery network.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) staff and (b) inspection staff were employed by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1997. [99763]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is as follows:

  Inspectors

  Staff in post(inc Insp)

  1stApril 1997

  1442

  4077

  1stApril 1998

  1437

  3932

  1stApril 1999

  1497

  3880

  1stApril 2000

  1507

  3937

  1stApril 2001

  1534

  3894

  1stApril 2002

  1625

  4050

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what further measures he will take to help communities with high levels of long term unemployment. [96376]
  1258W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our active labour market policies, delivered by Jobcentre Plus, are helping people move from welfare into work in all parts of the country.

  Since April 2002, Jobcentre Plus has helped over a million people into jobs and, since they started, the New Deals have helped more than three quarters of a million people move from welfare into work.

  We are building on this success, providing more help for those who face the greatest barriers to work. Last year, for example, we launched StepUP in 20 pilot areas to provide transitional jobs for long-term unemployed people who have not secured sustained employment through the New Deals.

  We have introduced Employment Zones specifically to help long-term unemployed people. These are based in some of the most employment deprived areas in the UK. The 15 Zones have already helped over 30,000 people move into jobs. From October 2003 we are extending the Employment Zone approach to lone parents and New Deal returners in existing Zone areas.

  In addition, Action Teams for Jobs are assisting jobless people from a range of disadvantaged groups in the most employment deprived areas of the country. So far, the Teams have helped over 60,000 people move into work. We are enhancing the support provided by Action Teams, investing new funds, worth some £7 million per year, to help them support employment and transport projects that will benefit their local communities.

  We are continuing to improve and extend the range of help available to people living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Beginning next year, we will pilot a programme of intensive support for people living in some of those areas that have the highest concentrations of worklessness.

HEALTH

  Primary Care Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 285W, on primary care services, what impact he expects this policy to have on the number of acute hospitals in England and Wales. [91591]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our intention is to provide more consultations and procedures outside hospitals and closer to where patients live. It is for local health communities to consider how their development of primary care services will affect demand for secondary care but the development of new or expanded services in primary care can be funded from the increased resources for primary care trusts which was announced in December 2002.

  On 14 February, we published new guidance on configuring hospital services "Keeping the NHS local: a new direction of travel." It showed how smaller hospitals in particular have the potential to offer a wider range of services for local people than has previously been thought possible.

  Research Ethics Committees
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the annual reports of multi-centre research ethics committees have been(a) written, (b) circulated to local research ethics committees and (c) made available for public inspection. [94745]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Central Office of Research Ethics Committees (COREC) has received annual reports for 2001–02 from all ten multi-centre research ethics committees in England. These reports are held by and available on request from COREC.

  Specialised Health Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the statement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary during the Adjournment debate on 21 January on brain injury,Official Report, columns 50–52WH, what factors underlay his decision to postpone until 2004–05 the transfer of responsibility for specialist commissioning to consortiums of PCTs. [96768]

  Mr. Hutton
  No decision has been taken to postpone the transfer of responsibility for commissioning specialised services to primary care trust (PCT) consortia. PCTs have been commissioning specialised services since April 2002 on a collaborative basis via their regional specialised commissioning groups (RSCGs) and their local specialised commissioning groups. RSCG membership is made up of PCT representatives, who replaced health authority representatives last April.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Greater London have been waiting more than 13 weeks to see a consultant at the latest available date. [97836]

  Mr. Hutton
  At 31 December 2002, within the London Directorate of Health and Social Care area, 45,222 patients where waiting more than 13 weeks for first consultant outpatient appointment following general practitioner written referral.

  Call-up of Medical Reservists
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess which(a) strategic health authorities, (b) NHS trusts and (c) primary care trusts will be particularly affected by the loss of medical reservists if they are called up; and if he will make a statement. [99364]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of medical reservists likely to be called-up is small. The Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the National Health Service to ensure the effect of these call outs is kept to a minimum.

  Clinical Waste
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility is retained by NHS trusts for clinical waste handled by a contractor. [99557]
  1260W
  Mr. Hutton
  Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places "duty of care" requirements on importers, producers, carriers, keepers, treaters or disposers of "controlled waste". As waste producers, National Health Service trusts have responsibility to take all such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to prevent unlawful depositing, handling or disposal of waste; the escape of waste from their control; to ensure the waste is only transferred to authorised persons and that appropriate records are maintained.

  Where a NHS trust employs a waste disposal contractor to dispose of its waste it must satisfy itself by a process of monitoring and auditing that the clinical waste collection and disposal process is adequate and complies with appropriate legislation.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the procedure for disposing of waste human tissue from the NHS. [99556]

  Mr. Hutton
  Identifiable human tissue is classified as clinical waste and needs to be dealt with by an authorised waste handling facility. The only appropriate treatment for identifiable human tissue is incineration.

  The National Health Service will follow recognised procedures for appropriate segregation and disposal of waste human tissue, as laid down in advice and guidance documentation. NHS Estates has published Safe disposal of clinical waste—whole hospital policy guidance and the Health and Safety Commission has published Safe disposal of clinical waste.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will list the current contracts entered into by the NHS for the disposal of waste human tissue; and if he will place the terms of the contracts in the Library. [99555]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally. The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) has no national contract in place and so NHS trusts negotiate their own contracts in this area.

  Because of this, we are not able to place the terms of these contracts in the Library.

  However, in the last 24 months waste management has been highlighted by PASA as an area with significant national spend and supply chain dynamics, suggesting that a national purchasing strategy should be developed. To this end, PASA has produced a procurement guide for total waste management and is working on a common set of terms and conditions for all trusts to use.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the judgement in the case of Rv. Eurocare Environmental Services Ltd, at Chester Crown Court on 14 February. [99776]

  Mr. Hutton
  Any breach of the law with regard to clinical waste is a serious matter. We will consider the judgment carefully and identify any further action we should take.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by the(a) Medical Devices Agency, (b) Meat Hygiene Service and

  Total Staff Numbers employed by the Organisations shown from 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Agency

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Medical Devices

  131

  137

  139

  136

  151

  155

  Agency (MDA)

  (3,7)

  (5,12)

  (6,10)

  (9,16)

  (10,21)

  (9,18)

  Meat Hygiene

  1,384

  1,543

  1,485

  1,489

  1,498

  n/a

  Service (MHS)

  (1,247)

  (1,328)

  (1,273)

  (1,276)

  (1,310)

  Medicines Control

  414(23)

  436(24)

  445(21)

  436(19)

  475(25)

  490(27)

  Agency (MCA)

  Notes:

  1. The data for 1997–98 to 2001–02 inclusive are those published in the annual reports and accounts of the organisations. For 2002–03 the latest available estimate is shown, except in the case of the MHS where the data are not yet available.

  2. Data in brackets are the number of inspection staff included in the total figure for the year shown. In the case of the MDA the data for inspection staff show the numbers of full-time and part-time staff respectively.

  Clinical Quality Costs
  Mr. McLoughin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will list the grants funded by his Department for clinical quality for which organisations may apply; how much funding was made in the last financial year; how many awards were made; and what their administrative costs were. [99950]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not currently have a programme of grant funding in place, for which organisations are free to apply, which is targeted specifically as part of its clinical quality programme. National Health Service bodies are expected to fund clinical quality programmes from their mainstream budgets.

  Camden and Islington Health Action Zone
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in each year since its inception by the Camden and Islington Health Action zone; and if he will make a statement on its future. [100532]

  Mr. Hutton
  Expenditure by Camden and Islington Health Action Zone has been as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure

  1999–00

  £1,453,000

  2000–01

  £1,893,000

  2001–02

  £1,904,000

  Information on expenditure for 2002–03 is not yet available.

  Resource allocations for primary care trusts were announced on 11 December 2002 by means of HSC 2002/012. The allocations include health action zone revenue resource allocations for 2003–04 to 2005–06, including those relating to Camden and Islington Health Action Zone. In line with Shifting the Balance of Power, Camden and Islington Primary Care Trusts will be responsible for decisions about how these resources will be used.
  1262W
  (c) Medicines Control Agency in each year since 1997; and how many of these were inspection staff in each case. [100017]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requsted is shown in the table.

  GP Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what attempts the Government made to improve General Practitioners recruitment; what the Government are offering in new contracts for GPs; what incentives there are for women GPs who have taken career breaks to return to the profession; and if he will make a statement. [100300]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to recruiting and retaining more general practitioners and has introduced a range of recruitment and retention initiatives to increase the workforce. These include: incentive payments and a returners scheme to encourage qualified general practitioners who have left general practice or have taken a career break to return; the extension of the flexible careers scheme to GPs to provide centrally supported opportunities for part-time and flexible working; the extension of the National Health Service childcare strategy to primary care; international recruitment and delayed retirement payments to encourage older GPs to extend their working lives.

  The new GP contract, if accepted, will improve the attractiveness of family medicine as a career choice for doctors and encourage those who are already GPs to stay in the profession.

  Inventures
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the variant bid for Inventures included in the unsuccessful William Pears Group bid was used in the successful bid from the Miller Group. [100572]

  Mr. Hutton
  There was no variant bid for Inventures. No variant bid from Health Estates was included in the Miller bid.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he has spent on legal fees with regard to the Miller Group bid for Inventures. [100571]

  Mr. Hutton
  Approximately £27,000 has been spent on legal fees in connection with the sale of Inventures to Miller/Bank of Scotland.
  1263W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who was privy to the heads of terms documentation between the Miller Group and NHS Estates regarding the sale of Inventures. [100414]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following organisations were privy to the agreed heads of terms documents between Miller/ Bank of Scotland and NHS Estates:

  Successful consortia and their advisors;

  Department of Health, including NHS Estates and their advisors;

  Her Majesty's Treasury and the National Audit Office.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions he has had with the fraud squad on the subject of the sale of Inventures. [100415]

  Mr. Hutton
  There have been no discussions with the fraud squad regarding the sale of Inventures.

  NHS Workforce Statistics
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he plans to publish the annual NHS Workforce statistics. [100498]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service workforce statistics will be published shortly.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the National Pharmaceutical Association regarding the Office of Fair Trading recommendations on pharmacies; and if he will make a statement. [100493]

  Mr. Lammy
  I met the National Pharmaceutical Association on 4 February this year to hear their preliminary views on the Office of Fair Trading's report.

  These views and the Association's formal response received last month will help inform the Government response which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is co-ordinating.

  Departmental Policies (Northampton, South)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Northampton, South constituency, on the effects on Northampton of his Department's policies and actions since June 2001. [100811]

  Mr. Lammy
  In June 2001, there were 2,164 patients at the acute trust in Northampton waiting over 26 weeks for outpatient appointments. In December 2002 there were none. Similarly in June 2001, there were 594 patients waiting over 12 months for inpatient appointments. In December 2002, there were 224.

  At the Northampton General, £300,000 of capital expenditure has been invested in modernising accident and emergency services. Northampton Primary Care Trust covering Northampton will receive increases in funding of over 28 per cent. over the next three years, to help local Modernisation.

  A&E care performance at Northampton General has shown improvement, as a result of an additional £275,000 investment for the four-hour initiative and £115,000 funding for the establishment of the
  1264W
  emergency care collaborative. Northampton General is confident to achieve the interim target of 90 per cent. by 31 March 2003.

  This is just a small sample of "investment" in local Modernisation.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the parliamentary questions numbered(a) 98918 and (b) 98920 tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and (c) 98919 tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) [101582]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on Monday 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 885W and column 887W, and to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on Monday 3 March 2003, Official Report, columns 888–89W.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 February, ref, 95606, what his reasons are for not providing figures for the estimated financial out turn of NHS trusts; and if he will cite the section of the Code of Conduct on Access to Official Information on which he based his decision. [97947]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 February 2003]: These figures are a snapshot in time and in many cases are subject to rapidly changing conditions. Their publication could be misleading. They are for internal discussion and advice only. They are not intended to replace published audited annual accounts which are the accepted vehicle for reporting National Health Service financial performance.

  The figures are considered to be exempt under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Youth Offending
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ask the Home Secretary to incorporate the Commission for Health Improvement into the new inspection regime for youth offending teams. [100555]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  A full-time representative of the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) will take part in the inspection of youth offending teams (Yots). This post will be jointly funded. The inspections will cover the health of young people being dealt with by Yots.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101562]
  1265W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the costs classified as accountancy services in the accounts of the Department in 2002 is £120,136,44.

  Age Diversity
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when his Department completed its diagnostic review for compliance with the Government's Code for Practice of Age Diversity in Employment; and what changes his Department plans to make following the review. [99421]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department is committed to ensuring that there is no unfair discrimination on the basis of age. My Department took steps to embed the provisions of the Government's Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment following the completion of a diagnostic review in 2000. Age Diversity has been integrated into the Department's equal opportunity policies in accordance with the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit report-"Winning the Generation Game" 2000.

  In my Department, staff outside the Senior Civil Service can choose to retire between age 60 and age 65, subject to satisfying normal fitness and efficiency requirements.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what proportion of primary school pupils in England are in classes of(a) 20 and under, (b) 24 and under, (c) 26 and under,(d) 28 and under and (e) 30 and under; and if he will make a statement. [99817]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained Primary Schools(1): Number of Classes and Pupils (2)

  January 2002

  England

  Classes taught by one teacher

  No. of classes

  No. of pupils

  %of pupils

  Classes with:

  20 or fewer pupils

  18,440

  290,317

  7.4

  21 to 24 pupils

  25,864

  588,228

  14.9

  25 to 26 pupils

  21,251

  542,625

  13.8

  27 to 28 pupils

  24,645

  678,429

  17.2

  29 to 30 pupils

  38,594

  1,142,816

  29.0

  31 or more pupils

  21,382

  703,097

  17.8

  Total

  1,50,176

  3,945,512

  100.0

  Notes:

  1. Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2. Classes as taught during the one selected period in each school on the day of the census.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  The infant class limit of 30 or below became a statutory duty on admissions authorities from September 2001. Section 4 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, defines an infant class as one in which the majority of pupils will reach the age of 5, 6 or 7 in the course of the school year.

  Political Studies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to include political studies as part of the school curriculum during GCSE years. [100439]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Our document 14–19: opportunity and excellence sets out our plans for the curriculum at Key Stage 4. In the document we explain that the compulsory curriculum comprises those subjects that are essential for progression or personal development. Although there is no GCSE subject in political studies, Citizenship became a compulsory subject in schools in September 2002. Learning about democratic and political processes is an important part of Citizenship education. Pupils learn about the institutions, issues, problems and practices of our democracy and develop an understanding of the importance of playing an active part in the political process.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many extra children in Northampton, South will be entitled to free school meals when the child tax credit and working tax credit is introduced in April. [100786]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Her Majesty's Treasury estimate that an additional 75,000 children in England will, from 6 April 2003, be entitled to receive free school lunches by virtue of their parents claiming appropriate tax credits. No local breakdown is available.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100950]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has agreed a smoking policy with the trade unions which gives staff a non-smoking work environment, but provides separate smoking areas. Smoking is not permitted on any Departmental site other than in the small number of clearly designated smoking rooms.

  My Department also provides details of organisations to help and support staff to give up smoking.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many university students his Department and associated agencies has supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98543]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In 2002 my Department has sponsored:

  12 sandwich students;

  2 Windsor Fellows;

  1 Kings Fund student;

  3 students on work experience;

  16 Ethnic Minority Summer Development Programme participants;
  1267W
  2 undergraduates employed on either part-time or vacation-only contracts.

  Our policy is to support work placements as a means of enabling students to gain valuable experience of the workplace. We are currently considering the possibility of developing an additional work experience programme for students at higher education institutions around the Department's four sites. The Department does not normally pay the university fees of students on work placements.

  Jigsaw Research
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what the purpose is of the project being carried out by Jigsaw Research for his Department. [101399]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The Department's Strategic Framework Delivering Results—A Strategy to 2006 sets out a commitment to deliver prompt, responsive and consistently excellent services to our customers. The research being carried out by Jigsaw Research, an independent market research company, is our way of measuring the quality of service we provide in response to letter, email and telephone enquiries and will help identify areas for improvement.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance there is to(a) prevent and (b) deal with industrial accidents; and if she will make a statement. [100472]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is responsible for providing information and advice about health and safety at work.

  HSE produces a very wide range of publications to reduce risks and protect people including guidance on the law, Approved Codes of Practice, leaflets, information sheets and booklets on the prevention of accidents, managing specific risks and hazards, and the management of occupational health and safety.

  Last year, HSE produced over 300 new publications, sold nearly 1 million books and issued over 6 million free leaflets.

  Ethics Advice
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice her Department gives to(a) consumers, (b) investors and (c) businesses on issues of (i) human rights, (ii) environmental protection, (iii) the use of forced labour and child labour and (iv) crime and corruption in overseas countries. [94484]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry and other government departments provide a range of information, most accessibly through their websites, on conditions in a range of overseas countries. This will assist consumers, investors and businesses to make 1268W
  informed decisions for themselves on specific issues of concern to them. For example, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's website (www.fco.gov.uk) offers country profiles, most of which include sections on human rights. Also published on this site is the FCO's Annual Report on Human Rights that gives comprehensive information on human rights for abuses worldwide and UK action. The Department for Work and Pensions provides information on the ILO's core labour conventions including those on forced and child labour in its sustainable development report (available at www.dwp.gov.uk), and contributes to a variety of other Government information sources, notably the Corporate Social Responsibility website (www.societyandbusiness.gov.uk). The FCO offers information to travellers on certain aspects of crime in some overseas countries and tailored information to UK firms and investors planning to do business in a specific overseas country. Information on this second topic is available on the TPUK website (www.tradepartners.gov.uk). The UK has also signed up to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, a set of recommendations for good corporate behaviour that include amongst other things recommendations on human rights, bribery and the environment—they are available at www.oecd.org.

  Sustainable Construction
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what involvement her Department had in the development of the Sustainable Communities Plan regarding sustainable construction. [100367]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department was party to the development of the Sustainable Communities Plan and contributed on a number of issues including sustainable construction techniques and the principles of "Rethinking Construction" for new and refurbished house build.

  North Sea Oil
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the oil recovery rate from UK North Sea reserves for each year of production; and what steps she is taking to maximise this rate. [99792]

  Mr. Wilson
  UK North Sea oil production figures were provided in my answer of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 799W. The table below set out UK Continental Shelf oil production for each year as a percentage of estimated remaining reserves. The Government is working closely with industry through PILOT, the oil and gas task force, to maximise economic recovery of the UK's hydrocarbon resources. A number of initiatives are being pursued helping to positively assist in this objective, including:

  stimulating activity on fallow areas;

  changes to the licensing regime to encourage more appraisal and exploration activity;

  promotion of asset trading;

  encouraging new entrants to the North Sea to ensure that assets are in the hands of those best placed to exploit them;

  encouraging innovative approaches to maximising recovery from "brown" fields;
  1269W
  promoting the use of enhanced oil recovery techniques; and finding ways to maintain and enhance the skills base.

  UK Oil Production as a percentage of remaining reserves

  Year

  Percentage

  1975

  0.09

  1976

  0.53

  1977

  1.53

  1978

  2.06

  1979

  3.10

  1980

  3.50

  1981

  3.89

  1982

  4.91

  1983

  5.75

  1984

  6.46

  1985

  6.79

  1986

  6.20

  1987

  6.39

  1988

  6.32

  1989

  5.07

  1990

  5.05

  1991

  4.66

  1992

  4.54

  Top 10 Solicitors

  Respiratory Disease

  Top 10 Solicitors

  VWF

  Thompsons

  8,851

  UDM

  8,759

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  10,317

  Thompsons

  4,149

  UDM

  5,044

  Browell Smith & Co

  6,339

  Raleys

  6,174

  Raleys

  3,999

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  2,188

  Graysons

  1,219

  Browell Smith & Co

  3,583

  Hugh James Ford Sime

  4,448

  Beresfords

  831

  Watson Burton

  1,830

  Graysons

  2,911

  Towells

  1,674

  Watson Burton

  1,977

  Beresfords

  540

  Randall Lloyd Jenkins & Martin

  1,091

  Kidd & Spoor Harper

  1,416

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how much has been paid to claimants through each one of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and

  Top 10 Solicitors

  Respiratory Disease

  Top 10 Solicitors

  VWF

  £ million

  £ million

  Thompsons

  123.6

  UDM

  102.2

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  129.1

  Thompsons

  7.5

  UDM

  30.8

  Browell Smith & Co

  64.7

  Raleys

  67.9

  Raleys

  4.8

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  18.7

  Graysons

  2.9

  Browell Smith & Co

  44.0

  Hugh James Ford Sime

  44.4

  Beresfords

  2.4

  Watson Burton

  32.7

  Graysons

  17.3

  Towells

  23.9

  Watson Burton

  13.5

  Beresfords

  11.4

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to date to each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema

  Top 10 Solicitors

  Respiratory Disease

  Top 10 Solicitors

  VWF

  £ million

  £ million

  Thompsons

  22.3

  UDM

  8.4

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  23.4

  Thompson

  7.4

  UDM

  8.2

  Browell Smith & Co

  6.4

  Raleys

  10.3

  Raleys

  4.8

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  4.4

  Graysons

  2.9

  Browell Smith & Co

  7.9

  Hugh James Ford Sime

  4.6

  1270W

  UK Oil Production as a percentage of remaining reserves

  Year

  Percentage

  1993

  4.78

  1994

  6.10

  1995

  6.87

  1996

  6.41

  1997

  6.36

  1998

  7.36

  1999

  8.23

  2000

  8.47

  2001

  8.17

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have had final settlements through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [99964]

  Mr. Wilson
  The total number of full and final settlements is:

  (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [99966]

  Mr. Wilson
  The total compensation paid to claimants is:

  and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [99967]

  Mr. Wilson
  The amount of costs paid is:
  1271W

  Top 10 Solicitors

  Respiratory Disease

  Top 10 Solicitors

  VWF

  Beresfords

  1.1

  Watson Burton

  2.6

  Graysons

  4.3

  Towells

  2.0

  Watson Burton

  3.7

  Beresfords

  0.8

  Randall Lloyd Jenkins & Martin

  2.7

  Kidd & Spoor Harper

  1.5

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have had interim payments to date through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation

  Top 10 Solicitors

  Respiratory Disease

  Top 10 Solicitors

  VWF

  Thompsons

  9,597

  UDM

  8,684

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  6,890

  Thompsons

  9,664

  UDM

  2,391

  Browell Smith & Co

  4,597

  Raleys

  4,343

  Raleys

  4,818

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  1,394

  Graysons

  4,334

  Browell Smith & Co

  3,568

  Hugh James Ford Sime

  3,194

  Beresfords

  126

  Watson Burton

  3,131

  Graysons

  1,556

  Towells

  2,125

  Watson Burton

  1,003

  Beresfords

  1,202

  Randall Lloyd Jenkins & Martin

  646

  Kidd & Spoor Harper

  1,276

  Oil Stocks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her opposite numbers in the International Energy Agency since 1 January over strategic oil stocks; and when she next plans to hold discussions with them on this matter. [101808]

  Mr. Wilson
  My officials are in regular contact with the International Energy Agency about the oil market situation and strategic stocking arrangements, as are officials from other member states. Most recently the oil market situation was discussed, along with other agenda items at the routine LEA Governing Board meeting on 20 February. The next biennial IEA Ministerial Meeting is planned for the 28 and 29 April but the IEA Governing Board is ready to meet as, and when, circumstances require it to do so. Issue relating to oil stocks were also discussed at the EU Energy Ministerial informal meeting in Thessalonika on 22 February 2003, which I attended.

  Answered

  Total

  On named day

  Within 3 days of holding reply

  Within 7 days of holding reply

  Within 14 days of holding reply

  Within 28 days of holding reply

  Over 28 days of holding reply

  423

  176

  191

  40

  16

  0

  0

  Per cent.

  42

  77

  16

  6

  0

  0

  The department's parliamentary branch uses its internal database to closely monitor the progress on individual parliamentary questions from the time of tabling through to providing answers to hon. Members.

  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on performance of departments in replying to Ministerial correspondence. The Report for
  1272W
  claim for (a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [99965]

  Mr. Wilson
  The total interims payments made is:

  Iraq
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government is taking to ensure that British companies are able fairly to compete for reconstruction work in post-conflict Iraq. [101372]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The Government's immediate focus is on the disarmament of Iraq. War is a last resort and is not inevitable. We will take full account of the interest of UK companies if and when the situation in Iraq changes.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) Parliamentary Questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99428]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information relating to named day parliamentary questions is as follows:

  2001 was published on Friday 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 674W. The Report for 2002 will be published in due course.

  Post Offices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultation took place when considering the design of the PIN pads installed in post offices to
  1273W
  enable people to withdraw benefits and other payments in cash; over what period of time the consultation took place; how many meetings were held; and what the costs were of (a) the PIN pads,(b) installation,(c) training and (d) making the PIN pads available for use in post offices. [101360]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters which fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent meetings the Construction Department in her Department has had with the insurance industry to discuss rising premiums for employers' liability insurance; and if she will make a statement. [100670]

  Mr. Wilson
  DTI's Construction Sector Unit (CSU) is a member of the Association of British Insurers working group on Health and Safety. Officials attended the meeting of the group on 10 February to discuss rising insurance premiums, especially associated risk management issues, with representatives of the insurance industry. Representatives of construction industry bodies also participated in the meeting. CSU will continue to work with its insurance and industry contacts in connection with the construction-specific aspects of the insurance difficulties.

  The Department for Work and Pensions is currently undertaking a review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI), which is due to be completed by Spring 2003. It would be inappropriate to make a statement while that review is still in progress.

  Quality Mark
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will extend the health and safety checks offered as part of the Quality Mark scheme to other sectors of industry. [101350]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Health and Safety checks offered within the QM Scheme are not exclusive to the Scheme, but merely standards within industry, which we have adopted as appropriate standards the scheme.

  The Quality Mark link with CHAS (Contractors Health and Safety Assessment Scheme) is a commercial arrangement (a 20 per cent. discount is available on combined liability insurance premiums for firms with up to 20 manual employees).

  To further reduce bureaucracy for both contractors and public sector clients, and to encourage improved health and safety standards, Constructionline and the CHAS are sharing data gathering, maintenance and display for mutually registered firms, and clients. This new arrangement means that contractors need to complete only one, standard application form. It also means Constructionline and CHAS clients can access both schemes from one location; thus saving time and money for all involved.

  Carbon Risk Management
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if her Department will undertake an assessment of banks' carbon risk management strategies. [101353]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI has no specific plans to undertake an assessment of carbon risk management strategies for banks.

  However, the DTI are co-sponsors, with DEFRA and DFID, of Project FORGE. In November 2000, Project FORGE published guidelines on environmental management and reporting for the financial services sector. The guidelines are aimed at helping the financial services sector to identify, understand, control and communicate environmental impacts, risks and opportunities.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a response to the recent findings in Carbon Finance and the Global Equity Markets published by the Carbon Disclosure Project. [101299]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government has welcomed the recent report published by the Carbon Disclosure Project. The Government has no current plans to respond specifically to the findings of the report.

  Renewables
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the impact on the cost of electricity generation as a result of meeting her target of 20 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. [99685]

  Mr. Wilson
  We expect industry to respond to the framework that we have established and demonstrate they can achieve our goals at an acceptable cost. On that basis, as set out in the Energy White Paper, our aspiration is by 2020 to double renewables' share of electricity generation from our 2010 target and we will pursue policies to achieve this.

  The impact on the cost of generation of a 20 per cent. share of renewables in 2020 will depend on the generation costs of the renewables technologies and those of the alternative forms of generation. There would also be additional systems costs as a result of the increase in forms of intermittent generation such as onshore and offshore wind.

  A renewables strategy for the decade to 2020 will be elaborated in 2005–06, in the light of progress on the current Renewables Obligation. But if—purely as a working assumption—support were to be provided on the basis of a buyout price of 3p/kWh, as for the current Renewables Obligation, the maximum annual cost to consumers of moving from a 10 per cent. share to 20 per cent. could by 2020 be between £900m and £1.1 billion (assuming additional generation required of between 30 and 35TWh). For a lower buyout price the cost to consumers would be commensurately reduced. Additional annual systems costs could amount to between £140 million and £400 million.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Minister for Women what consultations she has conducted with women's organisations regarding the negotiations in the General Agreement on Trade in Services. [100054]

  Ms Hewitt
  I meet regularly with the Women's National Commission on a range of issues, and women's organisations are represented on, and play an active part in, the Trade Policy Consultative Forum which myself or my noble Friend, the Minister for Trade and Investment, chair. On two occasions now the Forum has been dedicated to discussing the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations. Moreover, women's organisations were included as part of the public consultation that my Department recently undertook on these negotiations and, in February, my officials met again with the Women's National Commission to further discuss GATS issues.

  Department Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99573]

  Ms Hewitt
  The latest estimated expenditure on entertainment in 2002–03 of the Department of Trade and Industry is £1,193,000.

  The expenditure for the previous three years was as follows:

  £000's

  1999–00

  887

  2000–01

  1,089

  2001–02

  1,165

  Details of original budgets for these three years are not available.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policy her Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100925]

  Ms Hewitt
  Smoking is only permitted in designated smoking rooms and areas. My Department keeps this policy under review in response to emerging scientific and medical evidence.

  BNFL
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether BNFL owns(a) BNFL Instruments Inc, (b) Manufacturing Sciences Corporation, (c) Sierra Nuclear Corporation, (d) Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and (e) ABB; and what the current market value of each company owned by BNFL is. [95967]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL owns 100 per cent. of the share capital of BNFL Instruments Inc, Manufacturing Sciences Corporation, and Sierra Nuclear Corporation.1276W
  None of these entities has a material net worth in BNFL's balance sheet and there is currently no market valuation available.

