Sitting of 24 February 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
  The Secretary of State wits asked—
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

    Local Improvement Finance Trust Programme
    Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the local improvement finance trust programme and general practitioner premises. [155718]
    James Purnell: What progress has been made on the local improvement finance trust programme; and if he will make a statement. [155720]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): The national health service LIFT programme is a means of improving primary care facilities to address a legacy of under-investment. It is making good progress. Contracts have been signed for six schemes and work has begun on the ground. By the end of 2003, 268 new one-stop primary care centres had been developed and almost 2,000 GP premises had seen refurbished or replaced. Most facilities will be provided through traditional procurement routes and such developments will continue.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. For several years, GPs at the Shotfield health centre in Wallington have been pressing to renovate the facilities and the project appears to be about to take off. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that GPs will not be forced to follow a LIFT route and that there are concerns among health professionals about the longterm costs of LIFT projects? Does he accept that, provided that the GPs' proposal represents best value and is what patients want, it should be allowed to proceed?
    Dr. Reid: As someone whose party supports decentralisation of decision making, the hon. Gentleman understands that important decisions about the provision of local health care services should be taken locally by the primary care trust, obviously working with GPs. It is right that what happens at Shotfield should be decided locally.
    124
    On costing such schemes, the hon. Gentleman could look to the well-advanced LIFT scheme in his constituency. I believe that the south-west London LIFT scheme includes a project at Green Wrythe Lane clinic. The planned new one-stop primary care centre will be four times the size of the existing scheme and exhibit benefits, including the services that it will provide to some 6,000 patients, thereby enabling much better integration of health and social services. Such examples show how effective the refurbishments can be, but the decisions must ultimately be made locally. That is why 75 per cent. of our money is allocated in a decentralised fashion to primary care trusts.
    James Purnell: There was genuine enthusiasm at a recent meeting that the Tameside and Glossop primary care trust held about our local plans to improve GP services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those plans offer an opportunity to examine the prevention of illness, keep people out of acute services and ensure that we can bring all the professionals together to work in one place and offer a one-stop-shop service?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The NHS plan, which we published some years ago, promised new and improved premises. Since its publication, six new GP premises in the Tameside and Glossop area have been replaced or refurbished. The local primary care trust there intends to develop extended primary care services in three locations across Tameside and Glossop with a total capital value of approximately £15 million. It is currently considering the different methods of doing that, including NHS LIFT. My hon. Friend, like many people, has benefited from the £1.5 billion that we are investing through LIFT schemes to refurbish or replace GPs' or family doctors' premises throughout England.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is worried that only two local improvement finance trust programmes have reached financial closure? What action are the Government taking to persuade, convince and reassure local banks that LIFT schemes are not risky investments?
    Dr. Reid: I am not sure about the premise of the hon. Lady's question, if I heard her correctly. I can tell her that, by the end of 2003, 268 new one-stop primary care centres had been developed and almost 2,000 GP premises had been refurbished or replaced. Most facilities will be provided through traditional procurement routes, but the LIFT programme involves more than £1.5 billion of capital investment. There are far more than two schemes currently under way, but if the hon. Lady has areas of special difficulty in her constituency and she writes to me, I shall be only too happy to respond.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: I welcome the LIFT projects in my constituency, which include a new community hospital in Harwich and a new medical centre in Holland-on-Sea. Will my right hon. Friend keep a close eye on the primary care trusts so that when they introduce such valuable initiatives, they take note,

    125
    through consultation, of public concerns when they choose sites for them? What would happen to such initiatives if £2 billion of cuts were made, as the Conservative party proposes?
    Dr. Reid: I can confirm that, as my hon. Friend suggests, the proper way of proceeding involves maximum consultation and taking decisions locally. As he points out, a considerable amount of money—£1.5 billion—is being invested in this scheme alone. In addition, a further £195 million has been spent up front to help local projects to do the necessary preparatory work, such as buying sites, undertaking surveys and demolishing old buildings. If we add that £195 million to the approximate figure of £1.5 billion, we reach an amount not unadjacent to £2 billion, which is precisely the amount that would be taken away in any proposed patient passport scheme, which would subsidise the rich to jump the queue.
    Derek Conway: On a less partisan note than the Secretary of State has just employed, although both sides of the House support the new one-stop centres—he is right to praise his Department for them-may I ask him to address the question of the type of older property found in my constituency? Will he tell the House whether the scheme applies adequately to facilities for elderly and disabled patients, particularly in older surgery properties?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. I mentioned that by the end of 2003, almost 2,000 existing premises had been refurbished or replaced. In addition, extra money is going in as part of the new contracts for general practitioners. In general terms, we are carrying out the biggest building programme in the history of the national health service. I extend to the hon. Gentleman an unpartisan fact: in the year in which our Government came to office, almost half the premises in the national health service were older than the national health service. That was a disgraceful residue, but I can tell him that by the end of our third term in government, in 2010, almost half of NHS premises will have been built during the Labour Government's three terms.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcome the fact that three local improvement finance trust schemes are proposed in my constituency, at Askern, Thorne and Moorends, which will greatly improve the front-line delivery of health care services to my constituents. However, can the Secretary of State assure me that the red tape surrounding the LIFT arrangements will not stand in the way of early progress on those three schemes?
    Dr. Reid: I can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible will be done to expedite those three schemes. I am not aware of particular reasons why any of them should be delayed, but I will certainly try to ensure that they deliver the improvements in health care in the Doncaster area that are much deserved and needed. Just as the much-needed bridge in Doncaster, which was delivered under a previous Transport Minister, brought great relief to Doncaster's transport, so will these new premises bring additional relief in health care.
    Alistair Burt: Involving third parties with the NHS in the provision of health care is obviously a commendable principle. To encourage that still further, will the Secretary of State look again at the impact of VAT on charitable appeals aimed at providing further health care? That can tie up money that could be used for the development of health care in the primary and secondary sectors, as we found recently with the Primrose appeal in Bedford, on which the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and I wrote to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton).
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman makes his point skilfully but, as he knows, reconsidering tax matters is largely, although not exclusively, confined to the ambit of my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Medical Engineers
    Dr. Richard Taylor: If he will make a statement on the provision of training for medical engineers for the national health service. [155719]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are increasing the number of scientists and technicians, including medical engineers, employed in the national health service and the number of those people who are entering training. Last year, an additional 1,350 scientists and technicians entered training compared with 1999, an increase of 93 per cent. Over the same period, the number of qualified scientific and technical staff employed in the NHS increased by more thin 8,500, an increase of 16 per cent.
    Dr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he recognise the good work that the Capital medical training centre is doing on the Kidderminster hospital site, in providing vocational training courses for NHS and Ministry of Defence medical engineers? If the Minister who has kindly agreed to visit Kidderminster next week has time, will he meet the manager of the centre so that he can hear more about this extremely successful unit? Will he also encourage local managers to allow this training centre to take over more of a block that might otherwise be demolished? If that block were used, it could produce useful income for the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which is labouring under a large debt at the moment.
    Mr. Hutton: I shall certainly recommend to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) that, if he has time when he visits Kidderminster, he should visit the service to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In general terms, we are interested in exploring all opportunities for further increasing the range of training opportunities available to this critically important work force. Obviously, however, such decisions are a matter for the local national health service.

    Ophthalmic Conditions
    Angela Watkinson: What his Department's strategy is to improve access to treatment for ophthalmic conditions. [155721]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): Our strategy began with reintroducing free eye tests for the over-60s, which had been abolished under the previous Conservative Government. We are building on that by increasing capacity, for example through new treatment centres, and by developing more efficient ways of treating cataracts and chronic eye diseases, thus providing more local and convenient services for patients and delivering greater choice, shorter waits and more consistent quality.
    Angela Watkinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the role of optometrists in the NHS could be significantly expanded, in relation to the provision of clinical eye examinations, as opposed to general eye tests to determine whether people need glasses? In that regard, the early detection of ocular pathologies such as glaucoma is particularly important.
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Lady makes a good point. To complement the investment in the NHS, we are trying to carry forward a series of reforms that will allow people a far greater degree of flexibility involving working in partnership, and which will break down previously defined artificial demarcations. I can assure the hon. Lady that we are considering how people can contribute in that way to the maximum extent of their abilities and skills, and one of the areas involved would be the one that she has mentioned.
    Jonathan Shaw: One of the great concerns in my constituency has been the waiting times for people in need of cataract operations. I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Kent to open a new mobile treatment centre that will enable the number of such operations to rise from 8,000 to 13,000 a year by November. Due to the £4.4 million investment involved, no one will have to wait longer than three months for their cataract operation. Is not this the kind of thing that people want to see from their NHS?
    Dr. Reid: Indeed, it was a great pleasure for me to visit the mobile unit in Maidstone on 9 February, where 300 of the extra procedures that my hon. Friend mentioned will take place. As a result of those procedures, the maximum waiting time for cataract operations in Kent will be reduced next month to six months, and to three months by December this year. I am glad to say that this is taking place four years ahead of schedule, due to the investment and reforms that have been put in place by the NHS staff themselves. At a time when every single thing that could go wrong in the NHS is being highlighted, we should mark our respect for the efforts of the NHS staff involved in a huge success such as this—which is resulting in so much pain being relieved—and for the alacrity with which treatment has been made available to so many people who previously had to wait up to two years.
    Mr. John Baron: The Secretary of State will be aware that, last September, he extended the
    128
    normal three-month implementation period for National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance to nine months when photodynamic therapy to those suffering from wet age-related macular degeneration was involved. The Royal National Institute for the Blind estimates that, as a result, a further 2,800 people will go blind unnecessarily. Given that the institute also confirms that at least 50 centres across the country could provide extra photodynamic treatment from today, will the Secretary of State now scrap the July 2004 target for implementing this treatment and allow the NHS to deliver this important sight-saving service as a matter of urgency? If this is purely an issue of cost, I would remind him that the cost of blindness far exceeds the cost of treatment.
    Dr. Reid: On the latter point, we are well aware of the costs of blindness, pain and death, which is why we are investing so much in the national health service and doing it over such a sustained period. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's specific points, the timelines and flexibility that we sought on implementing the NICE guidelines were in full accord with the recommendations and advice from NICE. On implementation, it is not cost that prevents it—more money than ever before is going into the treatment of a range of eye diseases—but lack of trained personnel. We have made huge advances in that area, but the truth is that we cannot just conjure up trained personnel without forward planning and investment for their provision—[Interruption.] The hon. Member interrupts me from a sedentary position, but no Government who bring in 80,000 additional cataract operations, as we are doing, can be accused of not taking eye conditions seriously. I assure him that we take this matter seriously, and that as soon as we can get the trained personnel, we will expand the provision. That is a continuing process and it will not be achieved overnight, but development and expansion of the NHS will continue in this area, as in every other area, over the next five years.

    NHS Accountability
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to increase local democratic accountability within the NHS. [155722]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Government are increasing democratic accountability in the NHS by giving elected councillors powers to review and scrutinise health services and establishing the direct elections of governors by local people, patients and staff in NHS foundation trusts.
    Mr. Chaytor: May I tell my hon. Friend about the excellent work done by the local authority in my constituency through its health scrutiny committee, which is now regularly interviewing senior management of the acute trust and primary care trust? Does she accept that scrutiny committees have a major role to play and that there is scope to increase their powers as time goes by? Does she further accept, however, that the effectiveness of those committees is variable in different parts of the country? Does she think that there is a case to review formally the functioning of scrutiny

    129
    committees after a suitable period of time—perhaps 24 or 36 months—with a view to improving further the democratic accountability of the NHS in the next Parliament?
    Ms Winterton: I am well aware of the work being carried out by the committee in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that it has taken a particular interest, for example, in mental health services. The overview and scrutiny committees have real powers to require information from the NHS and to require attendance by senior officers at their meetings. What is important is that we make sure that the type of activity that is going on in his constituency is replicated elsewhere. That is why I announced recently something like £2.5 million for the Centre for Public Scrutiny, so that it can look at bringing together local councillors on the committees to examine how the activities that his committee may be undertaking can be used as examples elsewhere. In some areas, those Committees have not been as strong as perhaps they are in his area. We are therefore looking at how we can spread that power to make sure that all are able to take advantage of the new powers given to them.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: When will taxpayers in my constituency have a greater say over the level of services that they receive in their area? To give one perfect example, someone who has just moved back into my constituency after six years and has tried to register with an NHS dentist has been told that there are no NHS dentists in the Ribble Valley area and that he would have to do a round trip of more than 70 miles with his family to get one. What accountability will there be on behalf of those who provide such services to ensure that people who pay large, increasing sums of money for the NHS, including the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions, get the level of service for which they are paying?
    Ms Winterton: Overview and scrutiny committees can look into the provision of dentistry at local level. Moreover, from next year we shall commission dentistry at local level, which means a radical overhaul of the current system. That will ensure that decisions on local priorities and local expenditure can be made by local people. All trusts will of course be overseen by patients forums.
    Roger Casale: Along with investment and reform, will not increasing the power of patients and the public and strengthening their voice in the reshaping of health services become one of the strongest drivers of sustained improvements in the NHS? Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking community groups, members of the public and Sutton and Merton primary care trust in my constituency? They have joined forces in an innovative way to reshape plans for the new Nelson hospital in the constituency. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is the kind of work that she wants to see taking place throughout the country?
    Ms Winterton: I am extremely impressed by the work that my hon. Friend has helped to lead in his constituency, to bring about patient and public involvement. There is indeed an increasing demand
    130
    from local people for more information about why decisions are made at local level, and what priority is given to different funding streams. We are enabling that to become a reality for the first time, and we want what is happening in my hon. Friend's constituency to be replicated elsewhere.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What is the estimated cost of elections to foundation hospitals?
    Ms Winterton: That will depend on the number of people who sign up for the nomination process. In some areas at least 9,000, or 10,000, are signing up for the wider elections to each foundation hospital trust. The elections to the board of governors will then take place. It will be up to each area to decide how the elections should be conducted, and the proposals will be put to the independent regulator to ensure that the procedure is adequate and that enough funds are available.
    Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that proper democratic accountability must rest on the provision of accurate information? Will she give serious attention to the refusal of my local strategic health authority to release a document concerning the management of the Mersey regional ambulance service? How can we improve services if the NHS continues to rest on a culture of secrecy, and will not release documents concerning public bodies paid for with public money?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right:information should be released whenever possible. That is important not only in terms of accountability to patients, but in terms of transparency when it comes to the way in which public money is spent. I understand that my hon. Friend will shortly be meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). Perhaps she will raise the matter then.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister will recall that during the progress of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, Conservative Members pressed for local accountability to be vested in primary care trusts. That is the obvious place to start in determining local priorities in response to local people. The Secretary of State has told us that 75 per cent of NHS funds are allocated to PCTs. When will the Minister and her colleagues, having previously resisted local ownership and accountability for PCTs, do a U-turn on that as well, and offer such accountability?
    Ms Winterton: We have already introduced one of the biggest shake-ups in terms of patient involvement in the NHS. Not only do we have the appropriate systems in the foundation trusts. but every PCT now has a patients forum. It is important to give them time to take root and work properly. We have also introduced patient advice and liaison systems, and an independent complaints system. This is not the time to shake all that up. We want to ensure that it beds down and that the patients forums work effectively, as they have already begun to do. We can then consider any further changes that may be necessary in the future

    Delayed Discharges (York)
    Hugh Bayley: How many York Hospitals NHS Trust beds an occupied as a result of delayed discharge of a patient to a care home; and how many were occupied a year ago for this reason. [155723]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Dr. Stephen Ladyman): York Hospitals NHS Trust has reported 12 delayed discharges for patients awaiting a care home place, compared with 32 a year ago.
    Hugh Bayley: Delayed discharge has been a persistent problem in York, affecting at its peak well over 100 people. 1 have raised this problem with successive Conservative and Labour Ministers, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting on top of it and bringing it under control, because it is distressing for the patients involved and their families. Will he continue to monitor the availability and cost of care home beds local authority by local authority, in order to ensure that there are sufficient resources for those numbers, now that they have come down, to be kept down?
    Dr. Ladyman: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will keep on top of this problem, and I am delighted that we are having such success in reducing delayed discharges and providing extra capacity in the York area. That has happened not by accident, but as a result of substantial extra investment and the assistance of an expert team of change agents, all of which have been provided by this Government.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister tell us to which period the figures he has just announced relate, given that the latest figures that I have show that 24 beds were in fact blocked? Can he also give us the number of care home places that have been closed in the York district, which also serves the Vale of York, in the past year? Is that figure not a source of concern to him?
    Dr. Ladyman: I can assure the hon. Lady that the figures I have just given, as reported by the local trust, are accurate, and are the up-to-date figures for the number of people blocking beds in respect of a care home place. Perhaps she has a different basis for her figures. The simple fact is that across York—throughout her constituency, as well as throughout that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley)—care home capacity is available as a result of the building care capacity grants that we have made available. There is substantial extra funding for social services to ensure that they Can manage delayed discharges; indeed, the entire delayed discharge system is working very well. If the hon. Lady wants further advice on the buoyancy of the nursing home sector, she might like to refer to her right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. The annual stock market reports of the company of which he is chairman describe how buoyant the industry currently is
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These matters are out of order. I expect better from the Minister.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Desmond SwayneWhat plans he has to improve access to NHS dentistry. [155724]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): In the past year, we have announced £90 million of investment to improve access to NHS dentistry. In the short term, we are providing support to primary care trusts where there are acute shortages of dentists, and in the long term we are radically overhauling the system so that the commissioning of dentists takes place at local level.
    Mr. Swayne: It is now virtually impossible for an adult to secure NHS dental treatment in my constituency, and those who are fortunate enough to be registered are being deregistered as dentists abandon the NHS. Will the Minister consider providing patients with the subsidy that would have been paid had the procedure been available on the NHS, so that they can at least defray the bills that they will incur through having to secure such treatment in the private sector?
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that there are particular problems in his constituency, and as he may be aware, we have set up specialist support for areas such as his. The support team has had two meetings with his local PCT, and a follow-up meeting is planned for March. The PCT has been asked to produce a dental action plan to ensure that it is taking steps to rectify the situation. I also undertake to discuss NHS dentistry provision in the hon. Gentleman's area with the strategic health authority chief executive, whom I shall meet next week.
    Lawrie Quinn: I thank the Minister for recognising the acute problems of oral hygiene in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. However, all my constituents recognise that the problem lies in the wreckage of the NHS dental service that was the legacy of the previous Conservative Government. What more can she do to recognise the strategic problem of the number of new dentists emerging from our dental schools and ensure that people have smiles on their faces because they have a sustainable dental service not only in Scarborough, but in the rest of the country, too?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to say that we are suffering from the problems arising from the closure of two dental schools under the previous Administration. We have conducted a dental work force review to ascertain where the shortages are, and we will publish the results in the near future. We are also looking at how, in the short term, we can secure international recruitment and get some dentists to return to work. We have 12 advisers to examine how we can best encourage people, particularly women, who have taken time out from dentistry, to come back to it. That amounts to a whole series of measures to ensure that we can deal with the issues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's hard work in drawing to my attention and that

    133
    of the strategic health authority the problems in his constituency, and I am glad that we have been able to help put some of them right.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: More than half the population of England is not registered with an NHS dentist, and the position has not improved since 1999. The Government tell us that they are keen to promote dental treatment centres as the answer to the problem, so can the Minister tell us just how far people will have to travel to such centres? Currently, people have to travel many miles to do so. Indeed, we heard earlier that 70-mile journeys are sometimes required for people to get access to NHS dental treatment. Will the Minister tell us the maximum travel distance that an NHS patient should expect to reach a dental treatment centre?
    Ms Winterton: We have more dentists than ever before, having increased the number by about 2,000 since we came to power in 1997. The hon. Gentleman mentions dental treatment centres. We have tried to assess where there are particular problems and to provide facilities for emergency treatment. However, we are well aware that that is not the long-term solution, which is to take steps radically to overhaul the system so that the money held centrally is sent down to local level, so that local commissioning can take place. We certainly want to increase the number of dentists in training and international recruitment. As to the specific mileage, guidelines are laid down and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about them.
    Mr. Mark Todd: While the opening of a new NHS dentistry in Swadlincote did not attract quite the queues that newspapers revealed in Scarborough, it still produced many dissatisfied residents who could not register. Even when the list was expanded, some people remained unable to register. Is not the long-term solution to review the contractual relationship between the NHS and dentists to make it more attractive to retain them within the NHS? Currently, temporary fixes are available, but a permanent arrangement surely lies within our grasp.
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. One of the basic causes of the problem was the new contract introduced by the previous Government, which was followed by a 7 per cent. cut in fees to dentists. That is when dentists started walking away from the NHS. The problem is not the number of dentists in training, but the number who are prepared to commit to the NHS. We need to change the contract, which is exactly what we are doing. Instead of being paid in the current item per fee way, they will be paid on a per patient basis. As I said, that will be combined with commissioning dentistry at local level, so that the money remains at that level and does not return to the centre, as happens at present when an NHS dentist withdraws from NHS activity.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: In 1999, the Prime Minister turned up at the Labour party conference and promised that everyone would have the chance to see an NHS dentist. In 2000, the Government published the NHS plan, which stated that NHS
    134
    dentistry would be available to everyone by 2001. Both those promises have been spectacularly and shamelessly broken. Will the Minister apologise to those patients who cannot see an NHS dentist and admit that, when it comes to dentistry, people cannot believe a word that the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, says?
    Ms Winterton: We certainly know that there is a problem, but we also know its cause. As I said, the previous Tory Government closed two dental schools, imposed a new contract on dentists, and cut their fees by 7 per cent. That was bitterly resented, and it started the trend for dentists to walk away from the NHS. It is no good the Opposition pretending that they have no responsibility for the problem. This Government have increased fees by 26 per cent. We have also increased the number of dentists by nearly 2,000, and next year we will introduce a radical overhaul of the way that dental health is delivered in this country. The Opposition cannot deny their responsibility for starting the problem:we are having to put it right.
    Mr. Yeo: Is the Minister aware that, seven years after Labour came to power, the numbers of adults and children registered with NHS dentists have fallen? Is she aware that the British Dental Association has confirmed that the number of dentists in training has remained static throughout the period in which Labour has been in power, and that dentists are moving from the NHS into the private sector at the rate of 1,000 whole-time equivalents every year? Do not all those trends show not only that the Government have broken their promises shamelessly, but that they never intended to keep them in the first place?
    Ms Winterton: There are more dentists than ever before. We have increased the number in training from something like 630 in 1997 to 710 last year. We have undertaken a review of the dental work force, and will publish the results soon. However, we know that the situation at present is a direct result of the actions taken by the previous Government, who drove dentists out of the NHS. The problem now is that, even though there are more dentists, more of them are undertaking private work. We have been working with the BDA to change that by introducing a new contract that will overhaul radically the way that dentistry is delivered. However, it is breathtaking arrogance for the Opposition to pretend that somehow they have no responsibility in this matter.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Most people in Britain understand very well that the Government inherited an NHS dentistry system that was in crisis. However, is the Minister reviewing the effectiveness of the NHS walk-in centres, such as the one at Westcroft in my constituency? Might not the added flexibility that those centres give offer a way forward in the current crisis, until we manage to redraw the contracts and tempt dentists back into the NHS from the private sector?
    Ms Winterton: With the dental access centres, we have made sure that emergency treatment is available. We recognise that, in areas, where there are acute shortages, it is important that people who need emergency treatment can get it as quickly as possible. In almost all

    135
    cases, they can get such treatment on the same day. Of course, we keep under review all the different provision that exists at the moment, from dental access centres and from personal and community dental services.

    Small Acute Hospitals (Anaesthetic Provision)
    Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of anaesthetic provision in small acute hospitals. [155725]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): There are 1,250 more consultant anaesthetists working in the national health service than was the case in 1997—an increase of 45 per cent. The figures do not distinguish between anaesthetists working in small or large acute hospitals.
    Andrew George: Although I am grateful to the Minister for his support in planning for a new model for the delivery of acute care at the small West Cornwall hospital in my constituency, and while that good work is continuing, anaesthetic cover is being withdrawn in the evening and at night. As such cover is a cornerstone in the maintenance of acute and emergency care, can he help me to ensure that West Cornwall hospital's acute status can be sustained by providing anaesthetic care, so that my constituents are not dangerously exposed—particularly in the evening and at night—and that the NHS is kept local?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his appreciation of my work. The problem at West Cornwall hospital has been caused by the long-term sickness of two anaesthetic operating assistants and it is difficult for Richmond house in Whitehall to legislate for that type of eventuality. I understand that that difficulty, which is for local managers to address, is being dealt with effectively. The new NHS terms and conditions package, "Agenda for Change", will make it more likely than not that we will be able to offer attractive recruitment and retention premiums for hospitals such as West Cornwall where there might be difficulties recruiting specialist staff. There is no magic solution to the particular problem at West Cornwall but I am looking at the situation carefully to ensure that we meet our commitment to the widest possible access to services locally.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I understand the Minister's explanation in respect of West Cornwall hospital, is he satisfied that enough people are coming forward to train as anaesthetists? How will that affect the overall provision of health care throughout the kingdom?
    Mr. Hutton: We would like as many additional anaesthetists as possible for the NHS and are rapidly expanding training opportunities for precisely that reason. That aim is particularly important in the context of the European working time directive, as anaesthesia is a specialism that presents particular difficulties. We are working closely with the medical royal colleges, including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, to find effective solutions.

    Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What role the West Yorkshire strategic health authority plays in securing the new hospital development in the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [155726]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Miss Melanie Johnson): West Yorkshire strategic health authority is working closely with Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust and local primary care trusts on plans to redevelop Pinderfields general hospital in Wakefield and Pontefract general infirmary to the maximum benefit of patients.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Mid Yorkshire trust provides services at three sites—Dewsbury, Pinderfields general hospital in my constituency and Pontefract general infirmary. There are extenuating circumstances affecting funding and, as the primary care trusts are limited in the contributions that they can make, the strategic health authority should contribute substantially to safeguard the business plan put in place following an assurance by a Labour Minister that new facilities would be provided at Pinderfields and Pontefract. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the strategic health authority will provide the resources to ensure that plan goes ahead?
    Miss Johnson: I can assure my hon. Friend that the trust's private finance initiative remains on schedule and will provide an improved physical environment and better health services. The strategic health authority is closely involved in resolving the financial difficulties of which he is aware. A recovery plan is being put in place and a fundamental financial stocktake has been undertaken. I further assure him that the Government, together with the SHA, will keep in close touch with the progress of those plans.
    Jon Trickett: May I say that the recovery plan was explained to hon. Members with constituencies in the Wakefield area just the other day? The population is particularly ill as a result of the area's mineworking history, and it is impatient to see the investment that we desperately need and the fruition of the plan, which has been wisely and patiently constructed under the chairmanship of Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract in partnership with the strategic health authority and the Department.
    Miss Johnson: I assure my hon. Friend, as I have already assured my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), that we take a close interest in the matter. I understand the deprivation in the communities that he represents and the issues that arise. Forward work on the PFI and the regeneration of services at primary care level are crucial in substantially improving the health of the local population.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: As a child in the 1950s-I hasten to add that I was a very young child—I remember visiting a family member at Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, who was accommodated in a hut built to hold casualties of the

    137
    second world war. Two weeks ago, I was in the same hut visiting another family member. The hut—a temporary building constructed during the second world war—is still in use. The third-world conditions at Pinderfields hospital are totally unacceptable, and I want to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) about the urgent need for the capital scheme. I welcome the Government's support, but can we have further support to ensure that the scheme moves ahead as rapidly as possible?
    Miss Johnson: Indeed. I reassure my hon. Friend that the scheme is on schedule, and I expect the strategic health authority to approve the full business case in September with the aim of starting work during 2005. I appreciate his points, which highlight the lack of investment in the NHS for many years under the previous Government. We are radically increasing investment, and I point out to him the massive decrease of almost one quarter in heart disease and strokes in his constituency during the past few years of the Labour Government. The investment is already making a difference on health issues in his community.