  BNFL acquired the Westinghouse Electric Company LLC in March 1999 for a total consideration of £641 million (which comprised a mixture of cash and liabilities assumed). This was disclosed in BNFL's annual report and accounts for 1998–99. The acquisition of ABB's nuclear business was completed in April 2000 for £300 million. This transaction is disclosed in BNFL's 1999–00 annual report and accounts and the business has now been fully integrated into the Westinghouse entity. In line with the requirements of the relevant accounting standard BNFL reviewed the carrying value of these acquisitions for potential impairment at the end of the first full financial year following acquisition. There was no evidence of impairment at that stage and there have been no subsequent events or changes in circumstances which might indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. This was disclosed under note 1,c in the 2002 Annual report and accounts.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation BNFL inc has against the United States Department of Energy; and what the total amount being claimed is. [95968]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL operates at several sites in the United States owned by the United States Department of Energy. The company were awarded contracts at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant (AMWTP) and the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) worth circa $850 million and $250 million respectively. The contractual terms at each site are different and the process for claims can also vary. The amount of formal claims BNFL has at any site therefore will vary over time and is subject to continuous negotiation. However the total can represent a reasonable percentage of the contract value and run in to millions of dollars.

  Oil Reserves
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what(a) the current level and (b) the official required level the national oil reserves is. [101161]

  Mr. Wilson
  Provisional data from oil companies suggest that at the end of January 2003, the UK had oil stocks equivalent to 78 days consumption of petroleum products, which is above the stock level of 67½ days worth of consumption of oil products that the UK is obliged to hold in accordance with EU legislation.

  Viasystems Group
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements she has made with(a) Viasystems Group Inc and (b) others acting on its behalf in respect of the repayment of monies owed to the Government following the bankruptcy of the Viasystems Group Inc; and if she will make a statement. [96908]

  Alan Johnson
  We have received payments totalling £3m to date. Following Viasystems Group Inc.'s application for Chapter 11, the US court has approved
  1277W
  a revised settlement agreement between the DTI, Viasystems Group Inc. and Viasystems Inc. in respect of the remaining £9 million owed to the Government. Under this agreement the £9 principal will be repaid in instalments over the period 2008–2010. The DTI will receive interest on the outstanding principal at 3 per cent. per annum through to 2008, and thereafter at Bank of England base rate plus 2 per cent.

  The DTI will also seek to recover the outstanding £9 million through the realisation of its charge over the former Viasystems Tyneside Limited site in North Tyneside. Any recoveries that are made under this realisation will be applied to principal payments due under the revised settlement agreement in reverse order of maturity.

  Business Insurance
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the effect of increases in the cost of insurance cover for businesses upon the competitiveness of British business; and if she will make a statement. [101060] [Transferred]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government is concerned by increases in the cost of insurance for businesses, particularly Employer's Liability Insurance (ELI). A recent survey of small businesses for the Small Business Survey found that only 2 per cent. of firms spontaneously cited insurance as a major obstacles to the success of the business, although when prompted 27 per cent. of firms said insurance was an obstacle to success. It is difficult to assess the effect on competitiveness of these increases in the cost of insurance. The Government's review of the ELI system, led by the Department for Work and Pension, aims to examine the impact of the current system on employers and make recommendations for change accordingly. It is due to report in Spring 2003; details are available at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications /dwp/2002/healthsafety/eli-review/index.htm.

  The Office of Fair Trading is currently engaged in a short study of the liability insurance market, also due to report in Spring 2003, which will help inform the Government's review of the ELI system.

  Energy White Papers
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which press and broadcasting outlets were briefed on the Energy White Paper prior to its publication; and if she will set out the reasons she gave interviews to the media on the contents of the White Paper prior to her statement to Parliament. [100078]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Energy White Paper was laid before the House at loam on Monday 24 February. Only after its publication did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I jointly hold a press conference at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  As I reported to the House on 24 February, Official Report, column 27W drafts of the Energy White Paper were leaked to the press ahead of the publication. Such action is a discourtesy to the House and I deplore it wholeheartedly.
  1278W
  Prior to publication on the day of the White Paper I gave a limited number of broadcast interviews in which I discussed the Government's more general objectives in formulating a long-term policy for energy.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to paragraph 4.3 of the Energy White Paper, Cm 5761, what resources she plans to commit to keep open the nuclear option. [100080]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Energy White Paper does not rule out the possibility that at some stage in the future new nuclear build might be necessary, but does not include new measures or resources targeted at nuclear new build.

  In December 2002 we published the results of a nuclear and radiological skills study. In response, a task group is being formed across the sector to develop and implement a workforce development strategy. This industry-led initiative will be important regardless of whether new build is pursued in future.

  In addition, measures outlined in the White Paper to streamline the public inquiry process for major energy projects and to introduce the European emissions trading scheme could benefit the option of nuclear energy, were a decision taken in future to proceed with new nuclear power stations.

  Sizewell B
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what purposes the spent nuclear fuel at the Sizewell B nuclear plant is being stored. [100037]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for British Energy. Decisions on whether to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, or to hold it in long-term storage for direct disposal or reprocessing at some time in the future, are a matter for the commercial judgement of the owner of the spent fuel within the overall regulatory framework.

  Miners' Pension Funds
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress she has made in reviewing the division of surpluses on miners' pension funds. [100869]

  Mr. Wilson
  As I announced in a joint statement with trustees on 17 January 2002, the Government has been in discussion with the trustees of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme and the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme on the future of the Government Guarantee for those Schemes, including the division of fund surpluses.

  Against the background of large falls in world stock markets, which continue to have a major effect on investment performance, the trustees have been advised that the Government does not feel it would be right to adjust the current 50/50 surplus sharing arrangements.

  A number of other changes to the Guarantee arrangements have been agreed. In addition, discussions were to have continued to consider different methods of paying for the Guarantee and other ways of guaranteeing bonuses, where these different methods might offer advantages to Scheme members whilst not

  1279W
  representing a significant additional burden on the taxpayer. However, NACODS South Wales have instigated a Judicial Review concerning the Guarantee to which the Government is obliged to respond. As a consequence, until this has been resolved, the Government does not feel it would be right to continue those discussions with the Trustees.

  Cash £

  millions

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  BCSSS

  39.5

  39.5

  107.1

  107.1

  110.3

  216.0

  216.0

  MPS

  0.0

  113.0

  113.0

  0.00

  315.0

  196.0

  196.0

  Total

  39.5

  152.5

  220.1

  107.1

  425.3

  412.0

  412.0

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the forms that her Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98084]

  Ms Hewitt
  A list of the forms the Department requires private sector business to complete is not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Municipal Waste
  Norman Baker
  To ask the secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Lewes of 24 February,Official Report column 98W, on municipal waste, what percentage of household waste she anticipates will be recycled or composted by 2005 and what percentage of household waste will have value recovered by 2005 based on current achievements; and in respect of the waste recovery targets, what percentage of each target she estimates will be delivered by incineration. [100386]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: We are taking action aimed at delivering the targets for 2005 in Waste Strategy 2000, which were set out in my answer to the hon. Member of 26 February.

  In 2000–01, 11 per cent. of household waste in England was recycled or composted; provisional estimates based on Best Value Performance Indicators suggest this figure may increase to almost 13 per cent. for 2001–02. In 2000–01 value was recovered from 21 per cent. of municipal waste, 9 per cent. of this was through incineration with energy recovery.

  Big Cats
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many big cats she estimates are present in the wild in the UK. [99219]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is not aware of any confirmed instances of big cats (i.e. lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar, cheetah, snow leopard, clouded leopard and puma) of unknown origin being found out of captivity in England in the last 20 years.
  1280W
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of the Government's share of surpluses on miners' pension funds was in each year from 1994. [100870] [Transferred]

  Mr. Wilson
  The cash value of receipts to Government from surpluses from the two schemes since payments began in 1996–97 are as follows:

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her projection is for UK carbon dioxide emissions in each year from 2003 to 2020,(a) based on Kyoto criteria and (b) including international air travel. [99200]

  Mr. Meacher
  UK carbon dioxide emissions projections to the year 2020 were published in 2001 in the UK's Third National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The figures, which take account of effect of measures in the UK Climate Change Programme, are reported at five yearly intervals and are summarised in the table below. They are expressed as million tonnes of carbon per year (MtC/yr). The table includes the actual emissions data point for 2000. UK carbon dioxide emissions projections do not include emissions from international aviation which are reported separately, in accordance with international guidelines.

  Year

  2000

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  Total UK CO2 emissions (MtC/yr)

  152.1

  141.7

  133.0

  134.3

  134.0

  Emissions from international aviation were about 7.8 MtC/yr in 2000, and projections made on the same basis as for the Third National Communication suggest that they may rise to about 8.6 MtC/yr in 2005 and 10.2 MtC/yr in 2010. Projections beyond 2010 are increasingly uncertain but emissions in 2020 could be between 14 and 16 MtC/yr.

  Refrigerators
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the length of time needed to clear the backlog of refrigerators and freezers stored by local authorities in each region, assuming a continual arrival of more such appliances at the current flow. [99228]

  Mr. Meacher
  The current backlog of stored refrigerators and freezers is expected to be cleared within 9–12 months. There are no regional figures.

  GM Crops
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the
  1281W
  occasions since June 2001 when the Government has received representations from the US authorities in favour of (a) allowing GM crops to be planted in the UK and (b) encouraging the consumption of GM food. [99207]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government and representatives of the US authorities are in regular contact and exchange views on issues relating to GM crops and food. However, details of these exchanges are not recorded centrally. In general, representations made to my Department from the US authorities relate to acceptance of imports of agricultural commodities from GM crops grown in the USA, rather than direct pressure to allow GM crops to be planted in the UK or encouraging the consumption of GM food.

  Carbon Neutrality
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support has been given or is planned to be given to local authorities to assist towards obtaining carbon neutral status. [99265]

  Mr. Morley
  In the recently published Energy White Paper the Government set out its strategy to help local authorities take a more proactive role in helping to create a low carbon economy. This includes establishing a new beacon councils theme on sustainable energy, promoting energy efficiency as areas to be considered for Public Service Agreements and reviewing guidance to Energy Conservation Authorities on complying with the requirements of the Home Energy Conservation Act.

  The Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust provide support to local authorities, through their various programmes, in reducing their carbon emissions and the development of a low carbon economy in the UK.

  Defra officials are working with the Carbon Trust with the aim of developing a major new programme, to encourage local authorities to take a systematic approach to assessing their greenhouse gas emissions and setting challenging improvement targets. This builds on a pilot, involving 24 local authorities in England and Wales. "Councils for Climate Protection Programme" was established by Defra with the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) and the Local Government Association and ran from September 2000 until May 2002.

  Hazardous Chemicals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the mandatory substitution of industrial chemicals that are intrinsically hazardous with those that are intrinsically less hazardous; and if she will seek to ensure that the new legislation on chemicals policy being drafted by the EU will determine that the existence of a practical and safer alternative will be sufficient grounds to refuse an authorisation to produce a chemical that has intrinsically hazardous properties. [99218]

  Mr. Meacher
  As the Government said in its Chemicals Strategy (Sustainable production and use of chemicals, December 1999):1282W
  "Risk reduction strategies should always look at substitution of more hazardous chemicals by safer alternatives." (p34).

  The position of the Government on the new EU chemicals strategy, as set out in its Position Statement of December 2002, is in line with this approach. The European Commission is yet to produce legislative proposals. When it does do, the UK will push for the availability of safer alternatives to be a major factor in determining whether an authorisation is refused for production, import or supply of hazardous chemicals meeting the criteria for authorisation.

  Animal Welfare Bill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the issue of enriched cages for egg laying hens has been part of the consultation into the proposed Animal Welfare Bill; and what the Government's policy is on this matter. [100375]

  Mr. Morley
  The issue of enriched cages has been subject to a separate public consultation. A decision will be announced shortly.

  Invasive Plants
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish her report on invasive plants and if she will make a statement. [100406]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department, with the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, has convened a working group comprising a wide range of stakeholders, to undertake a fundamental review of policy and practice on non-native species. The report of the working group is due to be published later this month. I shall make an announcement at the time of publication.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what strategy she has adopted to deal with(a) Australian swamp stonecrop, (b) Japanese knotweed and (c) other invasive plants. [100407]

  Mr. Morley
  I am aware of the problems that can be caused by invasive non-native plants such as Japanese knotweed(Fallopia japonica) and Australian swamp stonecrop(Crassula helmsii). The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides measures for prohibiting spread of Japanese knotweed, and some other invasive plant species. It is an offence to plant or otherwise cause this species to grow in the wild. Waste containing Japanese knotweed is controlled under the Environment Protection Act 1990. Australian swamp stonecrop is not currently regulated.

  The Environment Agency and English Nature, with the Centre for Aquatic Plant Management, produce detailed guidance for landowners and managers on how to control invasive non-native aquatic plant species. The Environment Agency also takes local measures to deal with problem plant species if flood defences are compromised. Similarly, English Nature may take local measures where conservation interests are threatened by these species.

  The Department is to publish a working group report on non-native species policy later this month.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions she is taking to prevent dolphin deaths in European waters; and if she will make a statement. [100070]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has already committed some £140,000 for trials into the use of exclusion devices developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) to reduce the bycatch of cetaceans in pelagic trawl fisheries. The trial will be resumed in March in order to refine the system and further assess the grid's effectiveness in protecting dolphins and maintaining fish catch rates. If SMRU's trials are not successful, we will look at other mitigating measures and I do not rule out any approach at this stage—including arguing for EU restrictions on fishing, gear or seasonal closures.

  For measures to reduce cetacean bycatch to be effective requires action on the part of all member states involved in the fisheries concerned and the Commission. This is why we raised the need for urgent action by the Commission and other member states at the January Council of Ministers' meeting. I have raised this issue with Commissioner Fischler on a number of occasions both in writing and in personal contacts. I have also recently written to the Commission to press for urgent action to widen observer coverage off the South West coast where a number of other Member States' vessels fish. I was pleased that the Commission included a commitment to take action in this area in papers produced as part of the recent reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I am looking for positive action on this in response to our recent approaches.

  Pesticides
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the(a) 0.1mg and (b) 10mg limit on (i) active pesticide breakdown products and (ii) metabolites in groundwater; [100567]

  (2) What recent (a) representations she has received and (b) discussions she has had regarding the limit of (a) pesticide breakdown products and (b) metabolites in groundwater; and if she will make a statement; [100568]

  (3) If she will list those metabolites considered (a) relevant and (b) non-relevant with regard to the 0.1mg limit on (i) pesticide breakdown products and (ii) metabolites in groundwater. [100569]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: The EU Pesticides Authorisations Directive (91/414/EEC) requires that pesticide active substances and their relevant metabolites, or breakdown products, should not exceed 0.1 micrograms per litre (0.1.µg/L) in groundwater. This 0.11.µg/L trigger value is the permitted level for pesticides and their relevant metabolites in drinking water. Its application to groundwater through Directive 91/414/EEC is designed to ensure that groundwater can be used for drinking water without treatment to remove pesticides. 0.1.µg/L or 1 part in 10 billion is an extremely low level of contamination which ensures that consumers are protected from the most toxic pesticides.
  1284W
  The European Commission adopted a "guidance document on the assessment of the relevance of metabolites in groundwater of substances regulated under Council Directive 91/414/EEC" on 26 February 2003. This document will soon be made available on the Commission website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ food/fs/ph ps/pro/wrkdoc/index en.htm

  The aim is to lay down an approach to the determination of which metabolites are of concern and which are not. The Guidance has the support of all member states except Denmark. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, received a letter from the Danish Environment Minister sent to all EU Ministers for the Environment seeking a Council debate on the document before its adoption. We have received no other recent representations on this issue.

  The relevance of the soil metabolites of particular pesticides is considered on a case by case basis using the approach laid down in the Guidance Document. In general metabolites are relevant if they (a) have comparable intrinsic properties to the parent compound or (b) have unacceptable toxicological properties. The conclusions on the relevance of particular metabolites as judged by the Guidance Document will be available in the review report for that compound. However, since the Guidance Document has only recently been adopted, no conclusions have yet been reached.

  The limit of 10 micrograms per litre (10 µg/L) on metabolites is not a legal limit. It is a trigger value in the Guidance Document applicable to "non-relevant metabolites" or metabolites of lesser concern. If a compound were to give rise to non-relevant metabolites above 10 µg/L then it would not be approved unless there was strong evidence that the metabolite was of no concern.

  Ducks
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many ducks other than ruddy ducks, broken down by species, haven been culled as a result of the ruddy duck control scheme. [101260]

  Mr. Morley
  Every effort was made to minimise casualties to non-target species during the regional control trial. The Standard Operating Procedures made it clear that there should be a high degree of vigilance over identification and that shooting should only take place if safe to do so without causing injury or death to non-target species

  Two female tufted ducks and one juvenile long-tailed duck were shot in error during the ruddy duck control trial. During trap testing in spring 2002, seven young mallard chicks were killed during three separate incidents when they became trapped in netting.

  Vegetable Imports (Kenya)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what checks are carried out on vegetables imported from Kenya to detect illegal use of DDT. [99452]
  1285W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: DDT is a substance which is banned for use as an agricultural pesticide in the European Union under Council Directive 79/117/EEC. However, substances which are not approved in Europe may be used in other countries. Differences in approvals between countries can arise because different approval conditions are applied and because the need for specific pesticides in different countries differs. As far as we are aware, DDT still has public health use in Kenya. The fact that a compound is not approved in Europe does not mean that residues of that compound in imported produce are unsafe or illegal. However, any residues found must not exceed any agreed maximum residue levels set.

  The government conducts a wide-ranging annual surveillance programme for pesticide residues in food including imported food. Some 4,000 samples are analysed annually and the programme generates results for over 100,000 pesticide/commodity combinations. All the results are published on a web-site.

  www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm

  The surveillance programme for 2002 included monitoring for DDT in green beans from Kenya. No residues were found.

  Actual abstruction data by Environment Agency Region and source (million litres per day)

  1974

  1985

  1994

  2000

  Agency Region

  GW

  SW

  Total

  GW

  SW

  Total

  GW

  SW

  Total

  GW

  SW

  Total

  Anglian

  948

  1246

  2194

  988

  964

  1952

  1054

  1149

  2203

  1000

  1668

  2668

  Midlands

  1539

  6895

  8434

  1066

  5796

  6862

  1142

  3106

  4248

  1085

  4209

  5294

  North East

  443

  6024

  6467

  468

  3394

  3862

  452

  2982

  3434

  481

  5728

  6209

  North West

  904

  5298

  6202

  476

  4281

  4757

  366

  2642

  3008

  268

  2694

  2962

  South West

  460

  1112

  1572

  623

  2657

  3280

  675

  3969

  4644

  726

  5225

  5951

  Southern

  1052

  961

  2013

  1263

  358

  1621

  1336

  1479

  2816

  1379

  4379

  5758

  Thames

  1734

  2386

  4120

  1879

  2599

  4478

  1569

  3079

  4649

  1496

  3310

  4806

  Wales

  284

  8397

  8681

  144

  8516

  8660

  183

  7012

  7195

  86

  10603

  10689

  Total

  7364

  32319

  39683

  6907

  28565

  35472

  6777.2

  25419

  32196

  6521

  37816

  44337

  Note:

  Where: SW denotes surface water and GW denotes ground water

  Estimates for future water use in each Environment Agency region are expressed in the below table, as an expected range. These are derived from figures given in the Environment Agency's water resources strategy, Water Resources for the Future, which looks specifically at the years 2010 and 2025. The estimates have not been split into sources of water, though it is anticipated that any additional resources required would tend to be from surface water, rather than groundwater.

  Total predicted demand for 2010 and 2025 by Agency Region (million litres per day)

  2010 minimum

  2010 maximum

  2025 minimum

  2025 maximum

  Region

  Anglian

  2563

  2813

  2013

  4263

  Midlands

  4016

  4516

  3216

  6313

  North East

  5916

  6416

  5066

  7816

  North West

  2986

  3386

  2136

  4686

  South West

  5924

  6124

  5624

  7024

  Southern

  5451

  5551

  5051

  6451

  Water Supply
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total water use in each region that was supplied from(a) watercourses, (b) aquifers, (c) reservoirs and (d) other sources in (i) 1974, (ii) 1984, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 2002; and what her estimate is for (A) 2012 and (B) 2022. [99242]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency records data on abstractions as from either groundwater (aquifers) or surface water. Abstractions from reservoirs are recorded in the surface water figures.

  The figures for abstractions of water in each Environment Agency region are expressed in the table below. Data for 1984 are unavailable in the format requested, but 1985 data have been provided as the total abstractions are comparable. Data for 2002 are currently being verified so abstractions for 2000 are given, representing the most recent year for which verified data is available.

  There may be discontinuities in the trend data caused by the adjustment of data published by the former Department of the Environment for 1974 and 1984 to coincide with Agency boundaries, and by changes to classification.

  Total predicated demand for 2010 and 2025 by Agency Region (million litres per day)

  2010 minimum

  2010 maximum

  2025 minimum

  2025 maximum

  Thames

  3994

  4694

  2994

  6894

  EA Wales

  8960

  9160

  8520

  9860

  Total

  39810

  42660

  34620

  53307

  Incinerators
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many licences to operate incinerators on farm premises have been issued in the last 12 months. [100774]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has issued two licences for the operation of incinerators on farm premises in the last 12 months. The sites are at Church Fenton in North Yorkshire and at Thornton in West Yorkshire and both licences authorise the operation of pet crematoria.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how many fishing vessels will be restricted to 15 days at sea under EC Regulation 2371/2002 in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland; and how many will be (i) whitefish vessels using mesh size over 100mm,(ii) beam trawlers using mesh size above 80mm and (iii) gill netters. [99396]

  Mr. Morley
  The 15-day restriction applies to vessels using demersal towed gear of at least 100mm or beam trawl gear of at least 80mm in the designated areas. It is for owners to decide what gear they should use in the future, and thus determine how many vessels will be affected in 2002.

  However, on the basis of activity during 2002, and excluding vessels that were decommissioned during the year, 807 over 10 metre UK vessels used the three gear types specified in the designated area at some time during the year. The breakdown of the nationality of these vessels is given below.

  England & Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  UK

  Number of vessels using one or more of the three gear types specified during 2002

  189

  585

  33

  807

  Of which, using: demersal trawl of at least 100mm mesh size

  113

  392

  30

  535

  beam trawl of at least 80mm mesh size

  45

  3

  3

  51

  gill nets and other static demersal nets

  42

  410

  0

  452

  Notes:

  1. Gill nets and other static demersal nets can be used for up to 16 days per month under the EU regulation.

  2. Some vessels use more than one type of gear in a year. For example, in 2002 228 vessels used both demersal trawl of at least 100mm and gill nets in the designated area, and 3 vessels used both beam trawl and demersal trawls.

  3. Under the Regulation, where a vessel uses more than one type of gear in a month it is entitled to the average of the number of days permitted for each gear type.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many game licences were issued for the 2001–2 season; how much it cost to administer the game licence regime in 2001–2; and how much revenue was received. [100960]

  Mr. Morley
  In the year 2001–2002, the total number of game licences issued by Post Offices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland was 48,385. The total gross annual revenue from those licences was £251,884. The total annual cost of administering the scheme for 2001–2002 is estimated at £261,900 + VAT.

  In addition to the licences referred to above, district councils and London Borough councils issue licences to deal in game. No figures are collected centrally for the numbers of licences issued by councils. We understand that arrangements and charges vary.

  Game Birds
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to prohibit the(a) partial beak amputation of pheasants and (b) use of bits and blinkers on these birds. [100320]

  Mr. Morley
  The department is currently reviewing legislation relating to the welfare of captive and domestic animals, including that which relates to the rearing of pheasants, with a view to introducing an Animal Welfare Bill. No decisions have been made as to the Bill's content but it is proposed that there will be a period of consultation on a draft Bill by the beginning of next year.

  British Beef
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on sales of British beef to French markets. [99736]

  Mr. Morley
  Beef produced under the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) has been exported to several EU countries. However, because only one establishment is currently approved to produce DBES beef, information about export consignments is commercially confidential.

  Since the French agreed to lift the ban lifted last year, British beef has been eaten at several high profile events in France, including at a lunch attended by the Prince of Wales in Paris on 6 February.

  Livestock Welfare
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will resubmit the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Cattle for consideration by the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. [98144]

  Mr. Morley
  The Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Cattle will be re-laid shortly for approval in both Houses.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made since the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease to strengthen measures for dealing with any new outbreak. [100551]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's Response to the Reports of the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries (Cm 5637, November 2002) sets out measures taken and work in hand to implement the lessons learned from the 2001 outbreak. Progress has been made in many areas. Measures of particular note are:the Animal Health Act 2002, which adds to powers to deal swiftly with outbreaks in England and Wales. Similar legislation is in preparation in Scotland.

  1289W
  an improved Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan which is currently subject to consultation prior to being laid before Parliament at the end of this month; this includes enhanced preparedness for emergency vaccination;
  tighter controls on animal movements and markets, and higher standards of biosecurity in use of livestock vehicles.

  In addition preventive measures have been taken, for example to minimise illegal imports of meat and meat products and to ban swill feeding.

  Cleve Farm
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long the parallel pyres at Cleeve Farm, Westbury on Severn, Gloucestershire, were active. [96229]

  Number of Responses

  Frequency

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census—June

  28,749*

  Annual

  December Agricultural Survey

  21,503

  Annual

  Earnings and Hours of Agricultural and Horticultural Workers

  1,783

  Annual

  Vegetables and Flowers Survey

  3,458

  Annual

  Glasshouse Survey

  2,226

  Annual

  Orchard Fruit Survey

  576

  Annual

  Production and Marketing of Hatching Chicks & Eggs

  880

  Monthly

  Return of Stock Slaughtered by Type of Animal

  6,735

  Weekly and monthly

  Bacon and Ham Produced

  187

  Monthly and annual

  Animal Feeding-stuffs: Production, Stocks and Usage of Raw Materials

  841

  Monthly and annual

  Wheat Milled and Flour Production

  588

  Monthly and annual

  Oatmeal Millers—Stocks, Receipts and Production

  72

  Monthly

  Brewers, Distillers and Maltsters—Stocks and Usage of Cereals

  307

  Monthly and annual

  Cereal Breakfast Foods

  81

  Monthly

  The Value of Milk Purchased in England and Wales

  530

  Monthly

  First Hand Price Reporting to Brussels

  36

  Monthly

  Purchase of British Corn in England and Wales

  9,308

  Weekly

  Seed Traders Annual Return

  998

  Annual

  Registration of Seed Multiplication Contracts not in the EU

  14

  Biannual

  Average Grower Prices for Home-Grown Herbage Seeds

  12

  Annual

  EC Survey of Wine Stocks—Producers, Wholesalers and Retailers

  75

  Annual

  Stocks of Cereals and Feeding-stuffs held by Importers, Dealers and Merchants

  205

  Annual and quarterly

  Notes:

  * "survey restricted due to Foot and Mouth disease—normally about 80,000

  Additionally, a total of 39,275 responses were received in respect of 60 voluntary surveys which were conducted during 2001.

  Defra keeps its statistical requirements under review. A research project to assess the amount of information (statistical and other) collected from farmers and growers is underway.

  Bush Meat
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many arrests have been made in the last five years for crimes relating to importing illegal bushmeat; and how many convictions have resulted from these arrests. [100396]

  Mr. Morley
  Comprehensive records of arrests and convictions for the illegal importation of any meat are not held centrally. Prosecutions for offences relating to bushmeat can be brought under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species by HM Customs, and under the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulations by
  1290W
  Mr. Morley
  Eleven pyres were constructed at Cleeve Farm, Westbury-on-Severn, and that the first one was lit on or around 24 March 2001 and the last one on or around 2 April 2001. I understand that the pyres were active for two weeks, although they would have smouldered for several weeks after this.

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the forms that her Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98085]

  Mr. Morley
  The statistical survey forms required to be completed by private businesses are shown below together with frequency and the number of forms received during 2001.

  local authorities. We are aware of three convictions for offences relating to the illegal importation of bushmeat, all in 2001.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government is taking to increase vigilance at airports to discourage the importation of illegal bushmeat from Africa [100397]

  Mr. Morley
  Bushmeat refers to the meat of any wild animal hunted for food. It is not necessarily from endangered species. Bushmeat forms only a very small proportion of reported seizures of illegal meat. Controls on its import arise from both the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and from controls imposed to protect animal health. Action against illegal imports is not limited to bushmeat, nor is it targeted solely at Africa.

  In the current financial year, additional measures have been introduced at airports to tackle illegal imports. Temporary agency staff, funded by Defra, have been recruited to carry out checks to detect smuggled goods—teams of six are based at our major airports. We

  1291W
  are also paying for additional checks through overtime at regional airports, and Customs has provided support. Additional inspection resources have also been provided through the detector dog pilot based at Heathrow. A publicity campaign including videos, posters and leaflets has targeted ports, airports and points of departure.

  A total of £25 million has been allocated over the next three financial years to tackle illegal imports from outside the European Union of any meat, other animal products and plant products. Following the Cabinet Office review of enforcement structures, HM Customs will be taking over all anti-smuggling activity as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions her Department has had with the President and Secretariat of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group to support its future work. [101327]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department and its representatives have had informal discussions from time to time with the President and members of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group about the general direction being taken by the Group and about progress being made. However, we have always strongly maintained that the Group should remain first and foremost a Central and West African initiative. We have therefore deliberately sought not to initiate or participate too deeply in formal discussions. Our input to the direction taken by the Group and the development of its strategies and solutions is therefore taken forward mainly in the context of our participation in meetings of the Group, such as that taking place in Douala from 26 to 28 March 2003.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what financial support her Department intends to provide the CITES Bushmeat Working Group in future years. [101330]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the agreement reached at the last Conference of CITES Parties (Santiago, 2002) to extend the work of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group, we have recently contributed a further £15,000 to the Group to help it carry forward its work to the next CITES Conference in 2004. This brings our total support for the CITES Bushmeat Working Group since its inception in April 2000 to £70,000.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what analysis her Department has made of the progress the CITES Bushmeat Working Group has made in tackling the unsustainable bushmeat crisis. [101354]

  Mr. Morley
  We have analysed reports produced both by the CITES Bushmeat Working Group itself and by those attending meetings of the Working Group on behalf of this Department. From these we believe that, after a slow start, the Group is now making good progress towards its aim of establishing strategies to overcome the problem of unsustainable trade in bushmeat in Central and West Africa.

  The Group is highly committed and dedicated and has produced some useful work. In particular, it has completed an important study of laws and policies
  1292W
  across the sub-region in support of its specific objective to develop strategies for the sustainable use of bushmeat within a lawful legislative context. We believe this study will provide a valuable resource for all the countries of the region in their efforts to harmonise and strengthen controls.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which members of her Department will be attending the forthcoming CITES Bushmeat Working Group in Cameroon. [101328]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department will be represented at the next CITES Bushmeat Working Group meeting (in Douala, Cameroon, from 26 to 28 March) by Dr. David Brown of the Overseas Development Institute's Forest Policy and Environment Group.

  Dr. Brown co-authored the UK Government's 11 CITES Conference discussion paper "Bushmeat as a Trade and Wildlife Management Issue" (April 2000), which included the recommendation to establish a CITES Bushmeat Working Group. Dr. Brown also represented the Department at the Working Group's last meeting (in September 2002).

  Animal Rights
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions she has had with European Union colleagues regarding a European agreement on animal rights and treatment during transport; [100553]

  (2) what measures are in place to ensure that (a) the treatment of animals in transport is humane and that (b) animal rights are protected. [100552]

  Mr. Morley
  The 1997 Protocol to the Treaty of Rome recognises animals as sentient beings. As a result the European Union and member states must pay full, regard to animal welfare in formulating and implementing policy on agriculture, transport, the internal market and research.

  Animal welfare during transport is governed by directive 91/628/EEC, as amended, and implemented in Great Britain by the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, as amended. We have regularly pressed the European Commission to introduce proposals to update and revise the directive. They have indicated that they intend to do so later this year. We look forward to playing a leading part in negotiating a new directive.

  We have also had an active role in revising the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport

  Welfare of Hens
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what percentage of the eggs sold in the UK were produced in(a) free range systems, (b) barn systems and (c) cage systems in the last 12 months. [100378]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra does not hold this specific data. However, of egg packing station throughput in the UK in 2002, 23 per cent. came from free-range systems, 6 per cent. from barn systems and 71 per cent. from cage
  1293W
  systems. During the previous year (2001), 23 per cent. came from free-range systems, 5 per cent. from barn systems and 72 per cent. from cage systems.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what representations her Department is making to the European Union on the issue of enriched cages for egg laying hens; and if she will make a statement. [100374]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's policy on enriched cages has been subject to public consultation. A decision will be announced shortly.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many farms in the UK intensively produce eggs; and how many of these use the(a) barren battery cage system and (b) enriched cage system; [100376]

  (2) how many and what percentage of farms, in the last 10 years have intensively produced eggs in the UK. [100377]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra does not hold this data. However, in 2002, 71 per cent. of UK egg packing station throughput came from caged birds.

  Animal Cloning
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the relevance of the findings of the Banner Committee's report into the ethical implications of cloning animals. [100409]

  Mr. Morley
  In its 1995 Report on "Ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals", the Banner Committee concluded that the cloning of farmed livestock is ethically acceptable provided it is carried out within the welfare framework principles laid down in the report. The 2002 report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council "Implications of cloning for the welfare of farmed livestock" and the 2002 report of the Agriculture & Environment Biotechnology Commission "Animals & Biotechnology" endorsed the conclusions of the Banner Committee. The Banner framework principles are now required for cloning research in the UK. This reinforces the Government's view that all animals (whether domestic, farmed or used for scientific purposes) should be kept to the highest possible welfare standards.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans the Government has to review the findings of the Banner Committee's Report into the ethical implications of cloning animals. [100408]

  Mr. Morley
  The Report of the Committee to consider the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals (the Banner Report) was published in 1995. The Government has no plans to review its findings. The Farm Animal Welfare Council reported on the welfare implications of cloning farm animals and the Government response to their report was published on 7 August 2002 and is available on the Farm Animal Welfare Council web site www.fawc.org.uk. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission published a report on Animals and 1294W
  Biotechnology in September 2002, to which the Government responded last December. Both documents are available from the Commission's website www.aebc.gov.uk.

  Farm Subsidies
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial inducements the Government is offering to farmers to farm non-food crops on set-aside land. [100216]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the European Union's Arable Area Payments Scheme, farmers receive a compensatory payment for putting land into set-aside on condition that no agricultural activity or other lucrative use is carried out in the set-aside period. But, in recognition of the fact that non-food crops do not contribute to oversupply of the cereals market, the Scheme does allow a range of such crops, including energy crops, to be grown without loss of the compensatory payment.

  Farmers growing short rotation coppice and miscanthus as an energy crop on set-aside land may also qualify for the establishment grants available under the Energy Crops Scheme.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the cost to public funds of farm subsidies(a) in total and (b) per head of population in 2002–03. [100610]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra's budget for expenditure on farm subsidies in 2002–03 is as follows:

  (a) In total (£m)

  (b) per head of population (£)

  Direct aid payments in England

  1,334.3

  27.13

  England Rural Development Plan

  214.6

  4.36

  Over Thirty Month Scheme compensation (UK)

  253.7

  4.31

  Total

  1,802.6

  Note:

  The EU provides full or part funding for the above expenditure.

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is taking to encourage farmers to(a) reduce run-off and (b) store floodwaters on their land. [99784]

  Mr. Morley
  The effects of land use on flood run-off, particularly at catchment scales, are not well understood and Defra has commissioned a research project to review knowledge in this area and develop a clearly targeted programme of further research, which started in January 2003.

  This Department is supporting the introduction of Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) which the Environment Agency is planning to deliver for the whole of England and Wales over the next five to six years. These will consider the impact of future development, land use changes and climate change and

  1295W
  will explore the use of wetlands, washlands and flood storage areas in reducing flood risk to local communities.

  The government is currently piloting an Entry Level Scheme aimed at paying farmers for a range of simple, environmentally beneficial management measures across wide areas of the countryside. Due largely to the scientific uncertainties mentioned above, these pilots do not contain measures specifically intended to reduce run-off or to store floodwaters. The main Entry Level Scheme is due to be introduced in 2005, subject to the success of the pilot. It is possible that some water management measures may be included at that stage if they can be scientifically justified and shown to be cost-effective. It will however be important to ensure that they do not result in incidental damage to other environmental interests, such as archaeology.

  Many current flood alleviation schemes to reduce flood impact in urban areas rely on flood water storage on farm land. There is no automatic right to payment where land is naturally at risk of flooding and this risk will be reflected in the market price of the land and its pattern of use. Where changes to the flooding regime are made to benefit other areas then landowners/occupiers are entitled to compensation if they suffer any additional loss.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to transfer responsibility for critical ordinary water courses from internal drainage boards and local authorities to the Environment Agency. [99783]

  Mr. Morley
  A transfer of responsibility for critical ordinary watercourses from internal drainage boards and local authorities to the Environment Agency was one proposal considered during the recent review of the administrative and funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence. I am considering the conclusions of that review and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Environment Agency is taking to prevent flooding in Marlow and Medmenham. [101371]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: Following the flooding in January, the Environment Agency will be undertaking pre-feasibility studies to identify options for the alleviation of flooding in both Marlow and Medmenham. The Environment Agency have had discussions with residents of Medmenham at a public meeting and has met with Wycombe District Council to determine a joint approach for reducing flood risk in the area.

  If the pre-feasibility study identifies a technically, environmentally sustainable and economically viable solution for the flood risk area then a capital scheme may be initiated. As well as the provision of flood defences, options for reducing flood risk may also include improved maintenance regimes by riparian owners, local authorities or the Agency and/or an improved flood warning service.

  Mr. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how much of the additional funding for capital projects and studies for 1296W
  flood and coastal defence in 2003–04, announced on 12 February will be spent on (a) inland wet washland storage and (b) managed realignment on the coast. [100618]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: Defra will grant aid capital projects and related studies that meet specified economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve the threshold score of 22 for 03–04 under the Department's prioritisation system. Decisions regarding which flood and coastal defence projects to promote, their timing and appropriate solutions are matters for the operating authorities—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and (in areas with special drainage needs) internal drainage boards. It is therefore not possible to provide the information requested.

SOLICITOR GENERAL

  Cruelty to Animals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Solicitor General how many animals have been returned to their owners after the owner has been convicted of causing cruelty to that animal in the last year for which records are available; and what percentage of convictions this represents. [100355]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  These figures are not recorded.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Solicitor General what the Government's policy is on animals that have been mistreated being returned to their owners after a court case has convicted the owner of cruelty. [100354]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 there is provision for a court to make a deprivation and disqualification order in addition to any other punishment on conviction of cruelty.

  The use and effectiveness of deprivation and disqualificaton orders is currently being examined in the context of the preparation of an Animal Welfare Bill.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what discussions she has had with the Home Office regarding the central collection of domestic violence statistics; and if she will make a statement. [100964]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 March 2003, Official Report, columns 804–05W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Youth Justice
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 10–17 year olds in the last
  1297W
  two years for which data are available were sentenced by (a) magistrates' courts (b) a youth court and (c) a Crown court to (i) a secure training order, (ii) a young offender institution and (iii) a local authority secure unit. [100741]

  Juveniles sentenced to immediate custody, England and Wales, by type of court

  Secure Training Order1

  Detention and training order2

  Young Offender Institution3

  Detained under s90/92 PCC(S)A 20004

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  Magistrates' Courts

  6

  *

  161

  251

  54

  *

  *

  *

  Youth Courts

  77

  *

  3,741

  5,518

  1,096

  *

  *

  *

  The Crown Court

  2

  *

  1,172

  1,300

  523

  *

  582

  527

  Notes:

  1 Available to 31 March 2000, when replaced by detention and training orders.

  2 Available nationally from 1 April 2000.

  3 Replaced by detention and training orders from 31 March 2000.

  4 Sec 53 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prior to 25 August 2000 * = not applicable.

  Source:

  Home Office Court Proceedings database.

  The following table, compiled from Youth Justice Board data, shows the type of establishment in which juveniles sentenced to immediate custody were accommodated after sentence. Such information is not collected centrally by type of court.

  Juveniles sentenced to immediate custody, England and Wales, by type of establishment in which accommodated

  20001

  2001

  2002

  Secure training centre

  391

  471

  393

  Local Authority Secure Unit

  410

  599

  466

  Young Offender Institution

  5,679

  6,881

  5,766

  Note:

  1 From 1 April 2000.

  Source:

  Youth Justice Board.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100952]

  Beverley Hughes
  Smoking in the main Home Office buildings in central London is not permitted except in designated smoking rooms. The policy extends to other buildings outside central London, but is subject to local accommodation constraints for example, in rented buildings smoking may be banned by the landlord or major occupier.

  National No Smoking campaigns are regularly promoted. "Stop smoking" courses and displays have been held to help staff who wish to give up smoking.

  Angel Group
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the properties acquired by the Angel Group and its subsidiaries from Government departments and agencies and dates and costs of their acquisition. [99703]
  1298W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: The information contained in the table gives the number of juveniles sentenced to all forms of immediate custody in England and Wales in 2000 and 2001.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the Autumn.

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office has sold one property to the Angel Group. The Prison Service College in Love Lane, Wakefield was sold on 6 July 2001 at a price of £1,161,000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has not replied to the letter to him dated 15 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. Huda Abdulwahed. [100685]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 28 February 2003.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Criminal Records Bureau is processing Disclosure applications in Madras; and if he will make a statement. [100145]

  Hilary Benn
  Disclosure applications are not being processed in Madras, India. All Disclosure applications are processed at the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) sites at Liverpool and Darwen, Blackburn. The work being undertaken at Madras involves manual inputting of personal information such as name, date of birth and addresses during the past five years, provided by individuals on their application forms. This work is undertaken at the beginning of the process, and no information drawn from police sources or other data sources is involved.

  This arrangement was introduced as part of a package of measures to improve the performance of the CRB. It has proved highly effective in enabling large numbers of paper application forms to be processed, with timely, efficient and accurate data capture, and eliminating backlogs from this critical stage of the CRB process.

  The contractual provisions make it clear that the processing of data must be in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, and security and other arrangements must be such that they do not involve a material increase to the risk of misuse of data.
  1299W
  Before agreement was given for any data to be processed in India, the site was visited by senior officials from the CRB, who were fully satisfied that this was the case.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, columns 287–88W, on the Criminal Records Bureau, if he will place in the Library a copy of the CRB application form for (a) basic, (b) standard and (c) enhanced disclosures and the guidance notes for (i) before and (ii) after they were modified. [100164]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 6 February 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 February 2003, Official Report, column 403W.

  Deportations
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to permit airlines to refuse to accept passengers who are being deported or removed by order of the Government where such passengers cause disruption and distress to others; and if he will make a statement. [101398]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: It is the individual responsibility of the captain of an aircraft to have regard to the safety of all persons onboard and to refuse to accept passengers who may be a potential danger to the safety of the aircraft. Whilst the carrier has an obligation to accept removal directions lawfully given under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the legislation provides the defence of "reasonable excuse" for failure to comply with such directions.

  Hinton Hotel, Fareham
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people are registered at the Hinton Hotel, Fareham by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [101377]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: As at 5 March there were eight asylum seekers registered at the Hinton Hotel. They have all applied for support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). If eligible for support they will be dispersed, as soon as suitable accommodation is identified, to one of the designated cluster areas.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment he has undertaken of the risk of false conviction arising as a result of the implementation of Clause 81 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [100136]

  Hilary Benn
  Clauses 81 to 97 of the Criminal Justice Bill sets out a new statutory scheme for admitting evidence of a person's bad character. Clause 81 defines the range of evidence whose admissibility is to be determined under the new rules. It does not follow that any evidence that comes within this definition is admissible. But it does ensure that any such evidence can only be admitted under the Bill's scheme.
  1300W
  In terms of admitting evidence, clauses 83 and 84 set out, for non-defendants and defendants respectively, the circumstances in which evidence that falls under clause 81 can be admitted. These ensure that evidence will only be admitted where it will have a clear bearing on the issues in the case.

  The scheme includes a number of important safeguards. These include, in the case of defendants, the fact that evidence is to be excluded in appropriate circumstances if admitting it would adversely affect the fairness of proceedings. In applying this test, the courts will weigh the possible prejudicial effect of the evidence against its probative value and exclude the evidence where the likely prejudice would exceed it.

  The new rules will therefore assist juries and magistrates to reach proper and fair verdicts by enabling them to hear a wider range of relevant evidence while ensuring that evidence that is likely to be given too much weight or might distort a court's assessment of the issues is excluded.

  Electronic Data Services
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what IT contracts have been available to Electronic Data Services in respect of work on behalf of the prison service; and if he will make a statement. [99663]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service outsourced its Information Technology (IT) to Electronic Data Systems (EDS) with effect from 1 July 2000. Under the terms of the 12 year Agreement EDS is responsible for implementing a modern IT and telecommunications infrastructure. The contract also contains provision for IT enabled business change but any such projects are not guaranteed to EDS under its terms. The contract was awarded, following competitive tender, in February 2000.

  Schools (Terrorism)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedural advice has been issued to schools in London in the event of(a) a terrorist alert and (b) a terrorist attack. [100339]

  Mr. Blunkett
  All schools and Local Education Authorities in England have previously been made aware that they can access guidance on dealing with terrorism via the UK Resilience website www.ukresilience.info. Many local authorities have also issued guidance to schools in their area to assist in emergency planning.

  Government departments and the police are also working together to develop further public information to help people maintain vigilance and prepare for the consequences of terrorist acts. The aim of any agreed activity will be to increase public safety by providing a clear consistent and co-ordinated message. I announced on 3 March that I was setting up a new website www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism on which information of this kind will also be clearly available.

  Student Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many university students his Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98533]

  Hilary Benn
  The total number of university students supported or sponsored with a work placement by the Home Office over the last 12 months is 81.

  The Research Development and Statistics Directorate placed 26 research trainees for a period of 12 months.

  Two sandwich students were placed in the Commercial and Procurement Unit for six month placements:
  Two sandwich students were placed in the Police Scientific Development Branch at Langhurst for 12 months and one for six months.
  The Police Scientific Development Branch at Sandridge took on 22 sandwich students for a period of 12 months and three students for summer placements.
  In addition, 20 students were offered summer placements under the Summer Development Scheme and five students were sponsored under the Windsor Fellowship scheme.
  All the students were paid for the period of work. Sandwich students were paid at the Administrative Assistant rate, Summer Development Scheme student were paid at the Administrative Officer rate and Windsor Fellowship students are paid Executive Officer salaries as well as a £4,500 sponsorship fee.
  There is no Home Office specific policy on this matter, nor are there any plans to further develop existing schemes, or provide additional payments for university fees.
  The Home Department remains committed to supporting and encouraging work placements and to encouraging under-graduates to consider a career in the Civil Service.

  Community Sentences
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to engage magistrates, lay magistrates, youth magistrates and other sentencers in the(a) design, (b) implementation and (c) management of community sentences and other alternatives to prison. [98879]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Justice Bill extends the use of review courts from the drug treatment and testing order to the suspended sentence order, with further powers to introduce these for all community sentences in the future. Such courts provide sentencers with the opportunity directly to monitor an offender's progress. Sentencers will also engage closely in the use of all sentences through their representation on the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

  The need for strong and effective liaison generally between the Probation Service, youth offending teams and the courts is well recognised, and arrangements have been put in place to facilitate and promote joint working practices. Such work is designed to ensure that sentencers have a full understanding of the suitability of various community penalties and their effectiveness, and that the National Probation Service and youth offending teams understand the expectations of sentencers of the services they provide. A permanent
  1302W
  channel of communication is established through the appointment of a Sentencing Liaison Officer in each probation area, and continuous dialogue is encouraged on a local level through various mechanisms, including local criminal justice boards, and crime and disorder partnerships.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sales of heritage assets and antiques assets have been made by his Department since 1997; and if he will list such assets; and if he will estimate the total sales proceeds [92378]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department has made no sales of heritage or antique assets since 1997

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with European Union colleagues regarding a co-ordinated approach to(a) protecting child asylum seekers from exploitation and (b) identifying and assisting them in finding their families. [100317]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government has been instrumental in working to agree minimum standards for asylum seekers in Europe as a first step towards a common European asylum system.

  These measures include specific provision for the protection of child asylum seekers, including the allocation of responsibility to protect the interests of those asylum seeker children who arrive unaccompanied, as well as their appropriate accommodation.

  There is also a duty as far as possible to help unaccompanied asylum seeker children find their families.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will invite Ms MAA (A1161869) to attend the asylum screening unit in connection with her asylum application. [100289]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: A screening interview has been arranged for 10 March 2003.

  Women's Prisons
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of(a) suicide and (b) other self-harm there were in women's prisons in each of the last 24 months (i) in total and (ii) in each institution; and if he will make a statement. [101378]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The information requested is in the following tables. Since

  1303W
  1 January 2001, there have been 20 self-inflicted deaths of female prisoners (all those deaths where it appears the person may have acted specifically to take her own life).

  Self-inflicted deaths in female establishments: January 2001 to February 2003.

  2001

  2002

  2003

  April

  Aug

  Nov

  Jan

  Apr

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Jan

  Feb

  Total

  Brockhill

  1

  1

  2

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  1

  2

  Durham

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Eastwood Park

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Highpoint (Women)

  1

  1

  Holloway

  1

  1

  2

  New Hall

  2

  1

  3

  Styal

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Total

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  3

  3

  20

  Self-harm in female establishments: January 2001 to December 2002.

  2001

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  June

  July

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brockhill

  3

  6

  6

  11

  6

  10

  6

  23

  12

  11

  20

  19

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Cookham Wood

  1

  3

  3

  3

  4

  5

  2

  1

  4

  Drake Hall

  Downview

  Durham

  Eastwood Park

  7

  15

  10

  36

  12

  28

  25

  8

  8

  7

  43

  14

  Foston Hall

  2

  1

  Highpoint (Women)

  12

  10

  6

  18

  38

  25

  23

  11

  15

  20

  17

  21

  Holloway

  24

  18

  10

  20

  53

  36

  17

  34

  52

  70

  54

  155

  Low Newton

  1

  7

  11

  14

  8

  9

  11

  10

  11

  12

  14

  New Hall

  23

  22

  27

  27

  18

  41

  32

  40

  25

  20

  32

  21

  Send

  1

  1

  4

  1

  1

  4

  2

  1

  2

  Styal

  1

  1

  6

  2

  16

  12

  40

  17

  28

  13

  5

  14

  Buckley Hall

  Winchester

  Total

  75

  74

  73

  134

  162

  161

  156

  156

  155

  156

  185

  264

  Jan

  Feb

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  Total

  Askham Grange

  1

  0

  1

  Brockhill

  15

  17

  41

  46

  39

  23

  18

  24

  9

  18

  37

  88

  420

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  1

  0

  11

  Cookham Wood

  7

  14

  4

  3

  18

  10

  15

  1

  5

  6

  12

  4

  121

  Drake Hall

  1

  1

  1

  8

  3

  5

  5

  2

  4

  26

  Downview

  18

  18

  Durham

  10

  10

  Eastwood Park

  24

  17

  27

  21

  29

  25

  19

  44

  16

  33

  70

  14

  538

  Foston Hall

  11

  13

  16

  6

  12

  16

  15

  6

  9

  2

  2

  15

  111

  Highpoint (Women)

  19

  7

  10

  13

  18

  8

  16

  18

  26

  13

  14

  364

  Holloway

  111

  43

  91

  45

  67

  23

  47

  72

  82

  70

  66

  47

  1,260

  Low Newton

  13

  11

  13

  14

  34

  36

  36

  33

  33

  27

  31

  6

  389

  New Hall

  41

  20

  20

  21

  32

  19

  39

  25

  26

  22

  41

  42

  634

  Send

  5

  2

  2

  5

  2

  3

  2

  1

  3

  8

  42

  Styal

  9

  6

  3

  2

  2

  14

  37

  18

  5

  5

  2

  26

  258

  Buckley Hall

  23

  31

  25

  24

  35

  35

  138

  Winchester

  3

  3

  Total

  255

  151

  227

  176

  254

  168

  265

  278

  235

  239

  314

  334

  4,344

  The prison population, including the female estate, contains a large number of prisoners with a combination of psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug dependency, family background and relationship problems, histories of self-harm and previous abuse, all of which raise their risk of suicide and self-harm. Good care and support from staff saves many lives but such instances go largely
  1304W
  The available data on "self-harm" incidents includes both attempted suicides and self-harm (without suicidal intent) as it is difficult to measure suicidal intent.

  unreported. The Prison Service's approach, in close partnership with other agencies such as the Youth Justice Board, and outside organisations such as Samaritans, is to better identify and support those who seem at greatest risk, with an approach that focuses on staff/prisoner relationships and the physical environment.
  1305W
  The Prison Service has a duty of care to all prisoners in its custody, and recognises that self-harm is a particular problem amongst women offenders. The Prison Service is currently developing several interventions that may help female prisoners reduce and manage self-harm in prison. One such example is at Holloway prison, where all prisoners who have been identified as at risk of suicide/self-harm are offered individual crisis counselling. About 40 per cent. of prisoners take up the offer, while others may be referred to alternative sources of help within the prison. Staff report that following counselling women have shown increases in self-esteem, decreases in depression and are less likely to see suicide or self-harm as the solution to their problems.

  The Prison Service's suicide prevention and self-harm reduction programme (which applies to all prisoners, regardless of gender and age) includes a series of projects to improve pre-reception, reception and induction arrangements; the exchange of information; the care of prisoners; detoxification; prisoners supporting each other, and learning from investigations into deaths in custody.

  Prisons
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received in connection with London-based Prison Staff's remuneration; and if he will make a statement. [100233]

  Hilary Benn
  On 27 February 2003, the Prison Service Pay Review Body, whose remit covers in-charge governors and other operational managers and prison officer and related unified grades, announced its second set of annual recommendations for the remuneration of this group of staff. In making its recommendations, which have been accepted by the Prison Service, it has

  Vacancies by Prison or Young Offender (YOI) Institution on 31st December 2002

  Area

  Establishment

  Officers and Senior Operational Managers

  Other Staff

  East Midlands (North)

  Lincoln

  -10.0

  -16.5

  North Sea Camp

  —

  -3.0

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  Ranby

  —

  —

  Sudbury

  —

  -1.0

  Whatton

  -8.0

  -6.0

  East Midlands (South)

  Ashwell

  -13.0

  -14.5

  Gartree

  Glen Parva

  -13.5

  12.0

  Leicester

  —

  -3.5

  Onley

  -17.5

  -15.5

  Stocken

  —

  —

  Wellingborough

  -7.0

  -13.0

  Eastern

  Bedford

  -23.5

  —

  Blundeston

  -8.0

  -4.5

  Chelmsford

  -12.0

  —

  Grendon

  -20.0

  -10.5

  Highpoint South

  -8.5

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  -6.5

  -13.0

  Littlehey

  -7.0

  -10.0

  Norwich

  -4.0

  -10.0

  The Mount

  -7.0

  —

  Wayland

  -2.0

  —

  High Security Prisons

  Belmarsh

  -36.5

  -33.0

  Durham

  -3.0

  —

  Frankland

  -19.0

  —

  1306W
  taken on board the representations on local pay made to it by the Prison Service, the Prison Governors' Association, the Prison Officers' Association and the Public and Commercial Services Union.

  The Pay Review Body accepted the Prison Service's proposals for an increase to the local pay allowance scheme, which is extended to all Prison Service staff in London and the South East. The Pay Review Body has recommended that one of the four levels of the allowance be payable to all staff in these areas from 1 April 2003: £3,800 (relating to central London), £3,000, £2,500 and £1,100. These different levels of payment are made to prisons according to a variety of factors including evidence of recruitment and retention difficulties and the cost of living in the surrounding area. This allowance is paid in addition to the basic pay paid to all Prison Service staff nationally, and the amounts that have been set represent a substantial increase to the rates currently payable under the local pay allowance scheme.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there were at each prison or Young Offender's Institution on 31 December 2002; and if he will make a statement. [100232]

  Hilary Benn
  Shortfalls of staff against forecast needed at each establishment at that date are contained in the following table.

  A national recruitment campaign for prison officers was run during 2002 and resulted in the appointment of 1,562 new officers. In the last two months, a further 310 new officers were appointed and 116 other grades regraded. Provision for 2,200 training places has been made for the coming financial year. A high profile campaign is currently being run in the London area for prison officers and other continuing campaigns include the East Midlands and the female estate.
  1307W

  Vacancies by Prison or Young Offender (YOI) Institution on 31st December 2002

  Area

  Establishment

  Officers and Senior Operational Managers

  Other Staff

  Full Sutton

  -5.5

  —

  Long Lartin

  -14.0

  -3.0

  Wakefield

  —

  -3.0

  Whitemoor

  -59.0

  -28.5

  Woodhill

  -50.0

  -25.5

  Juvenile Establishments

  Huntercombe

  -

  -6.0

  Werrington

  -6.5

  -7.5

  Wetherby

  -5.5

  —

  Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  Blantyre House

  -1.0

  -1.0

  Canterbury

  —

  —

  Coldingley

  —

  -4.5

  Dover

  -5.0

  -13.0

  Elmley

  -1.0

  -17.0

  Ford

  -3.0

  -4.0

  Highdown

  -30.0

  -16.5

  Lewes

  -11.5

  -8.0

  Maidstone

  -2.5

  —

  Rochester

  -3.5

  —

  Standford Hill

  -13.0

  -9.5

  Swaleside

  -7.0

  —

  London

  Brixton

  -1.0

  -26.0

  Feltham

  -70.0

  -35.0

  Latchmere House

  -3.0

  -4.5

  Pentonville

  -9.0

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs

  -25.5

  -28.5

  North East

  Acklington

  -26.5

  —

  Castington

  -15.0

  -3.5

  Deerbolt

  —

  —

  Holme House

  -8.5

  —

  Kirklevington

  —

  —

  North West

  Buckley Hall

  -4.0

  —

  Garth

  -3.0

  -4.0

  Haverigg

  -5.5

  -2.0

  Hindley

  -28.5

  -11.0

  Kirkham

  —

  -3.0

  Lancaster

  -7.5

  -

  Lancaster Farms

  -6.5

  -19.5

  Liverpool

  -4.5

  —

  Manchester

  -3.0

  —

  Preston

  —

  —

  Risley

  -23.5

  —

  Thorn Cross

  -7.5

  —

  Wymott

  -4.0

  —

  South West

  Bristol

  -33.0

  -20.5

  Channings Wood

  -2.0

  —

  Dartmoor

  -

  -1.5

  Dorchester

  -2.0

  —

  Erlestoke

  -18.5

  -13.0

  Exeter

  -33.5

  -20.5

  Gloucester

  -6.0

  —

  Guys Marsh

  -5.0

  —

  Leyhill

  -3.5

  -5.5

  Portland

  -20.5

  -7.0

  Shepton Mallet

  -1.0

  —

  The Verne

  —

  —

  Weare

  -2.0

  —

  Thames Valley and Hampshire

  Albany

  -9.0

  —

  Aylesbury

  -8.5

  —

  Bullingdon

  -9.5

  -3.0

  Camp Hill

  -7.5

  —

  Haslar

  —

  —

  Kingston

  -1.0

  -1.0

  Parkhurst

  -12.0

  -11.0

  Reading

  -3.0

  -

  Wales

  Winchester

  -1.0

  —

  Cardiff

  -7.5

  -2.5

  Swansea

  -4.0

  —

  Usk/Prescoed

  -6.5

  -2.0

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  -13.0

  -7.0

  Blakenhurst

  -1.0

  -6.0

  Brinsford

  -5.5

  —

  1308W 1309W

  Vacancies by Prison or Young Offender (YOI) Institution on 31st December 2002

  Area

  Establishment

  Officers and Senior Operational Managers

  Other Staff

  Featherstone

  -1.0

  -6.0

  Hewell Grange

  —

  -6.0

  Shrewsbury

  -1.0

  —

  Stafford

  -4.0

  —

  Stoke Health

  -12.0

  —

  Swinfen Hall

  -1.5

  -5.0

  Women's Prisons and YOIs

  Askham Grange

  -1.0

  —

  Brockhill

  -3.0

  -8.0

  Bullwood Hall

  -16.5

  —

  Cookham Wood

  -13.5

  -2.0

  Downview

  -15.5

  —

  Drake Hall

  -7.5

  —

  East Sutton Park

  —

  -1.0

  Eastwood Park

  -13.5

  -2.5

  Foston Hall

  -0.5

  —

  Highpoint North

  -7.0

  -28.5

  Holloway

  -49.0

  -14.0

  Low Newton

  -16.0

  -11.0

  Morton Hall

  -5.0

  -3.5

  New Hall

  -20.0

  -10.5

  Send

  -13.0

  -9.5

  Styal

  -11.0

  -27.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Everthorpe

  -1.0

  -2.0

  Hull

  -9.0

  —

  Leeds

  —

  -7.5

  Lindholme

  -4.5

  —

  Moorland

  —

  —

  Northallerton

  —

  -1.0

  Wealstun

  -5.0

  —

  Total

  -1147.0

  -671.4

  Prisons (Muslims)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Her Majesty's Prison Service on the educational and religious needs of Muslims in prison; and if he will make a statement. [100585]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service keeps Ministers informed of its progress on improving religious provision for prisoners of all faiths, including Muslims.