    HIV/AIDS
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What the change has been in the incidence of HIV/AIDS over the last 12 months; and what the reasons are for the change. [155727]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Miss Melanie Johnson): There have been 5,047 new cases of HIV infection reported in the United Kingdom so far in 2003. That is a 20 per cent. increase on the 4,204 cases reported at the same time last year. The main contributory factors are more people getting tested and the ongoing transmission of HIV infection in the UK, particularly among gay men.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: There are wide regional variations in the incidence of the disease, which imposes an enormous burden on health service provision. Will the Minister take account of the incidence of HIV/AIDS in assessing health service funding?
    Miss Johnson: That is reflected in a variety of ways. Unless the hon. Gentleman has some new evidence, there is no indication that there is a problem with funding for treatment or diagnosis. All the evidence shows that the funding of treatment for HIV is working well.
    Tony Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend accept that those who are HIV-positive or AIDS sufferers almost inevitably tend to congregate in certain large cities or towns, where the incidence of HIV/ AIDS is greater than that in the general population? Is she certain that funding properly meets both the health needs of those people and the general requirement to fund health authorities in the wider community?
    Miss Johnson: We always try to ensure that distribution reflects need. Obviously, the formulae that are used help us to do that in terms of the resources that
    138
    are made available at primary care trust level. There is separate funding for work with African communities, for example, and for work being done with the Terence Higgins Trust, which reflects some of needs of the southeast and one or two other centres in the UK.
    Tim Loughton: The Minister is being unduly conservative because, while the total figures are not in yet, it is estimated that HIV cases for last ye ar will be more than 7,000, which is well above a 20 per cent. increase on 2002. Is she happy that today there are 208 genito-urinary medicine clinics, exactly the same number as in 1997? Despite the herculean efforts of greatly pressured staff, services are deteriorating and waiting times have doubled since 2000. Why is there still no national service framework for sexual health and why has she not taken up our idea of appointing a public health commissioner with a brief to tackle the crisis?
    In the midst of all that, last Christmas, the Department of Health spent £60,000 on a website carol entitled, "The 12 STIs of Christmas", with a chorus of dancing stick figures graphically suffering assorted sexually transmitted infections and displaying their inflamed genitals, with such lines as:
    "On the fourth day of Christmas my true love gave to me…genital herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, and a discharge that is hourly."
    It does not even scan. Is that the best that the Government can do?
    Miss Johnson: To start with, we believe in acting on facts. The facts are important. The hon. Gentleman tries to make a point about investment. One of the points that he makes is about targets, but the Conservatives have complained repeatedly about targets—[Interruption.] He mentioned an NSF, which involves the use of standards and targets. In terms of the national strategy—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Loughton should allow the Minister to reply.
    Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    For the first time, there is a national strategy to improve sexual health and to modernise services. We have backed the strategy with initial investment of £47.5 million, plus a further £40 million over the next two years. In addition, a further £11.4 million was announced in response to concerns raised by the Health Committee and stakeholders, and a further £15 million of capital has been provided to modernise GUM premises. That is the record on which the Government will fight. The hon. Gentleman fights on a record of disinvestment in health services and would do well to bear that in mind in his questioning.

    Hospital Infections (Greater London)
    Simon Hughes: What the (a) figures for and (b) rates of hospital infections in Greater London were for the years (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 and if he will make a statement. [155728]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Dr. Stephen Ladyman): In 2001–02, there were 1,571 reports of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections in the London region and 1,655 reports in 2002–03. The rates for those years are 0.23 and 0.25 cases per 1,000 beds respectively. Earlier data and data for other infections are not available.
    Simon Hughes: Can the Minister tell us what that means in crude terms in London, which is the region with the highest rate of infection, in deaths and other illnesses caused by hospital-based infections? A commission will be set up in April. Will it provide an annual report, region by region, on deaths and illness from hospital-based infections?
    Dr. Ladyman: It is not possible to give precise information about how many deaths result from hospital-acquired infections, because they are acquired by people in a weakened condition as a result of other illnesses and death usually results from the other illness. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he requests, but I can assure him that the chief medical officer is leading our campaign to drive down the rates of hospital-acquired infections and that is as applicable in London as anywhere else.

    Urgent Referral Guidelines
    David Taylor: What guidelines are given to primary care trusts
    140
    about acceptable levels of general practitioner patient urgent referrals to acute hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [155730]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): It is the responsibility of primary care trusts to put in place their own arrangements for reviewing levels of referrals, taking into account the requirements of national and local policies.
    David Taylor: Last month, a widely respected, well-loved general practitioner, in a practice covering my home village, committed suicide during the lengthy investigations by the local primary care trust into his rate of urgent referrals of patients to acute hospitals. Does the Minister agree that public organisations that exercise an overview of primary care should ensure that that role is undertaken with sensitivity, and that holistic, clinical judgment is never overridden by spreadsheet-driven targets?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I agree with both the points that my hon. Friend made. The death of Dr. Farley was a terrible tragedy for his family, as well as an enormous loss to the community that he served for more than 25 years—I know that my hon. Friend knew Dr. Farley. In the light of Dr. Farley's death, I think that the PCT has taken the right course of action. An independent inquiry team is being assembled as we speak, to be chaired led by Dr. Paul Cosford. The inquiry will look into all the relevant events leading up to the death of Dr. Farley. I hope that it will be able to conclude its work by the end of May and publish its findings as soon as possible thereafter. In the light of that ongoing work, it is probably best that I say no more about it at the moment.

British Detainees (Guantanamo Bay)
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay.
Agreement with the United States Government on the return of five of the nine UK detainees was reached on Thursday last, 19 February. Although the House was in recess, I judged that it was only fair to the families of all nine detainees that they should be informed immediately. We therefore made every effort to contact the families and their parliamentary representatives, and I made a public announcement late on Thursday afternoon. I could not report to the House yesterday, as I had to attend a European Union General Affairs Council in Brussels.
The attacks of 11 September 2001 were the most appalling terrorist atrocity the world has ever seen. The terrorists killed more than 3,000 people, including 67 British citizens. In response to those attacks, a coalition of countries came together to launch a military campaign against al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters to remove them from their strongholds in Afghanistan.
In those operations, thousands of individuals believed to be al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, or their supporters, were detained by coalition forces. The vast majority of those individuals were released, but those who were deemed to pose a substantial risk of returning to the conflict—to date about 800—were sent by the United States to its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, there to be detained and to be questioned about their knowledge of al-Qaeda's activities. As a result, valuable information has been gained, which has helped to protect the international community from further al-Qaeda and related terrorist attacks.
The Government have been in frequent and regular contact with the United States authorities concerning the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. From the outset, the British Government have sought to ensure their welfare and have actively encouraged the US Government to resolve the position of the British detainees. British officials have visited Guantanamo Bay six times. We have kept the detainees' families and Parliament informed of their circumstances and of other related developments.
In July 2003, two of the British detainees were designated by the United States authorities as eligible to stand trial by the United States military commissions established to prosecute the detainees. The British Government made it clear straight away that we had concerns about the military commission process. Consequently, the Prime Minister asked the Attorney-General to discuss with the United States authorities how the detainees, if prosecuted, could be assured of fair trials that met international standards.
The Attorney-General therefore held a number of discussions with the United States authorities about the future of the detainees. In parallel, the Prime Minister has talked to President Bush; I have discussed the matter on many occasions with US Secretary of State Colin Powell; and extensive discussions have been held between British and United States Government lawyers and officials.
142
Those discussions have involved many complex issues of law and security, which both Governments have had to consider carefully. Although the discussions have made significant progress, the Attorney-General's view was that the military commissions as presently constituted would not provide the process that we would afford British nationals.
Our discussions with the United States authorities are continuing. In the meantime, as I announced last Thursday, we agreed that five of the British detainees would return to the United Kingdom. The five are Rhuhel Ahmed, Tarek Dergoul, Jamal al-Harith, Asif lqbal and Shafiq Rasul. Those men will be flown home to the United Kingdom in the next few weeks. The House will understand that it would not be right to disclose the operational details at this stage. The police have, however, established links with the families so that they can be informed of developments.
The police have confirmed that, once the detainees are back in the United Kingdom, where there are grounds under the provisions of the legislation, the five men may be arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity. Any subsequient action will be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further on their particular cases, but I should like to emphasise two points.
First, the police have said that they are investigating all the detainees thoroughly and individually, in the normal way, which includes considering the circumstances that led to the men's detention. Every necessary step, including prosecution if appropriate, will be taken to protect national security. Secondly, the detainees will be treated in the same way as anyone else suspected of committing a criminal offence and, obviously, in accordance with UK law. Our processes have built-in safeguards and are subject to independent scrutiny to ensure that all individuals are treated fairly and properly. Those processes include access to lawyers.
We shall continue our discussions with the United States authorities on the situation of the other four British detainees. They are Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg, Richard Belmar and Martin Mubanga. There are a range of security and other issues that we and the Americans are considering in respect of those four men. As a result of our talks, US legal proceedings against Mr. Abbasi and Mr. Begg were suspended in July and the US said that the men would not be subject to the death penalty. That remains the case.
Our overall position remains that the detainees should be either tried in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. We shall continue to work to resolve their positions, and I will, of course, keep the House informed.
The Government remain determined to work with our allies around the world to defeat the scourge of global terrorism. Terrorism seeks to deny the most basic of human rights—to life,to security and the right to go about our daily business free from threat and harm. We will continue resolutely to defend those rights through a

143
robust and determined approach to combating terrorism and its networks of support wherever they are to be found.
Mr. Gary Streeter: May I start by thanking the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for early sight of it?
The Conservative party welcomes the fact that some progress has now been made— after two years—in resolving the prolonged incarceration of five of the nine British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that his statement today raises as many questions as it answers?
Although we recognise the uniqueness of their interim status as unlawful combatants, we have consistently called for the British detainees to be subjected to due process, rather than being held in a legal limbo land. They should be either brought back to this country to face a fair trial, or if there is no evidence of wrongdoing against them, set free. Although we obviously assert that national security has the highest priority, we do not believe that to be inconsistent with a proper and timely assessment of each case and a consequent decision to prosecute or release.
Given the strength of the relationship between the British and US Governments, can the Foreign Secretary explain why it has taken nearly two years to get this far? Does he now accept that one of the reasons why that stalemate has taken so long to overcome has been the failure of the British Government to make a clear decision on how to treat the detainees in this country on their return? Can he tell us what the difference is between those who are to be released and those who are not? Does he believe that the four who will remain constitute a threat to national security, and how much longer is it likely to take until their future is resolved? Is it now likely that they will face trial before one of the military commissions that the US seems to favour? Given what the Foreign Secretary said about the advice that the Attorney-General has given, what will be the Government's response if that is the case?
The Home Secretary, in one of his now infamous preemptive judgments on innocence and guilt, informed the world's media that none of the five who are to be released
"represents a security threat to the British people."
Does the Foreign Secretary agree? Given that we are talking about individuals who more than two years ago left this country to go to Pakistan or Afghanistan—allegedly to explore the possibility of fighting alongside the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda against British interests—how does the Home Secretary know that they will now pose no such threat? If proceedings are to be brought against one or more of the released detainees in this country, how will the Home Secretary's comments help them to obtain a fair trial?
The Foreign Secretary said that on the detainees' return, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service would look at each case dispassionately to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to place a person on trial in this country. Will he confirm that evidence obtained from the detainees during their time in Camp Delta will be made available to the police and the CPS to help them to assess the case for a fair trial? Has he received any legal advice on admissibility and, if so, will
144
he place a copy in the House of Commons Library? Will he confirm whether the Attorney-General has actively considered whether, if the evidence so provides, an action for treason could be brought against any of the released detainees? Will the Foreign Secretary say a little more about the circumstances in which the five will be held in the UK on their return? Will they be at liberty to return to their homes, or will they be held in custody—if so, on what basis?
We strongly support all measures to protect our national security, but this country rightly prides itself as a true champion of the rule of law and the rights of the individual. In the Government's continued handling of the nine Britons currently in Guantanamo Bay, the whole nation will rightly expect them to uphold those enduring British principles.
Mr. Straw: I rather got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was agreeing with the position taken by the British Government, but that he then had to invent several differences to nuance his position compared with ours. The context of the detentions was well illustrated by one word that he used: he said that the detainees' position was "unique". Let us be clear that 11 September 2001 was not only absolutely terrifying, but unique due to the nature of the threat that it posed and because it exposed western democracies and the whole of the civilised world to threats of a kind that we had never previously had or properly anticipated. That creates the context in which those people and the other detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been held.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the difference between those who are to be released and those who will remain in Guantanamo Bay. I do not wish to prejudice in any way the positions of either, except to say that there have been fewer difficulties with negotiations in respect of those who are to be released than of those who will be detained.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether the individuals will pose a security threat. That is a matter for the police, in the first instance, acting under powers that they have generally and also under powers that the House recently gave them through the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended. As I made clear in my statement, the police have it open to them to detain and interview the individuals when they arrive. There is a short time for which they may be detained at the behest of the police, and a longer period—up to a total of 14 days—if that is approved by the court on application. Any further question of proceedings will be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the admissibility of evidence. One does not need advice from the Attorney-General about rules on evidence in the British courts because they are available to anyone who cares to read them, and well understood. I did not ask for that advice, and neither did I receive it, because I did not need it.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the hare that has been running about charges of treason against these individuals. As with any other charge against them, that is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, and I think in respect of treason it is also a matter for the Attorney-General. I merely place on record that I think

145
the last time there was a successful prosecution for treason was getting on for 60 years ago, against Lord Haw Haw.
Sir Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary is entitled to claim that his announcements today and last week are evidence of progress, but not a solution. So far, the Government have, with some success, put their trust in patient diplomacy, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not rule out rightful indignation if that becomes necessary, because if the situations were reversed and the United Kingdom proposed to deal with American citizens by way of military commissions, without due process, the outcry from the White House and from Capitol Hill would be prolonged and deafening, and rightly so.
The Foreign Secretary says that it is not appropriate to comment on individual cases, and as a matter of principle, of course he is correct. When the Home Secretary said that the five being released were no threat, did that represent the considered view of the Government? Even if the Foreign Secretary is unwilling—or perhaps, more correctly, unable—to answer that, does he accept that it raises very sharply this question: if they are no threat, why have they been incarcerated for so long?
Finally, if the United States Government persist in putting United Kingdom citizens on trial in circumstances unacceptable to the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, Parliament and the British public, what then is the Government's solution?
Mr. Straw: First. I accept that we have made progress but have not resolved this matter. As I made clear, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear, we want those individuals to be subject to a trial that meets internationally accepted norms and standards, or we want them brought home. That applies to all nine, regardless of the allegations against them, and not just to the five.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman commented on patient diplomacy. I believe that that is the way to resolve these matters. The House is very alert, as it should be, to our standards of justice, as I have to say generally the Americans are, too, but we have to take account of the context in which the detentions took place. That context was that a terrorist organisation of a sophistication and ruthlessness never previously seen in our history, and without any political programme with which one could negotiate, decided effectively to start a war, not just against the United States, but against the whole of the civilised world. Although colleagues may not necessarily agree with the approach of the United States, it is understandable that it has taken the action that it has. Our discussions with the United States Government have borne fruit so far with progress, but not with a solution.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think that my right hon. Friend sought to clarify those remarks on the radio this morning, when he
146
pointed out that he was talking about what in his judgment had been assessed so far as regards the past, and that he was not seeking to make a judgment about decisions by the prosecuting authorities or the police on the arrival of those concerned.
Finally, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what would happen if those people were put on trial under unacceptable conditions. I hope that we do not come to those circumstances, because we have made it clear that we believe that any British citizen—we believe this generally, but I am speaking now of our immediate responsibilities—should be tried only by internationally accepted standards and norms.
Geraint Davies: I very much welcome my right I hon. Friend's statement and his previous statement, and the efforts of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister to ensure both a fair trial for, and the return of, British detainees, while guarding our national security.
My constituent, Feroz Abbasi, will not be sent home. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the reason is perceived risks to the public interest, based on intelligence reports? If that is the case, does my right hon. Friend accept that new powers available to the Government to protect people under the Terrorism Act 2000 and, indeed, the Anti-terrorism. Crime and Security Act 2001, mean that if Feroz Abbasi were on the street and put a foot wrong by association or sympathy, whether direct or indirect, with future or past terrorist acts through, for instance, a phone call or wearing a badge, he could immediately be arrested, charged and imprisoned? If he were released, he would be better off, as would the other detainees, writing his memoirs of Guantanamo Bay. That would be much more in his interest and that of al-Qaeda than posing a future risk to the British public.
Mr. Straw: I should like to applaud the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend has sought to represent the interests of his constituent and his family, who are understandably concerned about Mr. Abbasi's future. As I have already told the House, I am not going to offer views about the perceived risks posed by any of the individuals concerned because, by definition, that could have the effect of prejudicing future proceedings. As for new powers under terrorism legislation, the Terrorism Act 2000, which I introduced as Home Secretary, strengthened police powers, and legislation passed in 2001 by the Commons and the House of Lords has strengthened them further. However, to make a general point to my hon. Friend without specific reference to the detainees, those powers apply only where the police have evidence against individuals. It is the nature of terrorists, even more than ordinary criminals, to go to the most extensive lengths to avoid detection, not just at the point of committing acts of terrorism but prior to that by avoiding coming to the notice of the intelligence community. That is a basic challenge that the intelligence community and the police face in fighting terrorism.
Sarah Teather: My constituent, Martin Mubanga, is one, of the four remaining detainees in Guantanomo Bay, and I met his family last night. Is the Minister aware of their distress? They have had no

147
information about why he was detained, they have received very few letters, and those that they have received have been censored. Indeed, they have received no information at all about his basic well-being since the Foreign Office visited in September, and their pain has been compounded by the welcome; homecoming of the initial five. Most damningly, perhaps, they told me that they find it easier to get information about their son's well-being and his case from the newspapers than from the Foreign Office, which is worrying. What are the Government doing to ensure that families such as Mr. Mubanga's receive basic information about their relatives' well-being? Can letters be transmitted to the family, and can basic information about why Mr. Mubanga was detained be made available to the family ahead of the newspapers?
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the families' distress. As negotiations reached a final stage last Wednesday and Thursday, I was all too conscious of the fact that five sets of families and a wider group of relatives and friends would be very pleased about the announcement, but that four sets would be distressed. It was for that reason, among many others, that I ensured, as far as was humanly possible, that the families and the Members representing them were contacted before I made a public announcement.
I entirely resist the criticism that the hon. Lady made at the end of her remarks, when she sought to criticise either me, as the person responsible, or my officials. Foreign Office staff have made every effort to pass on in detail information to the families as soon as it arrives, and we will continue to do so. It has not been sufficient, but we have had more contact with our detainees than, as I understand it, any other Governments have had with their nationals who are detained.
The issue of letters is one of concern, and we will continue to take it up through the International Committee of the Red Cross. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss further what other measures we can take.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: May I reiterate our thanks to the Foreign Secretary for his efforts to secure the release of the five detainees, three of whom are from my constituency? I thank him, too, for informing the families beforehand, as that was very much appreciated.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments that on their return the detainees will undergo a thorough police investigation and that any subsequent trial will conform with internationally accepted standards of justice. That is necessary both to reassure the public in this country and to give the detainees an opportunity to answer properly any charges against them.
My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, of the acute anxiety that the families have experienced over the past two years. They are obviously desperate to see their relatives again. Can he assure me that every effort will be made to keep the families informed at every stage of the proceedings, and that they will have the earliest possible access to their relatives, commensurate with national security?
Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend for all his efforts on behalf of Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Iqbal and Mr.
148
Rasul, who were resident in his constituency. He, too, has been careful and assiduous in his representation of those individuals, who are three of the five to be released. As I told the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), of course I understand the distress and anxiety of the families. It would be astonishing if they were not distressed and anxious about their loved ones in the circumstances. That is why we have made every effort to maintain welfare visits to the individuals and keep the families informed.
As for the future, there will be a period before the releases. I am sorry, but I cannot say exactly when they will take place. I said on Thursday, and it remains the case, that they will take place within a few weeks. Within that time scale, I hope that it is sooner rather than later. As information becomes available and we can release it, we will make it available to the families first.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I am a long-term friend and admirer of the United States, a country with which I have close family ties. However, I regard the detention and treatment of the detainees in the Guantanamo Bay camp as a lamentable departure from the rule of law and wholly inconsistent with the fine traditions of the United States. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that view is widely shared in this country and, if he does, will he ensure that the United States Administration understand that and recognise the damage that they are doing to their reputation?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinions on this matter are well known, and although such feelings are not nanimous—opinions differ greatly—I assure him that the United States Government are fully aware of the strength of opinion on the issue.
Tony Lloyd: May I, too, pass on my thanks to the Foreign Secretary for the keen attention that he has given the matter over the past two years and his courtesy last week in making sure that the families and their Members of Parliament were informed? As he is aware, my constituent, Jamal al-Harith, is one of those who, happily, will be released, but I share concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the events of the past two years and, indeed, the future facing the four who will not be released. Such action may be understandable in emotional terms, but it is not acceptable in terms of legal propriety. My constituent experienced a form of kidnap, and naturally the family were extremely unhappy about that.
I know that my right hon. Friend will not want to go into great detail, but there are issues about, for example, access to legal representatives, to the families, which is important, and perhaps to qualified medical staff. Can he assure me that those will be immediately available to individuals on their return to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the way in which the matter has been handled. It is a difficult situation, and again I would like to put on record my appreciation for the way in which he has performed his duty in representing his constituent and his family.

149
My hon. Friend asked me about access to legal representation, the availability of qualified medical assistance and—a point that was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey)—access by families when they arrive here. The Terrorism Act 2000, as amended, provides powers to the police, where they have grounds for doing so, to detain terrorist suspects and to interview them for an initial period of two days, which can be extended, through successive applications to a court, to 14 days. However, as is absolutely right, subject to what is laid down in law, individuals have access to lawyers, as well as to their families. There are constraints on that, but they are the normal constraints for suspects who are suspected of any terrorist-related activity under the Terrorism Act, as amended.
On medical assistance, we shall make sure that that is available.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is aware that there is also concern in American legal circles about the treatment of people in Guantanamo Bay. Some feel a sense of rage that within great democracies that generally obey the rule of law, individuals can be locked up for two years, during which time the authorities have been unable to formulate charges or the basis of a trial that would sustain itself in front of what we recognise as proper legal process.
Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman. We must appreciate, however, that the United States saw itself as literally in a war situation—as, indeed, did the rest of the civilised world. In such situations, people are detained without trial. We did that ourselves during the last world war. These matters are difficult and uncomfortable, but they occur where civilisations and countries feel themselves to be under great threat. That is simply a reality.
That said, we have made progress in respect of the detainees, five of whom are being transferred to the United Kingdom to be dealt with in accordance with the normal processes of the law. I can promise the hon. Gentleman and the House that we will continue our efforts satisfactorily to resolve the position of the other four, although I cannot say when that will happen.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: While I welcome the extremely belated forthcoming release of these men, is it not a fact that the United States has no jurisdiction whatever by which to have detained them, or anybody else, in Guantanamo Bay; that it is utterly characteristic of the Bush regime to behave in any manner that suits it, regardless of international law; and that my right hon. Friends must not allow this Government to be tainted by association with such conduct?
Mr. Straw: I understand my right hon. Friend's remarks, but he will forgive me if, in the interests of what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) described as patient diplomacy, I do not fully subscribe to them.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: As the Foreign Secretary rightly pointed out, nearly all
150
the detainees were apprehended in the war zone, some were with armed groups, and some were actually putting at risk allied coalition soldiers. However, as the main coalition partner of the United States, surely this country could have been trusted to have the nine British detainees brought here in the first place. After all, in 1945 all French citizens fighting in German uniform, particularly those in SS units, were processed in France, not in Britain or America. There must be a lesson to be learned from that.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman echoes my point about war situations. However, what happened in France in 1945 took place after a war had finished. Let us be clear that so far as the United States is concerned—and us, too—this has been verging on a war situation with al-Qaeda and its related terrorist organisations. Let it not be forgotten that less than three months ago, at the end of November, both the British consulate general and the HSBC bank in Istanbul were bombed, with a severe: loss of life among British citizens and representatives, as well as Turkish citizens and others. That was a result of terrorism by al-Qaeda and its related organisations.
We are therefore in this very difficult, unique situation, and in such circumstances new measures are likely to be used. Our view is clear, and we have made it clear all the way through—it is that of course people should be detained in accordance with international law. The United States Government are clear in their own mind that there is a legal base for the detentions at Guantanamo Bay. Our position is also clear in that any trials that take place must take place in accordance with internationally accepted standards and norms.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the United States accepts that there is a legal position for these people to be in Guantanamo Bay, no other country in the world accepts that situation? It has created a new class of people captured on the battlefield-unlawful combatants—that is not recognised in any of the international agreements.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that while he may find the attitude of the United States understandable, many of us find it, if understandable, unacceptable? The Government must vigorously pursue this important matter. Although I welcome the release of the five prisoners, it has taken us two years to free people who have been held with no legal status, contrary to all the rules of international behaviour.
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand, to use the same verb, the very strong feelings of my hon. Friend on this issue and the fact that he does not accept the position as described by the United States Government. There is a great debate about the international legal basis for the detentions at Guantanamo Bay. I simply remind the House that the situation was not unusual: it was unique. Therefore, it is not surprising if the conventions and treaties that are the basis of much international law did not anticipate such circumstances.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I very much welcome the forthcoming repatriation of the five detainees in the next few weeks, which I suspect is

151
to do with the possible involvement of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. One has to say, however, that if they did have any relevant information or evidence, surely it would have been elicited from them by now. Will the Foreign Secretary redouble his efforts to ensure that the United States is aware of the concern on this side of the pond about the other four detainees and the need for them either to be charged, to be put before a properly constituted court recognising international standards of law, or to be released? It is a disgraceful situation, because these men have already served the equivalent of a four-year sentence without trial.
Mr. Straw: The United States Government are very well aware of the strength of feeling of the British people—although that varies—and of the different strains and strands of that opinion. I have discussed the matter on numerous occasions with United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and with many others inside the United States system. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has discussed the matter on several occasions with President Bush and the United States Government. It has been discussed at every level between Governments. The United States Government are aware of the feeling that exists, and I am sure that they will become more aware of if when the contents of this statement and my answers are drawn to their attention.
David Winnick: In order to keep a sense of balance, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should always bear in mind the shock that was felt throughout the whole of the United States—it was certainly not confined to President Bush and his circle—over the outrage on 9/11? On the Friday of that terrible week, I went to a huge demonstration in Philadelphia, where political views of all kinds were expressed over the terrible and wicked events that had occurred.
In welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said about the four detainees, is it not important for the United States to appreciate that those of us who do not minimise the dangers of terrorism, and who understand only too well the constant danger to all the democracies, remain very uneasy over the way in which these detainees, not only those who are British, are being held; and that domestic and international law should always be applied, even when it is dealing with those who are responsible for the most terrifying crimes against humanity?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend puts his view in a balanced and measured way.
Mr. Edward Davey: The Foreign Secretary should know from correspondence with me about the case of my constituent Mr. Bisher Al-Rawi who is detained in Guantanamo Bay. He had lived in the United Kingdom for 19 years, from when he was a child. His family are all British citizens but he holds an Iraqi passport. So far, the Foreign Office has refused to make any representations for Mr. Al-Rawi. Will the Foreign a Secretary reconsider that? Does he recall that Mr. Al-Rawi was not arrested as a combatant but detained while on a business trip to the Gambia? Given the unusual circumstances, is the
152
Foreign Secretary prepared to meet me and the Al-Rawi family to ascertain how the UK Government could assist my constituent?
Mr. Straw: I am happy to see the hon. Gentleman. There are five individuals in Guantanamo Bay who are not British citizens but were British residents before their detention, and his constituent is one of them. Their legal position is difficult. We simply do not have a right in international law to make representations on behalf of those who are not British citizens. That is standard and accepted practice. [Interruption.] Well, that is the case. Although I understand the point that is being shouted at me from a sedentary position, I have outlined what happens to be the case. That standard is accepted in all diplomatic relations. However, some organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, may be able to help. I am willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and, following that meeting, to decide what further action we can take.
Mr. Clive Soley: Extreme forms of terrorism pose a serious and complex problem to democratic societies. To impress on the United States the dangers of its Guantanamo Bay policy, will my right hon. Friend remind that country that, in the 1970s, as a good friend of this country, it warned us of the dangers of internment in Northern Ireland? It was right to warn us then and we are right to warn it now.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and nice point.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: A moment ago, the Foreign Secretary prayed in aid the internments that took place at the beginning of the second world war. They were subsequently widely held to have been a mistake both in the United States, where Japanese were detained, and the United Kingdom. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman keeps that point in mind when he talks to his American counterparts.
Have the Government assessed the effect of Guantanamo Bay on global public opinion and the damage that it does to the values that we are seeking to export? Will the Foreign Secretary state unequivocally that the Government consider Guantanamo Bay to be contrary to international law? What representations to that effect has he made to the United States Administration?
Mr. Straw: I made the point about internments in the second world war to remind the House that in war situations—and quasi-war situations—otherwise unacceptable and uncomfortable measures sometimes have to be taken. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that the internments in the second world war were later regarded as a mistake. That is true of their scale but not necessarily of everybody who was detained. However, I put that to one side. I simply wanted to bring out the point that we must better understand why the United States felt it necessary to take such action.