  In discussion with the Advisory Council on Religion in Prisons, the Service has been devleoping a new grading structure for prison ministers which will allow ministers of all faiths to be employed on an equal footing. All Muslim prisoners have regular access to Imams. In prisons with the largest Muslim populations full-time Imams are now being employed. Eight full-time Imams are now in post and a further six are being recruited.

  The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit (PLSU) is improving education for prisoners so that prisons are better able to respond to the needs of the individual learner. All prisoners, regardless of their cultural background, are already required to have an individual learning plan based on a comprehensive assessment of need, with basic skills given priority. The PLSU is responding to the diverse needs of the prison population by developing a cultural studies programme for prisoners which will focus on aspects such as cultural beliefs and values and prejudice.
  1310W

  Holloway Prison
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) 15 year olds, (b) 16 year olds and (c) 17 year olds have been held at HMP/YOI Holloway since April 2001; what the length was of each detention; and if he will make a statement. [100236]

  Hilary Benn
  This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects children's visits to be reinstated at HMP/YOI Holloway; and if he will make a statement. [100234]

  Hilary Benn
  Children's visits will be reintroduced at Holloway as soon as there are sufficient staff in post to run them on a permanent and predictable basis. If current recruitment projections are realised, Holloway expects the reintroduction to take place in July of this year.

  Visits will be confined to a Saturday morning, however, they will take place every Saturday rather than on alternate weekends as was previously the case.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Resettlement programme to be reinstated at HMP/YOI Holloway; and if he will make a statement. [100235]

  Hilary Benn
  The Resettlement programme was introduced to Holloway in October 2002 and, despite significant staff shortfalls, the activity has been sustained in partnership with 11 outside agencies and local voluntary organisations. Initially run for a two-week period followed by a week's assessment and
  1311W
  refinement, the programme is now running continuously, although Holloway hopes to make significant improvements to the programme once full staffing has been achieved.

  Cruelty to Animals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what action his Department is taking to increase detection and prosecution rates for crimes against animals. [100358]
  1312W
  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of the review of animal welfare legislation leading to an Animal Welfare Bill we are considering measures to improve existing powers to investigate allegations of cruelty. We are also considering the introduction of more proactive legislation that allows earlier intervention where an animal is being kept in such a way that suffering is inevitable.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Energy
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
  The current British Energy ("BE") Credit Facility Agreement (CFA) came into effect in September 2002 and expires on 9 March 2003.

  In my statement to the House on 24 February, I confirmed that the Government would be prepared to continue to fund BE's operations while its restructuring plan was agreed and implemented, and that I was willing to extend the credit facility at a reduced level for a period after 9 March. In that statement, I also confirmed that I intended to apply for state aids approval from the European Commission for this continued financing as Restructuring Aid. This application is being sent to the Commission today.

  Sufficient proceeds have been received from the sale of BE's stake in Bruce Power to enable BE to repay all outstanding amounts under the credit facility (amounting to about £215 million including interest and commission) to my Department today. On a contingency basis, I have decided with BE's agreement, to continue the credit facility, with the maximum amount available being reduced from £650 million to £200 million.

  The credit facility will be extended to the earlier of 30 September 2004 or the date on which the restructuring plan becomes effective. The controls governing any drawings proposed by BE will remain in place. The credit facility will become repayable if certain milestones in the restructuring process are not achieved. We shall therefore continue to be ready with contingency plans for the administration of BE to ensure safety and security of supply.

  Energy Advisory Panel
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  As announced in the recently published Energy White Paper (Cm 5761) we propose to establish a Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board. Against this background we have reviewed the position of the Energy Advisory Panel.

  The Panel has provided very valuable assistance in our analysis of energy policy issues since it was established in 1993. This assistance has included advising Ministers direct as well as Departments. I am
  90WS
  particularly grateful for its recent expert help in advising us in relation to the analysis underlying the Energy White Paper.

  The Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board will advise the new Ministerial Group which will oversee the delivery of the commitments in the White Paper. The Advisory Board will be made up of senior, independent experts. It will provide the Ministerial group with a source of well-informed, independent advice on the approach and work of the network of departmental policy units involved in delivering the white paper. We shall be appointing members to the Advisory Board in due course.

  We therefore propose to wind up the existing Energy Advisory Panel and I am writing to the Panel members thanking them for their service.

TREASURY

  Finance Bill
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  It is expected that the Finance Bill will be published on Wednesday 16 April. Explanatory notes on the Bill's clauses will be available in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses on that day. Member of the public will be able to obtain copies of the Explanatory Notes from the Treasury; these will also be available on the Treasury's website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Asylum Support Service
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I have previously announced an independent review of the operations of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The independent Review has now been established with the following terms of reference:To review the organisation, management and staffing and expertise within NASS to identify changes necessary in the short to medium term to enable it consistently to achieve the appropriate standards of operational and administrative performance. Consideration of the staffing arrangements should include the balance between permanent, consultant and agency staff and the match between the skills of the staff and the job to be done, including the handling of complex and publicly sensitive projects and business. Consideration of the organisational arrangements should extend to relations with the remainder of IND, including whether tasks such as procurement should be centralised within IND and the linkage necessary between procurement and project terms.
  To submit a report, with recommendations, to the Minister of State responsible for immigration matters through the Director General of IND by the end of May 2003.

  The independent Review will be conducted by Gill Noble, CB, formerly Director, Law and Order, Health and Local Government, HM Treasury, Ernie Finch, formerly of Marks and Spencer plc and Alan Barnish, retiring Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire County Council.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

High Hedges Bill [H.L.]
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the High Hedges Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I reiterate my thanks to everyone whom I thanked at the last stage. I mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has worked tirelessly for a long time on this subject. I am also delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in the Chamber. She did so much when we had high hopes for the Bill, which we hope will now be realised.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Immigration: EUC Report
11.7 a.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmondrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee, A Common Policy on Illegal Immigration (37th Report, HL Paper 187, Session 2001–02).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to open this debate on an important and topical subject. I welcome the fact that it has been possible to schedule it promptly, albeit on a Friday, within a month of the Government's response to the committee's report. I thank them for that. It is important that our reports are debated promptly, particularly in a fast-moving area of policy like immigration.
Before I address the substance of the report's conclusions, I should like to thank those who contributed to it. I thank first the members of my committee, all of whom I made sure worked very hard; our witnesses, who gave a great deal of helpful evidence; those who assisted us on our very informative visits; and not least our distinguished specialist adviser, Professor Jorg Monar, co-director of the Sussex European Institute at the University of Sussex, who has assisted us in several other inquiries
1034
and has an unrivalled knowledge of the subject. I also wish to place on record the committee's most grateful thanks to Dr Valsamis Mitsilegas, our legal assistant, and Mr Tony Rawsthorne, our Clerk, who, as always, helped us tirelessly.
This is a large subject and a substantial report, with 22 conclusions and recommendations. I will not attempt to cover every aspect of it, but instead focus on some of the main themes. I shall first explain briefly the background to the inquiry, then describe our broad approach to the main underlying issues; identify the main points of disagreement with the Government—although there are many points where we are in broad agreement with them; and finally seek further explanation from the Minister on those points, and perhaps ask some questions about developments since the report was published.
I turn first to the background to the inquiry. I n 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam transferred the bulk of immigration and asylum matters into Community competence. Previously, they had been dealt with largely in the third pillar. A protocol to the treaty gave the United Kingdom the right to decide, in relation to each specific immigration and asylum measure, whether or not to opt into it. I shall return to that later.
Since Amsterdam, the European Commission has been seeking to construct, initially through a series of communications, a comprehensive policy on asylum and immigration. Some noble Lords may remember the committee's earlier report A Community Immigration Policy, which we debated two years ago. There have also been a series of reports on different aspects of asylum policy. The communication on which this inquiry is based—Proposing a common policy on illegal immigration—is the last major piece in the Commission's jigsaw in this area.
Three broad propositions underpin the report and its recommendations. First, illegal immigration presents a serious challenge to us all, and to all the member states of the European Union. It undermines policies governing the admission of legal immigrants; it creates insecurity among host communities; it attracts the increasing involvement of organised crime; and it can place illegal immigrants themselves in personal danger, and at risk of exploitat ion. We do riot underestimate its adverse effects, and in particular we do not subscribe to the laissez-faire approach advocated by some, that would leave immigration levels to be determined by market forces.
Secondly, illegal immigration will not be tackled effectively by control measures alone. There needs to be a comprehensive approach involving positive immigration measures and action with third countries as well as effective enforcement action. Immigration policy needs to be driven by labour market policy. As long as there is a significant unmet demand for labour, it will act as a strong pull factor for illegal immigrants. But if there are adequate legal avenues to fill identified labour shortages, there is much stronger justification for cracking down on illegal working, ready access to which is probably one of the main pull factors for illegal immigrants.

1035
The Government's current scheme to prevent illegal working is widely regarded as ineffective. Their proposals to tighten up the existing scheme are based on the idea of an entitlement card. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some indication of the Government's thinking on how they plan to take this forward now that the period of consultation is over.
Thirdly, no member state can tackle illegal immigration on its own. This is self-evident as far as the Schengen member states are concerned as they have removed the borders between them, creating in effect a large common travel area. But even for the United Kingdom, as we are seeing increasingly, retention of border controls with its immediate member state neighbours is no panacea. The United Kingdom, no less than other member states, should have a strong interest in a common response to what is clearly a common challenge.
I am grateful to the Government for their thoughtful and detailed response to our report. It indicates, as I hope the Minister would accept, that the Government are in broad agreement with the committee's general approach. In particular, they have shown commendable commitment to the principle of a comprehensive approach by a series of measures to facilitate legal migration in a number of sectors which are clearly set out at the beginning of their response. We welcome those measures. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide further details of schemes of managed migration that he announced last year. We should particularly like to hear more about not only the positive proposals as regards people with high skills and the seasonal agricultural workers' scheme, but also about the low-skill areas.
Before examining some of those issues in more detail I should say what the report is not about. In particular, contrary to much of the press reporting when it was published, it is not about asylum. There is, of course, a connection between immigration and asylum. But we were at pains in our report to distinguish clearly between the two phenomena and emphasise that our report was concerned with illegal immigration. Asylum is an issue in its own right which should not be confused with illegal immigration. We made no recommendations about the Government's handling of asylum applications or the rate of removals of failed asylum seekers and were surprised to read in some press reports that we had.
The most substantial difference between the committee and the Government concerns the extent of the Government's commitment to a common policy on immigration and asylum. As I said earlier, we believe that the case for a common and comprehensive EU policy on immigration is irrefutable. The Government claim to be fully committed to a common EU policy, and in relation to some aspects of policy, that cannot be gainsaid. The Government signed up to the Council action plan on illegal immigration in February 2002; and at the Seville European Council last June, the Prime Minister took
1036
a strong and largely successful initiative to put the fight against illegal immigration at the top of the political agenda.
But the Government's commitment is very partial. It is strongly skewed towards action on enforcement measures. Our contention is that a balanced approach, embracing positive immigration measures as well as enforcement measures, is an indispensable prerequisite of a common policy. It is difficult to see how the Government can genuinely subscribe to a common policy when they remain so strongly attached to the opt-outs that they secured at Amsterdam in 1997.
There are two relevant protocols to the Treaty of Amsterdam, and it may be helpful to explain their effect briefly, as in defending their position the Government do not seem always to distinguish sufficiently clearly between them. The first protocol settled a long-running dispute about the United Kingdom's retention of systematic controls at its borders with other member states in the face of the obligation to respect the free movement of persons in Article 7a of the EC Treaty. This protocol specifically authorises the United Kingdom (and Ireland) to retain immigration controls at its frontiers with other member states. The second protocol enables the United Kingdom and Ireland to choose on a case by case basis whether or not to opt into measures relating to visas, asylum and immigration in Title IV of the treaty.
The effect of those two protocols is quite distinct although sometimes the Government seem to present them as mutually interdependent. The first protocol concerns the mechanism by which the entitlement or qualification of a person seeking to enter the country is checked. For the Schengen member states that check now takes place at the external border of the European Union. The second protocol is largely concerned with the qualifications for entry of third country nationals. It covers the whole range of Title IV measures, which, in relation to immigration, include common rules for the EU visa regime and for the admission of different categories of third country nationals, such as visitors, students and people coming for work or self-employment.
Signing up to measures in Title IV would not prejudice the maintenance of frontier controls at the UK's internal borders. Although enthusiastically opting into Title IV measures relating to illegal immigration, the Government have consistently declined to opt into positive measures on immigration. It is difficult to see how a genuine commitment to a common EU policy can be reconciled with declining to opt into measures relating to, for example, the admission of third-country nationals for work and self-employment, the admission of students, and the protection of victims of trafficking—all recent examples—not to mention the common visa list.
Those are all measures in which the Government have decided not to participate. In the past, the committee has expressed its opposition to the United Kingdom's opt-out from the Schengen system and the maintenance of its internal frontier controls. We

1037
realise that that is a matter on which the Government are unlikely to change their views in the near future, but we would urge them to think again about their negative attitude to Title IV measures, and I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort on that point.
I would like to draw attention to the paucity of data on illegal immigration. As our report described, there are no figures indicating the scale of illegal immigration in the United Kingdom, not even a rough estimate. It is by definition difficult to measure illegal activity, but the Government's own response indicates that in some member states there are at least official estimates. If the United Kingdom and the EU as a whole are to develop effective policies to combat illegal immigration. it is essential that they have better data on the scale of the problem.
We were pleased to hear that the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate was undertaking research in that area. It has already done excellent work on the economic effects of immigration, and we look forward to the results of the further work that is in hand. I should be grateful for any indication that the Minister can give us of its emerging findings, and of when we might expect to see the results of its research.
A proposal in the Commission's communication relevant to the issue was the establishment of a European migration observatory. We warmly endorsed that suggestion, and were disappointed that the Council of Ministers seemed lukewarm towards it. In the Government's response to our report, they explained that a start had been made by setting up a "virtual" network of research, with statistical experts from each member state to share information. I suppose that that is better than nothing, but, as illegal immigration is clearly not a "virtual" phenomenon, it cannot be a substitute for a dedicated EU research and information facility. Given the work that the Home Office has done on the matter, it would be well placed to make a major contribution to such a body.
Another issue which I would like to develop is what our witnesses tended to describe as the "regularisation" of illegal immigrants—the granting of legal status, sometimes in the form of an amnesty, to some categories of long-resident illegal immigrants. The committee did not make a firm recommendation on the matter, contrary to press reports which claimed that we had recommended amnesties for asylum seekers. We did not underestimate the importance of avoiding action that might give encouragement to future illegal immigrants, but we drew attention to what is potentially a very serious problem.
The Government concede that they cannot currently remove more than a small minority of those identified as illegal immigrants. They have abandoned their target of removing 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year, and that is only one of several categories of illegal immigrants. Despite the lack of statistics, there is little doubt that there is a large and rapidly growing population of illegal immigrants in this country. If the Government are unable to remove them and are unwilling to consider any form of regularisation except
1038
after 14 years' residence, as the Minister suggested in the Government's response, we are building up a serious social problem of people who have long residence in this country but have no rights and are vulnerable to exploitation and penetration by crime.
The committee did not underestimate the difficulty of dealing with that problem, but we were clear that it needed to be addressed. I would welcome some indication from the Minister that the Government appreciate the dangers of effectively leaving large and increasing numbers of people in limbo indefinitely.
Finally, I will say a few words about the criminal aspects of illegal immigration. Those are most definitely not to be underestimated. Organised crime is now heavily involved in people smuggling and trafficking, as evidence that we received from Europol and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. among others, highlighted. That is an area where there is a great need for close co-operation between law enforcement agencies across the EU and beyond, and for a significant involvement of Europol and Eurojust as the key European agencies.
We were pleased to find that the United Kingdom, particularly through NCIS, was making a major contribution to that co-operation and we congratulate NCIS on that. However, we were concerned about some aspects of the domestic situation. We drew attention to Operation Wisdom, which has uncovered identity theft on a large scale. That problem is very much in the news at present following Mr Bond's arrest and detention in South Africa as a result of his identity being stolen. However, there have not been sufficient resources to follow up all the cases identified.
We were also concerned at what appeared to be a lack of priority given to serious immigration crime by some major urban police forces. The Government's response indicates that they are taking some steps to rectify the situation and I hope that the Minister can give us some further reassurance this morning.
I am very much looking forward to hearing the views of other speakers in the debate, and the response of the Minister. I beg to move.
Moved. That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee; A Common Policy on Illegal Immigration (37th Report, HL Paper 187, Session 2001–02).—(Baroness Harris of Richmond.)
11.27 a.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, who has opened the debate so well. I was not a member of the sub-committee that produced the report, although I am happy to be so now and to endorse its main conclusions. It is obvious that illegal immigration is a major challenge to the United Kingdom and to all other member states of the European Union.
It is a good idea, not least for the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and other ill-informed newspapers, that we make what we are talking about clear. The report is about illegal immigration and, as the noble Baroness

1039
said, not about asylum seekers or refugees. Asylum is a separate issue, although clearly there is a link. The confused and thoughtless newspapers—I am being generous to the Daily Mail in particular—are unhappily unable or perhaps unwilling to distinguish the difference. I hope that they will get around to it, the better to discourage the community-splitting impact of the British National Party and other racists who feed on such inaccurate reports.
There are millions on the move in our world today. Our world is much smaller in terms of ease of travel, although most of those millions leave one poor country for a poor neighbour, because that is as far as their feet will take them. However, it is no surprise that those in poorer and not yet developed countries should seek a better life for themselves and their families in the developed world. The pull of the chance of a better life elsewhere is understandable, and why not in the country whose vast empire offered English as a major international language and had a proud record of tolerance?
Illegal immigration has a darker side. When, in this Parliament, we killed the slave trade, we never knew that it would be reborn in the people traffickers who, for the right price, smuggle those with enough cash across half a world into the UK and other parts of Europe. That is why, as the report states, the UK and the rest of the European Union need a clear immigration policy to offer jobs and prospects to those who, because of our ageing working population, we need. The short point is that we want to welcome people, whose skills and talents we need, through the front door rather than helping the people smugglers to get them in the back door, and then to help them to claim asylum.
I welcome the Government's response to the report where it states that they want to open up legal migration routes for those who want to come to do the work that we need to be done. That must be done across the whole of Europe because no one country can do it alone. In a couple of sentences I believe that the policy should be, "Welcome when you have the skills and talents we need; when you don't we will gear EU aid to assist your country's development".
I want to raise some specific issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, referred to the issue of entitlement cards. The idea of an entitlement card for people living here was first floated by the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place, which I was pleased to chair. It was not meant to be an identity card by another name, which the police could demand to see. It was meant as a passport to entitlement to work and welfare benefits to help those here who were being exploited, often by those in their own communities. It would be useful if the Minister could say where the Government are with that suggestion and whether and when it might be introduced, especially as the consultation period is over.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, complained that there are no figures indicating the scale of illegal immigration into the UK. I take her point, but I rather think that that is not the issue. It is not so much a
1040
question of counting what cannot easily be counted as trying to stop illegal immigration happening in the first place. What matters is that we and other countries in the European Union have a clear and known policy on immigration so that separately and jointly we can work to put the people traffickers out of business. There is a welcome and increasing co-operation between present and future EU member states in which the UK is heavily and properly involved, the better to manage our borders. This week, on a very cold afternoon, the committee was able to see examples of such co-operation between the German and Polish authorities on an important border at Frankfurt and Oder.
I question the report's assertion that there is a large and rapidly growing number of illegal immigrants. The committee may have forgotten its own injunction clearly to understand the distinction between illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. But let me quickly add that any rise in illegal immigration stores up problems for people with no rights and makes them vulnerable to exploitation both by criminals and those who would cheat them over their wages.
I am glad that the Government accept the report's call to develop routes for legal migration. The better we do that, the better we counter the people smugglers. I say again, "Come in through the front door, not the back door". The report backs UK participation in the EU's common visa list. I am with the Government when they say that that would not be consistent with us having control over who should be admitted to the United Kingdom. We should co-operate, as we do, on the better management of ELJ borders, but I believe that it is right that we should maintain controls of our own.
I turn to recommendations that the EU should do more to help countries of origin of illegal immigrants and transit countries. That is part of our shrinking world. I welcomed the Government's support for that at last June's European Council. That led to member states agreeing a list of source and transit countries where better co-operation will help us all. The plain fact is that neither the UK nor the EU can solve the economic social and political problems which drive those seeking a better life to become illegal immigrants. We can and should, through the EU and UN, help to aid and encourage the development of their countries and encourage them to he part of that.
For at least two centuries our country has been refreshed and reinvigorated by those from other countries who bring their skills and talents to us. We need them still. But let us have policies which aid development in their own countries—those which need it—helping them to help themselves, while we continue to welcome those who can help us to succeed, which in turn helps the developing world.
11.35 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, the Select Committee's excellent report underlines the importance of not isolating illegal immigration from the wider issues regarding immigration as such,

1041
including legal immigration—the noble Baroness touched on that—and its effects on the economy and society generally.
For any government, surely the point of departure on immigration policy must be the security and prosperity of those who already live here. That needs to include procedures for ensuring that those who are a danger to peace or to public order are not admitted. It needs also to include the safeguarding of conditions of service for existing workers so that those cannot be undercut by the employment of new arrivals.
I believe that the question of immigration should be set in the wider context of freedom of movement. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, just touched on that. One of the reasons for increasing emigration to the EU is that it is becoming forbidden fruit, thus making it more attractive. That is a thought for Lent. Better provision for youth and student exchanges, facilities for relatives visiting those here already and even well-regulated tourist arrangements for the growing middle classes in developing countries will all help to reduce the perception of a fortress Europe.
At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, stated, every country needs the fresh blood, new ideas and entrepreneurial flair which legal migration can and does bring. In addition, the ageing populations of most EU countries, noted in the report, also require a labour force which will be sufficient not only for social and service sector needs but also fiscally in terms of the revenue needed to maintain welfare provision. The emphasis in the report on the benefits of legal migration is therefore most welcome. Naturally, such migration will have to be regulated in terms of the needs of the labour market, and with an awareness of the limitations of the social infrastructure. Cultural factors, especially the ability of existing communities to welcome newcomers, will have to be taken into account, as will a willingness to adapt and contribute to society on the part of those who desire to come here. There can be no opting out.
I believe the report to be mistaken in the view expressed at paragraph 88 that, global economic disparities being what they are, economic assistance 'would not contribute much to reducing illegal immigration. Generally speaking, people are not seeking parity with western living standards, especially if measured in strictly economic terms rather than more general terms of well-being. What they seek is political stability, government by consent, a fair price for what they produce and a just wage. Many of those needs can be addressed by carefully targeted assistance, the removal of unreasonable tariffs and encouragement to fair trade.
Paragraph 29 of the report states that EU countries do not regard themselves as "countries of immigration". I wonder what that means. Whatever it may mean, certainly they are countries of emigration. Hundreds of millions of people from these countries have settled in other parts of the world during the course of history. Many still spend a major part of their working lives in countries outside the EU. Surely, that demands some reciprocity of hospitality. I fear
1042
that a common immigration policy will discourage those countries that are more receptive to reasonable levels of immigration and will whip them into line on the negative repressive policies of which the report speaks in paragraph 58 and elsewhere.
I return to where I began. There can he no free-for-all. Every government have a responsibility for stability, order and prosperity within their own borders. But those need to be approached with enlightened self-interest, where legal migration is concerned. We must show compassion for those who are genuinely fleeing persecution—and therefore asylum cannot he wholly isolated from other aspects of immigration—and humane treatment, which the report commends, even for those who are here illegally, while being tough on those who traffic in human beings.
The EU's immigration policy, whatever it may become, should not extinguish traditions of welcome and hospitality; nor should it isolate the EU from the world roundabout, on which much of its prosperity may depend.
11.41 a.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I regard it as a privilege to have been involved in the production of this report. If one reads the tabloid press—or, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, "the ill-informed press"—one could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that illegal immigration was a problem that affected this country only. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, was ofcourse right to give priority to one of the broad perspectives that underpin our report; namely that illegal immigration presents a serious challenge to all the member states of the European Union.
It is for that reason that I particularly welcome the significant effort that the Government are giving to enhance co-operation with our partners in the European Union. Since our failure to opt into all aspects of Title IV measures may have given the contrary impression—and I was one of the majority on our committee who regretted the Government's continued attachments to the "opt-outs" which they secured in Amsterdam in 1997—it may be worth briefly mentioning some of the projects related to illegal immigration in which the Government are taking an active part and which have been reported to us by the Home Office in the context of our current scrutiny into proposals for a European Border Guard.
British immigration officers have participated in joint operations on both the German/Polish and the Austrian/Slovakian borders to exchange best practice in controlling illegal immigration at an operational level. British vessels were involved in a multinational project at the end of January to track vessels in the Mediterranean that might be carrying potential illegal immigrants. An initial planning meeting was held in November, with nine other participants, to pursue a British initiative to pool our expertise in detection technology, some aspects of which we had an opportunity to see during the committee's visit this week to the German/Polish border. There is also a

1043
British project aimed at detecting the movement of ships or boats carrying clandestine migrants from the eastern Mediterranean. Those are only a few of the current multinational projects to reduce what the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, referred to as the large and rapidly growing population of illegal immigrants in this country.
When our committee visited Sangatte last year, we discovered that a large proportion of those hoping to get to this country were from Iraq, not because of the supposed level of benefits and grants available here but because most of them wished to join relatives and friends in this country and because their second language was English.
I have referred on other occasions to the strong likelihood that a military attack on Iraq could lead to a further flood of refugees from that suffering country. I hope that the Government are actively considering ways in which the international community could ensure that the flood was controlled and compassionately managed. Iraq is, of course, one country with which, in present circumstances, readmission agreements are not feasible.
I commend to your Lordships that part of our report in which we speak of readmission agreements as an important element in an effective policy towards illegal immigration. In that context, perhaps I may welcome our participation in a French initiative to improve rational procedures for repatriation.
Our report emphasises that arrangements for readmission and repatriation should not focus solely on the penalties that might be applied to countries of origin, but should also identify incentives to encourage third countries to co-operate. In that connection, experience shows that carrots can often be more effective than sticks.
11.46 a.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I first declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Britain in Europe campaign. It has been a great privilege to be a member of the sub-committee that produced the report, which was admirably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.
I am still learning an enormous amount. I was very interested to read the earlier Commission documents on which the report built—the Commission communication and the more recent action plan. They suggested a new approach to immigration involving a more flexible and proactive policy generally. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Wright, I regret the UK Government's opt-outs on these issues. There is now a very positive attitude as we in the UK respond to the changing economic and demographic needs of our country along with our member state partners.
In the past decade illegal immigration was identified as a growing problem with extremely negative implications for national labour markets and internal security. There is a growing recognition of mutual interdependence of the EU member states. And of
1044
course the UK is not in any way immune from that need. In fact, some of the "pull factors" are increasing the numbers wishing to come to the UK compared with other member states: our common language, the ability of many people from other third countries to use English, and its value as a means of getting work. There are fewer controls in obtaining work in this country than in many other EU countries. Furthermore, there are often established communities and families here, which makes it much easier for people to settle.
However, the research that has been undertaken has found that most migrants to this country want to find a job although they do not want to be detected, and they find it easier here than in many other member states. Dr Sciortino from the University of Trieste, one of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, said:
"Most illegal migration is, from the economic point of view, simply a labour migration not approved of by the government".
It is on such people that I wish to concentrate my brief remarks.
Of course we all recognise the drawbacks, the costs and indeed the dangers of illegal immigration. We worry about our own unskilled jobseekers. We worry about lower standards of employment and wages. We worry about the numbers of others who might be brought over and the encouraging of organised crime. We know that too many illegal immigrants can increase the racist attitudes and negative views of people who feel threatened in this country. But making a specific number of economic migrants legal would be a sensible and realistic option to deal with some of those problems. I am pleased that the Government are actively considering that, along with their welcome determination to adopt a comprehensive approach and to work with other EU member states to deal with the problem.
In present circumstances, all migrants are at risk of being labelled asylum seekers, which is no longer something of which to he proud. It has become a disparaging description, whereas this country's admirable tradition of welcoming refugees and people seeking asylum is one of which we can be justly proud, and which has enriched our society in social as well as economic terms.
Economic migrants are often lumped together with serious criminals, smugglers and traffickers. But, as our chairman said when introducing the debate, our policy needs to be driven by the needs of the labour market. A comprehensive and pro-active approach by the Government, together with close co-operation in working practice with our European partners, are the only positive ways forward. Such an approach, together with strong measures to deal with current and future illegal immigrants as quickly as they arrive, although it will pose an undeniably difficult set of problems for the Government and public authorities generally, is the only way forward. Much work is also needed to inform the public and educate us all about the valuable work that economic migrants perform and to think about them in positive rather than negative ways.
11.52 a.m.>
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond on the incredible amount of work that she carried out to produce the report. I was a member of the committee at the time and was able to observe at first hand just how much work and commitment many members of the committee devoted, most of them rather more than I was able. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on their contributions.
The report is vital and will he kept as a research document for many years to come. I welcome many aspects of the Government's response to it. Introducing the debate. my noble friend set out three broad propositions, The first was that the committee did not subscribe to a laissez faire approach to immigration—merely leaving it to be tackled by the market. In today's world, with its huge disparities of income, wealth and power between different parts of the world and different countries within them, it is impossible to remove all immigration and migration controls and expect things to be okay.
In an increasingly globalised world, with an increasingly liberalised world economy and in which modern communications of all kinds are increasingly globalised and easy. it is unrealistic to expect that people can be permanently excluded from the global economy and society. By definition, economies and societies comprise people. So when we talk about controls on people moving freely around the world, we are discussing the short and medium term, not the long term. Not only ought they not to exist for the long term, it will be impractical for them do so if the world is to become a stable and civilised place.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, talked about the global economy and modern communications. There are two aspects to modern communications. The first is that of physical communication. Since the days when Mungo Park, Livingstone and company went plodding around Africa on foot, it has become easier to get from Kano to London, London to Kano or anywhere in Europe to anywhere in Africa and back. That now takes a matter of hours rather than months or years. The changes in communications during the past 150 years have been extraordinary and show no sign of slowing down. The fact that people can move around the world so much more easily and faster will remain.
The second, equally important aspect of communications is the fact that information is nowadays communicated virtually instantaneously from almost anywhere to almost anywhere else. One can be walking across the south polar icecap and maintain communication with someone sitting in a council flat in Aberdeen. It was not long ago when people walking across the south polar icecap by definition cut themselves off from the rest of the world for months on end.
People living in an Indian village now have access via satellite television to almost any television programme anywhere in the world. That also applies
1046
to migrant communities. People had to wait weeks for a letter to come to and from this country if, for example, they were part of the British administration in India—part of the Raj. Then we had the wireless, then radio and then television. Nowadays we have an astonishing variety of communications, not least the Internet. Who knows what communications will be like in even 10 or 20 years' time? The speed of change is so great.
That is vital to the argument about migration because it means that, for example, a migrant community that may be of first, second, third or more generation, living in a European city can daily receive television by satellite from the country from which they, their parents or grandparents came.
So not only are migration and communication much easier than they used to be, but global society is increasingly multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-layered. On the one hand, people are global citizens and have families, friends and business partners in all parts of the world. On the other, people are still trying to control the movement of others in an old-fashioned manner. There is bound to be conflict. When people ask what is the cause of illegal immigration, it is at one level possible to say that it is immigration controls. If migration was freely available to anyone throughout the world, there would by definition be no illegal immigration.
Governments throughout the world act in the short and medium term to try to manage a difficult situation by erecting controls. Those inevitably create a black market and all its disadvantages, such as illegal traffickers. In the short and medium term, we must manage the situation as reasonably and humanely as possible. We must accept that that will often lead to individuals being put in difficult circumstances because the rules prevent them from entering to live with their families. We must find a way of stopping migrants from coming in, or of finding those who have come in and sending them back. It will lead to much heartache and many difficulties, particularly in the relationship between migrant communities and everyone else.
I have spoken generally and tried to put the issue in its long-term context. Forty years ago, when I was a young lad, I used to think that by the time I died such problems would be sorted out and we would live in a wonderful, liberal world. It is now clear that it will riot happen by the time that I die. In many cases, some of us are trying to stop matters getting worse rather than make them better. Nevertheless, we should have an eye to the long term as well as the short term.
Forty or 50 years ago, who would have thought that today there would be free movement of people within the 15 countries of the European Union, which is soon to expand by another eight, nine or more. That has been a revolution within Europe. Fifty years ago, people would not have talked about a fortress Europe, as the right reverend Prelate did; they would have talked about fortress countries. Previously, a holiday in Europe that involved crossing many frontiers was a nightmare, given the number of checks that had to be made. In this country there are no checks at all.

1047
The European Union is about to expand to include eastern European countries. My noble friend Lord Avebury has pointed out the absurdity of this country putting resources into stopping, for example, Roma people from the Czech Republic and Slovakia coming to this country, when in two or three years' time they will be able to come as of right. We must continue to seek to expand the European Union.
In her excellent introduction to the report, my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond asked the Government about the proposed schemes for managed migration. There is a general consensus that, if we can manage legal migration for people who have secured jobs here and can work here, illegal immigration may ease. None of us knows if it will ease the situation, but common sense suggests that it should do and that, if we need labour from abroad, the process should he managed sensibly and legally. I reinforce the request to the Minister for information on the matter.
The noble Baroness also asked for the Government's views on regularisation. It is an extremely difficult question for many reasons. Those of us in close contact with ethnic minority communities of first, second and third generation immigrants know that they include many who have entered on short-term visas and overstayed, in particular, and others who have entered illegally. It causes huge difficulties, not least because it is one of the reasons that co-operation between members of those communities and the police is often not as forthcoming as it might be. If a member of someone's extended family is living here illegally on the same street, he will be less forthcoming to help the police if a burglary, petty arson or stabbing occurs on the street for fear that the illegal immigrant might be uncovered. People in ethnic minority communities do not like to talk about it, but we all know that it happens. The problem of immigrants living here indefinitely and in limbo for long periods is difficult but should be tackled. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says.
Nobody knows how many illegal workers there are in this country or in the rest of Europe. The German Minister suggested that there were several hundred thousand in Germany, but some believe that there are up to one million there. Nobody will guess how many there are in this country, but we all know that the number is quite large, particularly in catering and construction and in illegal trades such as prostitution, including child prostitution.
One of the issues that emerged from the Committee inquiry was the substantial amount—according to the National Crime Squad—of illegal immigration of women and children as sex slaves. We were told that the same couriers enter the country week after week bringing different children on passports from Africa. We were told that the Immigration Service knew who those people were and what they were doing but did nothing about it. A substantial clampdown on the trade is needed. It would be good if the tabloid press, to which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred, paid
1048
more attention to such activity rather than to asylum seekers, who, whether justified or not, come here for legitimate personal reasons.
I conclude by congratulating my noble friend on the report and her presentation. I thank the support staff who helped to produce it and look forward to the Government's reply.
12.7 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I. too, thank the Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. I agree that illegal immigration is a major challenge to all EU member states. It undermines policies governing the admission of legal immigrants; it acts as a pull factor for further illegal immigration; it creates insecurity among host countries; and it attracts increasing involvement of organised crime, on which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made important comments. In addition, it leads to the exploitation of illegal immigrants themselves; it provides opportunities for organised crime involving the smuggling and trafficking of people and the provision of slave labour, and, over the past decade, it has been identified as a serious and growing problem in nearly all member states. As noble Lords have observed, it has risen to the top of the agenda in this country.
I agree with the three basic assumptions about illegal immigration that underpin the Commission's communication. They are: first, that illegal immigrants should not be considered as a pool to meet labour shortages; secondly, that illegal immigration has an internal security dimension; and, thirdly, that illegal entry or residence should not lead to the desired stable form of residence. I shall return to that theme, in particular, at the end of my remarks.
The committee points out that several factors make the UK attractive to illegal immigration; in particular, our language, employment availability and a lower level of control by public authorities on access to work and public services. The Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord. Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, drew attention to the issue of entitlement cards. I would be grateful if the Minister would expand on the comments made in his letter of 28th January to the Chairman on the issue of entitlement cards and the role that they might play in dampening our attraction to illegal immigrants.
I share the committee's concern about evidence given by the immigration crime team at Heathrow that, in many major smuggling or trafficking operations, there may be an element of corrupt collusion by some of those employed at airports or ports of entry. Does that mean UK ports and airports? If so, what action has the Home Office taken, on the basis of that evidence?
The committee is right to draw attention to the importance of the work of Europol and Eurojust. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, properly referred to that in her opening speech. We have also referred to it during our consideration of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill over the past couple

1049
of months. I am also interested in the committee's recommendation that large urban forces in the UK should establish specialised units for serious immigration crime. Will the Minister give us some up-to-date information on Reflex?
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Attlee, who has been called up to serve in the Gulf, I shall draw attention on his behalf to the recommendation on carriers' liability in paragraph 80. It seems a practical suggestion to let the recent legislation bed down before further measures can be justified. The Minister's letter to the Chairman suggests that the Government agree with that view, and I would like the Minister to confirm that.
I disagree with the conclusions in paragraphs 54, 56 and 61. I support the view of my noble friends Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach and Lady Knight of Collingtree. The report goes too far towards harmonisation and a common policy, instead of seeking what I consider to be the preferred route of cooperation in such matters. In particular, I support the Government's decision not to participate in the common visa list. Unlike members of the committee who have spoken today, I agree with the comment made by the Minister in his letter to the Chairman that participation would not be consistent with the principle of maintaining control over policy on who should be admitted to the UK. I hope that the Minister will continue to adopt that robust response.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, the Chairman of the committee, made the central point that one should not equate illegal immigration with asylum seeking. Several noble Lords made that vital point. However, in paragraph 13. the report recognises the fact that, in practice, there is an overlap. That problem has bedevilled the UK Government's attempts to provide an effective and fair system of asylum in the past couple of decades.
The Government have made the problem worse because of the nature of the agreement that they reached with the French on the closing of Sangatte. That agreement will provide hundreds of asylum seekers with work permits and transform them overnight into legal economic migrants. Effectively, the position of that group was regularised. Under what rules or powers was that decision made, in the absence of any evidence from employers that they needed the services of those particular asylum seekers? How many other applicants for asylum or immigration who did not come from Sangatte have been granted work permits without needing to show that an employer has shown a need for their services? We may be discriminating unfairly against the asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who are in our country now.
The Home Secretary's pronouncements since the agreement on Sangatte make it look as though the Government are trying to solve their failure to sort out the processing of applications for asylum by shifting the applicants to another category. I hope that that is not the case, but if it is, the Home Office should say so clearly. That would enable grown-up debate. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle
1050
Vale, that there is no use the papers getting into a tantrum about the issue; there must be grown-up debate.
We had a debate about managed migration last summer. On these Benches, we made it clear then, as we make it clear now, that we support a sensible approach. My right honourable friend Oliver Letwin has developed that theme in recent weeks and has made it clear that we should study policies throughout the EU and beyond to ensure that we take a proper quota of refugees. We must have constructive policies on managed migration, to ensure fair treatment of all.
I was intrigued to hear of the policy statement on immigration made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, on 25th February at a seminar at Oxford University on national identity and migration. She said that it was the Government's view that the United Kingdom should receive a net in-flow of 2 million immigrants over the next 10 years. That overall figure and the further break down that she provided appeared to be in harmony with the figures provided by Migration Watch. It does not accord with what the Home Office has said publicly, as far as I am aware. I may have missed some announcements, but I do not think so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, went on to say that, although the Government were intent on controlling the entry of asylum seekers into the UK, they intended to use the work permit scheme to facilitate that inward migration. Was the Home Office consulted about that statement by the Lord Chancellor's Department in advance of a statement of policy with regard to the in-flow figure of 2 million over 10 years and the use of work permits?
As other noble Lords said, the issue of regularisation is not straightforward; it is highly complex and sensitive. Parliament is owed a long debate on it before we come to any conclusion. On this occasion, as so often, I find myself thinking—worryingly for me and, perhaps, also for the noble Lord—that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head. In a brief comment that summarised everything about the issue, he said that it was important that we should have a clear and known policy on immigration. I agree.
12.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, it is a pleasure to start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and the committee for an extremely thoughtful and balanced report on a complicated and challenging subject. As several speakers have said, the issue will be with us for a number of years. As ever, it is a help to the Government in challenging our thinking, adding new ideas and testing whether there are things we have forgotten or to which we should give more emphasis.
We have not explored the reasons why there is such a significant challenge to Britain and other European countries from illegal migration, although the noble

1051
Lord, Lord Greaves, touched on the subject. Improvements in communications have made it easier to move, and there are the wealth disparities about which several noble Lords spoke. Not all illegal migrants come because they want work, although a large proportion do. Those are two of the prime reasons, and they will not go away quickly. Therefore, the problem remains.
The methods by which illegal migrants come into the country are varied. There is no need to go into detail now, but such people include over-stayers, illegal entrants and people who have come here for one reason and have translated to another.
One of the initial areas of discussion was the extent to which there should be a commonality of policy and process in the European Union on migration and asylum. It touches on the questions raised about Title IV and whether we were sensible to participate fully in it. I have the pleasure and privilege of being the Home Office's Europe Minister, so I spend a lot of time with other European interior Ministers discussing issues and forming European policy. It is a privilege to do so, and I say without shame that I am a strong supporter of the contribution that the European Union can make to the quality of our life in Britain. I do not do so blindly; nor do the Government.
In essence, we should consider when the European Union can add value to our response to a problem that we face in this country and cannot solve ourselves. That requires an open-minded but rational approach to measures. At times, it requires us to think whether a measure goes to the heart of a problem. I shall illustrate that briefly. We must consider whether legislation is the solution to a problem or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns said, more cooperation is needed. We must consider whether harmonisation, which has often tended to be the legislative goal of the European Union, gets to the heart of the problem or, in a sense, just carries on the tradition that, in some way, harmonisation is the solution.
That illustrates why in Britain we believe that there is a need for fresh thinking both on asylum and immigration policy in the European Union and globally. That is why we have not opted into Title IV of the Amsterdam treaty. We have not opted into Title IV because although it is clear that in some areas harmonisation is sensible, on looking at the elements that Title IV is concerned with they do not always fit with our national interest, our geography or our history. We have strong links with many parts of the world that are different from others. We examine on a case by case basis whether it makes sense to opt into a particular measure. If we had opted in blindly to all of them we would have encountered a whole range of consequential disadvantages.
For example, we are able to take a different approach, when appropriate, to Commonwealth visa applications. And we are able to take a different approach to legal routes for employment of students, which is beneficial. In essence, when we think that we should, and it makes sense to, co-operate with our
1052
European Union partners we should do so wholeheartedly, both in legislation and operations. When it does not make sense to co-operate, we should maintain a rational evidence-based approached to policy rather than a doctrinal one and not do so.
I have not detected any particular disadvantage in my relationships with my colleague Ministers in Europe as a consequence. They tend to welcome our contribution both to policy making and to operations. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Wright, acknowledged that. We are active participants in joint operations to try to stem illegal entry. We have done an enormous amount of work in eastern Europe at entry countries. We were vigorous in supporting some of the maritime operations in the Mediterranean. Our colleagues in Europe look to us positively for that participation. They welcome our expertise and our operational capacities. The fact that we are not part of Title IV does not mean that we are not, ultimately, welcome participants.
As regards some of these problems—it is true of both illegal migration and operations—a strong case can be made for more operational effectiveness. It is not automatic that harmonisation on its own will crack some of the problems. I should be happy to develop that argument in debate at another time.
I turn now to some further interesting points. On the issue of scale, there is no country in Europe that knows the true scale of illegal migration. Clearly, we share a view that we must seek to undertake sensible research to identify whether a better fix on the numbers can he obtained. So far, no easy research methodologies have been identified. In some cases, estimates are made of the scale of illegal migrants by identifying the number picked up in operations. The flaw in that as a methodology can be understood without too much intellectual effort. None of the methodologies gives the answer. The test will be whether by using a combination of methodologies one can obtain an estimate of the potential scale.
What else can be done? My noble friend Lord Corbett and others marked the importance of working with developing countries and source countries. One should not be Utopian about this and expect the issues to be quickly solved. However, it must be right both morally and practically to seek to encourage source countries to develop their own societies and economies and to co-operate more vigorously on both preventing illegal migration and accepting returns as part of it. Clearly, that was what Seville was about. We felt that significant progress was made with our European Union colleagues in moving the debate forward. Now we have the difficult task of making it happen in practice. But it must be part of the picture.
Detection and deterrence of people in this country raises the issue of entitlement cards. We have had a strong response to the consultation paper—over 2,000 letters and e-mails. The consultation ended on 31st January and we are now evaluating the responses. We are evaluating what has been said. We are evaluating, as we must, to what extent we would have confidence that entitlement cards would work in practice and bear

1053
down on the problem effectively. One must look to existing procedures in Europe and elsewhere to determine the impact of tighter documentation or tighter controls over what is effectively illegal working. We start from a position of believing that in principle this is part of the solution. It will be some months—but, it is to be hoped, not too long—before we can give a final answer.
I hear the arguments concerning regularisation. We have indicated that when someone has been in this country for 15 or 20 years, there comes a point when it is churlish not to regularise his or her position. However, the widespread universal regularisation of illegal migrants has significant dangers, as I believe noble Lords recognise. It could easily be seen as a pull factor that if a person managed to enter this country, after a while he or she might be safe to stay.
Turning now to police law enforcement to seek to identify and remove illegal migrants, the Government's view is that the police should treat this as an important issue and that there should be cooperation. In general, there is good co-operation. It is to be hoped that the police pay close attention to those illegal migrants who are potentially the most vulnerable—children and young women, and people brought into this country against their will or by deception and are now involved in prostitution in some cities that is close to a form of semi-slavery. Police efforts recognising that those, above all, are the illegal migrants one should be seeking to identify will thereby bring to justice the traffickers and those who have promoted a person's entry, often against his or her will, or by deception.
There have been a range of successful operations in that respect—Operation Seastar and Operation Harvest. There are further operations ongoing to which I shall not refer. It would be wrong therefore to imply—I do not believe that it has been—that nothing is being done.
The Government's view at present as regards the European migration observatory is that we do not need to set up another institution but that we need to make it work by a virtual European institution, as signalled in our response. There are benefits in cases where a European institution is desirable, but there are also down sides. If national bodies could co-operate more strongly on the exchange of information, the same results could be obtained with less bureaucracy and less cost.
Clearly, readmission is a significant problem whether concerning illegal migrants or failed asylum seekers. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, is correct that incentives, as well as penalties, must be part of the solution. Therefore, we seek to identify mechanisms by which we can encourage greater levels of responsibility with potential source countries. We also look to them on the issue of whether we should give them quotas for lower skilled migrants to enter this country, recognising that where this country needs particular migrants to meet our labour needs it may be sensible to give a source country an indication that we would be open to specific numbers.
1054
The linkage between asylum and illegal immigration has been discussed. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on this issue, if not with all that she said. In practice, there should he no linkage. In fact. there is a strong inter-connection because asylum is used as a route for illegal migration. I have not heard many noble Lords deny that that is a fact. The problem is being able to grant refuge to those with a genuine case for asylum while denying those who are using asylum as a route for economic migration and, consequently, illegal migration. We are not alone in facing that challenge; other European countries face it too.
I turn now to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, regarding Sangatte. I was surprised by her comments because I thought that there had been consensus in your Lordships' House that Sangatte had become a major problem and a major source of people entering this country either illegally or to make asylum claims which eventually were found to be invalid.
The numbers, which are not to hand, illustrate clearly the scale of illegal migration which was coming from Sangatte as a consequence of it being used as a jumping-off point. People made attempt after attempt to get into this country. Noble Lords will also have seen the television pictures. One knew it presented a serious entry problem and a serious social problem in northern Calais.
Working with the French in bringing about the closure of the camp, we achieved something remarkable. Nicolas Sarkozy acted most responsibly in handling the matter. The way in which the police in France are dealing with and removing people from the area illustrates that the policy is working successfully. We have reduced the flows of illegal migrants and asylum claims that were found to be false as a consequence. That was a brilliant piece of work by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and Nicolas Sarkozy.
As a consequence of sorting out the problem, one must face reality and decide what to do about the people who are there. As a result, we had to bring into this country some 1,000 people, mainly from Iraq, to seek to settle the problem. We did not grant them asylum because we did not consider that they were asylum seekers. They were economic migrants, as the subsequent facts have proved. I was disappointed and surprised by what was said because I believed that there had been consensus on the matter.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Minister is wrong to imply that there was no consensus that Sangatte needed to be closed. We have always made that clear; I hope that I was equally clear in my remarks. The questions I put to the Government related to what appeared to be a sleight of hand over policy on regularisation; the fact that hundreds of people were given work permits on the closure of Sangatte when others are denied them unless able to show in advance that employers require their services. I was seeking clarification of government policy on the granting of work permits.

1055
If the Minister is not able to give that clarification today, I should be most grateful if he would write to me setting out the policy and explaining which other immigrants have been granted work permits without fulfilling the proper and normal legal requirements.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it will be a pleasure, as ever, to write a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, giving detailed chapter and verse. The broad thrust is clear. This was a necessary part of managing an appalling situation and it was done well. No doubt we shall return to the matter.
We sought through Reflex to achieve strong cooperation both nationally and internationally to identify and deter migrants. Our sense is that Reflex, while not perfect, is working well. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also referred to carriers' liability, a subject on which we have had many debates in this House. For obvious reasons, it is not always welcomed by the road freight industry, but it has had a significant impact.
I shall be interested to read the speech made by my noble friend Lady Scotland at Oxford. I shall share with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, our figures. I have some before me but I would prefer to set them out in a letter to her and to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. Our thrust on migration could not be clearer. We believe there is a need for migrants to come into this country; we believe they make a valuable contribution to our economy. The Home Secretary and the Government believe that there is a strong case for increasing the number of economic migrants. That belief is not new; it was set out in black and white in the White Paper published in January 2002. It was the cornerstone of our policy throughout debates on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and it is utterly consistent with the view that we need skills, that we benefit from them and that we should encourage them through legal routes. At the same time, we should do all we can to deter illegal routes and to stop asylum being used illicitly.
I can well believe that in practice we will go higher on managed migration if the workforce needs of this country so dictate. Any attempt by Migration Watch or others to try to create some hysterical scare about the issue seems both deplorable and suspect in its motivation. That is where these issues are so difficult for us all, are they not? While illegal migration should be separate from asylum, we know that they interconnect. Concerns about illegal immigration and false asylum claims cause unsettlement in the country. We must work hard to reduce illegal migration without creating an illusion that all migrants are in some way suspect; that all asylum seekers are in some way terrorists and criminals; and without feeding the hysteria which some elements of our society are happy to do.
In that context, I welcome the thoughtful, mature and balanced report that the group has put forward. I look forward to responding in more detail through correspondence to all the points I have been unable to deal with in this short speech.
12.35 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I shall not detain the House. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. A number of different views were expressed, many of which were voiced and aired thoroughly during the course of our inquiry. I want to touch briefly on the Minister's remarks.
I was disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that we have not moved further, particularly as regards the condition of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed and economic activities; for the purpose of studies, vocational training and voluntary service; and on the short-term residence permit issued to victims of action to facilitate illegal immigration or trafficking in human beings to co-operate with the competent authorities. However, I take on board what the Minister has said and some of the reassurances he has given us, particularly in his closing remarks, and I thank him for that.
I hope that the debate will have clarified the fine distinction between illegal immigration and asylum seekers and that it will inform and educate public opinion about migrants generally. I hope that we will begin to think of them in a more positive and a less hostile way. If we have been able to contribute to that better understanding, we will have done our work well. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
12.37 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House will be aware that I introduced a similar, but not identical, Bill in early 2001. It received widespread support at Second Reading, but did not proceed further due to the general election of that year.
Since then, we have made some changes in response to points made. I have listened to views on all sides, will continue to do so, and will alert the House of further amendments that I propose to introduce in Committee. I want to thank the Public Bill Office and especially the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for their legal and technical help in redrafting my proposals.
The House will he interested to note that the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Countryside Alliance, reflecting the largest groups involved in our rural economy and concerned with the management of animal welfare, support the Bill. I have received letters from them. The National Farmers Union has written to me stating that it is,
"very disturbed by the provisions of the Hunting Bill, now in another place, as it promises to have adverse implications for agricultural pest control and would, we believe, be likely to lead to greater suffering by wild animals".