153
Let us be clear: the information that has been obtained from a good many detainees in Guantanamo Bay has helped to make the world a safer place—safer for us and our constituents as well as for the United States and those in other countries. That is the position.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the detention of 2,000 prisoners for two years without trial cannot be justified or condoned in any circumstances? Does he also agree that the imprisonment for 14 months of three Afghan children, who were afterwards given one football each as a gesture, is a blatant violation of international law?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I have not had sight of the case of the detention of the three Afghan children. I am happy to follow it up with my hon. Friend.
On the wider question, it is obvious that the sentiment of the House is as stated. It is similar to that of the Government: individuals who are detained should either be brought to trial in accordance with internationally accepted standards or returned, in this case to the United Kingdom. We shall continue to follow that policy.
Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Attorney-General on all their efforts behind the scenes to achieve the result so far. However, there is considerable disquiet about the four young lads from Tipton and separate arrests in my constituency under the Terrorism Act 2000. The majority sentiment—a view that I share—is that when offences have been committed, people have to account for them. However, given the disquiet, will my right hon. Friend talk to colleagues so that decisions can be made and resources allocated to enable the police and the prosecution authorities to fast-track those cases if there are to be proceedings under the Terrorism Act against the returnees and more generally?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his thanks and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of the Attorney-General, who has played an important part.
Of course, there will always be concern among those who are arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and their families about their nature of their arrests, but the Act was approved in the House four years ago on an all-party basis because of the emerging threat that we assessed. Prevention of terrorism legislation at the time was defective because it was only effective in protecting our communities against Irish terrorism, not the new forms of international terrorism. Individuals suspected of terrorism correctly have clear rights under the legislation.
I accept my hon. and learned Friend's point about resources. If the individuals come back and are subject to prosecution, it would be reasonable for their cases to be fast-tracked, given the lengthy detention that they have already had to endure. I will draw that suggestion to the Attorney-General's attention.

Schools (Vending Machines)
1.17 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of high fat and high sugar content food in vending machines in schools.
I appreciate that I am not the only parliamentarian who is this week seeking to curb children's consumption in schools, but I hope to persuade the House that my proposals are well researched, evidence based and have widespread support. Indeed, the Bill has the support of the National Union of Teachers, the British Heart Foundation and the Royal College of Physicians and is the product of my conducting a lengthy investigation into obesity with the Select Committee on Health. Other countries have tried similar measures or variants on it.
Only last week, a joint working party of the Royal College of Physicians the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Faculty of Public Health called for the
"replacement of sugar drinks and high-calorie snacks with healthy alternatives in schools"
and warned that
"failure to act now will have severe consequences for millions of individuals, for the nation's health and for the health service."
The can that I am now displaying is familiar to everyone since it is the most famous brand in the world. I am sure that all Members of Parliament know that its contents are carbonated water which contains sugar. However, I doubt whether hon. Members realise just how much sugar is in that can. Depending on whether we use American or British teaspoons, it contains seven to 10 teaspoons of sugar. We know that many children drink three or four such cans in the course of a day. What responsible parent would permit their child to take 28 teaspoonfuls of sugar in one day? Yet in our schools, children are given the means, the opportunity and the time to do just. that.
There is evidence that parents are worried about this. An ICM poll in The Guardian last year showed that 70 per cent. would support the banning of fizzy drink vending machines in schools. In an era in which parents and health professionals are increasingly worried about obesity and nutrition. junk food in schools is rapidly becoming an anachronism.
The past 20 years have seen a startling rise in the proportion of children 1 who are overweight or obese. Since 1982, the number of such children has more than doubled, and 10 per cent. of today's six-year-olds are obese. The chief medical officer for England has called childhood obesity a "public health time bomb". If present trends continue, at least one fifth of boys and one third of girls will be obese by 2020. According to experts, that is the conservative estimate.
Children who are overweight or obese tend to become overweight or obese adults, leading in the long run to high blood pressure and other health problems. Obese children are far more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. An American survey has shown that severely obese children have a 93 times greater chance than average of developing diabetes. A long-term study of 51 Canadians who were diagnosed with that type of diabetes before the age of 17 showed that by the age of 33, seven of them

155
had died, three were on dialysis, one was blind, one had had a toe amputated and out of 56 pregnancies in those people, only 35 had resulted in live births. Those statistics should be sufficient to Show that childhood obesity must be taken very seriously.
I do not claim that vending machines in schools are the only, or even the primary, cause of the problem. The rise in childhood obesity clearly reflects broader changes in lifestyle and diet in our society. However, vending machines whose primary products are fizzy, sugary drinks, crisps and chocolate—which the Americans describe with the term "foodstuffs of no nutritional value"—are a clear example of how schools, and by extension the state, allow the problem to go unchecked and are seen to promote and encourage those products. The fact that we cannot do everything to solve the problem at once does not mean that we should do nothing.
I have just mentioned America. Several US states and school districts have proposed or passed legislation similar to this Bill. I hope that the problem of childhood obesity in Britain will not have to reach US proportions before we take such measures here. All over the world, people are considering such proposals. In Canada, from September this year Coca-Cola and Pepsi will remove all their fizzy drinks from vending machines in schools and replace them with healthier products. I am sure that they are doing that to pre-empt legislation. In this country, Coca-Cola has just announced that it will remove all advertising on its vending machines in schools. It is clearly worried about what the Government might do, and I hope that it has good reason to be.
156
The food and drink industry does not make sizeable profits from vending machines in schools, but those machines raise the profile and familiarity of the industry's products with children and adolescents. Children are already disproportionately targeted by advertisers of fatty, sugary and unhealthy foods. Indeed, 40 per cent. of all adverts shown to children on television are for those products. Whether such adverts should be banned is a matter for another day, but to allow those brands into our schools—to allow the work done in the classroom to be undone in the corridor—is to take a desire to avoid accusations of nanny statehood to a ridiculous extreme.
Banning junk food in school vending machines will not turn us overnight into a nation of superhuman children, bursting at the chance to win Olympic golds; if only things were so simple. However, it is a step that we can take. When I was at school, I was exposed to much old-style Welsh nonconformism. To paraphrase what I was told then, just because we have junk food sellers does not mean that we have to have junk food sellers in the temple. It is time to throw them out.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. David Amess, Paul Flynn, John Austin, Ms Debra Shipley, Dr. Richard Taylor, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, David Taylor and Chris Ruane.

SCHOOLS (VENDING MACHINES)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of high fat and high sugar content food in vending machines in schools: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 April, and to be printed [Bill 58].

Social Security and Pensions
1.26 pm
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
Mr. Smith: I am satisfied that the orders are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
On uprating, I can confirm that national insurance benefits will rise in line with the retail prices index, which is 2.8 per cent. Most income-related benefits will rise by the Rossi index—1.8 per cent.—in the normal way. That will add more than £2 billion of extra Government spending to help those in most need and to tackle poverty. Of the £1.2 billion extra for pensioners, £140 million is above price inflation, as is £180 million of the extra for children.
In 1997, we said that we would cut the costs of economic and social failure—and we have. Despite the downturn in the world economy, employment in the United Kingdom has continued to grow. We have more people in jobs than ever before and, for the first time in nearly half a century, the highest employment rate and lowest unemployment rate of the major industrialised countries.
Through our investment in the new deal and Jobcentre Plus, we have tackled the legacy of mass unemployment that we inherited from the Conservative Government, whose leader, when masterminding their employment strategy, increased unemployment by more than 1 million. Since 1997, we have increased the number of people in jobs by more than 1.5 million, and we have invested to tackle poverty the £5 billion that has been saved from the cost of unemployment.
Combining that amount with the savings from tackling benefit fraud and error—overpayments alone now cost £400 million less a year than was the case in 1997—we can ensure that more money is available to invest in services. Staff working for the Pension Service, the first ever dedicated service for pensioners in this country, have made more than 300,000 home visits and held more than 220,000 community-based surgeries. Our investment in Jobcentre Plus is helping to deliver the lowest unemployment in the G7. Each day, our offices receive 13,000 vacancies, conduct 36,000 work-focused interviews and help 4,700 people into jobs, including more than 400 lone parents and more than 120 incapacity benefit clients. So we are not only uprating benefits but upgrading the service that we are able to give to our clients.
Our tax and benefit measures, combined with our successful employment policies, are helping to get more parents into work. We have reversed the generation-long trend of rising child poverty, which more than doubled during the 18 years when the Conservatives were in power. Since 1997, we have reduced the number
158
of children living in low-income households by more than 500,000, and we are determined to do more. From April, the child element of the child tax credit will rise by £180 to £1,625 a year equivalent to a weekly increase of £3.50. That will benefit 7.2 million children, including all families on income support and jobseeker's allowance.
Building on these measures, I announced in December how we would judge longer-term progress towards our ambition to eliminate child poverty altogether. The new measure recognises that poverty is about more than money. We will strive to eliminate material deprivation entirely, but we are also firmly committed to keeping up the drive to increase the incomes of the poorest children right through to 2020. Let us remember that in 1997, the Tories left us bottom of the European child poverty league table. As a result of the measures this government have introduced, the UK has already moved four places up that table, and we are committed to go further so that we move beyond the EU average to be among the very best in Europe.
What of the Conservatives? We need to know whether they share our ambition that no child should be left behind, or whether they plan to repeat their performance of the 18 long years during which child poverty more than doubled.
On pensions, we are taking action to tackle pensioner poverty, boost security and provide people with more choice about when they retire. This year the basic state pension—the foundation of pensioners' incomes—will rise by a further £2.1 5 a week. That is £111.80 a year, which more than meets our guarantee that future rises will be at least £100 a year for single pensioners.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: On pension increases, can my right hon. Friend make a comparison in monetary terms and percentage-wise between 1997 and now so that the House can get a good idea of the increases since then? How do they compare with the record of the previous Conservative Government?
Mr. Smith: The truth is that the Conservatives increased the real value of the state pension only once. That was at the time when they put VAT on fuel. If ever there was a case of giving with one hand while taking away with the other that was it. In total, the real increase in the state pension since we came to office is now more than £5 a week for a single pensioner and more than £8 a week for a couple.
Mr. Steve Webb: The Minister has moved on from his laudable aim of ending child poverty by 2020 to talk about pensioners. Is it his aim to end pensioner poverty, and if so, by when?
Mr. Smith: We have already set out our ambition to erode and remove those aspects of pensioner poverty that we inherited from the Conservatives, and we are making enormous progress in that endeavour, thanks to increases in the real value of the basic state pension and to the introduction of pension credit, the impact of which I shall come to in a moment. The hon. Gentleman will know from the statistics that we have already cut the pensioner poverty that we inherited by some 60 per cent. in absolute terms. Even in relative terms, at a time when

159
median incomes have been growing quite rapidly—so this is quite a demanding test—more than 500,000 pensioners have moved out of relative poverty. Of course we are committed to driving that forward.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State is telling us how the Government wish to treat pensioners and about their laudable aim in that regard. Can he tell us how many pensioners were threatened with prison sentences under the previous Government —[HON. MEMBERS:"Hundreds."] How many does he anticipate being threatened with prison sentences for not paying their council tax under this Government?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friends suggest that hundreds, if not thousands, of pensioners were threatened with prison when the hon. Gentleman s party imposed the poll tax on them. If he is alluding to recent reports in the press, I am sure that he will understand that I am not at liberty to go into the individual circumstances of any recipient of pensions or benefits, no matter how much publicity those circumstances have received. I can assure him, however, that in that particular case, as in others, every endeavour is being made to ensure that the pensioner in question receives in full the entitlements that are her due. If some reports are to be believed, that has clearly not yet happened, for whatever reason. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me—I see him nodding—that pensioners should gain their pension credit, their council tar benefit and their housing benefit whenever they are entitled to do so.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Without my going into that individual case in any more depth than the Minister for Local and Regional Government already has, if it is right, as has been suggested, that that pensioner would not have had to pay any council tax, or would have had help with it, through council tax benefit, does not that underline the massive failure of council tax benefit having the lowest take-up of any means-tested benefit, and the underlying problem of the growth in mean-tested benefits under this Government?
Mr. Smith: I have already said how important it is that all pensioners and others get the help to which they are entitled. This time last year, Opposition Front Benchers questioned us about the work of the local Pension Service, asking whether people who needed a home visit would be able to get one. They have gone quiet on that now. There have been 300,000 home visits, and more than 220,000 surgeries. Never has so much effort gone in to raising the take-up of people's entitlements. When the Conservatives were in Government, they seemed to operate an effective target of keeping take-up as low as possible. There is a big contrast between that and the effective that we are putting in and the impact that they are having.
We have recognised that more needs to be done to improve the take-up of council tax benefit. That is why an information and advertising campaign is due to start shortly, as well as the extra advice being given through the local Pension Service. Thanks to the introduction of pension credit, 1.9 million pensioners are receiving help with housing benefit and council tax benefit for the first
160
time, or getting significantly more than they were before. We recognise that more needs to be done, but we are making good progress.
Mr. Clive Soley: The case to which my right hon. Friend referred, which has received so much publicity, needs to be spelled out in a bit more detail so as to alert people to the need to read more carefully what is in their newspapers. The story sounded largely untrue when I saw the figures involved, and it transpires that the lady involved is withholding her council tax because of an objection to certain aspects of the European Union. She has been supported in that by the United Kingdom Independence party, which has involved Max Clifford in handling the publicity. She is also receiving £10,000 from the Daily Mail for her story. Had the story in the press that she was receiving only £312 a month been true, she would clearly have been receiving less pension than she was entitled to, and would also not have had to pay any council tax anyway. So nearly all that story was untrue—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. This is becoming a statement rather than a question.
Mr. Smith: I, like the rest of the House, got the thrust of what my hon. Friend was saying. I am not in a position to comment on some of the alleged aspects of the circumstances that he has drawn to our attention, but what 1 said previously still stands. Notwithstanding all that, and whoever is representing or supporting that pensioner, she is entitled—like anyone else—to the entitlements that are properly her due.
Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State said that he would not comment in detail on that case. We have just heard the hon. Member for Ealing. Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) claim that that woman has received £10,000 from the Daily Mail and that she is employing Max Clifford. The hon. Gentleman made a variety of allegations about an individual pensioner facing a problem with her council tax. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is most regrettable that those remarks have been made about an individual who, as far as we understand it, is wrestling with council tax demands that she finds it difficult to meet?
Mr. Smith: I wonder whether it is wise for the hon. Gentleman to repeat the circumstances that he said should not be aired in the House, and whether the deputy Chief Whip of the Conservative party should have raised the matter in the first place. It would be best to get back to pension credit and its uprating.
Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intervene, but I must make it clear that what I said was not in any way a criticism of the

161
pensioner, because she wanted it to be known that her objection was to paying towards an aspect of the European Union. That is the issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not sufficiently a point of order for me to comment on the matter. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
Mr. McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to invite the Secretary of State to reflect on the words that he has just used, and on the fact that I talked about pensioners in general. I never mentioned a specific pensioner. It was the Secretary of State who referred to individuals.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was no more a point of order than that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). It is on the record, however.
Mr. Smith: I have taken careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am confirmed even more in my judgment that it would be wise to get on with the more general subject of the uprating of pension credit.
In April, in keeping with the Government's earnings link for poorer pensioners, the guarantee will rise again by more than £3 a week so that no pensioner need live on less than £105 a week and no couple on less than £160 a week. Already, more than 2.6 million people receive pension credit, with an average household award of £43.50 a week. That number is growing with every passing day. It is worth reminding the House that the poorest pensioners were expected to live on just £68.80 a week in 1997, and under this Government they will get an extra £36 every week. From April, the Government will spend £9 billion extra on pensioners as a result of measures introduced since 1997. That is almost £6 billion more than if we had just linked the basic state pension to earnings.
Our policies have not only been more generous than the earnings link, but also more progressive £7 of every £10 of pension credit goes to helping women, many of whom have been penalised by a basic pension that short-changed them on the time taken out of work to bring up children. With the introduction of pension credit, almost 1.9 million pensioner households will qualify for more help, or qualify for help for the first time, with their council tax or rent.
The poorest are gaining more under our plans. Those who urge us to scrap pension credit and use the funds to increase the basic pension must realise that their plans would cut the incomes of poorer pensioners by £30 every week. The progress that we are making stands in stark contrast to the Opposition's approach. Our approach is fair and fiscally prudent. Theirs is unaffordable, unsustainable and, above all, unfair.
We will also give people more choice about when they retire, by giving a much better deal to those who choose to take their state pension late. For the first time, people will be given the chance to build up a lump sum by deferring their state pension. I can tell the House today that that will be calculated using an interest rate at least

162
two percentage points above base rate, which would mean 6 per cent. today. Therefore, from next year, a woman with just the basic state pension of £77 a week could start building up a lump sum worth £8,500 if she kept working at 60 and drew her pension just two years later, or a lump sum of £23,000 if she put off retiring until 65.
Most people have higher state pensions than that thanks to the state earnings-related pension scheme and the state second pension, and could therefore build up even bigger sums. On average, men retire with £100 in state pensions, which would allow a man working until 70 to build up a lump sum of more than £30,000, or for a couple, a lump sum of more than £48,000. In the past, lump sums have been the preserve of the fortunate minority with good occupational pensions. These proposals make them an option for everyone. As well as the lump sum, our reforms will offer those who take their pensions late the alternative of a pension for life that is very significantly higher. Someone working an extra five years with typical weekly state pension entitlement of £100 will be able to increase that to £152, with inflation additions on top. The whole thrust of the proposals is therefore to give people new and attractive options to work beyond 65 when they want to.
Mr. Willetts: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the lump sums that he has just described will be taken into account if pensioners claim means-tested benefits, or whether they will be wholly disregarded?
Mr. Smith: As we have made clear, the principle behind the policy is that people will not be disadvantaged throngh taking the lump sum rather than the increment. The detail by which we will do that on pension credit will be set out in due course, just as the detail of how we will meet the goal on taxation will be set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party, and other parties in the House, will see the merit of these proposals in extending the opportunity of genuine, worthwhile choice to people, and in giving a much fairer deal to those who choose to defer taking their state pension. I emphasise choice—that is what this must be about. Together with our plans to stamp out age discrimination and to allow people to work part time while drawing a pension, these initiatives will encourage many people to work into later life, and all of us will benefit from their contribution.
I stress, however, that working beyond 65 must remain a matter of choice. It is not something that can be forced on the least well off. We therefore reject calls to put up the state pension age. Instead, we want to give everyone the choice to boost their pension by working for longer when it suits them to do so.
The measures before the House will benefit a large number of children, parents and pensioners. They carry forward our reform of the welfare state and our mission to tackle all forms of poverty. Through investment and reform, getting record numbers into jobs and tackling fraud, we are able to target extra resources for children and pensioners who need help most. The orders help us build a Britain that fulfils potential, opens up opportunity and tackles poverty, and I commend them to the House.
1.48 pm
Mr. David Willetts: I am sorry to take away some of the drama from this potentially very significant debate, but let me begin by assuring the Secretary of State that it is not the Opposition's intention to vote against the proposed uprating of benefits. We all still remember the year when the Liberal Democrats did that, trying to deprive their constituents of any increase in their benefits, and we will not make that mistake. Of course, we welcome the uprating that is being proposed, but I want to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions about what he has just said.
First, the Secretary of State talked about poverty and the Government's proposals on child poverty. Is he at all embarrassed, however, by the evidence from the Government's own report, "Opportunity for all: fifth annual report", of the incredible stability in the number of people facing persistent low incomes? Between 1994 and 1997, 16 per cent. of children in low-income families faced persistent low incomes, defined as being below 60 per cent. of median income in three of the past four years. Between 1998 and 2001, the figure was also 16 per cent.
Sadly, there is similar evidence relating to people of working age. Between 1994 and 1997, 7 per cent. of working-age people living in low-income households faced persistent low incomes; the figure was also 7 per cent. in 1998 to 2001.
Why do the much-vaunted increases in benefit expenditure, and all the other measures described by the Secretary of State, seem to be having no impact on one of the things that the right hon. Gentleman says that he cares about, and which the Government have set as one of their objectives —the elimination of the persistent poverty in which people are currently trapped? This is the fifth annual report on poverty, but as yet there is no sign of any movement whatever. Conservative Members would like to hear from Ministers—instead of the usual propaganda—an honest explanation of why they are apparently not moving out of persistent poverty those who have been stuck in that position for far too long.
I can offer the Secretary of State a possible explanation. Many of the benefits for families have been lost to his budget, and are now pact of the Chancellor's tax credits. We find ourselves in an odd position: the structure of the tax credits for families does not match the measurement of poverty that the Secretary of State's Department used for the purposes of this document.
Paul Flynn: Given the definition of poverty with which we are saddled, if everyone in the country became a millionaire tomorrow the proportion of people in poverty would be the same as it is now. Can the hon. Gentleman exercise one of his many brains and suggest a better definition that would reflect the real situation?
Mr. Willetts: I am not sure whether that follows, but I agree that if everyone had an extra £1 million, the proportion of people with below 60 per cent. of median income would remain the same. I am happy to accept the general, conventional assumption that that is the relevant measurement. There are many others—there are relative measures, absolute measures, measures that change over time and measures that do not—but the
164
central measurement that the Government set when they first identified their child poverty target was 60 per cent. of median income. We will not allow Ministers to get away with changing the target: they should be judged in terms of that 60 per cent. measurement.
In what was perhaps a fruitless endeavour, I was trying to take the House through the finer points of equivalence scales in the measurement of poverty. This, in my view, is one of the problems faced by the Secretary of State. I am pleased to observe Ministers' rapt attention. The measurement of poverty used in the document reflects changes in family structure. If, for example, a household contains two adults rather than one, the income that it will need to achieve a given standard of living will be greater than that of a household containing one adult. Similarly, a household containing three children will need a greater income than a household containing only one. Equivalence scales are needed for the measurement of poverty. However, the structure of the child tax credit introduced by the Chancellor does not match the pattern of equivalent scales used by the DWP to measure poverty. The Chancellor is not using instruments that can tackle poverty as the Government measure it in their annual report.
Mr. Andrew Smith: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's lecture, but as he will have noted from our December publication on the measurement of child poverty, it has been proposed that we move to the OECD's basis for the equivalent scale. Does he agree with that, and what does he expect its impact to be?
Mr. Willetts: I am happy for the Government to adjust their equivalence scales in line with international standards, provided that the Secretary of State undertakes to urge on the Chancellor that the structure of child tax credit, and the other tax credits he has introduced, also reflect more clearly the way in which all Members understand poverty and its effects on households with different structures.
One of the main reasons for the failure of the Chancellor's measures to reduce poverty is the fact that the Chancellor takes no account, in his structure of child tax credit, of the second adult in a household that contains a couple. Two adults receive no more child tax credit than one. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions measures poverty, he naturally expects a family containing two adults to need a higher gross income in order to achieve a given living standard than a family containing only one adult. Will he tell the Chancellor that his tax credit should reflect more accurately the way in which all of us here measure poverty? I should welcome an intervention from him if he wishes to respond.
If that change is not made, the Chancellor will not be able to meet his own child poverty objectives because he will be using instruments that do not reflect the way in which the Secretary of State's Department measures poverty. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be able to stand up for the measurement that he has deployed for the past five years.
Mr. Waterson: Get on with it!
Mr. Willetts: I hope that the Secretary of State will indeed get on with it, and offer us some assurance. If he

165
does not, he will not be able to abolish child poverty and the Chancellor's instruments will not achieve his objective.
The fact that the Secretary of State does not wish to intervene suggests to me that he knows there is a problem, but is not willing to assure the House that he will raise it with the Treasury and the Chancellor so that something can be done.
Mr. Webb rose
Mr. Willetts: We are fortunate enough to have with us the author of a valuable book on the whole subject of poverty and the measurement of child poverty. I should welcome an intervention from him.
Mr. Webb: I shall scrap the rather partisan intervention that I had planned and suddenly become statesmanlike.
The English translation of what the hon. Gentleman has just said is that the war on lone parents is back on. He says that the tax credit system does not provide extra money for the second adult in a two-parent family, and that the Chancellor should give more to two-parent families than to one-parent families; but he has also made an important point about persistent child poverty. I genuinely do not know the answer to this question: is persistent child poverty, which is the most worrying sort, more concentrated among one-parent families? If so, would not his proposed system give less priority to the severe and persistent poverty faced by children in one-parent families?
Mr. Willetts: It is true that the problem of persistent poverty is more concentrated among lone-parent households. But it is also true that although lone parents are more likely to be poor, in absolute terms a majority of the 3 million-plus poor families are headed by couples. One of the Chancellor's problems is that his child tax credit is extremely harsh on families headed by couples. That is why he is making so little progress with his child poverty target.
Mr. Andrew Smith: May I return the discussion from its present academic level to a level that actually means something to people in communities? If the hon. Gentleman accepts, as he did in replying to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), that the problems for lone parents are more severe, how can he imagine for a moment that the Conservative party's commitment to abolishing the new deal for lone parents can do anything other than make that poverty worse?
Mr. Willetts: I am pleased that the Secretary of State has mentioned that, because it gives me an opportunity to move from the measurement of child poverty to a second subject that I wanted to raise with him: the performance of the new deal and, more widely, the problem of economic inactivity. This is one of the paradoxes of the current Government. We remember all the arguments about the problem of worklessness when they were in opposition; there has been very little progress in reducing the number of workless households
166
since 1997. We remember being accused of taking people off unemployment benefits and putting them on to disability benefits—but what do we see now? We see an increasing number of people on disability benefits and an increasing number claiming incapacity benefit. I have seen the figures
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should check his figures. If he does so, he will find that the inflow of people receiving incapacity benefit has fallen by a quarter since 1997.
Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State has made a serious mistake in raising this issue. The big problem that we face is people being trapped on incapacity benefit for longer and longer periods, and that is happening because the Secretary of State changed the rules in order to means-test incapacity benefit. As a result, if someone leaves incapacity benefit under the old rules, holds down a job for a while and goes back on to incapacity benefit, they do so on the new, means-tested basis. His changes have created a new obstacle to people leaving incapacity benefit because they are afraid that they will return to it on that new basis. We warned about that at the time, and I am afraid that the figures have borne out that warning.
Miss Anne Begg: How will the Conservatives' plan to abolish all new deals help people on incapacity benefit to get back into work?
Mr. Willetts: I regard the new deal for disabled people as one of the more effective new deals. We have not said that we will abolish the new deal for disabled people. However, the Government's welfare-to-work programmes simply have not delivered what the rhetoric claims. Indeed, as recently as a few days ago, yet another report showed exactly how ineffective they are. The Policy Studies Institute's evaluation of work-focused interviews for lone parents showed that less than 1 percent. of lone parents taking part in that scheme had exited income support as a result of doing so. Page 12 of the report states that
"the introduction of Lone Parent Work Focused Interviews brought about no detectable change in exit rates from IS"—
income support—
"for eligible new or repeat claimants".
The Department for Work and Pensions' evaluations of new deal projects and compulsory interviews regularly show that many such interventions have minuscule, and occasionally even negative, effects. However, instead of learning the lessons and redesigning his policies, the Secretary of State endlessly repeats the same rhetoric. He ought to discuss with the House why, for example, many of these compulsory interview processes are simply not getting lone parents into work and improving their performance. That would be a valuable debate, in which we would be very happy to participate.
Perhaps I might ask the Secretary of State about a third issue—housing benefit. I have some sympathy with the aim of reforming housing benefit. I shall watch with interest the results of the pilot projects that have already been launched. However, it is a pity that we have heard so little from Ministers about how those pilots are