1057
It goes on to say that my Bill however,
"has the prospect of being beneficial in term of animal welfare by outlawing excessive actions within current legal methods of control".
The Country Land and Business Association considers that,
"this is a much more useful approach than that proposed by the Government in its Hunting Bill",
which,
"does nothing to improve the lot of wild animals generally …Lord Donoughtle's Bill provides a better result for wild animals and in a better way".
So we do have widespread support.
But not from everyone. We seem not to have support from one or two political agenda groups which, I suspect, resent seeing on offer a better alternative to the Hunting Bill. I am disappointed that the RSPCA is in that category. An organisation which once supported a reduction in cruelty to animals now appears not to. Those who consider, as I do, making donations to groups opposed to animal cruelty will think twice about donating to the RSPCA.
I declare interests as a trustee of the International League for the Protection of Horses; as a former Minister for Farming in the Government; as a member of the Middle Way Group and the Countryside Alliance, although I take no part in the direction of its affairs; as the holder of a shotgun licence; and as the proud owner of the most beautiful terrier in the world.
The arguments in favour of the Bill remain as before. In my view, they are made even stronger by the current passage through the Commons of legislation which touches on some of the same areas, but not helpfully.
Our present arrangements for protecting animals from cruel abuse are complex and incomplete. Britain is woefully behind many other countries in legislating for wild animal management. Our provisions reflect nearly a century past of sporadic legislation concerned primarily with captive and domestic animals, where humans have a direct responsibility. The issue of non-captive wild animals was addressed—inadequately—in the most recent legislation, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which began, like mine, as a Private Member's Bill and which I am now proposing to amend.
The 1996 Act is deficient in several ways, mainly in that it lists specified cruel acts, such as the nailing-up of a fox, but inevitably leaves uncovered many areas of cruelty, such as wounding a fox and leaving it to die in agony. The Act also lists some pursuits—such as hunting with dogs, shooting, coursing, snaring and trapping—which are exempt from prosecution.
My Bill is deliberately simpler and more comprehensive because it has no specified exemptions. It simply provides that if a wild mammal is deliberately caused undue suffering, that is an offence. It would bring the law closer in line to that now relating to domestic and captive animals. The Bill sends out to the public the clear and simple message that, even when using legal methods of killing wild animals, deliberate and undue cruelty will not be tolerated.
1058
The advantages of this amended approach are clear. The Bill modernises nearly a century of piecemeal legislation and creates minimum and universal standards to protect all wild mammals. It provides clarity and certainty, with no exemptions or grey areas. Being simpler, the protections should be easier to police. At first, of course, enforcement may involve some appeals through the courts to establish precedent, but my legal advice is that it would not clog-up the courts. The best few cases would be tested and precedent soon established.
I do not pretend that all suffering can be eliminated from life in the wild; some suffering is inevitable there and some of it will appear cruel. But the Bill establishes that suffering which is intentionally inflicted by man and which is undue in degree is unacceptable and will be punished.
Noble Lords will note that the wording of the Bill deliberately refers to intentionally ca using "undue" suffering rather than to "unnecessary" suffering, which is the term used to define cruelty in the original Protection of Animals Act 1911. This distinction is made because the Bill seeks to address excessive and unduly cruel actions which might take place within currently legal methods of control, including hunting with dogs, snaring, trapping and the use of firearms. It does not seek to encourage prosecutions against those actions as a whole where they are currently legal. That could happen with the term "unnecessary" because whether shooting or hunting are "necessary" is a matter of opinion. The term "undue suffering" means excessive suffering caused within a particular practice, not the practices and activities in their entirety.
This point relates to the important issue of pest control. When an earlier version of the Bill was read in March 2001, the then Home Office Minister, my noble friend Lord Bassam, raised some reasonable concerns about its impact on pest control, especially that if the current exemptions for pest control contained in the 1996 Act were removed, it could expose to prosecution those who now legitimately use snares and traps to control, for instance, mink numbers. I, of course, would not wish to do that.
We hope that we have addressed that issue in the term "undue suffering". I am advised that this should mean that the legal scrutiny and action would be against excessive and undue suffering within a legal activity, such as pest control, and not the activity of pest control itself. Provided that the pest controller uses a method of control which does not cause undue suffering, and is not more cruel than an alternative and effective means of control, he will have a proper defence.
I should point out that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners, bodies which have many practitioners of pest control among their memberships, support the Bill and the clause. I trust that Ministers and officials are now satisfied on this point, where I certainly shared their original concerns.
As to the mechanics of enforcement, the Bill would give powers to the Secretary of State to recognise existing bodies, such as the governing bodies of field

1059
sports, as the designated and proper authorities for making codes in respect of the conduct of any activity in connection with wild mammals. The Secretary of State would also have the power to establish such a body where none existed within a sport or activity.
When this approach was originally proposed, parts of the shooting world expressed concerns that this would allow a hostile and malign Secretary of State to interfere and directly regulate their sport through a government quango—although, of course, noble Lords will note that the Bill does not apply to birds or to fish. That was never my intention. Therefore the original draft has been amended—and will be further amended in ways I shall describe—to make clear that the Secretary of State is empowered simply to recognise the existing authorised body governing a sport or activity and to recognise that body's code of practice.
Such powers would not place these codes of practice into law. The codes could be used as a defence, as an indication of good practice, similar to the way in which the Highway Code is currently used in relation to driving a vehicle.
The sporting bodies recognised as the proper authorities, such as the shooting governing bodies, would, by this process, be recognised as the proper authorities for a sport. These bodies would be conducting a recognised code. I believe that that would reinforce desirable self-regulation, which is the proper concern of many sports, although of course we know that many shooters are not members of any organisation and so are currently unregulated.
The fact that adherence to a recognised code of good practice could be used as a defence should encourage practitioners to develop acceptable codes of practice. Many sports have such codes; indeed, I am considering collating and publishing them to demonstrate how much good practice and self-regulation exists. That process would also encourage individual practitioners to join bodies which develop such codes.
On the suggested powers for the Secretary of State, legitimate concerns have been raised that under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed new Section 2A(1) a "malign"—a word used by a shooter—Secretary of State could replace the existing bodies with new authorities and codes of practice reflecting particular sectarian agendas.
I am too naïve even to contemplate the concept of a "malign" Secretary of State. and I have certainly never met a malign Parliamentary Under-Secretary. However, I am keen to listen to and to meet concerns. So I should be happy to amend those provisions, so that paragraph (a) would refer to recognition of an "existing body representing the participants in a lawful activity as the proper authority"; and paragraph (b) would refer to, "the establishment of a body where there is no existing appropriate body as the proper authority", and so on. That would reinforce the recognition of the existing governing bodies and their codes and should leave no scope for "malign"
1060
ministerial intervention—not that I can contemplate any such remote activity. I trust that those amendments would meet any such concerns.
I might add that a constructive role for the Secretary of State in this process would be to encourage self-regulatory bodies to update their codes to reflect new circumstances and new scientific evidence and to promote a better understanding of wildlife management.
I trust that the shooting interests and others will be satisfied by these efforts and amendments to meet their concerns. If, as I believe, they and others have no cruelties to hide, they have nothing to fear from this approach.
While mentioning our adjustments and amendments to meet previous comments, I should add that the Second Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed some concern about our earlier reference to tribunals in proposed new Section 2A(1)(c). That was deliberately mirroring the phrasing in the current Hunting Bill, but it was not central to our intentions. That reference will be removed by an amendment at the next stage.
The committee was also worried that our proposed code of practice might inappropriately determine whether or not a person had committed an offence. I believe that that is a misunderstanding, since the proposed code would not be part of the law. It would determine only whether a person had a defence through having obeyed a recognised code. But I am content to amend the proposed new section to provide that the code itself has to be the subject of regulation made by statutory instrument. I thank the Public Bill Office in regard to the drafting of those amendments, which I shall bring forward in Committee.
I turn finally to the Bill's relationship to the issue of hunting with dogs—although I stress that it stands in its own right as a desirable advance in animal welfare. I would support it even if there were no current proposals on hunting; and noble Lords will have noted that major bodies support it as such.
If the Government were to adopt this Bill, there would be no need for a separate Hunting Bill, with all its social divisiveness. This Bill would deal with all the genuine concerns about any alleged cruelty in hunting. But it would not, of course, meet the political agenda of those who wish to wage class war on people who hunt, often with little concern about cruelty. I might add that I have never hunted and have no desire to do so.
The Bill would remove the current exemption of hunting with dogs, shooting, and so on from the protection of the 1996 Act. Some supporters of hunting might assert that their activity does not involve undue cruelty. I accept that in general—but if so, I ask the hunters and the shooters: why have the artificial protection of the 1996 Act? That sends out the wrong messages, even suggesting that they might be hiding something.
If their pursuits ever do involve deliberately causing undue suffering, then that cruelty should be addressed—as it is in the Bill—and not exempted. The

1061
Bill bans undue cruelty in hunting as in other animal pursuits. But it does not ban the pursuits in themselves, if pursued properly under approved codes. That is surely better than the Stalinist class war approach of the current Hunting Bill, as it is being amended in the Commons.
It is certainly better than the shambolic muddle now operating in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, where foxes arc still chased by dogs, but are then being shot, and in some cases wounded to die in agony. I do not see the welfare gain in that.
Your Lordships will be aware of the respected work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on the issue of hunting with dogs. My Bill relates closely to the noble Lord's analysis. His report stated:
"In the absence of a ban, one possible legislative approach would be to remove the present exemptions for hunting in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. This would … give the opponents of hunting a clearer opportunity to test their views about cruelty in the courts".
This Bill would allow for that measured approach.
The Bill approaches the hunting with dogs issue within a broader context of welfare management for all mammals. Controlling foxes is addressed more widely than just by the use of dogs. It allows hunting with dogs to be compared, in cruelty terms, with any intentional and undue suffering which may occur in the alternative methods of control.
In that sense, I believe that the Bill is a true animal welfare measure and, unlike the current Hunting Bill, can guarantee a diminution of cruelty and an improvement in animal welfare. The Bill aims simply, and I believe effectively, to ban deliberate and undue cruelty to wild mammals. I trust that everyone who deplores such cruelty will support it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Donoughue.)
12.58 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I declare an interest as secretary of the All-Party Group on Shooting and Conservation and, like the noble Lord, as the holder of a shotgun licence. The Government have recognised the conservation and land management benefits of shooting, as well as the economic ones. Shooting generates an estimated £1 billion each year for the UK economy.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his commitment to hunting and to other country sports, and for listening to the views from all sides. I entirely agree with his remarks about the RSPCA, and that the law needs clarification, simplification and consolidation. The noble Lord has considerable experience on these issues from his time at MAFF and as a supporter of the Countryside Alliance.
As I am sure many other noble Lords do, I welcome the principle behind the Bill. Any measure designed to promote higher standards of welfare, coupled with greater openness, is to be welcomed—particularly as the Government's Hunting Bill, as it continues its way
1062
through the other place, is increasingly concerned with restricting and proscribing human activities, rather than seeking to safeguard animal welfare. There is no doubt that this is a better Bill for the regulation of hunting with dogs than the Bill introduced by the Government in another place.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that I support his Bill as it applies to hunting with dogs. However, I hope that he will not take it amiss if I tell him that there is considerable concern among the shooting community that, although well intentioned, the Bill could be seen as an anti-shooting Bill. I was therefore delighted to hear what the noble Lord said about the amendments he proposes to bring forward in Committee. I look forward to helping to improve the Bill in Committee and at later stages.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I declare an interest as—
1.1 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, whom I have known for a very long time. He probably did not spot me here.
I declare an interest at the outset as somebody who has supported the Countryside Alliance and the Middle Way Group and has taken a particular interest in these issues for a large number of years. I welcome the introduction of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and this debate. I think I am right in saying that I have not spoken on this issue before in your Lordships' House. although I spoke on it often in another place.
I come here this afternoon to speak with two hats on—as somebody who is Welsh-born and domiciled and also as a lawyer. I wish to concentrate in particular on hunting foxes with dogs. I am a Liberal Democrat; I was a Liberal and Liberal Democrat MP for 14 years. I regret that my party has seen fit to treat what I regard as a matter of conscience as a matter of party policy. Consistent with over 50 per cent of the individuals who have served as Liberal Members of Parliament in the past 30 years, I have always treated it as a matter of conscience and the fact that others have done so to that proportion is a matter of record.
Let me put on my Welsh hat—as a Welsh-born and domiciled person—first. I live in rural Wales in roughly the centre of rural Montgomeryshire—part of what we call Powys Paradwys Cymru. I do not hunt, I have never hunted, and I have no intention of hun Ling. However, over many years now, I have investigated, witnessed at first hand and assessed the activities of hunts. Above all, I have assessed the attitude of those who hunt to that which they hunt. I have attempted to rationalise the reasons for the hunting; I believe that I have done so as best one can, and I have come to satisfactory conclusions about it. I am also married to a Welsh-domiciled professional artist. Artists have the most acute observation of the countryside that surrounds them and that has added, I believe, to my appreciation of these issues.

1063
What happens in rural mid-Wales? Do we have toffs rushing around the countryside on horseback shouting "Tally ho" at one another? Very occasionally we do: I know of one mounted hunt in the part of mid-Wales in which I live. Who are the hunts? The best known are the David Davies Foxhounds who hunt on horseback fairly regularly, the Tanat Valley Foxhounds who do not—they are a foot pack—the Plas Machynlleth Foxhounds, who are also a foot pack, and a number of other packs. Most of these packs of hounds one might describe as subscription hunts, paid for by farmers, who pay an annual sum to be able to participate in them. Why do they pay their annual subscriptions?
I learned about this from my late and lamented former election agent, Brian Jones, who farmed a small sheep farm near Llanfair Caereinion in Montgomeryshire. Every year he would show me what happened when his lambs were born, outside or in, for most lambs are born inside now. If the foxes got near the lambs, they would dismember them. They would cause the lambs considerable suffering, leave the wreckage and deplete the potential income of the farmer. I believe that nobody now alleges that foxes are not a pest, and a pest that requires some control.
Do people like Brian Jones want to behave cruelly towards foxes, however much damage they cause them? The answer is no. One will always find rotten apples in any profession, but the vast majority of farmers do not want to behave cruelly to foxes. Indeed, the farmer takes joy in seeing foxes in his countryside. They are part of the beauty of the countryside, provided they are kept under reasonable control. Control is agreed as a need, I suggest.
What would happen if the hunting of foxes with hounds was abolished? At present, I could take your Lordships to a particular gate at the top of a hill about a quarter of a mile from my home near Berriew on any pleasant summer evening, and I could almost guarantee that if we were to lean on that gate and chat for 15 or 20 minutes, we would see a fox running across the field during that period. I could take your Lordships to the hill where I live in Camberwell, south-east London, when I am in town, and I could point you at two or three in the morning to a greater number of foxes going up that hill. The foxes in Montgomeryshire are fatter, fitter and faster, and much more beautiful to observe.
What would happen if the Government's Hunting Bill were passed? I hope that my friends who are farmers will forgive me for saying what I am about to—I am not going home this weekend, so perhaps they will have forgotten by next weekend. Most of them have shotguns. Few of them would win Bisley with their shotguns—indeed, many of the shotguns are not that good and many farmers are not terribly good shots. Many of them would hit a fox, which would be left to wander limping around the countryside. That is the truth of what would happen if hunting were banned. It is one of the aspects.
I do not think that anyone would suggest that traps, poison, snares or any of the other options can be demonstrated to cause less suffering. I have been out
1064
with responsible hunts and have seen how the fox is disposed of once it is run to earth. It is done very quickly and in a way which, in my view, is entirely consistent with the noble Lord's purpose and his Bill.
Let us not forget that in a place like rural Montgomeryshire, the economy depends to an extent on the existence of the hunts, not just because of the work they provide, but also because of the facilities. There was a time when farm casualties were dealt with very easily. A firm turned up and took them away and nobody had to pay any money. That is not so any more. It is very difficult to dispose of farm casualties, but the hunts do it. They will collect the casualty and dispose of it in an appropriate way.
In rural mid-Wales we have the advantage over the English of having Welsh foxhounds, the most beautiful dogs in existence. They are very expensive to keep. Who on earth will keep Welsh foxhounds, except as the odd pet—and they are unsuitable as household pets—if they cannot be used for hunts? Those Welsh foxhounds are well documented as having been used for hunting even in the days of Owain Glyndwr—this has a very long historical tradition.
What about the horses? I used to ride when I was a child and later. I gave it up when I was a Member of Parliament and a constituent saw me falling off. I thought, "This is bad news, it will get into the local newspaper. I had better give up now". Keeping a good hunter costs a lot of money. People who keep good hunters do so because they love horses and because they can use their horses for hunting. The horse business is international—most of the good hunters in mid-Wales are bought in Ireland. The horse business and the number of fine horses will decrease severely if hunting is abolished.
I turn now to my viewpoint as a lawyer. As a lawyer and—anticipating the view of my noble friend Lord Greaves—as a Liberal, I believe in a fair balance of freedoms. That does not simply involve a fair balance of freedoms between those who are free and those who are not free. It involves a fair balance of rights, and part of that balance of rights is a balance between the rights of those who live in the city and those who live in the country. That is an aspect of rights that is often ignored. As it happens, I believe that people who live in the country areas of the United Kingdom probably accept a greater number of duties than do many of those—the other side of the rights coin—who take the advantages, as they see it, of living in the city for granted.
I say to those who are opposed to the Bill and to hunting that country people often feel, with justification, offended and patronised by the attitude of some who occupy the countryside at weekends but understand little of the issues affecting the countryside. The countryside is made up of beauty and beasts, including human beasts. Many people who come into the countryside appreciate the beauty—it is not very difficult to appreciate the beauty—but they do not understand how the beasts live, all of them, including the humans and the foxes.

1065
My belief is that a fair balance is reflected in this Bill, which plainly outlaws undue suffering but preserves the balance of the countryside. It preserves that critical balance between fox and farmer, which is the right balance. I sometimes stand in the Central Lobby of this place with visitors and say. "Look that way; it is the Throne. Look the other way; it is Mr Speaker's Chair. This is the critical balance of our democracy—the dynamic tension that exists which makes this country democratic and, relative to many other countries, extremely free". I believe that a similar balance is held between town and country, between the rights of country people and attacking the rights of country people. This Bill contributes to that balance.
The Bill also has, to a lawyer, the advantages of simplicity, uniformity. clarity and consolidation. At the same time, it recognises that government control may be exercised, though my preference would be for the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments, because I think that that would be adequate. As for malignant Secretaries of State, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that a very effective way of removing malignancy in Secretaries of State is by what I would describe as administrative court therapy. As successive Secretaries of State know, it works rather well on the whole.
I suggest to noble Lords that this Bill adequately addresses all the outstanding issues concerning matters of cruelty. It does not anthropomorphise those issues in a way which so many people do. It does not look at obsessions; it looks at facts and reasons. It does not easily allow for the intervention of' party Whips because it is clearly a matter of conscience. It also accords to common sense.
What I fear about this whole issue is that the rights of country people—that critical balance or dynamic tension of which I spoke—will be sacrificed to a perceived interest to keep happy some bored Back-Benchers in another place. I do not want to see that. I believe that this Bill addresses the issue with far more intelligence.
1.13 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an excellent speech which I hope will receive a great deal of attention. I declare an interest as a patron of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and an honorary member of the Kennel Club. My noble friend Lord Donoughue might like to know that I agree with almost everything he said except for the outrageous claim that his terrier was the most beautiful in the land. I am sure that both of mine would qualify for the same title. Once upon a time, one of them won Crufts. Tomorrow is terrier day at Crufts. I shall attend, and I will no doubt make certain remarks about the Bill. I believe that it is extremely valuable, partly because it requires people to refrain from deliberate and intentional cruelty.
I attended a meeting this week of the All-Party Animal Welfare Group—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was there—where one of the
1066
organisations present referred to the fact that there is likely to be much more snaring if the Hunting Bill is passed. They then made the point that snaring offences are rarely prosecuted. I was involved in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Bill, to which I moved an amendment to abolish self-locking snares. The government of the day finally agreed to accept the amendment. However, I now find that there is no possibility of anyone being prosecuted for the offence because of an argument about whether snares are self-locking. Under my noble friend's Bill, those who placed self-locking snares would be acting intentionally. Consequently, we would be able to prove that they had broken the law and committed an offence. If the Hunting Bill is passed, that would not happen. Hunting would continue and the RSPCA would say that it disapproves of snares. The RSPCA could deal with the problem if it changed its view and supported my noble friend's Bill.
I am reminded of my unsuccessful attempt, 20 or more years ago, in the Commons, to promote a Deer Bill. I introduced it after talking to people such as Forestry Commission conservators, and because of personal observation. It was obvious that some dreadful things were happening to deer. They were being shot by all sorts of weapons—air rifles, shotguns with birdshot, crossbows. It was happening not only ill season; in some cases, as with roe deer, there was no closed season.
Almost everyone in the House of Commons seemed to be in favour of the Bill. Then, one honourable Member came and said, "I am going to block your Bill". I asked why, and he said, "Because you arc allowing deer to be killed". I asked whether he understood that the deer population was increasing to the point at which, in many areas, they were suffering starvation and the risk of disease; that they were being controlled by cruel and improper methods; that the cruelty involved could be obscene; and that, as there was no natural predation of deer in these islands, we had to have a code of conduct, code of practice, methods of slaughter and closed seasons. The Member maintained his objection. He was there at four o'clock one Friday and shouted "Object" and the Bill fell. Probably several thousand deer suffered horribly as a result. Some years later, a rather weaker Deer Bill reached the statute book.
Sometimes the welfare lobby can be unhelpful to the cause that it is supposed to espouse. I believe that the Hunting Bill will lead almost to the extermination of the fox in many areas. I recall following the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in a debate on these matters 'when I was proposing an alternative to a ban on hunting. I am not a hunter, but I was trying to protect hedgerows. I suggested that, instead of a Bill to ban hunting, we should promote many more hedgerows and have them that bit higher. I think I said that the noble Lord had probably eaten more sheep than foxes had. I do not know whether he recalls that. However, I was I old that the hedgerow alternative would lead to cruelty to horses, and no one seemed to wish to perpetrate that offence.

1067
The consequences of banning hunting will mean that many people within the shooting fraternity will exterminate the fox. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, they will do that with shotguns. I have not yet received an explanation to a question I put to the welfare lobby last year, when I received from them a message which said, "The fox is not always killed instantly by the hounds. It is true that, if shot, the fox may be wounded instead of killed instantly. But if the fox is wounded, it will go back to its home environment and die in peace and dignity". I considered that an obscenity. I am still waiting for an explanation, which has not been offered.
The fact remains that the fox may be a pest and a nuisance, particularly in rural areas. But the fox is also a predator, and the predator has a useful ecological role to play. I have made the point before that the brown rat population is rising remorselessly. I understand that it is rising most rapidly in the areas which are most heavily keepered as natural predators are kept down. That very serious pest is increasing in numbers considerably. So there is a case for the predator.
If hunting is continued, the shooting lobby will inevitably be more tolerant of the fox as it will not want to exterminate the prey of fellow field sportsmen. But if we ban hunting, there will still be trapping, poisoning, gassing and snaring—not all gamekeepers necessarily subscribe to the splendid code of practice for the shooting fraternity—which I do not like at all.
I am also anxious about the most effective means of controlling foxes; namely, shooting them with a rifle, provided the rifle is fired by a marksman. There is a new danger here to which the Government may unwittingly contribute. I was uneasy about the right to roam at night. I thought that it would not necessarily be helpful to conservation given its effect on ground nesting birds. If a person goes out at night with a light and a suitable rifle to shoot foxes, he may forget that the lethal range of a rifle bullet is rather longer than the range of his eyesight or hearing. Sooner or later we may hear of some happy nocturnal rambler meeting a very unpleasant fate if the marksman misses the fox. Sometimes a more considered view, such as that offered in this Bill, is wiser.
One of the aspects of the Hunting Bill that worries me concerns the problem of fallen stock. Many of our livestock farmers face very real difficulties. If hunting is abolished, the fallen stock question would present them with a significant problem. I have not yet discussed the matter with the Kennel Club in any detail but I believe that that body, which supervises the activities and hobbies of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, is rather worried about the present situation. There is cause for concern at the possibility that legitimate activities could be imperilled by the Bill as it proceeds through the Commons. We must have regard for liberty and ensure that there is no unnecessary oppression. We ought also to ensure that there is no unnecessary cruelty. My noble friend's Bill points us in the right direction.
1.23 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for the very clear and concise way in which he introduced his Bill.
I declare an interest as the chairman of the standing conference on country sports and the President of the Game Conservancy Trust. I do not hunt but, unlike the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Carlile, I wish that I did. I have taken a greater interest in hunting since this whole hunting issue has come before us. I am bound to say that the more I learn about the sport, the more fascinated I become, the more intrigued I am and the more I appreciate it as a great community activity serving the purposes of the countryside in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, described so admirably.
The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hardy of Wath, rightly made reference to alternative methods of fox control. It is sometimes assumed that snaring and shooting are always cruel. Nothing could be further from the truth. Snaring in the right hands, and shooting done properly, are genuinely humane ways of disposing of foxes. I acknowledge that in the wrong hands that is not the case. However, that point needs to be made.
I return to the noble Lord's Bill. His timing is impeccable but I should not have expected anything else from the noble Lord. The way in which he introduced the Bill was refreshingly honest and straightforward. Inevitably, we shall make comparisons between the noble Lord's Bill and that Bill going through its various stages in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Goodness me, what a pickle the Government have got themselves into over the Hunting Bill. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Burns, or, indeed, any member of his committee, I would ask myself what on earth I had been doing. They have gone to a lot of trouble, taken evidence and produced a report but now the Government who commissioned it are simply ignoring everything that it recommended. The noble Lord's committee painstakingly considered all aspects of hunting, including the social, economic and environmental aspects, but its report is ignored. The word "utility", which is supposed, as I understood it, to embrace all those important dimensions, has now been narrowed down to a point where, quite frankly, any regulatory body could license a hunt only if it circled exclusively the pinnacle of Snowdon.
The matter has become a complete farce. At the first puff of opposition the Minister collapses. So in effect the Bill that will come to your Lordships' House will constitute a ban on hunting in everything but name. One is bound to ask about the evidence given by the experts at the hunting hearings. Was that nothing more than a farcical charade? What about the Minister's main evidence against stag hunting produced by Professor Bateson? We should not forget that stag hunting is excluded from the Bill. It will be an illegal activity. The Minister has always argued that the evidence from Professor Bateson was the argument on which he would defend his decision to ban stag

1069
hunting. But what has happened? The professor himself came forward and said that anyone who interpreted his evidence was scientifically illiterate. That does not sound a very impressive way to defend a major part of the Hunting Bill.
Then we have the latest fiasco when the Minister voted against his own Bill to prohibit the use of terriers underground despite his commitment that shooting was safe under Labour. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already given this House a commitment that the Government would introduce amendments to give the gamekeeper back his rights, but I am bound to say that promises made under the Bill are becoming rarer and rarer as it makes its rather seedy way through the parliamentary process. What is now perfectly clear—as many of us suspected right from the outset—is that the Government's Hunting Bill is more concerned with curtailing human activities based on that word "prejudice" than dealing with the issue of animal welfare.
That brings me back to the noble Lord's Bill which I believe does address that very issue. As the noble Lord explained, the Bill amends the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which exempted country sports. I can fully understand why that happened as it was considered that there could have been a series of frivolous proceedings. On the other hand, no participant in country sports I know would consider intentionally causing undue suffering.
As I have already explained, I do not hunt. I shoot, but I would give it up tomorrow if I considered that I was in breach of such a principle. What is more. I am hound to add—the point has already been touched on in connection with shooting—that, from an environmental dimension, what I do by conserving habitats and controlling certain predators contributes enormously to the healthy state of many species of wildlife. They might not be there if it were not for the interests of shooting people, as has been increasingly demonstrated by different pieces of research.
We desperately need to move on from the sterile ground of seeking to legislate about dislikes of human behaviour, to more fertile discussions about proper consideration of wildlife management and how best we can foster its welfare in our all too diminishing countryside. The Bill is clear-cut and helps to focus on how we should manage that wildlife. It deals with cruelty in a straightforward fashion. Its solution is a way forward in commanding the positive engagement of country people, who look to Parliament to do what is right by acting in a responsible way and not trying to distort the facts that are being driven underground under the sheer weight of prejudice.
I was going to seek clarification from the noble Lord with regard to the regulations that may be made under his Bill, but he explained them extremely carefully. I am grateful to him for coming forward as he has with the suggestion of amendments that would certainly overcome my concerns. I commend him on his considerable efforts in introducing a straightforward and effective piece of legislation. I believe that it is a genuine attempt to try to resolve a long-running problem.
1070
The key element that the Bill brings to the question of cruelty is consistency. That is what is missing from the government Bill, which contains the notion that terriers have to be able to distinguish between a rabbit and a hare. Under the noble Lord's Bill, that ridiculous situation would not occur. In terms of consistency, the comparison between the two Bills is stark. It would be encouraging if the Government were to take heed of what has been said and what is in the noble Lord's Bill, but I fear that that is extremely unlikely.
1.33 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords., I begin by declaring my interests as a farmer, a member of the Warwickshire Hunt, a supporter of the Middle Way Group, and chairman of St Martins Magazines, which publishes two magazines—Hunting Magazine and Country Illustrated—that deal with country sports and issues.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Peel would like to start hunting. I extend to him a public invitation to join me for a day with the Warwickshire; I shall even lend him my own horse.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on introducing the Bill. I agree with everything that he said, except possibly for categorising himself as naive. I do not even think that his best friends would accuse him of naivety.
The most recent time that the House debated a similar Bill was 9th March 2001, just before our debates on hunting. Almost exactly two years later to the day, we are being given the chance to consider this Bill in time to inform our debates on the hunting with dogs Bill, which has recently completed its lengthy but, I am afraid, predictably one-sided Committee stage in another place. We may have to wait some time before that Bill comes to this House, while Members in another place consider whether they want to compromise the welfare of the Iraqi army before returning to the other burning issue of national importance, the welfare of the fox.
It is on the issue of welfare that I strongly support the noble Lord's Bill for two reasons. First, it will rationalise and clarify the current law, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which paradoxically started life as a Private Member's Bill to ban hunting. Secondly, as a supporter of the middle way approach to hunting, I believe that the Bill is a way forward for the Government to find a more sensible, generally more acceptable and less contentious way through their difficulties on the Hunting Bill, which are getting worse and worse.
Under the current law, hunting enjoys an exemption from prosecution, rather bizarrely. The noble Lord's Bill would mean that that exemption would be removed, and any activity within legal hunting that caused undue suffering would henceforth be open to prosecution. The vast majority of hunting people would be able to support that. Hunting is riot cruel. In spite of the noisiest efforts of the anti-hunting zealots and the expenditure of millions of pounds, the verdict

1071
of the only two authoritative reports to consider hunting—the Scott-Henderson report and the Burns report—was that hunting was not cruel.
Given what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to as the shambolic animal rights situation in Scotland following the introduction of the ludicrously named Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act—as he pointed out, animals are being shot and left wounded to die in agony—I hope that the Government will look very carefully at what happened there, and ask themselves whether they wish to be responsible for the same consequences in England and Wales.
The Bill will address concerns about undue suffering not only within hunting itself, but caused by the alternative methods of control, thus offering a guaranteed improvement in animal welfare across the board. That certainly cannot be said of current attempts to concentrate on one activity alone. By bringing hunting within the legislation, the Bill will mean that it will be open and accountable, and that anyone who has proof that a hunt has been responsible for causing undue suffering will be able to take that evidence to court.
In the light of that I share the noble Lord's disappointment, although I may not be as surprised as he is, that the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA have labelled the Bill "unhelpful". How can a Bill that will improve animal welfare across the board be called unhelpful? Is it, perhaps, because the RSPCA is less concerned than it should be about animal welfare, and is more concerned with pursuing its political agenda to ban hunting? In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, called that an obsession. It would of course be unhelpful to that agenda if the Bill were passed. At a stroke, it would remove the need for the RSPCA to campaign against hunting, as any cruelty would be subject to legal challenge. The Bill would expose the RSPCA's real reasons for continuing its campaign.
That brings me to the question of whether it is right that the RSPCA should continue to enjoy charitable status. I believe that it should not. It pours its members' money into a nakedly political campaign to have hunting criminalised. Every RSPCA letter that I receive, for example, is franked with the slogan, "Ban hunting with dogs". I intend to raise that matter with the Charity Commission and ask it to rule on whether the RSPCA's political agenda is consistent with its charitable status.
I agree that the Bill may need some amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, dealt with that in his speech. However, the principle behind it is entirely sound. It will bring new coherence to animal welfare legislation in England and Wales, and improve animal welfare across the board. I welcome such a sensible solution.
1.39 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Like everyone else,
1072
I should declare an interest. I am chairman of a hunt, a member of the Masters of Foxhounds Association. and a farmer halfway through the lambing season. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that at the moment we are just winning our way over the foxes, but only just. If it were not for the local hunt, I think that we would be in quite a lot of trouble.
I welcome the Bill and I agree with perhaps everything that noble Lords have said. This is a much simpler and much better solution than a hunting Bill. That has always been the case; it was certainly the case when we debated virtually the same Bill two years ago. In September, I sat through the three days of evidence when the Minister in another place, Alun Michael, listened so that he could make up his mind about hunting. I believe that at that stage he did listen and I was encouraged by the Bill when it was first published in another place. Sadly, it has changed; the Standing Committee has not involved a very edifying process. The Minister voted for an amendment that now means that shooting is included in the Bill, having said that it was his purpose never to do so. The antis in another place have taken over the process and forced the amendment through. Sadly, the Minister, Mr Michael, seems to bear the imprint of the last anti who sits on it.
There is no assurance that the Government will be able to get through on Report in another place their promised amendment to take out shooting. The matter may end up with noble Lords. At the moment, we are in the ludicrous situation in which if the noble Lord. Lord Donoughue, takes his beautiful terrier for a walk and it runs away and goes down a hole, it may or may not be committing an offence under the Bill.
I turn to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I note that he noted the points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about codes and the tribunal. The code of practice is a good idea—all sports benefit from such a code. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, designed his Bill in a way that deals with the criticisms that were levelled at the previous legislation, when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied on behalf of the Government because that responsibility was still with the Home Office. Noble Lords have said that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, supported the concept of the Bill in the debate last time round. As my noble friend Lord Peel said, it involved a definition of cruelty that was consistent and easy to enforce.
I do not believe that the Government will let the Bill proceed in another place. I hope that it will proceed through this House. The present Hunting Bill, which is in another place, is a total mess. It will, sadly, take days in Committee in this place introducing amendments to get it right. The Bill was quite good when it was first published but it has now been mucked up. Although it is a licensing Bill, it in fact involves a ban and I suspect that it will not survive.
The Government should take this Bill forward and put the other Bill aside, although they probably will not do so until the next Session. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, mentioned Scotland and said that the situation there was a shambolic muddle. That is indeed

1073
the case. It shows how, if one tries to be prescriptive in a Bill, one can degenerate into chaos. There is no benefit in Scotland at the moment for those who hunt or for the fox.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, mentioned the benefits of hunting with regard to fallen stock. We realise that on-farm burials will not be allowed from 1st April. As the chairman of a hunt, it is noticeable that hunters are increasingly being called out to deal with fallen stock. There is no local lack of business any more; that does not exist. If it was not for the hunt, I do not know what would happen.
As we have heard, the RSPCA said that the Bill is "unhelpful". It is extraordinarily sad that the RSPCA. instead of being an organisation that deals with animal welfare, has become totally politicised in its agenda. I look forward to hearing about the reply that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke will receive when he questions its charitable status.
All noble Lords who have spoken have supported the Bill. and I, too, do so. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that he had never ridden or been hunting. but he has owned a racehorse. I had the privilege of riding his racehorse in order to try to get it lit to win a race. Sadly, it did not win a race. Whether that was because of the horse or me, I cannot tell. However, I warmly support his Bill.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, this is an interesting debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on his ingenuity rather than naivety in introducing it at this time. What I will say represents my views and not those of any other individual member of my party in your Lordships' House. However, as my noble friend said, we have a party policy outside the building.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that, like everyone else, he would declare his interests. I do not believe that I have any interests to declare, in that I am not a member of a hunt and I have never been hunting. I asked myself why that was. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that he wished that he had hunted but had not done so. From a personal and selfish point of view, hunting is one of the activities in which I wish I had taken part. It appears to be an exciting activity and I believe that would have enjoyed it. The reasons why I did not do so in my younger days were probably more to do with my levels of equestrian performance and skill. If I got on a big hunter and started chasing across the countryside, I would have fallen off at the first major fence that I came to.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Lord might like to know that he could have done so on foot if he had so wished.
Lord Greaves: Yes, my Lords. I could follow one of my noble friend's hunts in mid-Wales on foot, but that would take the excitement and fun out of it.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Greaves: Perhaps not.
1074
My main point is that hunting is a sport, and it should be regarded as such in discussions. I believe that the Government's attempt to define it in terms of cruelty and utility is a cul-de-sac that is bound to get them into all kinds of difficulties. I agree with noble Lords to the extent that it is getting them into a series of difficulties.
On a previous occasion when we discussed hunting, I said that hunting should either he allowed or banned. That is the limit to which a government and Parliament should get involved. I said that I did not believe that a middle way, in which the Government stepped in and tried to regulate hunting in the interests of utility and lack of cruelty or whatever, was a satisfactory way in which to regulate a sport. At the time, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he found my views bizarre. He is entitled to think that but there are great dangers when a government start to get involved in the detailed regulation of any sport. When sports need regulating, they should be self-regulating, as sports throughout the country are. There is an argument about boxing. If people believe that boxing should be banned—some do—the answer is not for the Government to step in and regulate it; a decision has to be made about whether it should be allowed, as it is, or, if people want to ban it, it should be banned. I fear that once a precedent is established by which a government step in with a quango or whatever to regulate a sport, particularly an activity sport, that might spread to other sports that people believe are dangerous and in relation to which people should be regulated for their own good.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, attacked groups that had a political agenda. There is no point in getting into a slanging match about which side of the argument is political and which is not. Politics is about issues and beliefs, but it is also about interest groups. Whether one supports the Countryside Alliance, the RSPCA or any other group, to start slagging off one side as being political and claiming that one's own side is not political does not appear to be a productive way forward. For anyone to suggest that the Countryside Alliance is not political is disingenuous.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The Countryside Alliance is not a charity; the RSPCA purports to be a charity.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Lord. That was not the point to which I was replying. If people believe that a particular organisation is contravening its charitable status they should do what the noble Lord proposes; that is, make a complaint and then a ruling will be made. However, I do not believe that that is for noble Lords to rule upon.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that he thought that his Bill would provide a better result for wild animals generally. Having carefully considered it and compared it with the Act he seeks to amend, it is not clear to me that that is the case. This all seems to come down to a comparison between "undue suffering" and "unnecessary suffering'''. There may be something obvious here which I have not understood.

1075
I believe he suggested that his Bill would clarify the matter and resolve grey areas such as whether an activity is "undue in degree". I find it difficult to go along with that understanding. He then referred to undue suffering within different practices, which clearly leaves open to interpretation whether there could be different accepted levels of cruelty or suffering within one practice as compared with another because the question of whether something was undue would depend upon the practice. I believe that the noble Lord accepted that in introducing his Bill.
As usual, I enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. He gave an interesting description of the situation in mid-Wales. He said that this is a matter of balancing freedoms and rights and that whenever it comes to reducing people's freedoms or, indeed, removing them altogether, as Liberals we must be careful. I agree with him on that. It is a fundamental argument in relation to whether activities such as fox hunting should be allowed to continue. I do not want to debate this matter at great length today. However, it all comes down to the clash between the liberties of people and the welfare of animals. The interface between those two aspects of public policy, which is found in all kinds of areas and has been for the past 150 years or so, is interesting and fundamental.
I am not one who believes that animals have rights in that sense. That seems to be an extreme view. By definition, rights are to do with the political and social process of the interaction of people. By definition, other species cannot have the same rights as people. The question of where animal welfare clashes with those rights is interesting. That is a matter of judgment and debate. I look forward to debating that with my noble friend in future.
I return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, concerning "undue suffering". My noble friend Lord Carlile said that he saw great advantages in the simplicity and clarification provided by the Bill. He spoke as an extremely distinguished lawyer. However, in my view the real advantage of the Bill to lawyers is the large number of expensive and long drawn-out court cases to which it will inevitably lead. The interpretation of "undue suffering" is one which will keep many lawyers busy and well paid for a long time. It seems to me that the inevitable consequence of the Bill will be a whole series of cases which will go through the appeal process and end up in the House of Lords.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. He might be interested to learn that in my 32 years as a barrister I have made far more money defending people against the outrages committed against them by so-called animal liberationists than I have ever made from anything to do with hunting—by a multiplier of, perhaps, 150.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right. I would not want in any way to condone the activities of people who break the law in the
1076
interests of what they call animal liberation. That seems to me to be a totally false concept. However, we are considering a situation in which the law will be changed. If legislation is introduced which provides people with the opportunity to pursue their agendas, political or otherwise, to try to ban all kinds of activities—no doubt that would include hare coursing, fox hunting, stag hunting and perhaps shooting rabbits and so forth—I am sure that people would do that and perhaps lawyers who are less particular than my noble friend about the work they do would make a lot of money, even if he does not.
I shall comment briefly on the middle way and government involvement in this matter. I have made my views clear about the degree to which government should be involved in regulating sport, whether that is directly, through a quango, or through recognition of other bodies. I am not clear exactly what is proposed in the Bill. The noble Lord has presented a piece of paper which states one thing but tells the House that all sorts of amendments will be proposed in Committee which will make it quite different. I had the impression that he wants to drag it away from the middle way position more towards the status quo and what in terms of options for fox hunting has been described as self-regulation. I am not clear about that. I believe that that position is unsatisfactory at this stage of the Bill. However, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, we shall listen with interest in Committee to what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
The politics and reality of the situation is that a government Bill is passing through the House of Commons. Whether noble Lords believe it was satisfactory when it was introduced or that any subsequent amendments are a good idea, before long the Bill will come to your Lordships' House. It seems to me that that will be the time for the real debates and arguments about whether such practices should be allowed to continue.
1.58 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I find myself in slight difficulty over the last comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Whether or not the hunting Bill comes to this House, the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, addresses specifically the question of the protection of wildlife in our countryside and avoiding unnecessary cruelty to it. I do not see it in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I shall return to that point.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for introducing the Bill and recognising that in its present form it is perhaps not totally acceptable. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform voiced its concerns and the noble Lord has today indicated his willingness to table suitable amendments to rectify the matter in Committee.
Before the noble Lord gave his speech, I noted that that I supported his Bill in principle. However, I knocked out "principle" and changed it to "I welcome the Bill" as he went on to explain the amendments he proposes. I welcome the Bill because it tackles the whole question of deliberate cruelty.

1077
I do not believe that there is anyone in this Chamber who is not concerned about the suffering of animals. Section 1 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 uses the words,
"intent to inflict unnecessary suffering"
and then specifies the list of offences. Clause 1(1) of the Bill creates an offence covering:
"Any person who intentionally causes undue suffering to any wild mammal".
That covers all wild mammals. I believe that is an improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report reflects the same sentiments. He states:
"In the absence of a ban, one possible legislative approach would he to remove the present exemptions for Hunting in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996".
That is what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, seeks to do.
The Bill would remove the list of limited exemptions in the current 1996 Act and replace them with a general offence to "intentionally"—the important word—cause "undue suffering". That is similar to the existing law covering domestic animals.
The Countryside Alliance in its briefing recognises that UK animal welfare legislation is piecemeal. It believes that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will go a long way towards clarifying the law in relation to wild animals and protecting them from intentional and unnecessary suffering. Indeed, as other noble Lords have said, the CLA specifically raises the two issues. As such it is neither a pro-hunting nor an anti-hunting Bill; it is an animal welfare Bill that simply aims to afford wild animals a similar level of protection to that enjoyed by domestic and farmed animals.
The Hunting Bill is based solely on a desire to heavily regulate one activity—hunting with dogs. It does nothing to improve the lot of wild mammals generally. I think that, with one slight concern, that has been very much reflected around the Chamber today.
The NFU in its briefing reminds us that when the previous Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was debated in March 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, expressed concern about the possibility of vexatious prosecutions of normal pest-control activities if the exemptions in the 1996 Act were repealed. The NFU believes that the onus on the prosecution to prove intent should reduce such a risk; no doubt we shall have greater debate in Committee on that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, explained to us the kind of proposals that he wishes to bring forward in his amendments. We obviously do not have their written details, but we look forward to those so that we can debate the matter properly in due course.
Inevitably, today's discussions have also covered many concerns about the Hunting Bill. It is impossible to separate the two. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever explained the reservations held by many in the shooting fraternity. They are perhaps concerned that the noble Lord's Bill might lead to additional
1078
regulations being placed on them. I suspect that that is not the noble Lord's intention. I see him shaking his head. I did not assume that it was. No doubt when he tables amendments he will clarify that matter, which will be immensely helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his very moving speech said that hunting was a matter of conscience. That is also so on our Benches. Therefore, I find myself responding to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with the backing of my own party. I support it anyway. My views on hunting will obviously be expressed from a personal point of view. It seems an odd clarification to make in a debate dealing with a different Bill, but I hope that my words express my belief. I should declare my family interest. We have a family farm. I also used to hunt, although I sadly do not ride any more. That should also be placed on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, recognised that the Bill is trying to give greater support and to reduce the actual risk of animal cruelty, as it exists at the moment. He, too, picked up on a matter that I wanted to point out. The Bill is good because of its simple approach. It will bring uniformity to the legislation when it becomes an Act.
I always enjoy the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath—although we have a Labrador and would claim that that is an even better clog than his. He raised some very important points. I should particularly like to pick up on one point regarding the CROW Bill. He and I and many other noble Lords in the Chamber today went to great lengths to try to persuade the Government to include in that Bill a ban on a right to roam at night. We tried consistently to do so on the grounds of safety for the people who would be wandering. One of the problems is that limping to control foxes is a regular feature across some hillsides. If one does not have a ban at night, one runs a great risk that people may be shot.
Unfortunately, at the time we could not persuade the Government of that and so the Act was passed with that point, about which we were so vehement, being totally ignored. My only hope is that it will never happen and that someone will not be shot. But it is a risk that we recognised then and here we are still debating it now.
My noble friend Lord Peel expressed his concerns on the Government's approach to the Hunting Bill. It is a personal view, but I share those concerns very strongly. I do not believe that it deals with the whole question of animal cruelty, to which this Bill has regard. I, too, am very disturbed that all the work that went into the Burns report is being overturned, ignored and bypassed.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, who chairs and leads the Middle Way Group in putting forward suggestions for the Hunting Bill, recognises the importance of the Burns report. He specifically touched on three issues that I would like to pick up. First, there is the question of the shooting of foxes, It is not a good alternative, in particular as the proposed Hunting Bill will ban the digging-out of foxes, so that

1079

if they are shot and go to their lairs they will be left to die in misery. Of that there is no doubt. Certainly, the Hunting Bill does not address that issue.
My noble friend and others referred to the political correctness of some of the animal welfare groups. I do not mind when people do not agree with me and have different views—that is what democracy is about. What I find difficult is when people purport to represent animal welfare but have no scientific ground on which to base their argument. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals simply does not want hunting to continue. It does not tackle the whole question of cruelty to and suffering of wild mammals.
Lastly, I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Astor support the Bill and speak about how the Hunting Bill is progressing in another place. He has great personal expertise and understanding of how hunting works, so I was grateful for his contribution. He also raised an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, to which I should like to refer: the question of fallen stock. As my noble friend said, come 1st April, one will not be allowed to bury fallen stock as previously. My noble friend asked what will happen to it. I read a piece in the newspaper only a few days ago saying that it. would be dumped by the roadside or left there in dustbins to be collected. That is surely not right. I hope that the Minister will mention that in his response.
We support the Bill. There is much good in what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, proposes. We appreciate that all its provisions have not been spelled out, so we must accept his intention to table suitable amendments in Committee. It has great merit. It is simple. It opens up the provision to cover all wild mammals. Like other noble Lords, I support the Bill and look forward to working with the noble Lord in Committee.
2.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, in some respects this has been an extraordinary debate. As a result, I should probably declare an interest: I am the Minister who will have to introduce the Hunting Bill to the House in whatever form it ends up. We do not yet know what will be the final version of that Bill and it is not before the House today. One could have been fooled by some of the debate focusing on that Bill, but it is the Bill of my noble friend Lord Donoughue that is before us. I correct the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I am not responding to the debate; I am giving the Government's view on my noble friend's Bill. I hope that we can focus on the Bill on its merits, rather than diverting to parallel matters.
The Bill has merits. I have concerns about it, but it clearly has merits. One of its apparent merits is that of simplicity. However, although the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said in passing during the course of an otherwise eloquent and evocative speech—not that I
1080
agreed with it; but it was a good speech—that simplicity was to the advantage of lawyers, I am not sure that that is true, or that simplicity necessarily brings clarity. Ambiguities that we must address arise from the terminology used in my noble friend's Bill.
The essence of current law—which reflects earlier law—is that it makes it an offence for a person to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, crown, drag or asphyxiate any wild animal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering. Several different things are implied in that definition. My noble friend attempts to simplify the provision by stating in the Bill:
"Any person who intentionally causes undue suffering to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence".
That is a major change and runs the risk of extending the law into areas such as hunting with hounds—where there will be argument about whether that constitutes undue suffering—and could conceivably open up arguments about shooting. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is concerned about shooting.
The second change proposed in the Bill is to remove current exemptions to lawful hunting and shooting and to introduce a new one, which is where an act is,
"in accordance with a recognised code".
It then defines that. Thirdly, it gives the Secretary of State affirmative order-making powers concerning the bodies to administer the codes.
Each of those areas presents us with some difficulty. It is not entirely clear to me on first reading whether "undue" suffering is a weakening or a strengthening of the provision in the previous Bill and current legislation, "unnecessary". It is a relative term. In so far as it is relative, I am not sure that it is the equivalent of the Bill that I am not supposed to mention, which uses the concept of "least suffering". Undue suffering, therefore, would not be the least suffering needed to attain the outcome. The definition is ambiguous and problematic.
The provisions dealing with codes present a problem. The Delegated Powers Committee regards the Bill as granting some degree of status to codes promulgated by existing authorities. My noble friend Lord Donoughue said that the codes should be seen in the same way as the Highway Code. The Highway Code is produced by the Government and can be cited in court, although it is not directly enforceable. The Delegated Powers Committee felt that it would be difficult to delegate such a power to a voluntary body, which is why it used the term "inappropriate".
It would also be difficult for the Government. We would have to judge whether existing codes were appropriate, which could lead to all sorts of arguments. As I understand it, my noble friend's Bill provides that, where no code exists, the Government must create one to be enforced. That would engage the Government in various areas in which they are happily uninvolved. To that limited extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we would probably not want to be involved in the promulgation of detailed codes in that area. Therefore, the issue must

1081
be addressed. I think that my noble friend Lord Donoughue recognises that the Delegated Powers Committee raised a relevant point.
The organisations may not relish the prospect of their codes being second-guessed by the Government either. Therefore, other tensions could arise. The Bill would result in DEFRA-approved codes that could be cited in court. That would place a new responsibility on the Government and create a new range of potential cases for the courts. It is unclear how far those measures would improve the protection of wildlife as against the current voluntary codes and general provisions of the existing Act.
The Delegated Powers Committee raised another quasi-legal problem, which my noble friend Lord Donoughue said he would deal with. The Bill would give the Secretary of State powers to set up tribunals. Normally, such a provision would be included in the Bill and would grant the power, not to the Secretary of State, but to the Lord Chancellor. With due respect to the subsequent debate, although it is just possible to envisage a maligned Secretary of State at some time in the distant future, it is obviously beyond our imagination to conceive of a maligned Lord Chancellor. Therefore, we would need to reflect convention in that respect.
The principle in the Bill of providing a coherent and simpler approach to the protection of wild mammals is a desirable objective. It would be fruitful for this House to discuss the matter in subsequent stages. However, the Bill in its present form does not avoid ambiguity, conflict and argument. I suspect that in this area it is impossible entirely to avoid those problems. I suspect that we shall see that when we debate the other Bill progressing in another place. But it is a valiant attempt. I would be happy to make further comment in Committee. I confine myself today to those remarks and allow my noble friend Lord Donoughue to respond to the debate.
2.18 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this excellent debate. It produced widespread support, certainly in principle, for my proposals. I recognise that we are running late on a Friday.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for his support and welcome of my proposed amendments. I look forward to working with him with positive assistance in Committee. My concern is to meet the concerns of he and his colleagues. Like others, I welcome the impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which was a pleasure to hear. He represents the long, honourable libertarian tradition of his liberal party, which, sadly, has been deserted by some urban guerrillas in his party with less distinguished political records than he.
As always, my noble friend Lord Hardy spoke from deep knowledge and experience of the area. He made a challenging point about his terriers. We might settle that with a meeting, as they are gentlemen and mine is a lady, so that they may produce even greater perfection in the future.
1082
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, offered generous support from the Opposition Benches. They made some telling points, especially in emphasising the element of consistency in the Bill and the need to clarify the existing legislation. I was especially pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, welcomed the Bill. I believe that the amendments will satisfy her, and I look forward to working with her in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made some interesting points. I am not clever enough to have understood everything, but he made some interesting arguments against the Hunting Bill. I am content to allow our courts to judge basic issues. The noble Lord is wrong to say that there will be a clogging-up; it is not an unusual process, and the precedent has been established.
My noble friend the Minister displayed his customary knowledge and understanding, with no sign of malignity. I welcome his view of the Bill's merits, and I have confidence in the courage with which he will face the passage of the Hunting Bill through this House. The Minister said that he had difficulties with the definitions in my Bill, so I invite him to discuss that with me before the Committee stage. I assure him that I am willing to listen even to the Government. Most of the points that the Minister made, which were understandably written by officials before I made my speech, will he met by my amendments. I should like to sit with the Minister and confirm that.
In practice, the Secretary of State would not be deeply involved in proposing codes for the sports. Most of the sports have codes, and, as I said, I propose to collate them. If they do not exist, the role of the Secretary of State would be to encourage the relevant bodies to produce them.
It has been an excellent debate. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ministerial and other Salaries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
2.23 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has one obvious virtue: it is very short. Its purpose is to link the salary of the Lord Chancellor to that of a Secretary of State, instead of to that of' the Lord Chief Justice. Roughly speaking, it would halve the salary of the Lord Chancellor. Under present legislation, the Lord Chancellor will he entitled to £202,000 from 1st April, although the present holder of that office said that he would, for the time being, draw only £184,000. Under the Bill, the Lord Chancellor would get about £97,000, the same salary as the Leader of the House of Lords.

1083
I should make it absolutely clear that the Bill is not in any way intended as a personal attack on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as the present Lord Chancellor. He is someone for whom I have the utmost respect—except, perhaps, for his views on the reform of your Lordships' House. I do not wish anything I say, nor do I wish anything in the Bill, to be taken as a personal attack.
The Bill is moved in support of a constitutional principle. On these Benches, we believe that the office of Lord Chancellor has moved, is moving and ought to continue to move away from being a judicial office and towards being a ministerial and political one. That should be recognised by giving the Lord Chancellor a ministerial salary rather than a judicial salary.
At present, the Lord Chancellor is entitled to a higher salary than the Prime Minister and approximately one-and-a-half times the salary of a Cabinet Minister in another place. Cabinet Ministers receive part of their MP's salary, as well as their ministerial salary. The Lord Chancellor is entitled to approximately double the salary of the Leader of the House—the only other Cabinet Minister in your Lordships' House. That is a historical anomaly.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is not here today. That is correct—because of his personal interest in the matter he could not take part in the debate. He would be wasting his time to sit and listen. No doubt he will read it in Hansard.
I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the only living former Lord Chancellor, has come from Scotland to speak on this occasion. I expect him to give a vigorous defence of the present arrangements. If that is so, it will be a welcome contribution to the debate.
We need to start with a little history. The office of Lord Chancellor has always been traditionally well paid. Much of the background to the salary situation is set out in the report of the Committee on the Remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Lawrence QC, published as Command Paper 2516 in November 1964. I should add that my wife was a junior member of the secretariat of that committee.
In 1830, a Select Committee recommended that the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, and other senior Cabinet Ministers—except for the Lord Chancellor—should be £5,000 per year. That recommendation was accepted by Parliament. In 1832, following the report of the same Select Committee, Parliament gave the Lord Chancellor an aggregate salary of £14,000 per year. That was more than twice the salary that the Prime Minister—or the First Lord of the Treasury, as he was then called—received and was equal to £700,000 per year at today's values. The sum was made up of £4,000 as Speaker of your Lordships' House and £10,000 paid as a judicial salary.
In 1851, the two salaries were merged and the aggregate salary of the Lord Chancellor was reduced to £10,000. Therefore, this Bill is not unique in proposing a reduction in the Lord Chancellor's
1084
salary—in 1851, a substantial reduction occurred. From the 1830s onwards, High Court judges received £5,000. I am not sure what the Lord Chief Justice received in those times because that post came into existence only in the 1870s with the merger of the three old common law courts, each of which had its own Chief Justice.
By the time of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the Lord Chief Justice received £8,000 per annum. There were some increases after the Second World War as a result of higher inflation.
In its 1964 report, the Lawrence committee recommended an increase to £18,000 per year for the Prime Minister, £17,000 per year for the Lord Chancellor and £12,000 per year for other Cabinet Ministers. Those recommendations were not implemented in full. Two Acts were passed in 1965; the Judges Remuneration Act and the Ministerial and other Salaries Act. Under the Judges Remuneration Act, the Lord Chancellor received £14,500 and the Lord Chief Justice £12,500. Under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act, the Prime Minister received £14,000, which was £500 less than the Lord Chancellor. Other Cabinet Ministers received £8,500. Until that date, therefore, the Lord Chancellor's salary had been treated as a judicial salary.
In the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1972, the Lord Chancellor's salary was for the first time treated as a ministerial salary, but he continued to be paid a sum which was much greater than that of a Cabinet Minister. At that stage, the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister both received £20,000 a year and a Secretary of State £13,000, all subject to increases by statutory instrument to match inflation. Those figures were repeated in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, an Act which is still in force, subject to later amendments.
Since the Administration of Justice Act 1973, judicial salaries have not been fixed by Parliament. They are fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the approval of the Treasury. Finally, the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 provided that the salary of the Lord Chancellor, which was by then fixed at £91,500, should thereafter be £2,000 above that of the Lord Chief Justice. That gave effect to the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Board in 1983. The 1991 Act has the incidental effect that, technically, the Lord Chancellor has power, by deciding on the salary of the Lord Chief Justice, to decide his own salary, though of course subject to Treasury consent.
The 1991 Act as a Money Bill received only a short debate in your Lordships' House. I have looked at the Second Reading debates in both Houses to see whether anything relevant to the Lord Chancellor's salary was discussed and I discovered only one brief exchange in your Lordships' House. On 26th February 1991, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie said:
"I understand that the Lord Chancellor receives an enormously greater salary than the Prime Minister. Can he say whether that is so because the Lord Chancellor is worth more, because he works harder, or because lawyers in this country are grossly overpaid?".

1085
To that, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe responded:
"I should point out that the Lord Chancellor receives an additional payment because he is well worth it".
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, winding up as Leader of the House, said:
"I do not know whether I should now embark upon a long explanation as to why the Lord Chancellor is paid more than the Prime Minister. I shall leave that issue for another day".—[Official Report, 26/2/91; cols. 873–75.]
Another day is today because there have been no intervening debates on the subject. And in order to show how little changes over time, I point out that immediately after the debate from which I have quoted, the House went on to hear a Statement about the Gulf War.
The Lawrence committee considered at some length the justification for paying the Lord Chancellor such a high salary compared with other Cabinet Ministers. Paragraph 136 of its report states:
"We are of the opinion that the total salary of the Lord Chancellor should be increased in order to preserve a marked difference of remuneration consistent with the eminent nature of his office and with his position as the head of the judicial hierarchy of England entrusted with the great responsibility of recommending appointments to judicial office. Moreover, the office of Lord Chancellor, in our opinion, should continue to be an object of ambition to the ablest members of the Bar as the highest position constitutionally open to them as lawyers. The Lord Chancellor's salary therefore should be set at a level acceptable to such leaders of the Bar as have the outstanding qualities and attainments required for discharge of the manifold duties of this great office".
That sounds like something from another age. Indeed, my wife, as a member of the secretariat, felt so at the time.
The first justification mentioned is the special responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. Frankly, as an explanation or justification, that will not wash. Of course the appointment of judges is a matter of great constitutional importance, but we have to ask whether the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor are greater than those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary, the three traditional great offices of state. Are the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor necessarily even greater than those of, for instance, the Secretaries of State for Defence and Health?
As to the need to pay high salaries to obtain suitable candidates for the office, the proof of the pudding is in the eating—or, in this case, the disproof of the pudding. The ministerial Benches include the noble and learned Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal—all of them barristers of the highest ability; any of whom would be an admirable choice for the office of Lord Chancellor; and each of whom would be able to earn far more in private practice than they do as a Minister. But each of them has accepted a government post for a salary which is far less than that of the Lord Chancellor.
The role of the Lord Chancellor as an active head of the judiciary is now, frankly, fictional. The Lord Chancellor hardly ever sits as a judge. In response to a Written Question of my noble friend Lord Lester of
1086
Herne Hill, it was disclosed the other clay that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sat not at all in 2002 and in one case lasting for three days in 2001. Under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, the Lord Chancellor cannot sit in any case in which the Government have an interest. Many lawyers consider that he should not sit at all.
Of course the Lord Chancellor's role as Speaker of your Lordships' House is now largely nominal. It is, frankly, a waste of the time of a Lord Chancellor. Why should a Lord Chancellor spend half an hour a day, dressed up in fancy dress, listening to questions?
By contrast, the political and administrative role of the Lord Chancellor has increased greatly. The Lord Chancellor's Department is large, with a very large bill, and it will become larger when the staff of the magistrates' courts are absorbed into it. At that point it will have a staff of approximately 25,000 people.
The responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor's Department now go well beyond the traditional ones of the judiciary, the court system and civil law. After the last election, the Lord Chancellor's Department took over from the Home Office responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. Since then, it has also taken over responsibility for elections. The department has general responsibility for constitutional law. Indeed, apparently it wishes to restyle itself as the "Department for Justice, Rights and the Constitution".
The present Lord Chancellor is far more politically active than was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, heads several Cabinet committees and is a big fish in the political pond. He is seen as a politician. In the public's view, it is not him but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, who is seen to be the real head of the judiciary. It is of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and not the Lord Chancellor, who has in the past few days defended the judiciary against the intemperate attacks of the Home Secretary.
The office of Lord Chancellor is becoming almost indistinguishable from that of any other Cabinet Minister. The only remaining function of the Lord Chancellor that is distinctive is his role in the appointment of judges. I have no criticism at all of the judicial appointments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—the appointments made by his predecessor are, by common consent, quite outstanding—but we cannot assume that the standards will always be so high. We on these Benches, together with many lawyers and organisations such as Justice, believe that the appointment of judges should now be made by an independent judicial appointments commission. If this happened, the Lord Chancellor's Department would become simply a ministry of justice, headed by a Minister who need not be a lawyer and who might well sit in the House of Commons. I do not think, therefore, that there is any justification for paying the Lord Chancellor twice as much as his colleague, the Leader of the House.