167
going, and I should be very grateful if the Minister for Work could say something in his wind-up about the envisaged future shape of housing benefit reform. I also wonder whether he has anything to add to what we have heard, for at least the past two years, about the piloting of schemes for standard payments. Housing benefit is crying out for reform and it is time that the Government gave us a progress report on their thinking on the subject.
I invite the Minister for Work to tell us a little about the state of Child Support Agency work. We have read reports of continuing problems with the new computer system; indeed, it was even claimed—I am not sure whether the claim was based on an accurate interpretation of what the Secretary of State said to the Select Committee—that the Government had encountered such problems with it that they might have to abandon it entirely. Will the Minister say how well the system is working and whether there is any prospect of transferring the existing case load to the new computers? We need to know whether that it feasible, and whether the Government are still committed to doing so.
I also want to ask the Secretary of State about pensions and pensioners. We are proposing to increase the value of the basic state pension because we do not want to live in a country in which more than half of all pensioners are dependent on means-tested benefits. The evidence of the low take-up of means-tested benefits shows that most people remain uncomfortable about claiming such benefits, however much the Secretary of State's Department spends on advertising them. The take-up of means-tested benefits is still shockingly low. Indeed, the Secretary of State hat had the honesty to admit that council tax benefit take-up is too low, and that he wants to raise it. The take-up rate for the old minimum income guarantee was just over 70 per cent. This is not good enough. It is extremely risky for the Government to put increasing weight on means-tested benefits to try to help poor people, given that the evidence shows that it is very difficult to increase take-up, despite Ministers' best efforts.
We are proposing to help take pensioners off means-tested benefits by increasing the value of the basic state pension. That would tackle a widespread grievance among pensioners and provide a solid basis for the savings industry to sell its products to future generations of pensioners. The industry says that it cannot encourage people to save because many are worried about being caught out on means tested benefits when they retire. Our proposal would offer a better deal for pensioners, and it would provide a better way of encouraging people to save for the future.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore telling the House that he would simply take money away from the poorest pensioners in order to redistribute it to the better-off ones?
Mr. Willetts: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not saying that at all. We have no wish to abolish the pension credit—I think that the Secretary of State used that expression, although he did not attribute that wish to a particular person—but we propose to replace it over time with the state pension as it increases in value. No pensioners will lose as a result of our policies, and the poorest pensioners, who are not
168
claiming the means-tested benefits that they are entitled to, will manifestly gain from our policies. It is very important that they get the help that they are currently not receiving.
Mr. Blizzard: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that under his proposal, the pension credit would be frozen, the poorest and middle-ranking pensioners would get no uprating, and that that money would be spread among those who are not getting pension credit?
Mr. Willetts: We are not proposing to make any changes to the pension credit. We are simply proposing to increase the value of the basic state pension in line with earnings, which would gradually ensure that an increasing number of pensioners became free from means-tested benefits.
There is a crucial point on which I have previously asked the Secretary of State for clarification, and the intervention of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) gives me another opportunity to do so. It would be extremely helpful, particularly for pensioners and those who represent them, if we knew whether the Secretary of State-assuming that there is a third Labour term and he is re-elected to office-intends to increase the value of the pension credit by earnings or by prices. When we know the answer to that question, we can put further flesh on our proposals for pensioners. But the Secretary of State has never told this House that he is committed to increasing the pension credit by earnings in the next Parliament. Again, I invite him to the Dispatch Box, should he wish to give that assurance today. He seems unable to give it, and our assurance in respect of an earnings link for all pensioners and the basic state pension is a manifest improvement on anything that pensioners have received through the previous proposals of either of the two main parties.
The Secretary of State has again failed to take the opportunity to tell us that he is going to increase the pension credit by earnings in the next Parliament. If he will not do so, it is absolutely clear—[Interruption.] A Labour Member shouts "cop-out" from a sedentary position, but the cop-out is the Secretary of State's. The cop-out is that of a Government who still will not tell us what their intentions are for the pension credit in the next Parliament. However, we have set out our proposals for the basic state pension.
Sir John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems—it is particularly apparent in my constituency—is that many of the people who are entitled to benefits do not claim them because they have no experience of doing so? Many of those who are in the most deprived state are widows who have no experience of claiming benefits. Not only are they intimidated by the paperwork that they must complete—it is very intimidating, as anyone who examines it will see—they are too proud to claim and feel that they should not do so. However, others who have claimed various benefits virtually throughout their lives find it much easier to do so. It is that first group who often constitute the very poorest in our society.
Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I do not have the figures to hand, this is an

169
important aspect of the council tax problem with which the Government are wrestling. The evidence of the take-up of council tax benefit among owner-occupiers—they have probably not been on income support or the minimum income guarantee in the past—is, from memory, about 30 per cent. I would be happy if Ministers want to intervene to correct me, but the take-up is very low among people who have not previously claimed any means-tested benefits. That is why there is such a problem with council tax at the moment.
Mr. McLoughlin: Do not the Government send out mixed messages when they say that they are trying to target help on the most vulnerable rather than give general increases, yet they have granted a general increase in heating allowances to every pensioner irrespective of income and a free TV licence to people over 75? They cannot argue both ways and claim that they are targeting help on the most vulnerable when they give out extra benefits across the board.
Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I hear the different arguments from Ministers about why the winter fuel allowance is right for everyone; why older pensioners who tended to be poorer should be helped by a free TV licence for over-75s; and why means-tested benefits are also important, I detect completely different arguments in different contexts for different benefits.
Mr. Andrew Smith: For the sake of clarity, is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that a Conservative Administration would have no means-tested benefits?
Mr. Willetts: Conservatives are realists. I am a realist and I know that there will always be some means-testing. What we object to is the Chancellor of the Exchequer putting more and more people on means tests, when that should be a necessary but modest part of the benefits system. Means-testing should not be a central part of the Government's policy for tackling poverty and improving living standards. Under the present Government, what has happened—contrary to what the Chancellor said in opposition—is that we have become increasingly dependent on means-tested benefits as the Government's way of trying to help people, but they are simply not working. With more than half of all our pensioners on means-tested benefits, this is not the sort of country in which I wish to live.
Mr. Blizzard rose—
Kevin Brennan rose—
Mr. Willetts: I have already accepted two interventions from the hon. Member for Waveney, so I give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan).
Kevin Brennan: If I understand correctly, the Conservative party proposes to reduce the proportion of gross domestic product spent by central Government,
170
and in doing so to ring-fence the amount spent on education and health. So how will the hon. Gentleman pay for his pension funds?
Mr. Willetts: My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made it clear in his authoritative statement the other day that his public expenditure proposals include our plan to increase the value of the basic state pension in line with earnings rather than prices. We have set out a very carefully costed programme to be financed by a combination of offsetting savings in means-tested benefits, which will gradually be displaced, and the abolition of the now deals, particularly for young people, which are not helping. What we are proposing is a much better system than the one it will replace.
The Minister for Work(Mr. Desmond Browne): In reminding the House: of what the shadow Chancellor said, will the hon. Gentleman also remind us that he said that in order to pay for the policy, a Conservative Government would have to take some "painful" decisions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us precisely who would suffer that pain? On the new deal, can he explain the arithmetic whereby moneys are released to pay for the policy when the independent evidence shows that the new deal for young people alone saves the Exchequer s significant amount?
Mr. Willetts: The research to which the Minister refers was an extremely sloppy piece of work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It was sloppy because it took the receipts from the windfall tax, put them all into a bank account and counted the interest earned on the unspent windfall tax receipts as one of the ways by which the Exchequer benefited from the new deal. That was a ludicrous way of assessing whether the scheme would help young people into work. That is why it is a sloppy piece of research.
We know from the National Audit Office that about 8,000 young people have been helped into work by the new deal for young people—a tiny figure in comparison with the figures that Ministers use. The new deal for young people has not been a good use of public money because most of the young people who got into work would have got into work anyway and they were doing so before the new deal came along. The fallacy of the Labour party is the claim that everyone who got into work since the arrival of the new deal for young people did so because of it. As I said, young people were getting jobs before that:80 per cent. of young people were leaving benefits and getting into work before the arrival of the new deal for young people. That is why it is a bad deal.
Mr. Blizzard rose—
Mr. Willetts: I have given way several times to the hon. Gentleman and I want to move on to my final point, which is another question for the Minister for Work to deal with when he winds up the debate.
I have read the document before us, and I was rather surprised by what has happened to the administration costs of the national insurance fund. Will the Minister explain why the accounts before us—provided by the Government Actuary 's Department—reveal

171
"a large increase in the administration casts: the final costs for 2002–03 were almost 40 per cent. higher than the provisional estimate given to us by Inland Revenue al this time last year and the current 2003–04 provisional estimate is 40 per cent. higher than that."?
Given that we are all committed to reducing the overhead costs of Government, and that Conservative Members are serious about reducing them, can the Minister explain why the Government Actuary has been caught out by two successive 40 per cent. increases in administration costs? I greatly look forward to the Minister's response and I hope that he will tackle the points that I have made in my contribution to today's debate.
2.16 pm
Paul Flynn: This is an annual ritual in which social security nerds get together and speak to each other in a language that no one else in the country understands. I feel that I have to contribute for the sake of tradition.
I have a few minor quibbles against Government policy, but I am certainly against the policy of Conservative Members, who constantly amaze us with their brass neck after years of ravaging the social security system, cutting the benefits of the poorest people and 17 continuous years of salami cuts to the basic pension. I believe that we can say to the country that the Labour Government have, provided the best period ever for social security benefits and imaginative changes, and that for pensioners this has been the best period in recent history, in which benefits have increased by substantial amounts.
One of my regrets about the basic state pension—I raise the old chestnut again—is the link to earnings. If the uprating had been linked to earnings, the basic state pension for a single person would be 40 per cent. higher and for a couple 65 per cent. higher than now. It is a shame that we did not do so over a period in which the Government have engineered low interest rates and a steady economy, because we could have taken on the role of linking the basic pension to earnings with very little effect on the finances.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) outlined the Conservatives' policy, which seems to be to link the basic pension to earnings. I believe that that is an admirable aim, for which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked over many years, but the downside is that the increase in the means-tested minimum would be at the level of prices. That is an extraordinary position, and for us old lags in the business it is so reminiscent of what happened throughout the 1980s when the link was broken. It would be a return to the Thatcher Government policy of allowing pensioners on income support to fall further behind the income levels of working people each year.
Getting people off means-tested benefits is a fine aim. We all want that to happen, but the Opposition proposals would make recipients of means-tested benefits relatively poorer, year by year. That is entirely morally indefensible. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has presented a programme that would be aimed at that group of poorest pensioners. It is a cynical move: the Opposition want to grab a headline by saying that they would restore the link, but they do not make it
172
clear that the other side of the coin is that they would cut what means-tested pensioners receive. People must not be taken in by what the Opposition say on this issue.
Another old favourite topic is the state of the national insurance fund. Its administrative costs might have increased for many reasons, but the fund is one of the Government's most successful enterprises, despite this year's seemingly disastrous news. It continues to be very profitable, even though income from contributions in the current year is expected to be £31.4 billion less than the Government Actuary estimated a year ago. That may be a surprising figure, but even so the fund's income is expected to exceed expenditure by a healthy £35 million. The balance in hand at the end of the year will be nearly £27.3 billion—three times the minimum working balance recommended by the Government Actuary.
To put it another way, the fund is supposed to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, but it has an unneeded balance of some £18 billion—money that contributors have paid to meet the current costs of benefits, but which has not been used for that purpose. A written answer from my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 6 February showed that the whole of that £18 billion unneeded surplus had built up since 1997.
What will happen in the coming year, 2004–05? The Government Actuary's estimates show an increase of 5.6 per cent. in the fund's income, but an increase of only 3 per cent. in its expenditure. That produces another massive surplus of £32.4 billion. By the end of the year, the accumulated balance will be £1 billion more than the Government Actuary recommends.
It is often suggested that that is not real money, and that the fund does not really exist. It certainly does exist, however: nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that it exists in some sort of parallel financial universe. The fund does exist, and an account of its investments is presented annually to Parliament. Those investments could be realised at any time if the money were needed for the payment of pensions or other benefits.
Although the fund exists, the Treasury treats it as an undifferentiated source of Government revenue. It is obvious that, in fixing benefit rates for the coming year, no account has been taken of the almost £20 billion needlessly held in the fund, although those who contributed the money assumed that it would be used for that purpose. Neither has any account been taken of the annual loss of £2 billion suffered by the fund as a result of reductions in employers' contributions to compensate them for the climate change levy and other "green" taxes.
That sum of money is rapidly becoming forgotten. I raised the matter in the Select Committee with one of the Treasury Ministers. I said that the climate change levy and other environmental taxes are being paid by the national insurance fund, through the reduced contributions for employers. Although those taxes are necessary and beneficial, why on earth should pensioners—the major beneficiaries of the national insurance fund—be the main payers? The fact that they are doing so is extraordinary, and a distortion of the fund's proper use.

173
In another written answer on 6 February, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said:
"The UK national insurance scheme operates on the "pay-as-you-go" principle so that the contributions paid by people of working age fund the benefits of people who are currently claiming benefit."—[Official Report, 6 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1082W.]
That is true, as far as it goes, but it would have been more accurate to say that part of the contribution income is used to fund the benefit, and that the rest is used to help the Chancellor meet his fiscal targets. That is a long way from the original purpose of the national insurance fund, which was introduced by the last Liberal Government—some time ago.
Introducing his pre-Budget report on 10 December, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the cost of restoring the earnings link. He said that
"to revert to the pre-1980 position—an earnings link with pensions—would, by the end of the period"—
that is, by 2050—
"raise deficits by 3 per cent a year just to cover this one item, with the long-term sustainability of the public finances undermined."— [Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415,c. 1063.]
Few people will be neurotic about the possibility of our finances being undermined by 2050. There was no mention of the fact that the basic pension is an insurance benefit, financed by contributions to the national insurance fund. If contributors are prepared to meet the cost from year to year, the sustainability of the public finances will be entirely unaffected.
What we really need is a radical review of the financing and control of the whole national insurance system, so that contributions can be seen to be used for the traditional purposes stated throughout the fund's history. In that way, account could be taken of all the principles on which the fund was based.
A paper entitled "Better Pensions" from the think-tank, Catalyst, proposed the establishment of a national insurance commission consisting largely of representatives of contributors and pensioners. Such a commission would provide a very good starting point for reform of the system.
The question of means testing has been raised already, and will probably run throughout the debate. We are told that it is no longer the means testing of old, and that we now have a new and cuddly version. That is fine, and there is some truth in that statement. People no longer have to supply details of their income on a week-to-week basis, which is a welcome change. We should also pay tribute to the unprecedentedly energetic and resourceful work of the pension services in tracing all those people who are entitled to means-tested benefits. However, the great condemnation of such benefits is that a huge number of people do not claim them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly referred to the poorest pensioners, but the poorest of all are those who are entitled to means-tested benefits but do not claim them. The problem has persisted under all Governments. The Government's target is to get at least 3 million households on pension credit by 2006. That will be an enormous undertaking, given that the number of pension credit households was little more than two
174
thirds of the target figure. Ambitious as the target is, it would still leave 1.4 million pensioners not receiving the credit to which they are entitled.
It is not true that we have solved the take-up problem. We must do a great deal better in that respect, and I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Work has to say when he responds to the debate.
I turn now to the savings disincentive. The prospect of more than half the pensioner population being entitled to pension credit, not just in the short term but for the foreseeable future, poses a more fundamental problem. Those in receipt of the credit will find that its value is reduced by 40p for every £1 of income that they receive from an occupational or stakeholder pension. What sort of message will that convey to people of working age who are wondering about saving more for their retirement?
The problem is a growing one. I wonder whether those who push pension policies acknowledge that and make it clear that that is what will happen. As long as means-tested benefits exist, it will be hard to avoid the twin problems presented by low take-up and the incentive to spend rather than to save. However, we can stop the problem from spiralling out of control by keeping the gap between universal and means-tested benefits as narrow as possible, or at least by preventing it from widening. The simplest way to achieve that is to restore the earnings link, so that the basic pension rises in line with the means-tested minimum. That is a familiar plea in the House, but it is always valid.
Mr. Willetts: I invite the hon. Gentleman, who might have more success than I did, to ask the Secretary of State whether the value of means-tested benefits for pensioners will rise in line with earnings in the next Parliament, if the Government are re-elected.
Paul Flynn: I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's faith in my ability to persuade the Government. For about five years, I got up at an ungodly hour to table early-day motion I, urging that the link between the basic pension and earnings should be restored. Despite all my endeavours and those of the 100 or so fellow Members who signed those early-day motions, I failed so to persuade the Government. It is dishonest of the Conservatives to propose a programme that clearly would relatively reduce the income of the poorest pensioners. They suggest that the basic pension should be increased by earnings, which is fine, but increasing the means-tested pension only by prices would guarantee an increase in the disparity of incomes between better-off pensioners and the poorest pensioners.
If the Government cannot state their policy today, we must not gaze into a crystal ball but study their record, which is one of fairness, generosity and innovative policies that, as a pensioner of some four years' standing, I know people of my age greatly appreciate.
2.31 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: This annual debate affords the House the opportunity, which the Secretary of State and the spokesperson for the Conservative party took, to examine in detail benefit rates throughout the social security system and to reflect

175
on Government strategy. I propose to follow them in doing so, but first I want to don my anorak—having been goaded by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—and refer to article 20(3) of the regulations, which is obviously a contentious subsection:
"In regulation 16(3)(a)(k) (applicable amounts) '20 per cent.' remains unchanged."
The explanatory notes state, in the context of housing benefits for pensioners:
"Article 30(3) sets the percentage by which benefit is reduced after a period in hospital".
There is a corresponding section about council tax benefit.
Will the Minister explain the Government's thinking? Following pressure from others and us, there have been some welcome concessions on benefits for people in hospital, but are such people able to pay council tax any more than those living at home? Why should anything in the regulations cut council tax support for pensioners just because they are ill? Their other bills will continue. When will that provision cut in, and what effect will it have? Do the Government have any plans to review that arrangement? I cannot see any justification for reducing that support. I give the Minister notice of that detailed point, so that he will have a chance to respond.
The Secretary of State referred to the proposal to defer a lump sum for five years, which is an interesting notion. I have no problem with the idea of new options, but I must admit to some concerns. The hon. Member for Havant queried whether that money will be disregarded for the purposes of pension credit—one of two key questions. I was dismayed that the Secretary of State was unclear, saying that the principle is that the recipient will be no better but no worse off. What will that mean in practice? A man of 65 needs to know unambiguously whether the lump sum will count towards pension credit. If it does, that will change the entire calculation and it will become excruciatingly difficult. Although a 6 per cent. gross allowance might be achieved by deferring, which would probably be subject to tax, would the individual lose all future entitlement to pension credit, or lose it only until they had run down some of their capital stock? Some existing capital stock from another source might count, whereas new capital would not. Unless that scheme is implemented simply, pensioners might be asked to make complicated calculations. The Government's record on simple implementation is not particularly strong.
I understand that that proposal has been associated with the Pensions Bill, but I am not sure whether it requires legislation. I hope that the Government will soon be a good deal clearer on how that provision will work. Presumably the typical £100 that rolls up would be taxable, so one supposes that the lump sum also would be taxable. Would it be taxable only at the basic rate—the rate at which it would probably have been taxed when it accrued—or, because the £100 would grow into a socking great sum that would take someone way into the higher rate band, would there be some special tax rate? Would a person at the age of 65 be offered £26,000, or whatever the sum is at age 70, or £26,000 gross, which turns out to be £20,000 net? If so, the individual might have achieved the same return by putting their pension into an ISA. The Government talk about simplicity in pensions but are creating something that is not nearly as simple as has been suggested.
176
Although some of the Government's ideas are not bad, they have been grossly overspun. The option of going without a pension for five years is not one that the masses will go for. The people to whom the Government want the scheme to appeal will predominantly be part-time workers. I do not believe that the Government have in mind people who work full time until age 70. People in good full-time jobs and on high incomes are probably well placed to sort themselves out anyway.
The Secretary of State mentioned women. The suggestion that women on modest part-time earnings would defer their pension for two or five years is farfetched and fanciful. I hope that the Secretary of State will not oversell the proposal. We do not have a problem with people being offered new choices, provided that they are simple and will not place them at risk of making the wrong decision. I hope that the Minister will not pretend that the proposal is some sort of revolution, because most people cannot afford to do other than take their pension as soon as it becomes available.
The main national insurance benefits for non-pensioners are linked to the retail prices index, excluding housing costs—and because of real increases in rents and housing costs, the rate is lower than inflation. The money spent on schemes such as the contributory jobseeker's allowance is now pathetically small—60p per week for under-25s and 80p per week for over-25s. An unemployed 25-year-old with a good contributions record receives £55.65 a week, whereas average earnings must be approaching £400 or £500 a week. When such allowances were created, they were meant to serve as earnings-replacement benefits. If they continue to be linked to a low measure of inflation year after year, their potential for serving as earnings-replacement benefits must have disappeared long ago. Do the Government plan to permit such allowances to wither, dwindle and become an anachronism, because they cost a lot to administer—money that could be spent helping unemployed people who need support. The Government have an interest in permitting such benefits to wither, but is any systematic policy in place to re-examine the role of benefits, rather than let them die from natural causes?
The age addition for the over-80s remains at 25p. It has stayed at that level for nearly a quarter of a century. Five shillings was once a lot of money, but it is not today. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and us over the potential for using that money to reach the most needy pensioners. There is some common ground between the official Opposition and us in respect of persons who do not receive pension credit, the majority of whom are elderly pensioners. The Government have missed the opportunity to do something with the age addition, rather than let it wither. The length of the regulations is testimony to the complexity of the entire system, which contains all sorts of bits and pieces that do not do what they were originally designed to do but that nobody will sort out. One occasionally wishes that, instead of producing the same document setting the figure at 1.8 per cent. practically every year, someone would take a strategic look at the system rather than let it drift on with bits falling into disrepair. The social security system is like a house that nobody has lived in for many years—things are gathering dust because they have always been there.

177
I want briefly to raise three strategic issues. First, we have not touched on the transfer responsibility for poor families with children from the social security system to the tax credits system. When I first saw the regulation, I rang the Library and asked whether there had been a typing mistake because the rate for children is £42.27, which is a strange number that looks a bit odd. It became apparent that the figure is not actually a social security rate; it is a tax credit rate per year converted into a weekly amount.
Whereas last year's transition from supporting families through the social security system to supporting them with tax credits was a mess, at least the people covered by that system were generally workers who had some other source of income. This April, people who are wholly dependent on the social security system will transfer to the Inland Revenue's clutches. Most of their money will come from tax credits rather than from social security, and it is vital that the process is right. When the Department for Work and Pensions says on day one, "You are not our responsibility any more. We will give the amount for the adult, but it is over to the Revenue", the Revenue must not say, "We will get it right in July." Such families cannot be put in that position.
I asked the Paymaster General for information on the transition, and she promised the House a statement, which we have not yet heard. It is nearly March and the transition occurs in April. What is going on? Why have we heard nothing from the Government about how the transition will happen? Are low-paid families on income support confident that support for their children will seamlessly—that adverb is not often used in the context of the tax credit system—continue the day after the DWP pulls out? I hope that the Minister for Work can reassure us that he is actively ensuring that such people, for whom his Department is currently responsible, will have their welfare protected and that the transition is already being properly planned. The people involved with the dreaded computer systems that lie behind the transition say that they are behind schedule on the testing, and one's heart sinks at the prospect of the mayhem that might arise.
Mr. Willetts: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Does he agree that although we have been told that the new system is seamless, unemployed families will find themselves dealing with two different agencies and trying to receive money from two completely different sources? It is absurd to regard the transition as simplifying the system for adults who will continue to receive benefits or for children who will need help from the Inland Revenue or tax credits.
Mr. Webb: I sympathise with that point, because I have tried to help constituents to sort out their child tax credits. The system has been running for nine or 10 months only, and my constituents raise concerns such as "My partner changed hours in July" and "I did some overtime in October". Such reporting and record keeping will be part of daily life for families across the land. Again, I am worried that the Inland Revenue is not geared up to act quickly. For all the failings of the benefit system. it was pretty good at responding quickly
178
to emergencies. The Revenue must adopt that culture, and it must adopt it quickly. I am seriously concerned about the matter. Although it will by and large be the Treasury's problem after April, 1 hope that the DWP is throwing its weight 'around behind the scenes because I fear the worst. I am not scaremongering because last year we saw what can happen when the system goes wrong. The people affected last year had some income, but the folk whom we are discussing are wholly dependent on this money, so I hope that lessons have been learned.
Secondly, the hon. Members for Havant and for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) touched on the national insurance fund, and I want to pursue the issue of the report on the regulations. Appendix 7 compares the out-turn for 2003–04 with the estimate made one year ago. The hon. Member for Havant raised the issue of administration costs, which I want to pursue. One year ago, it was forecast that it would cost about £1 billion to administer the national insurance system, but the out-turn is £1.75 billion. In one year, the estimated cost of administration has gone up by £750 million, and a footnote lists two sources for that increase.
There has been a to-ing and fro-ing of funds between the national insurance system and the rest of the DWP. How can one work out how much it costs the DWP to administer its bit of the national insurance system? One must stick one's finger in the air and pick a figure, so the grey area surrounding that figure and the possible end of year adjustments is understandable.
The second reason is interesting:
"a one-off payment was made to the Welfare Modernisation Fund."
That sounds suspicious, so I tabled a written question to find out the size of the payment. The explanatory note does not state the size of the payments, which seems odd given that we are discussing £750 million. It would be reasonable to break that figure down, but that has not happened. The written answer was not helpful, apart from giving me a slight sense that the Department sees the national insurance fund as a cash cow, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West.
The DWP cannot get rid of the blessed money because it does not want to put it into national insurance benefits, but it can have £750 million for departmental running costs, which is a clever trick if one can pull it off. Once again, the House's scrutiny of the expenditure of such vast sums of money is pathetic, and I take as much responsibility for that as anyone else. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the £750,000 in his winding-up speech because it is not small change—one could build the dome for such a sum. What is the scrutiny process? I hesitate to say that £750 million has been pilfered from the national insurance fund, but there has been sleight of hand at the very least.
Thirdly, I shall discuss take-up. The benefits are great for people who get them, but they are less great for those who do not. We have heard that council tax benefit is the least well taken-up means-tested benefit—I used to make that kind of comment at dinner parties just to keep the conversation going, but now it is received wisdom. More than 1 million pensioners are not claiming their council tax benefit.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who chairs the all-party group on occupational pensions, is no longer in his place, but he

179
pointed out a particular issue for owner-occupiers in an earlier intervention. Three quarters of the pensioners who do not take up their council tax benefit are owner-occupiers. Because they have reached the age to draw their pensions—perhaps they draw a bit of company pension as well-they are not used to claiming benefits and do not think that it has anything to do with them.
We are now seeing the political consequences of people not claiming the council tax benefit to which they are entitled. More than 1 million pensioners find it so hard to pay their council tax that the system puts something in place to support them, but they do not receive the help. The political point is that pensioners who claim their council tax benefit once are insulated from any future increase in council tax, which is slightly odd. In other words, the system works out what people can afford to chip in regardless of actual council tax— for example, the system might say that someone can contribute £5 a week regardless of increases in council tax. If council tax goes on rising at a far greater rate than inflation, all those people will be insulated. There is a huge political reward for the Government if they can get such people on council tax benefit.
Every year I ask the Government why they do not use the income information that they already collect? Hundreds of thousands of pensioners supply the Government with every single bit of information that the Government need to work out council tax benefit because they are claiming pension credit or housing benefit. That does not apply to owner-occupiers, but it still includes more than 333,000 people. Every year, I am told that there is a pilot, scheme or advertising campaign. We heard about another advertising campaign this afternoon—whoopee! The Government have not addressed the structural problem for seven years. I know that there have beets pilots, but I simply cannot understand why the Government are not just doing it. What is the problem? Will the Minister tell us why the Government do not regard a claim for pension credit as a claim for council tax benefit? Why do they not regard a claim for housing benefit as a claim for council tax benefit? If they did so, at least 333,000 pensioners would get the money to which they are entitled. The matter is not difficult and I do not understand the problem.
The system is fiendishly complicated and is becoming more so with every passing year. Any hon. Member who understands the child tax credit and working tax credit systems deserves enormous credit. The people who need the system most are not being helped because it is so complicated and they do not make claims. The transition from one scheme to another could leave far too many people in the lurch. The benefits may be all very well for those who receive them, but far too many people fail to receive them.
2.49 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I wish to make two brief points and one slightly longer one. First, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who made the point in an intervention that the definition of poverty needs to be refined. It is absurd that an increase in the number of millionaires leads to an increase in the percentage of people in poverty without anybody getting any worse off. That is a statistical problem that needs to be addressed.
180
My second point is addressed to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). The sentiment was expressed more eloquently in this House many years ago, but we do not need to look in a crystal ball to see what the Tory party would do: we need only look in the history books. Of course, the Tories cut the link with earnings for pensioners, and thus did more to keep pensioners in poverty than any other party in the 20th century. That is not anything to be proud of.
My third point concerns the fear of poverty and the presentation of it in the press, and it is related to the intervention I made earlier about the lady who was allegedly about to go to prison because she could not afford to pay the council tax. I thought that that story was wrong as soon as I saw it, because the press claimed that she received only £312 a month in pension. I do not know who her MP is and I make no criticism, because we can all let things slip by, but my immediate reaction was that if she had been my constituent I would have tried to find out why she was receiving so little when she would be entitled to at least £400 a month, if not more. In any event, she should probably not pay the council tax or should receive a significant rebate, unless she had substantial savings.
Editors and sub-editors should know, given that many junior reporters will know, that someone on such a low income would normally get benefits. In other words, someone should have recognised that the story was seriously wrong. The hon. Member for Havant appeared to misunderstand me—and if he consults Hansard, he will see why—when he suggested that I was criticising the lady involved. In fact, in some ways, I made her point for her. She objected to the use of her council tax to fund a part of the European Union regional government structure. I make no criticism either of the United Kingdom Independence party or of Max Clifford. All three co-operated on a legitimate campaigning point, although the lady was unwise to say that she would go to prison for the cause.
I do, however, strongly object to the press using the story to present the lady as being in poverty, and that is related to my wider point about the fear of poverty among pensioners. One result of the story was that people sent cheques to the local authority to pay the lady's council tax bill—I do not know what the local authority will do with the cheques that were paid anonymously—but she was trying to make a political point. She said that she was prepared to go to jail because she objected to one aspect—or perhaps the whole—of the European Union, but she was not making a point about poverty
I remember that in 1997, when this Government were elected, some0 pensioners—especially women who had not paid any contributions during their working life —received only some £60 a week. That quickly went up to more than £90 a week and then to more than £100 a week, but—as ever with means-tested benefits—the problem was getting the message over. Some people did not receive the full amount and it was necessary to draw their entitlement to their attention. That is why I think the newspapers could have made a good story out of the lady's example. They could have said, "Look: pensioners who are getting only this amount need to put in a claim, either for council tax rebate or exemption, or for the increased pension that they are owed." The newspapers did not do that, and that was unfair of them.