1087
I turn to two final points. First, the Bill does not deal directly with the Lord Chancellor's pension. The pension would, of course, be reduced in consequence of the reduction in the salary to which it is linked. The Lord Chancellor's pension—uniquely—is not linked to the length of his term of office. That is to a limited extent, although not wholly, justified by the fact that the Lord Chancellor, as the holder of a judicial office, cannot return to practice, unlike the Law Officers or other Ministers who are lawyers. Once the Lord Chancellorship ceased to be a judicial office, the Lord Chancellor, if a lawyer, could return to practice. But then, the justification for a full pension, however short the term of office, would end, even if it is justified now.
Secondly, the Bill is intended to come into effect on 1st April 2004. That date has been chosen not as All Fools Day but as the beginning of a financial year. Even with the help which I fully expect the Government to give to this Bill as a useful contribution to the reduction in public expenditure, I do not expect it to become law by 1st April this year.
I believe that it is right, and timely, that the salary of the Lord Chancellor should be the same as that of a Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Goodhart.)
2.42 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, particularly when he wrote to me saying that it would be welcome were I to speak in this debate. I received from his letter the impression—at which he has at least hinted—that I might not be entirely in favour of his proposals.
As your Lordships know, I held the distinguished office of Lord Chancellor for almost 10 years. Therefore, I must have some kind of interest—although essentially academic—in the Bill. I do not believe that the Bill as it stands would affect my personal position.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I propose to approach this matter on the basis of the Lord Chancellor's office; I do not propose in any way to discuss the situation so far as concerns my successor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
The Bill seeks to equiparate the Lord Chancellor's salary with that of a Secretary of State. It is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that in practice the Lord Chancellor's position has become that of a Secretary of State. In my submission that is obviously not correct.
The Lord Chancellor is, first of all, a judge. On taking office, he takes a judicial oath as Lord Chancellor, usually administered by the Master of the Rolls in the presence of all the senior judges of the Supreme Court. He is president of the Supreme Court, and president of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. He provides the administration for all these courts and for county courts and the Crown
1088
Court. If the proposals presently before Parliament become law, he will also provide the administrative support for magistrates' courts throughout the country.
I regard the provision of administrative support to the judges and the way that the Lord Chancellor's Department is organised as part of the judicial administration of judicial functions. For example, the Lord Chancellor provides the listing officers in the various courts. Listing is a judicial function: it is done by the listing officers in the name of, and on behalf of, the judges who are in administrative positions at the various courts, such as the resident judge in a normal combined court centre.
That administrative provision is made by the Lord Chancellor. In my view, it is extremely important that that administration should be seen as provided by one who holds the office of a judge and who, as I said, has taken the judicial oath, as Lord Chancellor, to do right to all manner of persons according to the laws and usages of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. In that capacity, he is discharging an important judicial function.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the appointment of judges, and I need not refer to that again. I am grateful for his comment upon the appointments that I was instrumental in proposing while in office. It is an extremely important part of the Lord Chancellor's function and I think I am right in saying that one of my noble and learned predecessors, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said he thought it was perhaps the most important part of the Lord Chancellor's function. I would not necessarily say that it is more important than some other parts, but it is certainly very important.
My third point relates to complaints against judges, which the Lord Chancellor is responsible for dealing with. In my view, it is very important for the independence of the judiciary that complaints against it are dealt with by a judge, a member of the judiciary himself. So there is a very close arrangement of judicial functions, apart from sitting in court.
As has been mentioned, the Lord Chancellor is a Lord of Appeal and therefore entitled to sit in judicial proceedings of the committees of this House, and when he sits, he presides. He is also, by statute, a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and again, when he sits there, he presides. I sat with the present Lord Chancellor a year or two ago in a case in the criminal law area.
The extent to which any Lord Chancellor sits from time to time is often a matter of' circumstances and personal convenience. So far as I am concerned, I do not regard it as in any way preventing the Lord Chancellor from sitting that he is a member of the Government. When he sits, he sits as a judge, with the responsibilities of a judge incumbent upon him. I believe that the Lord Chancellor. like any other judge, will not sit in a case in which any bias or party interest is reflected, but that applies to every judge. In that respect, the Lord Chancellor is no exception.

1089
I believe that it is correct, as the present system provides, that the Lord Chancellor is salaried on the basis of the judicial office that he holds. He is not a Secretary of State. As your Lordships know, Secretary of State is an office held by a number of people, all of whom are equivalent in parliamentary terms. It is not usual to designate particular Secretaries of State in Acts of Parliament although that can happen. However, the Lord Chancellor has no power to execute any of the functions of a Secretary of State, nor does any Secretary of State have power to exercise the functions of the Lord Chancellor except in very rare circumstances provided for in an Act of Parliament. Generally speaking, however, there is no question of any Secretary of State being able to perform the Lord Chancellor's functions. The offices are quite distinct. No Secretary of State takes a judicial oath or in any way holds office in any of the courts of this country or is entitled to sit.
One of the consequences of all this, certainly in modern times, is that persons appointed as Lord Chancellor have been regarded as persons with sufficient experience and standing in the law to be able to preside with appropriate competence in the highest courts in this country. In that situation, it is only right that the salary should be on the basis of the appointment—as a judicial appointment and as the head of the judiciary. It is for that reason that the salary arrangements are as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with a small lead over the Lord Chief Justice, reflecting the Lord Chancellor's place in that hierarchy. The current lead is £2,500, which is less than any percentage lead that is likely to be awarded. I think that on the current basis, at the Lord Chancellor's current level, if 1·5 per cent were awarded, the lead would be more than £2,500. So a fixed lead would in fact be a diminution from what would be expected if the ordinary arrangement of percentage increases were allowed.
When I was first introduced to the office of Lord Chancellor, I was told by a well-informed department that the Lord Chancellor's office dated from 602. 'The earliest appointment that could be traced was in 602. So it is a fairly ancient office. It has developed over the years. I believe that it is a very important part of what our constitutional history has provided for us. It has provided that the head of the judiciary is a Member of Parliament and responsible to Parliament for the proper performance of the important judicial aspect of government.
As has been said, the Lord Chancellor can be removed from office summarily, without any notice, although he then automatically becomes a Lord of Appeal, entitled to sit in the House of Lords in that capacity. He is therefore in a unique position to be answerable to Parliament for the way in which the judicial functions of the state are performed. Any other judge will have security of tenure and cannot be answerable to Parliament in the same way. It is a unique provision provided by our constitutional history. I certainly think that. on the basis of the arguments we have heard so far, it is one that we should seek to preserve.
1090
In the current situation I believe it right to say that this Bill cannot properly proceed if the present office of Lord Chancellor remains as it is. Accordingly, I submit to your Lordships that on that basis this Bill should not be supported. But I also take the view that it would be a mistake to modify the office of Lord Chancellor along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
I note with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. When I was Lord Chancellor I remember being invited by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to a human rights conference in Oxford. He kindly invited me to preside at that conference. He made very clear to my private secretary that he invited me in my capacity as a judge, not in my capacity as a Cabinet Minister. That is still the position. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is a judge just as much as I was. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to alter the situation in which his salary is presently determined.
The combination of functions to which I referred being in the hands of someone competent to exercise judicial office at the highest level is an important feature of the independence of the judiciary in this country and also an important feature of the way in which the three arms of government are in harmony although in tension. It is sometimes suggested that the Lord Chancellor's office is a breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers. One often hears that referred to. What one does not hear so often referred to is that the three powers in question are the executive, the judicial and the legislative branches. In our country the executive branch is entirely made up of members of the legislative branch. I think I am right in saying that at the moment all Ministers of the Crown are Members either of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons. So there is a terrifically strong link there. The link that exists in the Lord Chancellor between the judicial and the executive branches has been tried and formed by our history and is surrounded by important conventions. It is an office that I hope will long continue.
I think I am right in saying that the late Lord Elwyn-Jones said that he spent a lot of his time as Lord Chancellor trying to ensure that he would not be the last. He was successful in that. To that extent I succeeded also and I hope that many of our successors will have the same success.
2.58 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure and privilege to speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He exemplified the extraordinarily powerful advocacy that I am told he displayed at the Scots Bar and when he defended some of the measures that the government of which he was such a distinguished member introduced. I well remember that.
If he will allow me to say so, the heritage that he left behind as Lord Chancellor, and which I particularly cherish, is threefold: first, the way in which he upheld

1091
the independence of the judiciary as Lord Chancellor; secondly, the way in which he persuaded members of my profession, the English Bar in particular, to reform that profession and remove many of its restrictive practices—I was among those who keenly supported those reforms—and, thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the extraordinarily enlightened judicial appointments that he made, the benefits of which we see today in our senior judiciary.
My only disappointment, if I may say so without impertinence, is that I never persuaded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that there was anything in the far-reaching constitutional reforms for which I, my party and many others pressed during his period in office. In particular, we never persuaded him at all of the kind of reforms that underlie my noble friend's Bill, in relation to the office of Lord Chancellor.
We should be grateful to my noble friend for introducing such a significant constitutional measure, and for the way in which he explained the issues and background. Like the previous speakers I want to emphasise for the avoidance of doubt that, in our support for the Bill, we do not regard it in any way as a personal attack on either the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the office of Lord Chancellor.
I want to give a little more background and add a little more colour to the issues, if I may. The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 that the Bill seeks to amend was enacted when the Lord Chancellor was the genial and companionable Lord Elwyn-Jones, whom many of us remember with particular affection. His autobiography, In My Time, which has been referred to, contains much sartorial and other information about the office of Lord Chancellor. In addition to describing his three hats as Speaker, head of the judiciary and Cabinet Minister, he also described his ceremonial clothing in great detail.
Lord Elwyn-Jones was also pleasurably expansive about other aspects of the Lord Chancellor's pomp, such as his two maces and his,
"large, heavily tasselled purse of crimson velvet embroidered in gold thread with the royal arms and the lion and unicorn with attendant cherubim".
That was originally used to hold the Great Seal. It is now normally carried empty, although it is used to hold the text of the Queen's Speech at the state opening of Parliament.
Nowhere in Lord Elwyn-Jones's autobiography did he mention that Parliament had given him and his predecessors a very fine salary, equal to that of the Prime Minister and much greater than the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary, all of whom had been elected by the people as Members of Parliament. Nowhere did he mention that although his large ceremonial purse is normally empty, the Lord Chancellor's own purse is amply filled out of the Consolidated Fund, in addition to the considerable public expenditure on his palatial apartment.
1092
As has been said, in 1983, the Top Salaries Review Board—a very distinguished body indeed—presided over by Lord Plowden, recommended that the Lord Chancellor should receive £2,500 more than the Lord Chief Justice, in recognition of his role as head of the judiciary. That was passed by affirmative resolution procedure year on year. The reasons given by the review board are interesting. It noted that determining the Lord Chancellor's salary presented difficulties because of the special nature of the job. It stated:
"The Lord Chancellor has several roles: as a Minister and as head of department; as the constitutional head of the judiciary; and in presiding over the House of Lords. When deciding our recommendations we have to consider both the ministerial and the judicial pay structure. This has led us to conclude in previous reviews that the salary of the Lord Chancellor should be the same as that of the Lord Chief Justice. We have considered this relationship again in this review. Having regard to the pre-eminent position of the Lord Chancellor in the judiciary and his responsibilities as a whole, we have concluded that a more appropriate relationship would be established if he were to be paid rather more than the Lord Chief Justice. We recommend that the appropriate salary for the Lord Chancellor…is £62,000. The recommended salary also includes an element of £8,500 to be paid in recognition of the Lord Chancellor's function in presiding over the House of Lords. In making this recommendation, we have been concerned to set the appropriate salary for the position, and have taken no account of the fact that the present Lord Chancellor does not draw the full salary".
The fact that Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, as Lord Chancellor, had decided not to draw the full salary is surely of some significance. It suggests that he, a most distinguished holder of that office, regarded the amount awarded to him as excessive. However, in 1991, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, the 1975 Act was amended so that that £2,500 automatic increment was prescribed in primary legislation without the need for further parliamentary approval by the affirmative procedure.
Those events occurred long before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Human Rights Convention into UK law and long before the important judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in McGonnell v United Kingdom in February 2000.
Times have changed in other ways. It was no doubt true in Lord Elwyn-Jones' time, as his autobiography records, that Cardinal Wolsey's term of office marked the high point in the power and influence of the Lord Chancellor. But that is no longer so. The power and influence of the present Lord Chancellor is unequalled as a heavyweight Cabinet Minister and close confidant of the Prime Minister. Without surrendering any part of his ministerial patronage, he has added greatly to the powers of his department and to the public funds at his disposal. He has great responsibilities—greater than any modern predecessor. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, they are no greater than those of the Prime Minister or his other senior colleagues.
In one other significant respect, his position has significantly altered. Although, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said, he remains head of the judiciary, that is in a nominal sense. In practice, he has had to abandon sitting in a judicial capacity because of the need to comply with

1093
Article 6 of the convention and with modern constitutional principles about judicial independence and the separation of judicial from executive and legislative powers. That change is widely welcomed not only on these Benches but by the Law Lords themselves.
The description by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, of the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary is, as I said, entirely correct in theory, but not in practice. I respectfully suggest that the administrative support that is given by his department to the courts is more an executive function than a judicial function and, in any case, could not justify an inflated salary.
The changes mean that any justification for the increment has been eroded, if not altogether destroyed. We now have the report of Mr Erik Jurgens about the office of the Lord Chancellor, which, if approved by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, would invite the UK to review the office in such a way that the Lord Chancellor's judicial function is no longer combined with membership of the Cabinet and with presiding membership of a Chamber of the legislature. I believe that similar concerns have also been raised internationally within the Venice Commission for Democracy. This has become an internationally important issue. I should add that, even if the Lord Chancellor continued to sport three hats, it would be profoundly unsatisfactory if there were to be a personal financial incentive for him to sit judicially in order to seek to preserve his inflated salary. I am sure that that is not the case.
Another change, which was noted in the autobiography of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, is that,
"in 1988, for the first time in history the judges felt impelled to appoint from among their number a Council of Judges, a council which is presumably intended to be the representative body designed to look after the interests of the English judges who in former times were content to leave the protection of their constitutional independence in the hand of a Lord Chancellor".
To revert to Lord Elwyn-Jones' autobiography, he noted that the Lord Chancellor,
"still takes precedence over all ministers of the Crown, even the Prime Minister. He ranks in precedence after the Royal Family and the Archbishop of Canterbury".
Nothing in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would alter the Lord Chancellor's exalted status or diminish the splendour of his antique garb. Nothing in the Bill would diminish the Lord Chancellor's recently expanded ministerial empire. The sole anomaly with which it is concerned is the exorbitant remuneration attached to his office.
As several noble Lords have said, the increment awarded to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that he is paid £2,500 more than the Lord Chief Justice is founded on the notion of him as head of the judiciary; a notion, it is argued, which means he should not be paid at the same rate as his fellow Ministers. That might have been acceptable in 1983, when the Lord Chancellor sat frequently in a judicial capacity in the real sense, but these days it is surely anachronistic and an unnecessary drain upon public funds.
1094
There can be no doubt that the present very distinguished incumbent of that great office, who has been known to refer disparagingly to "fat cat QCs", would not wish to be remembered as a fat cat on the Woolsack. When I came to the Bar there was an outmoded practice called the two-thirds rule, according to which a junior barrister had to be paid two-thirds of the fees of a Queen's Counsel, in addition to the amount paid to the QC. I am glad to say that that was eventually abolished. Surely, the present Lord Chancellor should welcome the abolition of a rule requiring him to be paid more than the Lord Chief Justice and much more than his fellow Ministers.
Nor can the present position convincingly be justified on the basis of market forces, that is, on the ground that able candidates cannot be found for the office of Lord Chancellor unless they are paid more than other Ministers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is the Leader of the House, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and Lord Goldsmith. are all examples of Ministers who were willing to sacrifice the possibility of earning much larger sums in private practice so as to devote themselves to public service. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, would have accepted his appointment as Lord Chancellor if his salary had been equal to that of a senior Minister of the Crown.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think it would be fair to point out, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart did, that the Lord Chancellor as a judge is precluded from returning to practice, whereas I would have thought that the Ministers to whom the noble Lord referred would be able to return to possibly enhanced remuneration in private practice having held such distinguished office in Government.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for reminding me of that point. I accept that that is a possible ground for distinction under the arrangements which now exist. However, I believe the answer to that is given by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. We would anticipate that consequential changes would need to be made in the course of the next two or three years before the Bill comes into force in order that it would become unnecessary for the Lord Chancellor to be nominally a judge or even necessarily to sit as a Member of this House. In our view on these Benches he could be put into exactly the same position as a Secretary of State, as are the other very distinguished lawyers on the Government side.
It remains for me to refer briefly to that part of the Lord Chancellor's salary that he is paid for acting as Speaker of the House. It would seem appropriate for the level of remuneration for that responsibility to be determined separately by the House, perhaps even on the basis of an hourly rate to be paid to the Lord Chancellor and such other officers of the House as sit from time to time upon the Woolsack. There does not seem any justification for a fixed sum to be included for him alone.

1095
For those reasons we on these Benches hope that the Government will support this modest Bill and remove an anomaly that unjustly enriches whoever is holder of the office of Lord Chancellor and places an unfair and unwarranted burden upon the taxpayer. This is not a case where the emperor has no clothes; the Lord Chancellor has expensive ministerial and judicial clothes, some of which should be shed or reduced or there should be a reduction in the price paid for them by the members of the public.
3.14 p.m.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the noble lord, Lord Goodhart, proposes significant amendment of the provisions of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The Government cannot support this amendment. The Lord Chancellor has already requested that this issue he considered by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body.
As the Lord Chancellor's remuneration reflects the status and responsibility and tradition of the offices this debate has made clear, there is a wider context, as the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, have also made clear. It has been suggested that by implication, the Human Rights Act might make it inappropriate for my noble and learned friend to continue to exercise any judicial functions.
The Government do not accept that reasoning. In the United Kingdom, we have never accepted pure adherence to a doctrine of the separation of powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, elegantly dissected the arguments, which I would not presume to try to match. He referred to his distinguished predecessor as Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, who in a speech to the committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1979 summed up the position in a way that is worth noting. He said:
"Unlike that of the United States, the British Constitution is such that every leading member of the executive is also a member of the legislature.
We have an omnipotent, omnicompetent and sovereign parliament and, to some extent, it reflects the will of the executive, but we have an independent judiciary and the function of the Lord Chancellor is precisely to maintain the independence of the courts of law and the judges.
We have no written constitution and in the absence of a document we must rely on the integrity of a man. It is the function of the Lord Chancellor to fight, to the last gasp if need be, for the independence of the judiciary. He can perform that function only if he has a foot in all three camps".
Therefore, the office of Lord Chancellor, straddling as it does the three parts of the constitution, makes its holder uniquely placed to protect the interests of each part against the demands of the others. In particular, it both upholds judicial independence and mediates between the executive and the judiciary when occasion for controversy arises.
The Lord Chancellor is able to perform that function both because of his seniority in Cabinet and because he is head of the judiciary and sits as such from
1096
time to time. Through his office, the judiciary has a representative in the Cabinet. The Lord Chancellor is in a position to promote mutual understanding in order to avoid collisions at the major intersections in the separation of the powers.

It is sometimes suggested that the Lord Chancellor could continue to fulfil that function without himself sitting as a judge. The Government do not agree. Sitting as a judge can give the Lord Chancellor a practical awareness of the development of the common law at the highest level. More than that, the Lord Chancellor's position as head of the judiciary also has the effect of ensuring that only an experienced and senior professional lawyer can be appointed to the position. It is not enough to have a legal qualification; the holder must be practising as a lawyer. A review of the outstanding attributes of the present and former Lord Chancellors underlines the achievement of successive Prime Ministers in appointing only practising lawyers held in high regard.
It is of course important that when the Lord Chancellor sits as a judge, it should not be in a case in which it would be inappropriate. My noble and learned friend has made it amply clear that he would take great care not to compromise his position in such a way. He has spelled out in this House that he would not sit on any case concerning legislation, in the passage of which he had been directly involved, or in any case where the interests of the executive were directly engaged. The Lord Chancellor would always be greatly concerned that he might render himself ineligible to sit judicially were he to express an opinion on a matter that might later be relevant to an appeal to your Lordships' House.
It can be argued, of course, that whatever may have been appropriate in the past, the Human Rights Act now makes it unacceptable that the Lord Chancellor should continue to fulfil his multiple functions. The Government do not accept that. I would point out, first that the only jurisprudence on this subject from the European Court in Strasbourg, the McGonnell case, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, emphasised that:
"The question is always whether, in a given case. the requirements of the convention are met".

The court accepted the UK's contention that neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the convention required,
"states to comply with any theoretical constitutional concepts as such".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to Minister for giving way. Is he aware that experience in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in the Venice Commission for Democracy suggests that it is almost impossible to explain to lawyers, judges and politicians in the rest of Europe how in Britain alone we retain that curious mixture of the three branches in a single person? Is the Minister

1097
aware of the difficulty that the United Kingdom Government will have defending that position on the international plane?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords. the Government are indeed aware of that, which is one reason why I cited Lord Hailsham as well as the matters before me.
It follows that the Government do not accept that the Human Rights Act 1998 causes us to review the role of the Lord Chancellor. If there is a human rights point here—we do not think that there is—it stems from our international obligations, not from domestic legislation. In any case, the Act was intended to work with, not against, the grain of our constitutional tradition. It assumes a settlement in which the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government all have an interest and role. Indeed, it works best if there is mutual respect between those branches, with each understanding the responsibilities given by the Act to the other two. The role of the Lord Chancellor encourages and promotes that.
I turn to the substance of the Bill: the issue of the salary payable to the Lord Chancellor. In principle, the level of ministerial salaries is a matter for the Government of the day. However, as the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart, mentioned. since its establishment in 1971, the independent Top Salaries Review Body, now the Senior Salaries Review Body, has periodically been asked to undertake a review of ministerial and parliamentary pay and allowances. Following the 1996 Senior Salaries Review Body report, the Government of the day now ask the Senior Salaries Review Body to carry out a thorough review about every three years and to make recommendations.
As I outlined, the Lord Chancellor is by statute head of the judiciary. Many of the core functions of his office derive from his being head of the judiciary. In addition to those functions, he is entitled to sit in the Chair of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. As has been mentioned, the Lord Chancellor's Department has a wide range of responsibilities, employing more than 11,000 staff.
In 1983, the Top Salaries Review Body recommended that, given,
"the pre-eminent position of the Lord Chancellor in the judiciary … and his responsibilities as a whole",
he should be paid rather more than the Lord Chief Justice. In 1991, that salary linkage was enshrined in primary legislation.
The Bill may be partly in response to the pay rise due to my noble and learned friend this April, following the Government's acceptance of the recommendations on judicial salary made by the Senior Salaries Review Body in February. I recognise that the increase this year is substantial, but it is entirely due to the statutory link between the salaries of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.
The 12.6 per cent increase arose because the Lord Chief Justice received the 2.75 per cent increase for 2003 given to every member of the judiciary. along with the remaining 4.4 per cent of the staged award for
1098
2002. In addition, the review body recommended a further increase of £10,000 for the Lord Chief Justice to ensure broad comparability with the Cabinet Secretary.
The related statutory pension entitlement of the Lord Chancellor is based on his salary entitlement on retirement. That, too, has caused some comment in your Lordships' House, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, tried to set in context. To repeat, it is necessary for a new Lord Chancellor to retire from legal practice prior to assuming the office.
However, the other matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred is surely fundamental to the debate and must be considered. Unlike any other Cabinet Minister, by convention, Lord Chancellors may not return to legal practice upon retirement. Thus, Lord Chancellors lose their livelihood, regardless of the length of time for which they may occupy the office. That is surely a crucial concern—one that has no doubt dictated the enduring all-party acceptance of the pension arrangements first set up in 1831 but now being called into question in some quarters.
The Senior Salaries Review Body said in its February report that it would review the broad linkage between judicial and Senior Civil Service salaries. That is needed because performance-related pay plays an increasing part in the salaries of the latter but not the former. The Lord Chancellor subsequently asked the Senior Salaries Review Body to review the statutory link between his salary and that of the Lord Chief Justice. While the review body considers the matter, my noble and learned friend has volunteered to forgo the majority of his pay rise. Instead he will accept an increase of 2·25 per cent in line with the award received by other Ministers.
The noble Lord's Bill would remove the link between the salaries of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. It would set the Lord Chancellor's salary at the same level as that of a Secretary of State. It is surely clear to everyone who listened to the powerful arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that the Lord Chancellor's role is singular, as I briefly touched upon.
In conclusion, in the light of the work being done by the review body, which we expect to receive early in 2004, the Government believe that it would be premature to amend the legislation on the Lord Chancellor's salary before the review body has had a chance to report.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who contributed much, as I hoped he would, by presenting a closely argued view that was opposite to mine and that of my noble friend. I regret that we heard no comment whatever from the Conservative Front Bench, although a Minister has been present. I would have thought it appropriate that

1099
the view of the Conservative Party, which may or may not be the same as that of the noble and learned Lord, should be expressed.
I wish to say something slightly different from what my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said. I do not intend to argue that the Lord Chancellor's current salary involves any unjust enrichment. The real problem is not that his salary is too high but that Cabinet Ministers' salaries are too low given the enormous responsibility that they bear. I would be more than happy if the salary of the Secretary of State were increased to that of the Lord Chancellor. Obviously, a link to the salary of the Lord Chief Justice would still be inappropriate. The problem is the disproportion between the salary of the Lord Chancellor and those of Secretaries of State.
The conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, proceeded by irrefutable logic from what I believe to be a false premise—that the Lord Chancellor can be regarded primarily as someone who holds judicial office. That is nominally correct. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the Lord Chancellor swears a judicial oath and is entitled to sit as a member of an Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House both during and after his period of office. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was Lord Chancellor, the position may have been closer to a judicial office. He had not served in political office and his involvement in political issues and in the Cabinet was undoubtedly much less than that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. In a sense, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, could have been regarded as sitting in the Cabinet as a representative of the judiciary. At present, however, that is not the case.
The Minister referred to the fact that, in this country, we do not have a constitutional separation of powers in any true sense. Some of us feel that that is unfortunate. Although the entwinement of the legislature and the executive is so fundamental that it cannot be changed, that is not necessarily true of the relationships between the judiciary and the executive.
The argument that the Lord Chancellor's role in Cabinet is to fight for the independence of the judiciary and, in some sense, to act as its representative in Cabinet is not and, what is more, cannot be true because of the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, apart from anything else. The Lord
1100
Chancellor cannot speak out outside the Cabinet Room against decisions that might threaten the independence of the judiciary, unless he is prepared to resign. It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the Lord Chief Justice, who is freer to speak his mind, is the true representative of the judiciary, not the Lord Chancellor.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, used the argument that sitting as a judge gave the Lord Chancellor practical experience of the exercise of judicial functions. All I can say is that sitting in one case in two years cannot do that. The burdens on a Lord Chancellor, with the increase in the role of the Lord Chancellor's Department, are so great that it would be impossible for any future Lord Chancellor to sit regularly in an Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, in the way in which, until relatively recently, that was commonly done.
It was argued that the Lord Chancellor's inability to return to practice was an argument for the present level of salary. I deny that. It may be regarded as the reason why the Lord Chancellor is entitled to a full pension for however long he served in the office, but it is not an argument for a higher salary. Apart from anything else, a retired Lord Chancellor can sit as a member of the Appellate Committee, either as a Law Lord, as Lord Dilhorne did, after he ceased to be Lord Chancellor, or on an ad hoc basis, for which he is entitled to draw salary. Furthermore, a retired Lord Chancellor can sit as a commercial arbitrator, as do many other retired senior judges. Those arguments against the Bill are not justifiable.
I recognise that the Bill is unlikely to become law, but it is, nevertheless, wholly justifiable. For the first time since the Lawrence committee in 1963 and 1964, there is an opportunity for the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider whether there should be a change in the basis on which the Lord Chancellor is paid. It is clear from the 1983 report to which my noble friend referred that the question was not considered on the basis of whether the distinction was justified; it was simply an examination of what the difference in salary levels should he.
As a contribution to further debate, I wish to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before four o'clock.

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Legal Help for Immigration
  Legal Help for Immigration
  Right to Buy Scheme
  Right to Buy Scheme
  Armed Forces: Medically Downgraded Personnel
  Armed Forces: Medically Downgraded Personnel
  Storm Shadow Stand-off Missile Programme
  Storm Shadow Stand-off Missile Programme
  Nimrod MRA4
  Nimrod MRA4
  Royal Irish Regiment
  Royal Irish Regiment
  Irish Guards Regiment
  Irish Guards Regiment
  Armed Forces: Anthrax Vaccine
  Armed Forces: Anthrax Vaccine
  Arms Sales to China
  Arms Sales to China
  Operational Welfare Package: Gulf Personnel
  Operational Welfare Package: Gulf Personnel
  Armed Forces: Manpower Requirements
  Armed Forces: Manpower Requirements
  Army: Long Service Advance of Pay
  Army: Long Service Advance of Pay
  Civil Servants: Gender
  Civil Servants: Gender
  Hazmod Data Network
  Hazmod Data Network
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Teachers: Sexual Abuse Allegation
  Teachers: Sexual Abuse Allegation
  People Trafficking
  People Trafficking
  Ukraine: Country Assessment
  Ukraine: Country Assessment
  Detention Centre Rules
  Detention Centre Rules