181
Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, who was very keen on the story, awarded himself £80 million a couple of years ago and presumably does not have to worry too much about paying the council tax. He will probably also accept his state pension in the normal way. I would have been more impressed if he had used his power, knowledge, position and influence to draw to the attention of pensioners their entitlement to those allowances. That would have been a good story and one that the papers could have been proud of.
Pensioners are not a timid group as a whole, but there are some timid people among them. However, the fear of the means test is no longer the main issue. It has a terrible reputation from the period of mass unemployment in the 1930s, but it no longer holds the same terrors. I do not claim that it is easy or has no problems associated with it, because it has, but I have noticed that pensioners who are entitled to council tax rebates or exemptions do not claim them. They assume that they have to pay the council tax whatever their income. The headlines in the press said that the lady in question had to pay or go to jail, so it is not surprising that some pensioners are fooled into believing that if they do not pay they will go to jail. It is irresponsible of the press to use such stories to scare people. We should have no illusions about it: that is what they are trying to do. I do not mind the press making political points, but they should not use vulnerable people to do so.
My ministerial colleagues are doing a good job on pension and benefit issues, but we must get over to people—the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) also made this point—the fact that council tax exemptions and benefits are available. It is important to get that across to pensioners, because they are most affected by it. The newspapers could help in doing that. If they had used the story last week to get the message over, there would be many people feeling more comfortable and being slightly better off as a result. Instead, a person who set out on a road out of principle has had it turned into something else and, at the same time, others will have been made fearful about the dangers of going to prison if they do not pay their council tax.
2.57 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a pleasure to be able to take part in this short but high-quality debate on the uprating orders. We have heard some interesting contributions—not least, the one from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). I always think of his constituency as including part of Hammersmith, having been chairman of the Hammersmith Conservatives many years ago and failing miserably to unseat him, to his no doubt considerable relief.
We started the debate with an orgy of self-congratulation from the Secretary of State about the benefits situation. As the debate has worn on, however, some of the gilt has come off the gingerbread. The Government now spend £125 billion a year on benefits and tax credits. Are they spending all that wisely, sensibly and effectively? Certainly not.
I turn first to the issue of means-tested benefits, especially council tax benefits, as that subject arises naturally from the previous speech. We know that
182
council tax benefits have the lowest take-up rate and we know the reasons. I shall not repeat the good points that have already been made about that aspect of the debate. We also know the problems that have been caused by the recent shift in grant allocation from the south of the country to the north and midlands. We have also had endless debate about the case of the elderly lady, and I shall not dwell on it at any greater length. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush has made his points.
As the Secretary of State recognised, however, there is a major problem in getting to claim that particular means-tested benefit. Within that problem is the even bigger problem of owner-occupiers; the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr Webb) touched on that important point. All too often in recent times, retired owner-occupiers, with major difficulties in making ends meet, have been faced with gigantic increases in their council tax and are either unable or unwilling to claim council tax benefit—in many cases, simply from ignorance that it even exists or that it would apply to them if they asked for it. I welcome the Government's publicity campaign, but that very campaign underlines the immutable problem with all means-tested benefits: there will always be a lack of take-up of those benefits, no matter how much any Government spend on advertising, television or writing to people
In my constituency last year, there was a 38 per cent. increase in the council tax element generated by Eastbourne borough council—the fourth highest in the country. The hon. Member for Northavon would be disappointed if I did not remind the House that Eastbourne is a Liberal Democrat-controlled authority. Locally, the Liberal Democrats are running their "Ax the tax" campaign, which is rather like a serial killer pleading, "Please stop me before I do it again". However, in reality the fact remains that many vulnerable elderly people, who have limited resources and have great problems in making ends meet, do not claim their full entitlement.
I shall return to means-tested benefits in a moment, but first I want to touch on the issue of economic inactivity on which there was some dispute between the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). There is a growing and worrying problem, which David Smith set out well in an article in The Sunday Times only a couple of days ago. He said that, yes, the headline figures for employment look pretty good, on the face of it. Indeed, only the other day, the Minister for Work, who will be winding up the debate, was quick to issue a press release taking credit for what seemed to be relatively rosy figures, but as the article in The Sunday Times says—
Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waterson: Yes, although I should have liked to finish my point.
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in mid sentence, but it is important that he inform the House of two things. First, the press release was issued in response to the monthly labour market figures published not by my Department but by the

183
Office for National Statistics. Every month from time immemorial, every Minister who has had my responsibilities has issued a press release on those figures, although they have not always been able to welcome the good news that I have been able to welcome so consistently. Secondly, the hon Gentleman should have informed the House of the fact that I drew attention in that very press release to inactivity. Indeed, I have done so in almost every public statement that I have made as Minister for Work.
Mr. Waterson: That is a helpful intervention. I was certainly not criticising the Minister for putting out a press release; that is one of the things that Ministers do. On the Minister's second point, I am delighted that the penny has begun to drop for Ministers and the Department and that they realise that there is a massive hidden problem—
Mr. Browne Mr. Browne rose—
Mr. Waterson: May I get to the end of this sentence? [Interruption.] Very well, I give way.
Mr. Browne: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been over the life of the Labour Government, but, if he does not already have them, I shall send him the documents we have published on the development of our policies to tackle inactivity. He must surely know about the "Pathways to Work" Green Paper, published about two year, ago, and about the pilots which have already taken place, and which will be taking place shortly across 10 per cent. of the country.
Mr. Waterson: In a sense, this argument is the wrong way round. The Minister was obviously so incensed by some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and endorsed by The Sunday Times that he took the trouble of writing to my hon. Friend on 9 February to complain about the figures on which my hon. Friend has been relying, which I shall cite in a moment. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot agree with what I have yet to say on the subject on the one hand while on the other violently disagreeing—albeit with his usual courtesy—with my hon. Friend in writing earlier this; month. Or are there two Ministers of the same name prowling the corridors of the Department for Work and Pensions? [Interruption.] The Minister says that he can have it both ways. Perhaps he can—at least for the next 15 months.
May I now make the point with which the Minister so violently disagreed before I could make it? The Sunday Times article states:
"A record 7.85m people of working age are economically inactive, 2.lm of whom say they want a job."
David Smith draws particular attention to men aged between 25 and 35—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant has made more than once. One would expect that in any given scenario that would be the age group of young men who were most likely to reach full employment, yet the article notes:
"employment in this age group has dropped by nearly a quarter of a million to 3.4m over the past two years."
There are various possible explanations for that. My hon. Friend has talked about the "lost generation" of more than 1 million young people without jobs or
184
proper education and training. That throws into stark contrast the headline figures comparing our rates of youth unemployment with those in countries such as Germany—[Interruption.] I can see that the Minister is gearing himself up for another intervention.
The youth unemployment rate in Britain is actually 12.3 per cent. compared with 10 per cent. in Germany. Is this a convenient moment for me to give way to the Minister?
Mr. Browne: No, carry on.
Mr. Waterson: The Minister is rustling his papers furiously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant has also drawn attention—in a pamphlet—to a further issue: jobs in public administration, education and health—that is, public sector employment—rose by 153,000 last year and that self-employment has risen by 294,000. There are two ways of looking at those figures. Self-employment is a good thing, because people are being entrepreneurial and running their own business; but there is also the problem of involuntary self-employment—people who have been made redundant or have lost their job and been forced to set up on their own to make ends meet.
It is, however, abundantly clear that there has been a significant drop in mainstream private sector employment. No less a person than John Humphrys put that point to the Chancellor on the "Today" programme recently, although the Chancellor flatly denied it.
At the end of David Smith's article he makes a fair judgment of the Government. He states:
"Full employment remains an ambition, not an achievement".
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. I read with interest the article to which he refers. If he quoted it all, he would be able to tell the House that the author gave the Government considerable credit for their achievements in reducing unemployment.
The issue is serious and important and we need to debate it, but the hon. Gentleman ought not to distort or misrepresent the figures. That was why I wrote to the hon. Member for Havant on 9 February. In fact, more than 1 million of the 1.7 million extra jobs in the United Kingdom today compared with 1997 are shown to be in the private sector.
Mr. Waterson: I shall not go back over the article or the pamphlet written by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, but it seems clear that the current figures for increasing employment relate to the public sector and that the rate for the private sector is not increasing but falling back.
Another point that my hon. Friend rebutted in his response to the Minister's letter is that if we add the number of young people who are not in full-time education to the number of those who are economically inactive, the sum total is well over a million young people, which is a great worry. In fairness, the Minister has accepted that the issue is serious—[Interruption.] —as he repeats from a sedentary position. That is a further example to show that the headline figures on which the Government so often rely are only part of the story.

185
I come now to the new deal, particularly the new deal for young people. The Minister may remember that, on 17 November, he described the new deal for young people as a "great success"—no, doubt, when taking a break between sending out press releases in similar terms—but recent figures show that only 35 per cent. Of all those starting employment under that new deal have entered unsubsidised jobs. As I have said, there are still well over 1 million young people who are either economically inactive or unemployed. Only 17 per cent. of those starting employment under the new deal for over-25s entered sustained, unsubsidised jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant touched on the new deal for disabled people. However, there seems to be some misinformation among Labour Members, so let me take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that abolishing that new deal is not part of our policy, nor part of our savings to restore the earnings link, because that new deal has been relatively successful. A great deal has been spent on the other new deals to much less effect, but there is still a persistent figure of 1 million or so people with disabilities who, when asked, say that they would like to gain or return to employment.
Again, we can agree that that is a serious problem, but I urge Ministers to consider the point that my hon. Friend made so eloquently in his opening speech: there are artificial barriers—we have debated them in the past—to people returning to work. Of course, one of the main barriers, if not the main one, is simply the introduction of the means-tested benefit, whereby people feel that, if they get a job which, for any number of reasons, does not work out, they will be in a more disadvantageous position than they would otherwise have been. I urge the Minister to take that point seriously.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a distinction between the new deal for disabled people, to which he is broadly sympathetic, and the other new deals, which he wants to scrap. What is different about the new deal for disabled people? Why does he want to keep that new deal and get rid of the others?
Mr. Waterson: I have made the point that the new deal for disabled people has been relatively—I stress that word—more successful. Although vast amounts more are spent on the other new deals, a significant proportion of those involved in the new deal for disabled people have been helped back into work. About 6.6 per cent. of participants in that new deal have found sustained employment under the scheme. Of course, that is nothing like enough—I concede that immediately—but it is at least something. Given the fact that those people have particular disadvantages, we have concluded that we would keep that new deal in more or less its current form for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Browne: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. On the disincentive effect of the requirement to recalculate benefits for disabled people who move into work, I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Havant developing that thesis during his speech, but I am certain that the reality does not sustain his thesis. The reality is that, for 52 weeks or
186
up to two years, these who enter work through the new deal for disabled people will almost always be guaranteed to return to the same rate of benefit, because of the linking rules, if they lose their job.
Mr. Waterson: If the Minister is right, perhaps this is a matter of perception, but at the end of the day, the means-tested benefit is one of a number of artificial barriers to disabled people returning to work. I have not gone away and dreamt that up in a darkened room; it has been put to me by disabled people and groups that represent them. There is a major, perceived disincentive, but if the Minister is right, perhaps he and the Department should do more to make such things clear to those groups.
I shall now move on to the final issue on the uprating of benefits that I wanted to touch on: child poverty and the Child Support Agency. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has conceded more than once—he certainly did so when 1 last raised the issue back in December, and he has not tried to tap-dance round the problem—that there is a major difficulty with the computer system, with the migration of the 1.1 million old cases to the new system and with the date at which it will work properly. This is not some anorak, techie issue. A very large proportion of the people involved in those 1.1 million cases could be significantly better off on the new formula. Many of those families have modest means and are in vulnerable situations. So there is a real injustice, not least because there is no suggestion that they should be compensated ex post facto when they finally get on to the new system. Again, those vulnerable, poorer people's cash flow is being used to subsidise the Government, which is wholly unacceptable.
The initials EDS inevitably rear their head. When the Secretary of State gave evidence on this subject, he made the point that "significant payments" due to EDS had been withheld. Clearly, there is a major problem. Among other things, he said:
"We have been assured there is a recovery programme in place and that the system is retrievable-in other words, it can be made to work properly rather t Ian needing to be scrapped."
However, when pressed, he also conceded that
"it might have to be abandoned."
He went on to say:
"When you have been through the sort of experience … you ask some hard questions about whether it really can be made to work."
So let me ask one of those hard questions again today, for the Minister to cover in his winding-up speech.
Are the Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions now confident about the long-term future of EDS's involvement in that project? Do they believe that the system is retrievable. or that it needs to be scrapped? I am happy to take an intervention to deal with that point—now or later, whichever is more convenient. I gather that the Minister has wisely decided to deal with it later.
I shall just touch on child poverty because my hon. Friend the Member for Havant went into that issue in some depth in dealing with the clash with the tax credit system. We all know about the problems that our constituents faced when the system was introduced and the hon. Member for Northavon eloquently dealt with

187
the major unfairness involved, but there were two thunderous silences in the Secretary of State's speech. I shall come to the other in a moment, but the first occurred when he was pressed by my hon. Friend on that issue. Having reflected on that and having received inspiration from officials, the Minister may feel able to deal with that point in responding to the debate.
This is the bit where I put on my anorak—although little used—as I want to refer to the Government Actuary's Department document, Command Paper 6117, which accompanies the helpful bundle of papers on the uprating order. In my eternal attempt to be helpful, I remind the Minister of the point that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and the hon. Member for Northavon about the apparent 40 per cent. jump in administration costs for 2002–03, and the fact that the estimate for 2003–04 is 40 per cent. higher even than that. We just want to know why.
I wish to make two other points about Command Paper 6117. First, according to the document, contribution receipts are up 5.5 per cent. —from £59 billion to £62.2 billion—but benefits, including uprating, are up only 3.9 per cent. Is that not an example of another stealth tax in operation? Finally on that document, the Government Actuary says:
"There is still uncertainly about the effect of contracting out on the financial position of the National Insurance Fund."
I think I am right in saying, although I was not in this august position last year, that that issue was raised in this very debate a year ago. The Government actuary says that he thought a year ago that we would have the information by now, but that does not seem to be the case. The last reliable data on the numbers contracting out relate to 1998–99—five years ago—and the only data on the ages of those contracted out date from 1995. Can the Minister explain that massive lacuna, and does he agree that the lack of data on contracting out means that policy making is being conducted in a vacuum?
May I touch briefly and separately on the pension uprating order? Means-testing is at the heart of all such debates—we will no doubt come on to it again in the Opposition-day debate later. The Conservative party fundamentally believes that growing means-testing is not only wrong and bad for society and the individuals involved but deters help from getting to those who most need help. We debate the roll-out of the pension credit endlessly in the House, but even after all the advertising, letters, home visits and surgeries. only about half of those who are entitled claim the credit. The Department's target—to use the word used by the Minister—means that 1.4 million people will never get round to claiming pension credit.
The second thunderous silence during the Secretary of State's speech came when he was pressed on his party's future plans to link pension credit either to earnings or to prices. The Government seem unable or unwilling to answer that enormously important question. Thus, our argument is that the only fair and sensible way of dealing with the problems, as set out by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), is to restore
188
the link with earnings. I know that we must be on strong ground because a range of older people's organisations and organisations such as the TUC support our policy.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I must say that I find it strange that the Opposition now argue for the restoration of the link for pensions, given that they abolished it in the first place. Why the conversion?
Mr. Waterson: Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth! The landscape in 1980 was different from that of today for all sorts of reasons. Why does the hon. Gentleman take umbrage with a proposal for which organisations have been calling for years and which is, in truth, what most Labour Members want? It can only be because it is a Conservative party policy.
Mr. Browne: May I bring the hon. Gentleman slightly more up to date? His colleague the hon. Member for Havant said only three years ago that restoring the earnings link would be
"a wild and uncosted policy"—[Official Report, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 440.1
Mr. Waterson: Let me then register the profound gratitude of Conservative Members to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because no less a person than he has made the policy possible; first, by squandering, in many cases, so much money on the new deal and, secondly, by introducing the pension credit. As I have tried to explain—my hon. Friend the Member for Havant explained it better than I ever could—the answer is not to keep increasing the proportion of pensioners on means-tested benefits. We all know the horrific projections about the latter part of this century, but the proportion of pensioners on means-tested benefits is already approaching 60 per cent. That is wrong as a matter of principle, and it is also an extraordinarily inefficient way of delivering help to the poorest pensioners.
Mr. Frank Field: Why are the Opposition being so gentle on the Government on that point? The Government cannot maintain the policy. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the introductory papers on pension credit showed that its final roll-out would put 11 p on the standard rate of tax? None of us wants to go into an election with policies that advocate raising income tax by 11p, so at some stage the measure will be scrapped. It is thus proper to discuss the alternatives.
Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his measured and sensible contribution—as usual. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and I have explained, it is not our policy to scrap the pension credit. Our policy is that it should wither on the vine as the state retirement pension rises to a proper level that is linked with earnings. That is important not only for the purposes of this narrow debate, but for the wider debate that we will have—especially during our consideration of the Pensions Bill—on whether there is a proper and appropriate platform for people who want to make further provision of their own for their retirement.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I was not arguing against the link in any way during my last intervention—I am

189
probably one of the few people here who support the link. I was saying that the Opposition's U-turn after two or three years is strange, in that they have undergone a great conversion on means tests. They are suddenly against them and want to restore the pension link, yet they introduced more means tests than anyone. To get some credibility, they owe us an explanation of their alternative policy.
Mr. Waterson: I thought that I was explaining our alternative, which is to restore the earnings link. If the hon. Gentleman wants to check the figures, an excellent pamphlet published by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant sets out exactly and clearly how our policy would be financed.
Of course, the pension credit changes everything. It would have been more difficult for us to do this U-turn, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, and produce the new policy if it were not for the pension credit. The pension credit rams home the message that it is the Government's firm intention to increase inexorably, year on year, the proportion of the population, especially older people, who are reliant on handouts from the state—it is as simple as that.
There is a further side issue to the point that I made about the platform for people's retirement provision: the amount that people must save during their working lives to be sure that they will not be subject to means-tested benefits. We produced an independently researched figure of £180,000. Ministers take every opportunity to rubbish it and say that it cannot be right, but—another thunderous silence—they have consistently failed to tell us their figure. Sooner or later, they will have to tell the financial services industry because it will want to be sure that it will not mis-sell products in years to come to people who will actually end up being the losers because they will miss out on means-tested benefits.
A fundamental issue underlies those points. The Government's policies create a massive disincentive to save for retirement. Their policies on pension credit and other means-tested benefits fatally undermine anything that they are trying to achieve through the Pensions Bill and other measures.
Sir John Butterfill: Has my hon. Friend heard that it has been estimated that an individual would need a savings pot of about £180,000 to avoid going into pension credit?
Mr. Waterson: That is exactly the figure that we have put into the public domain. Before I sit down and give the Minister every opportunity to respond to all these detailed points—he will have plenty of time—I put a question to him: if he does not accept the figure of £180,000, what is the Government's figure? They must have a figure for internal planning purposes, but they are unwilling to share it with us at the moment. May we know what that figure is?
3.29 pm
The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, in preparation for which, in the absence of any
190
anorak in my wardrobe, I took the opportunity to reread the reports of the equivalent uprating debates for the last three years: I may qualify for an anorak now. Consistent with tenor and content of those years, this has been a useful and interesting debate, and I am happy to admit thin it has been educational to some degree for me, for I never fail to pick up something in debates about social security and related issues. While I do not bring the stills of an anorak to debates of this sort, I try to brim i other skills to them and hope to contribute in that way.
It is my intention. so far as time permits, to answer the relevant points that have been made, but first I think I should make some key general points that set the context for the debate and which bear some repeating.
First, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in the early part of his opening speech, the estimated cost of uprating for 2004–05 is £2 billion. That extra Government spending means £1.2 billion for pensioners, £340 million for disabled people and carers, £360 million for people of working age and £240 million for children.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, this Labour Government have been able year on year to cut the costs of economic and social failure. As my right hon. Friend made clear, with record employment levels we have £5 billion of savings that can be invested to tackle poverty. We have been able to do that by a combination of sound economic management and policies to increase employment, key subjects on which the dogs did not bark among those on the Opposition Benches who are keen to point out in some detail some of the issues that those on our From Bench did not respond to. The combination to which I referred is why we are able to reverse the legacy of pensioner poverty and why we have made significant progress towards our long-term objective of ending child poverty within a generation and halving it within 10 years. In 1997 the Tories left us at the bottom of the European child poverty league table. We have started to move up significantly, already having moved four places up that table. But we have ambitions to move further, and quickly.
I turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. I shall endeavour to answer all the relevant points, but as I may not have the detailed information to answer all of them, particularly some of the detailed points about the national insurance fund. I undertake to write to hon. Members giving detailed responses. A copy of the letters will also go to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, and a copy will be put in the Library.
I listened with interest to the discussion of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) with himself. The hon. Member for Ncrthavon (Mr. Webb) never ceases to stir from his chair in these circumstances. I suppose that that is the problem of the relationship of teacher and pupil on some occasions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Which way round is it?
Mr. Browne: It is a sort of Protean relationship, and it changes on occasions depending on whether they think there is a decent point or not.
In any event, I listened with interest to the discussion by the hon. Member for Havant about measures of poverty and equivalence. I am sure that we will continue

191
to have discussions as to whether the measure of poverty that the Department has chosen is supported by the policies emerging on tax credits. I know that we shall have debates into the future, because the hon. Member for Havant has got his teeth into the matter and he will not let go for a significant period.
The fact is that we are on course to meet or exceed our public service agreement target to reduce the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004–05—of course, on a before-housing-cost basis. We could have had another discussion about that as a measure of poverty.
We are increasing the child element of child tax credit in these measures by £180 to £1,625 a year in April 2004. That is equivalent to a weekly increase of £3.50, benefiting 7.2 million children—more than half of the children in the United Kingdom. Nearly 20 million people, including 10.5 million children, are benefiting from the new tax credits. By 2004–05 total spending on financial support for children will have gone up by more than £10 billion in real terms since 1997, a rise of 72 per cent.
The national minimum wage arid the working and child tax credits have made work pay, with guaranteed minimum incomes for those in employment. There are now more than 1.7 million more people in employment than there were in 1997, and around 350,000 fewer children in workless households.
There has been excellent progress on the numbers below the absolute low income threshold: around 1.8 million fewer children are below the 1996–97 measure of 60 per cent median income after housing costs threshold, held constant in real terms, and there are half a million fewer children in relative low income than in 1997, even accounting for strong income growth. That does not seem to me a bad performance for people who may well have got their measure of poverty wrong.
I turn to child support. There is understandable concern across the House about our ability to deliver the necessary reform of the system of child support. One of the great ironies is that this was one area of social policy that was consulted on extensively, and the reforms in order to improve the system attained significant support across the House and in the other place. The hon. Member for Northavon narrows his eyes at me. As long as he does not move his feet, we shall be all right. He perhaps did not agree with that; in Fact, I now remember that he had another way of approaching the issue, but that is a debate for another day—or. rather, it was a debate for a past day, because the hon. Gentleman lost it. Anyway, the new scheme is simpler and will work better. The agency is now clearing thousands of cases each week.
I was asked for some information, and I shall give the information that I have. So far under the new scheme more than 100,000 cases have been cleared. Around 10,000 of the poorest families are benefiting from children maintenance premium. and maintenance has been paid in more than 17,000 cases. The poorest families are starting to benefit in real terms from the child maintenance premium:600,000 children in the poorest families stand to gain a total of more than £150 million a year. It is certainly easier to work out liability under the new scheme, which means that more time can be spent on collecting.
192
Hon. Members were right to point to my right hon. Friend's candid and detailed evidence to the Select Committee on this issue less than a fortnight ago. He is entitled to credit for the fact that he answered candidly and clearly the questions put to him.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Opposition introduced the Child Support Agency when they were in Government? Its target was savings, and it did not necessarily go after the people it should have gone after. While we are on the Opposition's handling of pensions and payments, does my hon. Friend recall who introduced the Horizon project? We are still dealing with the aftermath of that project, which has affected our new approach to the CSA and the need to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House that the motivation when the CSA was introduced was not to get benefit and support to children—the thrust of our child support policy and CSA policy—but to save money for the Exchequer. He is also right that although the system was flawed and difficult when it was introduced, part of the problem was that it changed significantly as it was developed, often in response to the demands of absent parents, who wanted it to reflect their lifestyles. It is accepted by Members on both sides of the House that the child support system that we inherited consequently allowed people, particularly absent parents, to devise a lifestyle that defeated the right of the child to be maintained. People were given advice by financial advisers about how to structure their debts or mortgage liabilities to defeat the right of their natural children to be maintained. The new method of calculation does not allow that, and it is far simpler. As I shall explain, when it works properly it will make a significant difference to the maintenance of substantial numbers of children and poor families throughout the country.
In favour of the Conservatives' introduction of child support is the fact that they moved forward significantly the debate about who had primary responsibility for maintaining natural children. I remember that when the new child support system was introduced, there was a debate about whether or not people should maintain their natural children or whether the state should pick up the cost. We no longer have such debates, and to some extent the Opposition, whatever their motives, are to be thanked for taking the issue up and moving social policy forward significantly.
To return to the functioning of the IT system, I have been asked whether I can give the House more detailed or candid information than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the Select Committee only a fortnight ago. He gave that evidence to put the record straight, and on the issue of transfer, which is the issue that, quite reasonably, exercises people, we have consistently made it clear that we will allow only those cases that are the stock of the CSA system to be transferred to the new system when we are certain that it is working properly and will not damage people's family incomes, as it would if it were not working properly. The House can rest assured that when we are satisfied that that is the case it will be told immediately, and arrangements will be made to make that transfer. If hon. Members would like more detail, I recommend that they

193
read my right hon. Friend's evidence to the Select Committee when, after careful questioning, he revealed a significant amount of information. In answer to a question about whether he would contemplate cancelling the contract, he said that if things did not get any better, that would have to be considered. That is as honest as we can be—there is no point shirking our responsibilities.
Mr. Waterson: I do not want to press the Minister beyond what is appropriate in what is partly a commercial situation, but I would be grateful for clarification. Current thinking is that the migration will start in the autumn—[Interruption.] The Minister says that they have not said so, so I shall put it differently. Without my wishing to pursue the EDS point, does the Department have a working assumption about the date when either the migration will start or when it is minded to say that enough is enough?
Mr. Browne: I accept that the hon. Gentleman wants to get his question on the record, but he will not get an answer from me that is different from the one that he has already been given. When we are satisfied that the design and functioning of the system are robust enough to allow for migration, we will set a date for that migration. Until then, the Secretary of State, Ministers in the Department and senior officials will continue to work with the provider or contractor to ensure that they are sticking to their agreement that they will work to improve the system. I am not in a position to go into any more detail, but nothing has been kept from the House, which has been told candidly that there are difficulties with the system that are being worked on. When the work is complete and the system is robust enough to support migration, a date will be fixed for that. However, a date has not yet been fixed.
A substantial part of the speech by the hon. Member for Havant dealt with the alternative to our pensions policy—the restoration of the earnings link to pensions. It was said that he needs help to pay for that by scrapping the new deals. Indeed, it now becomes apparent that to do their sums on this policy, the Conservatives need to know whether we are committed to the uprating of pension credit by reference to wages. It is no wonder that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) admitted that they would have to make some "painful decisions" in order to pay for their policy. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Havant did not respond to that point. Perhaps he or the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) should do so at some time in the future, because a significant number of people out there want to know who will have to suffer the pain for that policy.
Let me deal with the reasons why we in Government think that it is the wrong policy and are not responding to the constant siren songs urging us to move in that direction. First, it is unaffordable; secondly, it is unsustainable; and thirdly, it is unfair. Although the pension credit had not yet been introduced in May 2002, the hon. Member for Havant knew full well that it was about to be. Did he have a Damascene experience in October 2003 when the pension credit appeared? It would be interesting to know why he did not anticipate
194
that that was going to happen some time before when we discussed it in some detail and considered the White Paper and other papers that informed it.
In any event, in May 2002 the hon. Member for Havant said on "On the Record" that he opposed reintroducing the earnings link as it was "not affordable". Nothing has changed since then. Even if he took more than £200 million off pensioners in extra tax, as he would, there would be a £500 million shortfall by year 4 of a Tory Parliament.
Mr. Willetts rose—
Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a moment? That shortfall assumes that there are savings to be made of hundreds of millions of pounds a year from scrapping the new deal programmes. I understand why he does not like the report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research on the new deal for young people. but the evidence just from the new deal for lone parents says that it saves the Exchequer £40 million a year by getting people off benefits and into work. There are no savings to be made by scrapping the new deal, but there are significant other additional costs, as we already know from 18 years of Tory Government in which we saw growing numbers of young people in long-term unemployment.
Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, although he did not do so as promptly as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) did to him.
When the House debated the pension credit, I supported a reasoned amendment, which was also supported by the Liberal Democrats and by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and which proposed that the money going into the pension credit should instead go into a higher pension for older pensioners. I continue to believe that that would have been a better way forward. We are now in a world where the pension credit has come into force, and where more than half of all pensioners will be on it. We are therefore tackling the problems of a world in which more than half of pensioners are on means-tested benefits. The question is: what is the best way forward in the world that we are now in? I think that increasing the value of the basic state pension by earnings is the best way of getting us out of the mess that has been created by the pension credit.
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but he needs to explain why he has indulged in this significant U-turn. I have a whole page of quotations from him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Well, 1 shall be persuaded, then. In 1993, he said, in relation to sustainability, that his Government had taken the crucial step of
"Ending the link between the basic pension and earnings"
and had resisted
"the seductive politics, but dangerous economics … which has bedevilled state pension arrangements in other countries."—[Official Report, 8 July 1943; Vol. 228, c. 516.]
No doubt those other countries did not have the pension credit at that time. Ht said that because, as he knows, restoring the earnings link will cost, in net terms,

195
£4.6 billion more by 2010; it will cost £12.4 billion more by 2020; and by 2030, the extra net cost will be £25.7 billion. That policy is unsustainable, but also unfair.
It is interesting to note that in discussing taxing pensions the hon. Gentleman does not make great play of a part of his policy, about which al pensioners should know: under the Tory plan, nothing will be done to help the poorest pensioners. They will not only fall further behind, but any increase in their basic state pension will be knocked straight off their pension credit. Not only will the poorest be worse off, but any advantage that they could anticipate will be knocked off the pension credit.
We heard today that it is the Tory party's intention to allow the pension credit to wither on the vine. That would involve another significant on-cost, and the Conservative proposal that we are considering would cost £18 billion, and £12 billion after netting off the savings from income-related benefit. It would take 14 years to achieve that. All women who are watching the policy develop should be especially afraid of it. They will fare especially badly because half of them do not get the full basic state pension. They would be seriously short-changed.
David Taylor: Does the Minister know about the recent joint campaign by the Fawcett Society and Age Concern? It points out that one in four single pensioner women already live in poverty and that methods of ameliorating that—without relinking—include reducing the lower earnings limit to allow more people access to the national insurance fund, paying pensions to all those with NI contributions, making credit for caring periods more effective and making the state second pension more useful to women. Are not they all worthwhile means of tackling pensioner poverty among the oldest women?
Mr. Browne: I am grateful for that interesting contribution. Of course, my hon. Friend knows that we have extended greater cover to women through the state second pension. We shall keep all the other matters under review.
I am conscious of the time and that some issues will be burning in the minds of those who contributed to the debate. I shall try to deal with them. If I cannot do that because of time constraints, I shall write to hon. Members, as I said earlier.
Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Browne: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady, who made no contribution to the debate, although she was present for all of it. If I make some decent progress, perhaps I shall give way, but people are waiting for answers and I am happy to provide them.
The hon. Member for Northavon made the reasonable request that we should ensure continuity of payment as a priority for those who are transferring to the child tax credit. I assure him that that is our priority. He has been told that the Paymaster General will make a statement about that and its administration in due course. I assure him that there will be no withdrawal of
196
benefits until the tax credit award is in place. All families will be informed of the transfer, and I hope that that provides sufficient reassurance.
The hon. Gentleman asked about deferring the state pension and the treatment of capital sums. He made some interesting points, but they were no more interesting than the questions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was asked in an intervention when opening the debate. He said that he would make clear the way in which the sums would be treated in relation to other benefits and that the Chancellor would make a statement about the tax treatment. When a Secretary of State gives the House such information at the beginning of a debate, it is highly unlikely that a Minister of State will say anything different at the end. I therefore direct the hon. Member for Northavon to my right hon. Friend's comments.
Mr.Willetts: Consistency.
Mr. Browne: We are always consistent. Since the Government have a consistent preferential policy agenda for the poor and we consistently move older people and children out of poverty, there is a lot to be said for consistency in the context of the debate.
Let me deal with the reference to article 22 (3), which relates to council tax benefits for pensioners and why the figure of 20 per cent. remains unchanged. There are two aspects to that. First, I point out to the hon. Member for Northavon that the point relates to hospital downrating. He will remember that we changed that from last October so that pensioners and others in hospital would see no reduction in pension credit, council tax benefit and other income-related benefits for a full 52 weeks.
Mr. Webb: I have already said that.
Mr. Browne: Well, some things are important to repeat. That reduction does not kick in until after that period, and the 20 per cent. level is unchanged, because that is simply the amount by which council tax benefit is reduced after 52 weeks.
Secondly—I shall have to check this and write to the hon. Gentleman on it, as I do not want to be accused of accidentally misleading the House—my understanding is that it is highly unlikely that a council tax payer could be in hospital for 52 weeks without having the opportunity to benefit from some other reduction in council tax. As I recollect them, rules relating to council tax set out that when a house is unoccupied or there is a reduction in occupation for a period, there is a right to make an application for a reduction in council tax.
Mr. Webb: Those people still have to contribute.
Mr. Browne: They might not have to contribute the whole amount, only a comparatively small amount. They might not have to contribute at all, although there probably has to be some contribution, as the 20 per cent. must relate to something, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out. I shall check the detail.
On the housing benefit reform pilots, we are making good progress in applying local housing allowance. All nine local authorities involved have begun

197
implementation, which has been smooth to date. It is as yet too early to understand fully the response that tenants and landlords will make, and a comprehensive evaluation strategy will be put in place. Interim findings will be made early in 2005.
Several hon. Members referred to the need for the Government to encourage take-up of council tax benefit, and linked that in particular to pension credit. The Government recognise that there is more to be done. With the introduction of pension credit, almost 1.9 million pensioner households will get more help, or get help for the first time, with their council tax and rent. That is one of the significant consequential by-products of the Pension Service, which is reaching out to pensioners. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are launching a campaign to raise awareness of council tax benefit. As well as promotional material, we will provide guidance and advice to local authorities to help to ensure that they have procedures in place to handle inquiries about entitlement and to provide support for those making claims. The hon. Member for Northavon asked why we did not simply use the information that we have from pension credit for council tax benefit, which he said would be easy. I can assure him that it would not be easy, but would be quite complicated. That is not to suggest that the Government have not considered that possibility; we are constantly looking at ways in which we can increase take-up, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will do what we can on that.
The uprating order continues to deliver on our promises to help those who most need help. We are supporting families, and are continuing our action to tackle pensioner poverty and end child poverty. We continue to give help where it is needed most, and thanks
198
to the increase in line with earnings of the guaranteed minimum and of pension credit from April, no single pensioner will need to live on less than £105.45 a week, or a couple on less than £160.95 a week.
Annabelle Ewing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I apologise for having missed the first 15 minutes of this interesting debate. The Minister is surely concerned about the current take-up of pension credit. Would it not be appropriate to consider putting hack the October deadline for the backdating of claims, so that all those currently entitled to receive pension credit receive their full entitlement at some point?
Mr. Browne: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's contribution, although it comes late in the debate. However, I should point out to her that we are not disappointed with take-up. The take-up process is moving very well. As we have not yet written to all pensioners who can entitled, it is premature to be discussing whether the October date is appropriate.
These orders confirm our conviction that it is essential to provide support, respectively, for those who cannot work or who are retired, while promoting the principle of work for those who can. I commend the orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.

PENSIONS
Resolved,
That the draft Guararteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved. —[Mr. Andrew Smith.]

Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTED DAY-SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  Pension Scheme Wind-ups
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): We now come to the debate on the Opposition motion. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's inaction in the face of the crisis in occupational pennons; regrets that the Pensions Bill will do nothing to encourage people to save for their retirement or companies to keep open existing defined benefit schemes, let alone start new ones; recognises with regret that the Pensions Bill will do nothing to help the estimated 60,000 members of schemes who have lost all or most of their pension entitlement; notes that the Government has twice reduced the minimum funding requirement as well as removing £35 billion in extra taxes from pension funds and has conspicuously failed to amend the priority order on wind-up, despite offers of co-operation from the Official Opposition; expresses its surprise that the Government has refused calls to instigate an independent inquiry into the extent of the problem; and calls upon the Government to take urgent action to tackle the current crisis in pensions and to mitigate the unfairness caused to thousands of current and future pensioners across the United Kingdom.
  I draw the House's attention to the interests that appear in the Register of Members Interests.
  This is our first opportunity in Opposition time to debate pensions since the publication of the Pensions Bill the other day. We look forward—the expression to use is "with relish"—to ranging widely on Second Reading over the many issues covered in that Bill. Today, however, we want to focus on one serious omission from the Bill, which it ought to have tackled. I refer, of course, to the problem facing the tens of thousands of victims of the winding-up of pension schemes. Those are the people whose houses have burned down, and to whom the Government are saying that the solution is fire insurance for the future. However desirable a fire insurance scheme might be, it is of no comfort to someone who has already suffered the losses that these people have suffered.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Are there not two other related omissions from the Pensions Bill: first, a date set for the publication of the Penrose report; and secondly, a commitment from the Government to do away with the compulsory annuities rule? Both of those are extremely worrying matters for future and existing pensioners.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. It is a great pity that the House has not yet had an opportunity to see the Penrose report, although we know that it has arrived in the Treasury. With regard to annuities, we continue to fight for the abolition of the pernicious rule that people are obliged to purchase an annuity at the age of 75. We hope that there may be a private Member's Bill before the House through which we can once more address that issue.
  Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Penrose report is nothing to
  200
  do with this motion and this debate? It muddies the water b cause the difference between the Equitable Life issue and this issue is that in this case people were often compelled to join occupational pension schemes and were given no health warning whatever that the schemes could go bust, particularly when the Pensions Act 1995 was passed.
  Mr. Willetts: Both Penrose and pension wind-ups involve serious financial distress for people, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House can cover both cases with sensitivity, recognising that we have constituents facing significant financial problems in both cases.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I listened with care to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), and of course there is a distinction, academically, between the appearance of the Penrose report and other sorts of distress for pensioners. The fact is that for a pensioner who is affected not only by the wind-up of a pension scheme but by the delay in the Penrose report, that distinction is indeed academic. We should be looking at the distress caused to the individual.
  Mr. Willetts: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reason why we have called this debate, and why our hon. Friends are pressing vigorously on Penrose, is that in both cases there is serious financial distress under this Government and people are facing financial insecurity of a sort for which they did not bargain.
  Sir John Butterfill: With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), is not it correct that in 1986 the then Government abolished the compulsion for people to join pension schemes and that anybody who had been compelled previously to enter into a company scheme was free then to leave that scheme?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. The provision was changed in 1986.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Allied Steel and Wire workers suffered a double blow, because the additional voluntary contribution scheme was with Equitable Life? Is there not a link between the two in respect of the hon. Gentleman's constituents?
  Mr. Willetts: At least one person whom I have met had the misfortune both to lose his final salary pension as a result of the winding up of a pension scheme and to have put extra pension savings into an AVC scheme with Equitable Life. He suffered a double whammy—an appalling blow.
  Members on both sides of the House share the concern about pension wind-ups. It is reflected in two early-day motions, our motion 66 and motion 200, tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). Between them, the two motions have been supported by almost half the total number of Members, which also reflects the extent of the concern that is felt. Motion 200 goes further than motion 66, which was

  201
  signed by me and by many of my hon. Friends. It implies that the Government should offer full compensation to victims of wind-ups.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend understand the reservations of people like me who strongly support the proposition that compensation should be given for loss if that loss was caused by the negligence, misconduct or other culpable fault of Government or Government agencies, but would find it difficult to support compensation in respect of loss that was not the fault of Government or those for whom Government are vicariously liable?
  Mr. Willetts: That is an important point, on which I intend to press the Minister later. We need much clearer information than we have had from Ministers so far about what they think their legal liabilities might be. We hear a variety of reports on the Government's legal position.
  Rob Marris: The Opposition motion refers to 60,000 people. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the cost of compensation? If possible, will he break his answer into two parts and tell us how much it would be when there has been culpable error and when there has been no such error?
  Mr. Willetts: These interventions have raised interesting points with which I hope to deal later.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I should like to make some progress now.
  I want to explain to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that we did not feel that, as a responsible Opposition, we could support an early-day motion that involved unqualified and uncosted obligations to pay compensation to all victims of the pension wind-up crisis. However, the fact that we did not feel able to go as far as he did does not mean that we agree with the Government that nothing can be done. Motion 200 calls for everything to be done; the Secretary of State and other Ministers are doing nothing. Conservative Members believe that something can and should be done, and I intend to set out what I consider to be a genuine and constructive approach to the problem affecting so many victims of the crisis.
  Unless the problem is tackled, the Government will not achieve their stated objective of restoring trust and confidence in our pension arrangements. It is impossible to envisage a world in which people once more have confidence in funded pensions when there are so many distressing stories of individuals facing financial disaster because they had funded occupational pension schemes. Conservative Members, who are strongly committed to the strength and vigour of funded occupational pensions, believe that the problem must be tackled.
  202
  First, I want to provide a little of the history, because it is important to all this.
  Mr. Cunningham: On the question of the history, the hon. Gentleman will doubtless remember that under the previous Conservative Government, and particularly during the 1980s, companies such as Rolls-Royce encouraged people to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme; in fact, they spent thousands of pounds doing so. Il he wants to have an honest debate on this issue, will he not accept that the origins of the problem lie in the 1980s, under the Thatcher Government?
  Mr. Willetts: No. I regret that intervention because it is not accurate. I skill take the hon. Gentleman through the history, which Will show why.
  The Pensions Act 1995, which is sometimes blamed for this problem, actually improved the degree of security available to members of occupational pension schemes through the introduction of the minimum funding requirement. It set out to strengthen the protection available to members of such schemes, and the formula on which the MFR was based was full protection for pensioners, and protection for at least the transfer values that would be available for workers who had yet to reach pension age.
  For a time, the MFR worked. When we lost office in 1997, the position was as follows. Actuaries advise me that the MFR would have provided 78 per cent. of the value of the pension that a 40-year-old man working for a company with an occupational pension scheme would have hoped to receive. Of course, back then company pension schemes were healthy and many companies had funds available that were in excess of that figure. Then along comes the current Chancellor, with his notorious £5 billion a year tax on pension funds that significantly weakened the finances of many company pensions. What was the Government's response to that weakening? They cut the value of the MFR to reflect the fact that companies were now distributing smaller dividends.
  I shall quote how Mercers, a senior and respected firm of actuaries, described the Government's 10 per cent. reduction in the MFR at that time:
  "The change is a consequence of pension schemes losing the benefit of advance corporation tax (ACT) tax credits in the July 1997 Budget, following which the gross dividend yield was no longer appropriate for pension funds."
  So the value of the MFR was cut by 10 per cent. in June 1998 in response to the change in the tax regime that the Chancellor imposed.
  Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman has brought some new information to the House. In 1997, three quarters of a worker's pension would have been protected had the scheme been funded according to the MFR, but can he clarify what would happen when such a scheme winds up? Let us say that half the members are retired and half are still workers. Would the retired members get 100 per cent. and the workers 50 per cent., because the average is 75 per cent., and does he consider 50 per cent. protection to be adequate? Is that what the hon. Gentleman meant?
  Mr. Willetts: No, that is not what I meant. I meant that pensioners got 100 per cent. and people of working

  203
  age got 78 per cent. The basis on which the MFR operated was explained very clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in a debate on this subject. He said:
  "In broad terms, the aim of the MFR test is to ensure a scheme has sufficient funds to keep paying benefits for members whose benefits are in payment, and to pay minimum transfer values for other members." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 May 1995; c. 1.]
  That was the philosophy and the basis on which the scheme worked—and it was indeed working—until 1997.
  Since 1997, there have been two reductions in the value of the MFR. There was the 10 per cent. reduction in June 1998 to which I referred, and a subsequent 8 per cent. reduction. The effect of that has been to lower the value of the protection that members of company pension schemes now enjoy. Indeed, the actuaries to whom I have referred advise me that a 40-year-old who works for a company that is compliant with the MFR will now find that the funds that so comply would secure him only 20 per cent. of the pension that he would otherwise hope to receive. So there has been a decline from 78 per cent. to 20 per cent. since 1997.
  Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, even if he were right about the reduction being the result of Government policy, the minimum funding requirement set out in the Pensions Act 1995 was wholly inadequate because the workers would still have received only a tiny proportion of their expected pension as a result of the MFR? Is that not correct?
  Mr. Willetts: I am not saying that the minimum funding requirement was perfect A proper balance always has to be struck, but it seems to me that the significant changes that have exposed so many of our constituents to the risks and concerns arising from the wind-up of pension schemes have occurred since 1997. That is the period in which the finances of company pension schemes deteriorated and in which Ministers twice deliberately cut the vain (of the protection provided by the MFR.
  As a result of a well-intentioned proposal to introduce insurance, I believe that we now face a further risk. Ministers intend to introduce insurance initially—we do not know how long the initial period will be—at a flat rate. Hitherto. many good employers tried to do better than the MFR. The danger of the current proposals is that they pose the question why any employer should now attempt to do better than the MFR. Why should an employer put more money into pension schemes than the minimum necessary? He might improve the position of his own employees, but with an insurance scheme in place with the same insurance premium for everyone, an employer could cut contributions to the bare minimum necessary to meet the MFR and still access the Government's insurance scheme. A new risk is therefore being introduced as employers will in future see no need to bother paying more than the statutory minimum because of the flat-rate insurance scheme. It makes no provision whatever for employers who are doing better than the MFR.
  We are told that at some point in the future we will move to a variable rate that reflects the quality of the funding of the company, but we have no information
  204
  about when or how that will he achieved. For a time, therefore, we will be in an extremely dangerous position in which companies do the bare minimum and rely on the insurance scheme to fall back on in the event of difficulties.
  The evidence is clear that in the past few years the world has become less secure for many members of company pension schemes, and hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware of the consequences. We are aware that many of our constituents have been affected by a roll call of companies that have wound up their pension schemes. There is the example of ASW, of course, but also Blyth & Blyth in Edinburgh, Bradstock's, Dexion. Kalamazoo, Ravenhead Glass, Richards, United Engineering Forgings and many other companies have wound up without being able to offer anything like the full pension to their employees.
  One of my constituents who visited my surgery recently had been employed by Ballast UK. He will be 61 in April and had worked for his firm for 27 years. He had been hoping for a company pension of approximately £17,000 per annum, but was told that he was likely to receive perhaps 17 per cent. We are all aware of such cases and no hon. Member on either side of the House can look such a constituent in the eye and say, "Tough luck, but there is nothing we can do." We all have an obligation to think constructively about what can be done to help people in those appalling circumstances.
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend mentioned a constituent who visited his surgery, and I, too, have had constituents visiting me for the same reason. One of my constituents, aged 60, used to work for British United Shoe Machinery and is now wholly dependent on what the state can provide. Throughout his 40-year working life he saved through the pension scheme but is now left effectively destitute—or, if not destitute, has to live a vastly reduced standard of life. Other British United Shoe Machinery employees will face the same, if not identical, difficulties.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. and learned Friend is correct, and all hon. Members know of such examples. That is why it is reasonable for us to ask Ministers what they propose to do about the problem, as our early-day motion and early-day motion 200 both state.
  What do Ministers reply when they are pressed on this matter? The Secretary of State said:
  "I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it would be wrong for me to raise false hopes." —[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 694.]
  Last October, he said that
  "it would be quite wrong for us to raise false hopes that those people can get extra help unless and until we know that that is the position." —[Official Report, 20 October 2003; Vol. 371, c. 411.]
  In January this year, he said that
  "the Government are carefully considering the plight of those affected while taking care not to raise false hope." —[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 511.]
  In February, he said that the Government
  "have been examining whether anything might be done, without wanting to raise false hope, and as soon as I am able to report further to the House, I will do so." —[Official Report, 9 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1104.]

  205
  Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman was reported on the "Today" programme as saying that while the Government were sympathetic to the plight of the pensioners hit by the problem, he did not want to raise false hope that they could give assistance.
  I assure the Secretary of State that he has not been raising any false hopes. In fact, he has not raised any hopes at all among the many people affected by the crisis.
  The Opposition invite the Secretary of State today to look forward and to do better than tell us that he will not raise false hopes. Instead, he should make some constructive proposals. It may not be possible to do everything, but it ought to be possible to do something. I shall suggest, to the right hon. Gentleman and the House, what those proposals might be.
  First, as an absolute minimum, we need reliable estimates of the numbers of people affected by the crisis. It is shocking to discover how feeble and inadequate are the answers given to parliamentary questions or other inquires about how many people are affected. Ros Altmann, for whom many hon. Members have the greatest respect, is an expert in this field. She has produced estimates, as have other people. The figure of 60,000 people affected by the problem is in circulation, but we do not know whether it is correct.
  Ministers have all the resources of government at their disposal, and they should know the true figure. As a matter of urgency, they should compile reliable data. At the moment, the best list of companies affected by the crisis has been provided by The Mail on Sunday. I pay tribute to that newspaper for the work that it has done, but Ministers should be able to provide reliable information and answer a series of questions. How many schemes have been wound up, or are in the process of being wound up, that have not been able to offer full pensions to their employees? How many people are affected? How many pensioners worked for companies that have gone through the winding-up process? How many people who have not yet retired face the prospect of losing some or all of their pension? What scale of financial loss will they face?
  One reason why the Opposition did not feel able to support early-day motion 200 was that we did not know the amount of compensation that would be involved. I have heard estimates that the total cost will be £1 billion, or £5 billion, and I have even heard a claim that it could be as much as £50 billion. Ministers must come to the House and give hon. Members of all parties that essential information; otherwise, we will all be trying to make policy in the dark. Therefore, my first request echoes the request that has come from hon. Members on all sides of the House—that Ministers give out reliable information as a matter of urgency.
  Secondly, Ministers must give us their authoritative understanding of the legal position that we face. Many of us are being told that the ASW workers who are taking their case to Brussels have high hopes, on the basis of legal advice, of securing a victory and of defeating the Government. They are basing their hopes on the solvency directive, on the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, on contract law, and on the fact that they were compelled, at some point in the past, to join the scheme.
  206
  The Government are being taken to court on the matter. Ministers say that they are confident of winning the case, but why ate they so confident? Would not it be better to take an initiative to tackle the problem now, rather than risk a humiliating legal defeat in the future? The Government have never offered the House any reliable information as to why they are so confident that they will face down the legal challenges ranged against them.
  Thirdly, after years of endless consultations on various aspects of pensions security, Ministers should act. I tabled a written question asking Ministers how many consultation exercises they have conducted on pensions. The reply came that that as there had been so many such exercises that a full answer
  "could be provided only at disproportionate cost",
  which revealed the scale of the consultation. The Government have been consulting on replacing the minimum funding requirement for more than five years, which may be a record even for this indecisive Government.
  The Government have been consulting also on their proposals for the full fund on wind-up. When the original proposals were produced in June 2003, the Government said that they aimed at laying those regulations during the summer so that they would come into force as soon as practicable. Miraculously, a few days ago—after we announced the subject of this debate—and with snow falling, the Government finally produced their regulations on pension wind-ups. They nearly did something about the problem, announcing at one point that trustees may utilise the regulations so that they applied to schemes that wind up on, or start to wind up after, the date on which the draft regulations were issued.
  If the regulations had applied to schemes that were winding up last June. they would have had a significant impact. In practice, the Government rushed out a corrigendum stating that the provision was a printing error and that the relgulations did not apply to schemes that were currently winding up, but only to those that started to wind up after the date on which the draft regulations were issued. The Government announced a policy, then withdrew it on the basis that it was a printing error for which they could not take responsibility. The terrible thing is, that was probably true—but if the Secretary of State is to be believed when he announces that Government policy has been abandoned on the basis of a printing error, no wonder the right hon. Gentleman's credibility on his pensions policy is so poor.
  We have also been promised amendments to the priority order facing members of pension schemes. I accept that the order in the Pensions Act 1995 needs changing. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January 2003 assuring him of our support, as a responsible Opposition, for proposals to change the priority order to dispense with the cliff edge whereby there was almost 100 per cent. protection for pensioners and little for current employees. The Secretary of State could have changed the regulations in an afternoon. That does not require primary legislation and would be simple to do. Fourteen months later, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State to do anything. The Government

  207
  promised to lay the regulations to tackle the priority order by early 2004. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say when the regulations will be tabled. Practical steps could be taken that have not been taken by Ministers, despite our offer of constructive support.
  Beyond that, I urge the Secretary of State to be bolder and to debate with the House—perhaps we might call it a big conversation, as that is a phrase on which the Government are rather keen—radical proposals for tackling the priority order problem. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is occasionally a friend of Members on this side of the House because of his constructive suggestions on pensions. He has proposed using unclaimed assets as the basis for establishing a fund that could he used to tackle pension grievances. When the right hon. Gentleman submitted that imaginative idea in the form of a private Member's Bill last year, we supported its Second Reading. Practical points need addressing. but in principle that idea is worth investigating. The Government opposed that proposal when we supported it.
  There was a proposal also from Ros Altmann that because of the tough terms on which companies that wind up their pension schemes must purchase an annuity, they should be offered some prospect of delaying its purchase while the problem is investigated to ascertain whether a policy can be put in place to tackle it. Have Ministers considered that approach, and if so, what is wrong with it?
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ros Altmann's proposal would not cost the Government anything for five years, and that it would cost £100 million a year after that? When Ros Altmann carefully costed the scheme, one problem she faced was the lack of data on the number of people.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right that the crucial problem that she faced was lack of data. We must be careful, but those people are at least using their best endeavours to try to tackle the problem—Ministers have offered no constructive suggestions whatever. I must tell the Secretary of State that I do not believe, given the strong feelings on both sides of the House, that the current position is sustainable. He will not be able to hold his current position for mud, longer. A number of Government and Opposition Members have signed the two early-day motions on the subject, which is evidence of how strongly we all feel when people who have tried to do the right thing and put money into their company pension schemes find themselves facing serious financial distress.
  We are willing to be realistic about the matter. We are not absolutists and we know that it may not be possible to do everything, much as we would like to be able to do so. We know that we cannot do everything, but we must do something. The Government are doing nothing, which is why I urge the House to back our motion.
  4.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  208
  "supports the Government's strategy to tackle pensioner poverty, and to deliver simplicity, security and choice in working and saving for retirement; condemns the pensions inheritance of 1997, with millions in poverty and the legacy of pension mis-selling; notes that the Government is spending £9 billion extra per year in real terms on pensioners compared with the 1997 system; condemns the unfair, unaffordable and unsustainable pensions policies of Opposition parties; expresses its sincere sympathy for those who have lost part or all of their pension as a result of their employer becoming insolvent; believes the Government should continue to look at all available options to help people affected, but that it would be cruel to raise expectations if no workable solution can be found; welcomes the publication of the Government's Pensions Bill; further believes that the Pension Protection Fund will bring real security for over 10 million defined benefit pension scheme members if their employer becomes insolvent and pensions schemes wind up in the future; further believes that firms should honour pension promises they have made; welcomes the Bill as a balanced package, with a new regulator and measures to simplify pensions legislation, making it easier for employers to run good schemes; further believes that pension reform should be a common cause; and calls on all Members of this House to support the Government's Pensions Bill.".
  I am more than happy to set the record and proposals of this Labour Government against those of the Conservative party any day of the week. The motions in these debates are often not referred to and are perhaps not read as closely as they should be. The Opposition motion this evening merits attention because it reveals the utter emptiness of the posturing by Conservative Front Benchers on these vital issues. It contains not one single positive proposal about what the Conservative party would do to help those affected by pension scheme wind-ups. As usual, Conservative Members allege that £35 billion has been removed from pension funds in taxes, but do they favour either the reinstatement or the reversal of that policy? No, they do not. They feign surprise at the Government's position on an independent inquiry, but do they propose one? No, they do not. They call for urgent action, but do they say what form it should take? No, they do not. The motion and the speech by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) were high on rhetoric, condemnation and regret, but utterly bereft of any positive proposal whatsoever.
  Mr. Garnier: The Secretary of State is reading a speech written before he listened to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant. One disadvantage of that is that he is wholly failing to take into account what he heard. He mentioned emptiness; not far from this House, there is an empty dome wasting Government and public money. Why do the Government not sell it quickly and save the day-by-day revenue costs of keeping it open?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Garnier: They could use the money—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is going on far too long.
  Mr. Smith: On the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I was addressing the Opposition motion that we are debating, and I shall address each of the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Havant. Conservative Members go on about these issues, but

  209
  their motion contains no proposal that would help the situation. Despite reports in The Daily Telegraph that they would call for compensation in this debate, the motion and the remarks of the hon. Member for Havant contain no such call. That is not surprising, because Conservative Back Benchers have been urged not to sign the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan).
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) failed to mention the fact that the mis-selling of pensions occurred under the Conservative Government? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Pensions Act 1995, but the Conservatives took no action to address the problem, despite the fact that Labour Members were tabling early-day motions calling for compensation for the people affected. The Labour Government took action when they set up the Financial Services Authority.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes some good points and I shall come to the mis-selling issue later.
  Despite the measured tones of the hon. Member for Havant and his offers of collaboration and consensus, his speech was opportunist and opposition for opposition's sake; it was not a positive contribution to the pensions challenges facing the country. It was certainly no comfort to people who are worried about the security of their pension.
  Sir John Butterfill: The majority of Opposition Members have not signed the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) because it contains two fundamental inaccuracies. The first is that people were compelled to join pension schemes, whereas, as I said earlier, the previous Conservative Government abolished that compulsion in 1986. The second is that the motion asserts that the Government had guaranteed people's pensions, but neither the Labour Government nor any previous Government have given any such guarantee on private sector pensions.
  Mr. Smith: Given the hon. Gentleman's expertise and experience in these matters, I take careful note of his points.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: A few moments ago, the Secretary of State said that the Opposition fail to read the motions on the Order Paper in debates such as this, but may I draw his attention to a sentence in the Government's amendment? It states that they believe that
  "firms should honour pension promises they have made".
  I agree. Will the Government pass legislation to put that statement into effect?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. That is why we shall debate the Second Reading of the Pensions Bill next week; it is also why we laid the full buy-out regulations before the House yesterday.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, but I was referring not to the
  210
  minimum funding requirement, which is a snare and a delusion, but to the full pensions that people in final salary schemes confidently expected to receive when they reached retirement.
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I think that he is embarrassing his Front-Bench colleagues by referring to the MFR as a snare and a delusion; only a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Havant was telling us what a wonderful thing it was until the wicked Labour Government came along and made it all go wrong.
  There is serious content in the comments of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell). Like him, I believe that a pension promise made should be a pension promise honoured. That is why we introduced the full buy-out regulations, which will require solvent companies to meet their pension obligations in full, and it is why the Pensions Bill, which will have its Second Reading next week, includes a proposal for a levy-based pension protection fund to ensure 100 per cent. of pensions in payment, with 90 per cent. for those not yet receiving their pension, which is in common with other compensation schemes. The Government are acting in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's request and in line with what the vast majority of workers and other people want.
  The hon. Member for Havant called for reliable information, but in this field that has been difficult to come by. The pensions scheme registry maintains a record of schemes in wind-up, but there can be delays in its receipt of that information and it does not necessarily know about the solvency of the reported schemes. The Opposition motion calls for an inquiry to establish the extent of the problem. Elsewhere in the motion, there is a stab at assessing the extent of the problem, which is estimated to affect 60.000 people. I must stress that data limitations make it difficult to be precise, but, on the evidence that I havekeen, 60,000 seems to be the right estimate of the scale of the challenge we face.
  Mr. Willetts: It is helpful to hear the Secretary of State's estimate—60,000—but will he also give the House some sense of the scale of financial loss, on average, that those people might face?
  Mr. Smith: As the House will understand, that is far more difficult. I am not able to give such an estimate, which is part of the ongoing work—the close examination—that I have repeatedly told the House we are undertaking. Our officials are working on it, and when I am able to report more fully to the House, I will do so.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman must know when he will be able to communicate that crucial information to the House, because we cannot decide whether to pay compensation—if it is so called—until we know the sums involved. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows that, too. So when will we have information c n the sums involved?
  Mr. Smith: I should like to be able to do more and to say, "Yes, I will be able to make that statement on this date." I am not able to say when I can say that; when I can, I will. I am as anxious to resolve such things as

  211
  anyone else, not least because of the real suffering and worry that is afflicting all those affected by this dreadful crisis. No one would want to prolong that for those individuals and their families a moment longer than is necessary. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are working to get to the bottom of this as quickly as we can.
  Kevin Brennan: In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West(Sir John Butterfill) suggested that there are two flaws in early-day motion 200, the first of which related to whether firms and Governments had said that workers' pensions were guaranteed. The people involved have leaflets from various Governments and company pension schemes on which the word "guarantee" appears. He also said that people had not been compelled, but the early-day motion says:
  "in many cases having been compelled to join their scheme as a condition of employment".
  If the hon. Gentleman is denying that, is it any wonder that there was a pensions mis-sellirig scandal at the end of the 1980s?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right: a number of members were compelled to join by their conditions of employment. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West is also right to say that the Government changed the arrangements in 1986, which took effect in 1988. Of course it can also be argued that no one compelled the employers to include that condition. All those matters must be thought through very carefully before reaching a final judgment on these issues.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: On the issue of compulsion raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), is my right hon. Friend aware that many occupational pension schemes included an element of compulsion because they were part of a wage deal? In relation to the point about 1986, there might not have been compulsion, but lots of companies were given tax incentives to encourage people to leave the state earnings-related pension and join private occupational pension schemes.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend's points are well made and they further complicate the landscape, but no one would dispute the fact that a large proportion of those schemes' members were obliged to join under their conditions of employment. They were perhaps not even subsequently aware that they could opt out; nor, if they had sought advice at the time, would anyone necessarily have advised them to opt out. We all know that if they had had the good fortune to be in a sound scheme, rather than one that would later go under, they would have done better to stay in that scheme in any event. That gives this issue its particular poignancy, with the difficulties of identifying the challenge that we face and of being clear about what is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Frank Field: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate; I was involved in another debate in Westminster Hall. Is not the point that my right hon. Friend is now stressing crucial in two respects? Not only are we trying to represent our constituents, but if we are trying to make
  212
  a case for the Government using other funds in compensation, the way in which we ring-fence the group involved is very important. We are talking about a group of people who had to join their occupational pension scheme as a condition of employment, so they are in a different position from me, for example. I voluntarily contributed to Equitable Life, so I could not expect the compensation that, if the Government were able to reach a decision on a compensation scheme, people in other schemes would expect to direct to his door.
  Mr. Smith: I take the point that my right hon. Friend makes. He mentions Equitable Life. I should make it clear that that is something on which I have always declared my interest in the register, which is consistent with the advice of the registrar given at the beginning of 2003. The matter is no longer registrable, but it is declarable when raised within my ministerial responsibilities. I have not had any dealings on Equitable Life at the Department for Work and Pensions or the Treasury, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions would have to respond to any points about that.
  On the general point that my right hon. Friend makes, when issues of compensation or discretionary assistance—that is not the same thing—are raised, it is important to have a clear idea about how and where boundaries could be placed around those who would be eligible. We continue to examine such matters closely. I take the point behind the argument that he makes, but, equally, there would be those who would say that as a consequence of it, a distinction should be drawn between those who were in such schemes in 1988 and those who joined later. How fair that would seem to people who joined the schemes later and thus did not receive assistance illustrates the problem when drawing boundaries. There are also problems when considering time. Most members of the Maxwell pension scheme, thanks to the rescue plan introduced by Sir John Cuckney with the help of my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members, have received a large proportion of the pensions that they were expecting. As some schemes have not done well, it is not difficult to understand why members who had lost out would knock on the door to ask for assistance and compensation. I mention those points only because my right hon. Friend raised the valid issue of the importance of drawing a boundary and the difficulty of so doing.
  Kevin Brennan): When considering that boundary, would it be appropriate to examine whether people were given anything amounting to an adequate health warning about the pension schemes that they joined? Surely it is the case that no rational human beings would bet their retirements on a single share—namely, the share of their employer. People were not told that they were required to do that.
  Mr. Smith: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the whole House can appreciate how difficult it could be to establish whether people had received such advice. I am not erecting these problems as excuses for why we are

  213
  unable to announce an assistance scheme, but citing them as serious issues that must be thought through before we can reach a final decision.
  Rob Marris: At the risk of raising false hopes all over again, is my right hon. Friend saying that he does not rule out compensation and that he is still looking at the issues and statistics?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend urges me to repeat that we are not raising false hopes, and I shall have to underline that at some point in my speech. As I have said in the House before, given all these workers' anxieties, which we understand, we must be able to look them in the eye. They must know that we have been absolutely straight with them all along. I say again that we must not raise false hopes, but it would be wrong to close off consideration of these issues until, or unless, we are absolutely certain that nothing can be done. That is the spirit in which I respond to my hon. Friend's point.
  Sir John Butterfill rose—
  Mr. Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time.
  Sir John Butter fill: I was not entirely sure what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, and I did not want the Secretary of State to get too much comfort if he was inferring, as some of us might have thought, that the Government could have no liability arising out of Equitable Life. When they see fit to publish the Penrose report, we hope that it will be published in full. If it shows that Lord Penrose has decided that there was clear culpable behaviour by the Department of Trade and Industry and, perhaps, the Treasury, will the Government not rule out the fact that their culpability should give rise to compensation?
  Mr. Smith: For reasons that I made clear in my declaration a few minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions will deal with that aspect of the hon. Gentleman's points in his reply to the debate.
  I return to the series of questions that the hon. Member for Havant—
  Mr. Frank Field rose—
  Mr. Smith: I shall give way one last time.
  Mr. Field: If we are to try to support Ministers in introducing some sort of scheme, it is very important that they do not think that, when we achieve that, if we do, we shall then pile in with the next one. Therefore, I was trying to say that if Equitable Life has a case it will be because of the report that is to be delivered. It should not be because the Government have met what I regard as the legitimate grievance of people who were made to join pension schemes and have now lost all or most of their pensions. I was trying to say that we shall ring-fence it in that way and not use as a battering ram any advance the Government make here to try to get every other old claim through as well.
  Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend makes very succinctly the point about the importance of a firebreak
  214
  and avoiding a more general read-across or some sort of domino effect. Again, the whole House will understand why the Government have to examine that very carefully.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No. I wish to make more progress.
  The hon. Member for Havant raised the legal position. Again, the House will understand that, with the Government before the courts, there is a limit to how much I can say about this matter. He asked what made us so confident of the legal position. I can say only that it is on the basis of the advice that we have received. The claim being made against us is that we failed to implement the solvency directive. I am advised not only that we complied with it, but that the European Commissioner said that we had complied with it. That is the position in essence. The case has not progressed fully, and there may well be other dimensions of the claim yet to be made as well as other legal aspects that the House will understand we must examine very carefully.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the full buy-out regulations applying to firms that started to wind up after 11 June. I do not think that I ever raised any expectations that it would have been appropriate or even possible to make them apply before 11 June. That would have been getting us into the area of retrospection, which I do not think we can enter.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the priority order. I can confirm that we shall move forward in the very near future to rebalance the order so that the basic benefits of those in the run-up to retirement and other deferred members take precedence over the indexation of pensions in payment. That will achieve a substantial rebalancing. Many members may gain 20 per cent. of their pension, so it is a worthwhile interim change before the pension protection fund comes into effect.
  I was of course aware of, and indeed shared, the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, echoed by the hon. Members for Havant and Northavon (Mr. Webb), for looking at a secondary rebalancing of the priority order among deferred members, to upgrade the rights of those deferred members with longer scheme memberships against those with shorter tenures. Those proposals had attractions, but we consult on regulations, and one of the things the consultation revealed was that that approach was impracticable, as many schemes do not keep the data needed 10 impose it. They do not hold the information on how long people have been members; they cannot tell the difference between someone who has been a member for a short time with a high rate of contributions and someone who has been a member for a longer time with a lower rate of contributions.
  It is worth reminding the House that all that the proposals to rebalance the priority order can ever achieve is some redistribution of losses, lessening them for some scheme members, but increasing pain for others. The real aim must be to cut, not redistribute losses for members of schemes in wind-up. That is what the PPF is all about. Conservative Members need to decide whether they are in favour of the fund or against it.

  215
  The final point made by the hon. Member for Havant was about unclaimed assets. The fact that assets are unclaimed does not mean that they do not belong to somebody. With electronic methods, it is becoming easier to trace assets and more people are doing so. Even if appropriating assets for public, Government or even charitable purposes, as happens in Ireland, were deemed appropriate, what gives that particular group of people who have been hard done by a prior claim to those assets compared with all the others who, I am sure, also want to make a claim? Again, it is a seductive idea, but I doubt whether it is right or practicable.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I attended the House every week that the Pensions (Winding-up) Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was blocked. On the question of unclaimed assets, is it not right that there could be no higher public interest than to protect the public's confidence in pension saving? Surely, that is so important to the future of our country that using the unclaimed assets for such a purpose could not be said by any body to be anything other than a sensible ordering of priorities.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive argument. As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I cannot say that I would not be tempted by such an argument to get more resources to help with an intractable problem in pensions. However, I do not believe that he is so naive as to imagine that if suddenly there were a fund containing millions or tens of millions of pounds there would not be a long queue of deserving causes knocking at the door. Indeed, to develop his point about the importance of confidence in pensions, there is another argument that would add to the weight of evidence—if the matter is so important, is there not a proper claim on public funds anyway? In other words, the case for using unclaimed asset. could apply equally powerfully to the use of public funds, if that were feasible and if and when we had explored all the issues.
  The hon. Member for Havant also spoke in detail about the minimum funding requirement. As he said, the MFR was set out in the Pensions Act 1995, and the secondary legislation that subsequently took effect in April 1997 requires MFR valuations to be carried out in accordance with a guidance note issued by the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries. Revisions to the actuaries' guidance note reflected professional judgments on a range of relevant variables that change over time, including some mentioned by the hon. Gentleman such as interest rates, annuity prices and demographic trends.
  Mr. Willetts: Was the Chancellor's change in the tax treatment of pensions one of those factors?
  Mr. Smith: To be honest, I do not know, but I shall go away and check. If the change had the impact claimed by the hon. Gentleman on any of the factors that I have listed, clearly that would be reflected. However, I do not subscribe to his argument, which treats the tax change in isolation. Whenever the Opposition raise that change, they fail to take account of the fact that it was part of a more comprehensive restructuring of corporate taxation, which cut the rate of corporation tax from 33
  216
  per cent. to 30 per cent., with great benefit for businesses large and small. We would have to factor in the effect on pension funds as well.
  When the MFR revisions were carried out in June 1998 and March 2002, I do not recall any Conservative Members lobbying the Government or making representations to override the professional advice that we were given at the time. It is easy for the hon. Member for Havant to say now that different decisions should have been taken. Ministers took those decisions on the basis of professional advice and in line with the secondary legislation specified by the Pensions Act 1995, which was passed by the Conservative Government.
  Sir John Butterfill: I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman looks back over a series of debates taking place at that time, he will see not only that I was an original critic of MFR, but that I consistently said that its composition needed to be reviewed because it was not working in the best interests of scheme members.
  Mr. Smith: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's remarks about his contribution to those debates, but I cannot recall the Opposition in general arguing that what was being done was wrong.
  I have dealt as thoroughly as I can with the points made by the hon. Member for Havant, by his colleagues and by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. David Watts: All Labour Members welcome my right hon. Friend's suggestion that he will carry out a full assessment of the cost of any compensation package. Will he net off any savings that might be derived from benefits? When the figures are published, we should like to be able to see the cost to the Exchequer, and we need to know what the likely savings would be in benefit terms.
  Mr. Smith: It always makes sense to take as rounded and comprehensive a view as possible of the relevant factors in cost-benefit analysis, but I would not want to set off another complicated exchange with Conservative Members about the assumptions that we are making about pension credit in 20 years' time.
  Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State is doing a brilliant job of not raising any false hopes. As he has been speaking for half an hour and is coming to an end, may I invite him to say something constructive about what the Government will do about this problem?
  Mr. Smith: I have been saying a great deal that is constructive about the careful and principled way in which we are approaching this very difficult challenge. We owe it to those affected to do that without raising false hopes. If it is not possible to do anything, as might ultimately be the case, they need to know that that has been the position all along. At the same time, we should not prematurely close off the opportunity of assistance if we can identify a proper basis on which it can be done.
  I stress the distinction that I made a few minutes ago between the possibility of assistance and the question of compensation. I am not a lawyer, but I take the point that was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg):

  217
  compensation has implications of legal liability, which, for reasons that I explained, I do not accept. There is no doubt, however, that these workers and their families have a compelling case on human grounds. That is why it would be wrong to close off the possibility of assistance while there is any chance that that might be made available through their existing deemed buy-back rights, improved procedures or other means.
  Looking to the future, the lesson that we should all draw from this is that a pension promise made should be a pension promise honoured. That is why it is right that we have implemented the full buy-out regulations. That is why it is right to introduce the Pensions Bill, which establishes the pension protection fund. It will ensure that such a position cannot arise again and I therefore hope that hon. Members of all parties, whatever their other reservations about Government policy, the state pension system and so on, will support the Bill and get the pension protection fund in place so that scheme members have the protection that they deserve.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I must confess that when I found that we had a debate on winding up occupational pension schemes approximately a week after the publication of the Pensions Bill and a week before Second Reading, I was slightly bewildered. I tried to work out why we were holding a separate debate about issues that we shall discuss again next Tuesday and, I suspect, for the next happy couple of months.
  I admit that an unworthy thought crossed my mind. The Conservative motion contains a great deal that is sympathetic, but it does not take us any further-indeed, it more or less says, "something must be done." It
  "calls upon the Government to take urgent action"
  but does not define the "urgent action." I was concerned that the debate essentially represented the Conservative party covering its back. The shadow Chancellor's statement about public spending identified health, education and state retirement pensions as priorities, but also suggested that no other spending commitments were permissible. I was therefore concerned that the Conservative party was trying to sound sympathetic to the 60,000 workers while not wanting to spend any money on them. I believe that it is important to unite on this issue and I shall therefore assume that I was wrong to draw that conclusion.
  The discussion between the Front Bench spokesmen has revealed some interesting developments. I want to ascertain the extent to which we can find consensus. We want the Pensions Bill to be amended to provide assistance, compensation or simply some money. I strongly suspect that the 60,000 people who have lost out do not give a fig whether the provision is called compensation or assistance; they simply want the money that they were expecting to live on. I should be happy if, at the end of his deliberations, the Secretary of State decided that although the Government saw no case for compensation, they were prepared to provide assistance on a discretionary basis that effectively tackled the injustice. I am prepared to swallow such phraseology if it provides legal cover for the
  218
  Government. My main concern, like that of many other hon. Members, is to ensure that the injustice that such a large number of people have suffered is tackled. It is therefore welcome that the Secretary of State is giving himself some room. If pressing for assistance rather than compensation helps, I can live with that.
  The motion does not mention compensation and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) highlighted that by tabling an amendment that referred to it. The Government's response so far has tended to be, "We can't have retrospection or an insurance scheme that applies retrospectively to people who suffered their loss before the insurance was introduced." I am not calling for that. I am not suggesting that we should have an insurance scheme that insures people who had not paid any premiums when they suffered their loss. The argument that we cannot have retrospection does not stack up. All sorts of people suffer losses, and all sorts of Governments compensate them for or assist them with the consequences. Nobody says, "You can't do that because it's retrospective." People cannot be compensated until they have suffered a loss. Compensation must always happen after the event, and there is no great issue of principle at stake.
  Mr. Frank Field: At least some of us who propose that there should be some compensation or payment for those who have lost their pension do not argue that that should be part of the new scheme. Indeed, the last thing that we want to do weigh down a new scheme with such considerable debt. Compensation or payment should be totally separate from the scheme.
  Mr. Webb: That has always been my view but Ministers appeared on the main evening news bulletins on the day the Bill was published and argued that we could not help people retrospectively. The straw man of retrospection was put up only to be knocked down. I am grateful for the right lion. Gentleman's confirmation of my view. However, compensation or payment is a matter of natural justice, leaving the aside the legal niceties of the insolvency directive and so on.
  Adam Price: Just to back up the hon. Gentleman's point, retrospection has always been part of a tradition in civil law. The War Damage Act 1965, passed by a Labour Government, provided retrospective compensation for injury suffered during the second world war. That is just one example.
  Mr. Webb: My general point is that Governments often take action after the event to compensate or help people who have lost out. That is not my understanding of retrospection, which is applying a law to people who acted before that law came into force. This issue is different because it is about compensation, or assistance—call it what we will. I therefore hope that the Government will stop saying on the radio and television that they cannot take this action because it would be retrospective. It would not be retrospective action, because it is about compensation or assistance.
  Kevin Brennan: Is not a further point that the Government have a responsibility always to act in the

  219
  public interest? To restore confidence in occupational pensions, it is very important that after the establishment of the pension protection fund—which is very welcome—there are not tens of thousands of people around saying, "Don't join an occupational pension scheme; look what happened to me."
  Mr. Webb: That is right. One problem with pension reform is that there is always a lot of history. Just as pension mis-selling has done real damage to the private pension sector, so tens of thousands of people who had lost their occupational pensions could do damage to the future of occupational pensions. That has to be true.
  Another important thing to come out of this debate is the Secretary of State's confirmation that the estimate of 60,000 workers is in the right ball park. I think that that faithfully reflects the tenor of his remarks. That is an extraordinarily significant remark for him to make, given the Government's argument about blank cheques. I have to say that the Conservative party's objection to signing early-day motion 200 now goes out of the window because we know what average industrial sector workers' earnings were, so it is not beyond the wit of man to estimate the broad order of magnitude of the losses. Clearly, there will be a rant e of figures on that. No one knows for sure, and I shall return to information in a moment; but we now need a declaration of principle from the Conservative Opposition Now that we know that we are not talking about a blank cheque because we have an order of magnitude, do they accept in principle that there is a natural justice case For compensation or assistance of some sort?
  If we are going to move forward together, we do not need the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and the hon. Mem Der for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) to fall out with each other; we need them in the same Division Lobby. Conservative Front Benchers should be able to agree that we can have a pretty good idea of the amount involved because the Secretary of State has confirmed on the record that the rough figure of 60,000 is correct, we know what average earnings are, and we have a lot of detail from some of the schemes about typical deficits.
  Only a few hours ago, we were discussing the national insurance fund, whose revenue for this year was overestimated by £1.5 billion and whose administrative costs were underestimated by £750 million. That was in just one year. We are not talking in this debate about anything like that sort of annual sum. All of us who have spoken sympathetically to ASW workers and others have a duty to say, now that we have a rough idea of the number of zeros on the figure and of the scale of the problem, whether we are in principle willing to sign up to some sort of assistance or compensation scheme.
  I understand why the Conservatives were not willing to sign the early-day motion prior to today, but I hope that now they will be prepared to sign on the dotted line in principle—I am not too worried about particular early-day motions—and that all of us who have shown sympathy can make an unambiguous statement. The Government motion shows sympathy, but even they would accept that these workers need more than that. We should now go forward in as united a way as possible
  220
  and say that, even if we query the compensation issues, as hon. Members have today, there is an issue of natural justice involved.
  Mr. Heald: What figure does the hon. Gentleman put on the problem? What does he capitalise the cost as being?
  Mr. Webb: It has been said that Ros Altmann and the pensions action group are more or less alone in coming up with figures, and I am pretty sure that the figure of 60,000 workers is broadly consistent with what they have come up with. A sum of £100 million per year has been mentioned as the long-term average cost. Essentially, when the pension protection fund comes in, no new liabilities will accrue under the regime. There will be a cap on the amount; it is not an open-ended commitment, because it will come to an end when the pension protection fund is introduced. In the first four or five years, there will probably be no cost to the Exchequer because the funds will already have money in them, and it is important that that money is not spent on poor value for money annuities. There are things that could be done very quickly, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has mentioned. That seems to be the order of magnitude that we are talking about.
  To put this in perspective, at the start of the year, the Department for Work and Pensions had a line in its annual report for unallocated expenditure that will rise to £200 million next year. This is almost the spare cash that the Department has not yet decided what to do with.
  Rob Marris: I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks again at the figures. If we are talking about 60,000 people, current annuity rates, and a very modest figure of £ 1,000 per year lost pension—although I am sure that it will be higher than that—that would result in a ballpark figure of £1.2 billion as a capital buy-out, not the few hundred that he is talking about.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is confused on two counts. First, I am talking about the £100 million not as a one-off cost but as a recurring annual average cost over the lifetime of a scheme. Secondly, if we go for this sort of approach, we do not have to buy these grotty annuities; we can allow the capital that is left in the funds to go on appreciating. The sum does not therefore work out in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to clear up that point.
  A number of us have paid tribute to the pensions action group and to Ros Altmann and the campaigners for getting this issue so high up the agenda and for being more or less the only people putting information into the public domain, perhaps until today. Is this not an issue for the Government? I am appalled to hear that we can do nothing about the injustice of long-serving workers getting next to nothing because the people who run the schemes do not even know how long the workers have been in them. Even the most basic record keeping seems not to have been carried out.
  One might say that such record keeping would be another burden on the scheme, but it seems a pretty minimal burden to have to record when someone joined

  221
  a scheme and put their money into it. We are talking about incredibly basic record keeping. We are also talking about public money; tax relief and national insurance rebates apply to these contributions, and there is tax relief on the fund. The situation is just horrifying, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that there is to be better record keeping—as a minimum—in the future. The Government have been remiss in not obtaining the information on the numbers affected throughout all the time that this issue has been current. That has been a long time now. It is shocking that we cannot make good policy because of a complete lack of decent information.
  The hon. Member for Havant raised the issue of the minimum funding requirement. I remember sitting on the relevant statutory instrument Committee for the second of the debates on the MFR. My initial reaction was to think, "This is undermining people's protection", but the Government said that their actuaries had advised them that the measure was appropriate. The Conservative members of the Committee then said that they did not want to put burdens on occupational schemes. That was the other argument: they did not want to overdo minimum funding requirements, because people would shut the schemes. The Conservative members of the Committee—whom I shall not name—then nodded the provision through.
  I was determined not to be partisan, so I had better stop at this point. We must all stop using this issue to say, "Let's get one over on the Government" or "Let's get one over on the Tories". I hope that we are all serious about doing something about this issue, as I believe that the Secretary of State is. I am not suggesting that the Liberal Democrats have a monopoly of virtue in this regard. I wonder, however, how long it will take to achieve. Now that we have a rough idea of the orders of magnitude involved, surely we need to crack on with it, and we need to do that in as non-partisan a way as possible. I therefore hope that we can look at the Pensions Bill in a collaborative way that will enable us to put something forward that is precise and that will give real hope—rather than false hope—to the people who have been affected by these issues. The onus is on all of us to do that, and I hope that today's debate—and perhaps my contribution to it—will have taken that agenda forward.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I welcome this debate, particularly in relation to occupational pension schemes. The workers involved have been referred to, and if we recall the early 1970s, we remember that the workers always saw contributions to their occupational pension schemes as part of their wage deals. That developed in the 1980s, and from about 1986 onwards we saw a hard sell at companies such as Rolls-Royce to encourage people to opt out of SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—and to get into private pension schemes. Tax incentives were introduced, and some companies obviously used the employment regulations of the time to encourage people to be part of those schemes, or to make it compulsory. One way or another, elements of coercion were used to get people—certainly those working in factories—to
  222
  join those schemes. Of course, they joined those schemes in good faith, and they thought that it was a step forward, because they would ultimately gain some sort of security in old age We now find that that security was on shifting sands.
  Hon. Members will remember that I said in an intervention that one thing that the Tory Front Bench spokesmen omitted to mention was the mis-selling of pension schemes. That was a calamity, and there were no calls from the then Government to do anything about it. All sorts of reasons were given why compensation could not be paid out at that time, which led this Government, when they came into office, to set up the Financial Services Authority. Any Back Bencher who has been involved in Treasury matters will know that these issues have been raised with the FSA on a number of occasions For the House's information, it is not generally known that the financial services people have paid out in compensation something in the region of £2 billion to £5 billion as a result of the mis-selling of some of those schemes. Those are old figures, and there are probably more up-to-date ones. The idea that the Government have not done anything over the past six or seven years is therefore an illusion. The truth is that they have stated to do something through the FSA.
  Compensation ha, been mentioned. Because people entered those schemes in good faith way back in the 1960s and 1970s and, obviously, in the 1980s, and because there was a hard sell, on which there has been a report, I am one of those who think that we should consider some form of compensation. We can debate what the figure should be, and work it out, but a heck of a lot of people are involved.
  Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend made an important point in the early part of his speech when he said that pension schemes are, in effect, deferred wages for many workers. In paying them compensation, therefore, all that we would be doing would be paying them the wages that they were promised.
  Mr. Cunningham: To elaborate on that point, I can remember that when I was involved in negotiations many years ago people would accept 3 per cent. as opposed to 5 per cent. because it was a deferred wage, and most people understood that. Although I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has not closed the door on compensation, I hope that he will give due weight to the views expressed on both sides of the House as it is a major issue. If it is not addressed, we will have perhaps 60,000 people on benefits who should not need to be in that position. That is the difference between the poverty line and a little bit of affluence. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
  On the whole question of pensions, we would not be having this argument if the previous Government had not started their coercion, as I call it, in 1986. It goes without saying that w e would not be debating it if we had a proper old age Pension fixed at a reasonable level, possibly linked to earrings, although there may be other ways of doing it. The problem with linking it to earnings is the issue of what category of earnings should be chosen or what average, which can get us involved in all sorts of arguments. In the absence of a decent pension being paid, though, the argument about the link gains credibility. At some point, future Governments will

  223
  have to address the question of what we call a decent pension. At the moment, while about 2.5 million pensioners have been taken out of poverty and given assistance, the number is not really diminished, because if we change the goalposts, we find that other people come into that category.
  I was interested in the point mad, by the Opposition about the link. As I said in an intervention, they abolished the link when in Government, and I find it strange that they have suddenly gone populist. They must have discovered pensioners g Soups somewhere—they were always there, but the Tories did not know that when they were in Government. As a result of their conversion, the Opposition are formulating their policies on the Swiss concept—they consult the canton to decide what they are going to do. That is very interesting. They poked fun at us about the big conversation, but listening to what they were saying earlier, I think they have one heck of a conversation going on. I am interested that the Tories are suddenly becoming the listening party. They are having all sorts of consultations with all the pensioner groups whose existence they never acknowledge (when they were in power; now that they are the Opposition, they suddenly find that those groups matter. We always knew that they did, which is why we continually raised pensioners' issues when we were in Opposition
  David Taylor: If my hon. Friend cares to walk the road between Havant and Damascus, he will find, among the discarded McDonalds wrappers. many abandoned policies that the Tories were happy to implement during their last period in office.
  Mr. Cunningham: It seems to me that we entered the era of Pol Pot politics in 1997 so far as the Tory party was concerned: that was year zero, and every misdemeanour was laid at our door, but history shows that the Tories are very good at blaming others for their own shortcomings.
  I see that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is dying to intervene.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: May I lure the hon. Gentleman away from Cambodia for a moment? His main complaint seems to be that restoring the link with earnings is our policy. If it became his party's policy tomorrow, would he be happy about that?
  Mr. Cunningham: Of course I would be happy about it, but I would see it as only a short-term measure. The one thing that cannot be avoided by Government or Opposition, although the Opposition tried to avoid it when they were in power, is the fact that people are entitled to a decent pension. Until that is dealt with, there will always be this to-ing and fro-ing across the Chamber.
  We now have to tackle the new phenomenon of final salary pension schemes and the moving of goalposts. My right hon. Friend's proposals are a step forward, but something that has not been addressed so far—certainly not when the Conservatives were in Government—is the
  224
  issue of pension holidays. Companies would take pension holidays, and after four or five years there would suddenly be a problem with pension funds. I find that strange; there should have been some form of compulsion. Another thing that went on when the Conservatives were in power was the use of pension funds to finance other businesses. Conservative Members speak of people complaining in their surgeries about pensions, but I am sure that Labour Members' surgeries have been visited by people complaining about one of those two practices. Some of the companies involved eventually folded.
  As I have said, the Government's proposals are a step in the right direction and we should not be negative about them but should view them as something on which to build. We should take a leaf out of the Conservative Government's book, and do things gradually. They cannot be done overnight.
  I have tried two or three times to get my Pensioner Trustees and Final Payments Bill through the House, without success. Nevertheless, although the law says that trustees must represent everyone, groups of retired people who are members of pension schemes feel that they have no voice, and are left out when decisions are made. Over the last 12 months, I have had a number of meetings with retired Rolls-Royce employees. As many as 300 or 400 people have turned up from all over the west midlands, which gives some idea of the strength of feeling—a strength of feeling that is beginning to gain momentum among the former employees, and doubtless among those of other companies.
  On numerous occasions, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), I have spoken to the Minister about the scandal of former Massey Ferguson employees who were faced with a "take it or leave it" redundancy proposal, and who, more importantly, never received from their pension scheme what they had put into it. The last I heard was that the issue had gone to the High Court, and the Secretary of State was saying that we would have to wait and see what decisions it made. Whatever the decisions, however, and even if the issue is being addressed, there remains a great deal of bad feeling among Massey Ferguson's former workers—certainly in Coventry—about what happened to them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) has, from time to time, mentioned steelworkers. He will find that the employees of Massey Ferguson were in exactly the same position. I certainly had a lot of sympathy with him when he raised those issues, because I—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West—was among those making representations to the Secretary of State. It is about time that my hon. Friend and I had another meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about the future of Massey Ferguson workers. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is grinning, but as he knows, we shall certainly return to that issue.
  In some ways, in a debate such as this, pension schemes are only part of the problem. In addition to the need for an adequate pension is the question of care and how to fund it. That is all part of the big equation. From time to time, social service departments are in conflict with the private sector over the cost of providing care. Thanks to a measure introduced by the previous Conservative Government, people had to find their own

  225
  means and methods of paying for care. The cost of care varies thorough the country, which is part of the pensioners' lot. That is why, in trying to understand the plight of pensioners, we must take a number of factors into consideration. For example, it is not too long since we had the problem of bed blocking. On investigating that problem, we discovered that we did not have sufficient social workers to ensure that people returned to the accommodation and care that they needed on leaving hospital.
  The issue of pensions is complex, therefore, and we cannot talk about occupational pensions in the abstract; we must consider the plight of pensioners in its entirety. Of course, in some parts of the country, such as the west midlands, pensioners get free travel, but in others they pay a 50 per cent. fare. To a certain extent, we must congratulate the Government on introducing that fare. It constitutes progress, but pensioners nevertheless feel strongly about free travel, which allows them to see friends in different parts of the country with whom, perhaps, they grew up, but who moved away. In discussing these issues, we must therefore start to think about the general needs of pensioners. In fairness, however, it must be said that this Government have done a lot for pensioners, particularly those on the poverty line.
  Nobody will deny that the pension protection fund is bound to be welcomed. It has been a long time coming but it is finally here; let us hope that it goes from strength to strength. The introduction of a regulator should have happened years ago, and it will be very interesting to discover how the regulator will regulate the various pension schemes and occupational schemes. Many people will also welcome the simplification of paperwork. Pensioners often have to fill in reams of paperwork that they do not really understand. Such simplification is really a job for the regulator. Pensioners are often aggravated by the amount of form filling required when they apply to local authorities for benefits or rate reductions. We have raised this issue with Treasury Ministers from time to time to see whether such forms can be simplified.
  It will be interesting to discover how the state pension lump sum develops. I should point out to the Secretary of State that we will certainly monitor that proposal, on which there is not too much detail. Nevertheless, it, too, is a step in the right direction. There is also the vexed question of informed choice in promoting pensions. The regulator should probably consider that issue, and here we come back to the mis-selling of pensions and the hard selling that occurred in the days of Conservative Government. I would certainly welcome the provision of such information.
  The key measures that the Government are trying to introduce include safeguarding accruable pension rates during periods of statutory paternity and adoptive leave. If we think about it, that issue has never really been addressed before, and there will be a particular impact on women. The lack of pensions, particularly occupational pensions, for women, often forces them on to benefits. If the fact that they have to rear a family was taken into consideration, they might be in a far different situation.
  226
  The House would certainly want to monitor the capping limit in relation to price indexation. It is one thing to link a pension to the price index, and quite another to link it to average earnings. There is a difference. Overall, however, we talk about capping issues, and Secretaries of State under previous Governments always had the right to decide whether to link pensions to prices or wages and to do it through regulation; the discretion has always been there. It is up to the Secretary of State, in discussion with the Chancellor, to have a good look at that.
  The trade unions and the TUC have given the proposals a cautious welcome on the basis that they are a step in the right direction. For many years, many people outside the House—it certainly continued when we came into the House—raised those issues because we all knew that we would reach pensionable age ourselves at some time in the future. That sounds a bit mercenary, but, seriously, anyone who has watched the plight of pensioners over the years and done case work or attended surgeries knows how easy it is to come across heartbreaking stories. They often happen because people do not know what benefits they are entitled to. People need to be experts to work out what benefits are available and who should get them.
  Pensions are often increased in line with inflation only to be taken away by increases in council tax. That is a Catch-22 dilemma that many pensioners face, but I notice that the Government are going to take the necessary action to Beal with the situation. There are a number of ways of doing it. They can cap councils and stop them increasing the tax that way, but that is a short-term measure. We know what happened when the previous Government capped councils. Programmes and revenues were capped, which meant school buildings and council houses could not be repaired, so it is only a short-term measure.
  The real measure that the Government should take is to ensure that councils are properly funded. In Coventry, for example, when the Opposition were in Government, we lost something like £600 million in grant from the central Government as a result of the change from the old rates to the poll tax. That is a lot of money in Coventry's circumstances. We often find that councils are asked by successive Governments to introduce measures without the necessary funding. All in all, I note that the Secretary of State is saying that his measures will go a long way to ensure that the burden does not fall on the taxpayer. Again, that remains to be seen.
  I finish by saying that I welcome the Government's proposals, and I hope that they will be introduced in the form of legislation. However, I still believe that the Secretary of State must reflect more on the question of pension holidays and the ability of companies to use pension fund money for other purposes. Mention was made earlier of the Pensions Act 1995, introduced under the Conservative Government; that was a very weak Act that did not address the fundamentals that I have raised in the House today.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will take some of my points into consideration, and I remind him that I hope to have a further meeting with him, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West, about the plight of the ex-employees of Massey Ferguson.
  5.39 pm
  Sir John Butterfill: It is rather refreshing when a political party such as my own admits that it got some things wrong and that they need to be put right. It is right to say that we got some things wrong in the Pensions Act 1995 and that we want to sit down with the Government to work out how to improve things. That does not always happen. There is no doubt that there were faults in the 1995 Act, although some have been compounded or made a good deal worse by the present Government's subsequent actions.
  It is undoubtedly true that the priority orders introduced by the 1995 Act are wholly inappropriate for the circumstances in which many pensioners, prospective pensioners or deferred pensioners find themselves today. It is wholly unfair that existing pensioners under a scheme that is being wound up continue to receive full pensions, while other scheme members on the verge of retirement get almost nothing.
  There is an urgent need for change. My colleagues on the Front Bench have said that they' would be happy to engage in bipartisan talks to see how such change could be achieved. I think that the Liberal Democrats would go along with that as well.
  Mr. Webb indicated assent.
  Sir John Butterfill: I see that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is nodding in approval. The matter is urgent. Action needs to be taken now, and it is astonishing that it has not been taken before.
  The 1995 Act was rather a hurried response to the Maxwell scandal. It attempted to pitch up the holes that that affair revealed in the pensions system. Like all hurried legislation, the Act was not perfect. There have been plenty of opportunities to improve it since it was enacted almost nine years ago. The previous Conservative Government, and the present Labour Government who came to power in 1997, have had plenty of opportunity to sort out the defects. I am worried that nothing has been done, even though some of us have said repeatedly that the 1995 Act has defects that need to be resolved.
  There is another considerable problem. The regulatory regime—the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, and other bodies—is not dealing with the difficulties that have arisen in some of the many schemes to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) referred, and in other schemes that are now in liquidation. The Government must think about how to deal with the problems that have arisen and how to alleviate the plight of the people who have been affected so severely.
  I do not go along with the hon. Member for Northavon, however, whose approach was typical of the Liberal Democrats. He seemed to say that Government money should be used to bail out all the people who have been affected. Everything/ would then be lovely, at a cost of only a few hundred million pounds a year. However, that few hundred million would not then be available to the health ser rice, education or any of the other things at which the he n. Gentleman's party has pledged to throw money.
  Mr. Watts: Many people who are faced with a black hole in their pensions look at the very rich farmers who
  228
  were compensated for losses as a result of foot and mouth disease, and other tragedies, and ask, "Why was it good enough for the farmers but not for us?"
  Sir John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is a matter of the existing legislation or the priorities of the Government of the day. My point is that it is not appropriate to say that we can always throw money at the problem. That is especially true in respect of private sector schemes, some of which have been the subject of pretty dirty dealing.
  I make no specific allegations, even with the benefit of parliamentary privilege, but some companies have been very badly run, with directors running off with the money or using it for inappropriate purposes. In some schemes, the trustees have not properly guarded the funds that they were supposed to look after, and other schemes have not been regulated properly by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. Litigation may follow in all such cases and some of the money may be recovered. If the regulatory authority is at fault, the Government might be an appropriate compensator. However, to say that the Government should write a blank cheque to bail out any private sector scheme that is in trouble would be to encourage the misbehaviour that we want to discourage. In many ways, the Pensions Bill is a good one, and it is designed to prevent such misbehaviour in the future.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend speaks from vast knowledge and experience. Does he think that there will be any effect on the behaviour of those who run pension schemes and the risks that they take, knowing that in future—if not retrospectively—there will be a safety net along the lines of that which has existed in America for some 30 years?
  Sir John Butterfill: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is the risk of moral hazard. If there is a safety net, some employers may be discouraged from behaving correctly. For that reason, there should never be a flat-rate contribution to the pensions protection fund, but it must relate to the level of risk—so that employers who do not behave correctly pay a much higher premium than employers who behave in the best interests of their work force.
  I criticised the minimum funding requirement in 1995 and have done so ever since because it directs people, through actuarial advice, to specific forms of investment—overwhelmingly to index-linked, predominantly Government bonds. The more bonds that people buy in a diminishing bond market—and it has been diminishing—the lower the yield. The way that the MFR operates requires the purchase of more bonds if there is not enough income to cover the liabilities then the yield may fall still further. It is a like a black hole that spirals ever downwards, sucking in money from a lower and lower yield. That is not necessarily always the fault of the Government, but perhaps of the actuarial profession in being terribly short-sighted in the way that it has viewed liabilities—thinking that the only way to match a future liability to pay pensions is to buy a bond that will provide an income in the future. If the yield keeps falling, the bond will not even achieve its primary objective. Successive Governments—including

  229
  those of my own party and the present Government— have failed to address that fundamental flaw in the MFR mechanism.
  David Taylor: Is it not the case that MFR directions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers have relatively little influence on the price of bonds compared with minimum strategic economic actions such as changing interest rates? One cannot attribute everything to the MFR.
  Sir John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct that bond values are attributable to a series of factors—including the fact that Government borrowing has decreased, so the supply of bonds has diminished. That may be a good thing, but it has nevertheless been a contributing factor, for which the Government should have compensated in the make-up of the MFR.
  Another factor is that regulators are increasingly telling insurance companies that they must cover more of their potential liability by bonds rather than equities. We saw that with Standard Life, which was recently told that it must sell a chunk of equities and buy something seen as more secure. Standard Life, having done that, and to everyone's surprise, now has, through bonds, double the liability coverage required by statute—yet the yield to that company's policyholders will be substantially reduced. The fall in yields is attributable also to changing market conditions. The point that I am trying to make is that the Government and the actuarial profession must be far more sensitive to how the market has changed and examine other forms of investment.
  In my capacity as chairman of the parliamentary pension fund, I recently went to a seminar held by PricewaterhouseCoopers on alternative investments. Statistics show that investments in, for example, commercial property over a 30-year period have been less volatile than bonds, which are supposed to protect against volatility, and have shown almost double the yield. Should we not ask the actuarial profession why we have not put more—not all of it—into commercial property? Why are we not investing in derivatives that protect against future changes? We should have a range of investments because there are more choices than equities versus bonds—we should have mixed portfolios. Successive Governments have, however, failed to do that, which is why the MFR is a problem today. I shall give up that particular hobby-horse, but I was challenged to say whether I objected to the MFR in the past, and I objected to its composition.
  Mr. Webb: Ideologically, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman favours thrift and self-reliance. We face a situation in which people worked hard, saved hard and anticipated a good pension, but are getting next to nothing. Does he accept that there is a basic injustice there that must be addressed in a way that goes beyond legal action by those who can afford to take it? Is there not a bigger issue?
  Sir John Butterfill: There may well be a bigger issue, and we must quantify the scale of the problem, how it has arisen and whether the Government have failed to regulate, which would give them a moral responsibility.
  230
  The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. All I am saying is that there are all sorts of demands on the public purse, and compensation may mean one less hospital, somebody not getting a hip operation or education not being provided properly. We must all suffer a degree of pain if we compensate everybody. We currently live with a compensation culture where everybody must be compensated for everything and the Government bail out every lame duck. We cannot go that far, but the hog. Gentleman is right to say that it is a question of balance.
  The reforms that the Government are introducing and the changes that they have made since they came to power have had a pernicious effect. The difficulty is that if we are to encourage good employers to provide good pension schemes, they must have some incentive to do so. Most o1 the Government's actions have provided disincentives—there was no worse disincentive than their £5 billion a year grab on all our pension schemes.
  Mr. Ken Purchase: Oh no not you as well.
  Sir John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh no", but one must keep referring to that point because the sum of money is significant-it equates to about £600 a year for every pensioner in an occupational scheme in this country.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman refers to a money grab, but if he goes into the House of Commons Library he can find out why the Chancellor acted on pension schemes. Companies were creaming off profits and were not reinvesting; it is not a political point, and the hon. Gentleman will find it in the Library.
  Sir John Butterfill: The Chancellor's explanation will not comfort many pensioners. This morning, I received some figures relating to that point from the Association of Consulting Actuaries. About one third of defined benefits schemes remain open to new members. Despite the Government's attempts to persuade people to choose other forms of pension saving, other schemes have not been frightfully successful. On group personal pensions, for example, only 44 per cent. of firms offer such arrangements, and the combined contributions of employer and employee are about 8.6 per cent., which is nothing like enough o provide an adequate pension in retirement. As for stakeholder schemes, only 37 per cent. participate in those or other stand-alone schemes and the average combined contribution is only 4.8 per cent., which will produce hardly anything and certainly will not reach the level of the Government's pension guarantees.
  Only 36 per cent. of defined benefit schemes in smaller firms are open to new members. Worryingly, the fall-off in defined benefit schemes—which are the best form of pension for employees, provided that the company or scheme does not go bust—is greatest in the small schemes. That is because they cannot cope with the level of regulatory burden. However, we have increased that burden. My party did it in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Government will repeat that in the Pensions Bill, which

  231
  is in other ways an excellent Bill. The Government do not understand the cost and the impact of the burdens that are likely to be imposed.
  I shall not address the entire Pensions Bill today, because we shall have another day in which to do so in rather more detail. However, I shall give an example. One of the problems with the Pensions Bill is that it inserts into our legislation, almost in toto, the draft directive from the European Union The draft directive was created by Commissioners from countries that do not have occupational pensions in the same way that we do. Only the Netherlands and Ireland also have significant local schemes. Most of the others have only sophisticated state schemes. However, the Commissioners see fit to publish regulations that apply principally to us, even though this country has more in pension savings than any other. The Dutch have more per capita, but we have more in total.
  The level of burden that the Bill will impose is huge and it will drive more and more small employers out of defined benefit schemes. Clause 200, for example, will take the requirement for knowledge for trustees to a professional level. Historically in this country, trustees have been ordinary people, including pensioner trustees or trade union-appointed trusties, who have no specialised knowledge but good common sense and sound judgment. They take advice if they do not know something. They know that they have to appoint a scheme actuary and a scheme lawyer, and consult investment advisers and fund managers. Under the Pensions Bill, the trustees will have to know all that themselves. Clause 200 (4) states:
  "An individual to whom this section applies must have knowledge and understanding of … the law relating to pensions and trusts … the principles relating to … the funding of occupational pension schemes, and … in vestment of the assets of such schemes, and … such other matters as may be prescribed."
  I attended a seminar held by S J Berwin, also in my capacity as chairman of the parliamentary pension fund trustees, and I was told that most pension lawyers and actuaries would not fulfil those requirements.
  Mr. Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem that we face is that many people who had responsibility for pension schemes did not have the knowledge that they needed to manage them? We need trustees who know what they are doing. The problem is companies that do not wish to invest in their employees. Employers are good at looking after their own pension schemes and pay, but they are less likely to want to invest in providing proper pension schemes for their employees.
  Sir John Butterfill: To a degree, the hon. Gentleman is right, but there is a great advantage in having trustees who are not particularly specialist. There could be an ordinary pensioner representative, as there is in our scheme, or there could be trade anion or work force representation. That is a good thing. All those people may not be experts, but they can employ experts. Perhaps there should be a minimum standard for trustees. Hon. Members' trustees. of whom I am one, are all taking the examination in essential pensions knowledge of the Pensions Management Institute, which is a good thing. I suspect, however, that we shall be among the minority of such trustees.
  232
  The Pensions Bill would place such burdens on trustees in terms of required knowledge that no ordinary trustee will be able to take them on. Firms will be able to comply with the measure only by employing professional trustees. If they do that, the input of those with an intimate relationship with the scheme will disappear and the costs will go up enormously. Only the bigger firms will be able to cope.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I readily acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has greater expertise on pension funds than me. I have some sympathy with his point about trustees. Trustees in the trade union movement have a degree of training, but I should not like them all to be financial experts at the expense of the people they are supposed to be representing. We need to find a balance, so I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Sir John Butterfill: That is absolutely right. Trustees should have a minimum standard of knowledge. I should be happy if the Government were to say that all trustees must have obtained the certificate of essential pensions knowledge from the PMI or something similar, which would limit the requirement under the Bill to something that most trustees could probably achieve. If, over six months, they did a bit of homework and spent some of their free time learning the subject, they could probably obtain that qualification, but the open-ended provisions in the Bill are ridiculous. They have been lifted straight out of the draft directive, which is madness.
  In Committee, I hope that we can take such silly burdens out of the Bill and get on with the good things that it contains.
  6.2 pm
  Rob Marris: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions I am interested in the subject.
  The Secretary of State told us that about 60,000 people are affected. Constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) were done out of their pensions by what went on at Chart Heat Exchangers Ltd., formerly IMI Marston Ltd. There are serious questions to be asked about who was, or was not, minding the shop for that scheme, but that must be for another day as there are legal considerations.
  I am heartened that we have the figures, but we need to put them in perspective. Devastating as the individual stories of our constituents are, we are talking about only 0.5 per cent. of pensioners. There are 12 million pensioners in the United Kingdom: we are talking about 60,000 people—a small, albeit important, proportion.
  Kevin Brennan: Will my hon. Friend clarify that point? We are not talking about 0.5 per cent. of all pensioners; we are mainly talking about deferred pensioners—people who have not yet retired.
  Rob Marris: I am setting the figure of 60,000 against the 12 million total. The figure includes some prospective pensioners, as well as some people who should be receiving a pension but are not.

  233
  I am heartened by the Secretary of State's remarks today, as, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), he did not seem entirely to close the door to assistance—the word we now use rather than "compensation". Farmers received compensation for foot and mouth; assistance is what we hope some of our constituents might receive for what went on in some of those pension schemes.
  The motion refers to the "crisis in occupational pensions". That assertion has not been backed up by evidence—for example, that less money is being saved in schemes. In fact, more money is being saved in pension schemes. There may be difficulties with confidence, but there is no structural crisis in pensions in the UK.
  The pension protection fund proposed under the Pensions Bill—I will not say much about that Bill, as we will shortly debate it on Second Reading—will further increase confidence. It clearly cannot be retrospective, yet the Government are criticised by some Members who wish to have it both ways. They say, "Ah, well, all the pension protection fund premiums should be risk based"—the implication being that its start should be deferred until the risk figures are available and can be taken into account when setting premiums—yet the same Members criticise the Government for not setting up the fund before next April. They should not try to have it both ways, and I welcome what the Government are trying to do to get the fund off the ground quickly and generate the information. We ought to look at pensions more broadly than we often do in the House.
  Sir John Butterfill: I very much agree that it is better to get the fund up and running, but the problem is that the Government have not yet confirmed whether they will move away from the flat rate and, if so, over what time scale. The Opposition and the hon. Gentleman need to press the Government on how quickly they will move to a risk-based premium.
  Rob Marris: I certainly support risk-based premiums and the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the House should continue to press the Government on the time scale, but I am delighted that the April 2005 time scale has been announced because it will at least get things moving, even though flat-rate premiums will be used.
  I want briefly to discuss the structure of pensions in the United Kingdom. The motion refers to encouraging savings. The cost of tax incentives for pension contributions—the forgone tax revenue—is about £14 billion a year. That is a huge amount of money, and the better-off in our society disproportionately take advantage of those arrangements. Half that benefit is received by the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers and a quarter of it by the top 2.5 per cent. of taxpayers.
  Massive amounts of money are involved, but does that money change people's savings behaviour? Evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions shows that it does not. Page 289 of the evidence volume published last year by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions—of which I am a member—that accompanied its report, "The Future of UK Pensions", says:
  234
  "The Committee asked… whether there is actually any evidence for tax incentives to encourage people to save for their pensions."
  It was me who asked that, I say parenthetically. It continues:
  "There has been considerable academic work on the impact of tax incentives on savings behaviour. Its conclusions can be very broadly summed up as follows:
  —there is little evidence that tax incentives can significantly increase the overall lewd of saving;
  —but they can significantly affect its allocation."
  That refers to where the money goes. Tax incentives are vastly expensive, but it is questionable whether they alter behaviour in a way that society wants.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is getting into dangerous territory The crucial argument—indeed, it has been put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and other hon. Members—is that we are talking about deferred pay. As it is deferred pay, it is taxed only when it is received as pay. He argues that there is a special tar privilege. The tax-free lump sum represents tax relief but apart from that, the money is taxed when people finally receive their deferred pay. That is a perfectly logical system; it is not a special tax privilege.
  Rob Marris: It may be perfectly logical to the hon. Gentleman, but the other side of the coin is, as he says, that the sum is taxed when it is received in retirement. The Government's additional tax from that sum is estimated, from memory, at £8 billion, so the net cost—14 minus 8—is £6 billion a year, which is a considerable sum.
  Kevin Brennan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Rob Marris: I will not give way because I am limited for time and I know that another hon. Member wishes to speak. I wish to develop the point that I am making.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) talked about a decent state pension. He is entirely right. I am not an actuary, but, according to the figures that I have calculated, if we got rid of the tax relief on pension contributions and put I per cent. on both employers' and employees' national insurance contributions, we could have a basic state pension of £150 a week for a single person and £250 a week for a couple. The Government could then get out of the pensions business any other sense and get rid of all the regulations on private pensions. We could say, "If you want to save for your old age, save for your old age, and if you don't want to save for your old age, that's fine because the state will guarantee that you will not starve in your old age." Pensions have tax breaks to stop people starving in their old age by encouraging them to save. If the basic state pension is relatively high, the state does not need to encourage people to save for their old age, and tax breaks are not necessary. The Government amendment mention! "simplicity, security and choice". My proposal, which should be considered in a public debate, is to whack up the basic state pension massively and get rid of all layers of complex regulation—and that is covered by the amendment.

  235
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) said that final salary schemes—defined benefit schemes—were better than money purchase, or defined contribution, schemes. Then is mixed evidence of that because the situation depends on the historical snapshot that one considers and what the stock market did at that time. The attraction of a defined benefit, or final salary, scheme is that people think that what they will get out of it is certain. That is true in the public sector, but I predict that final salary schemes will wither and die in the private sector because such schemes have historically relied on a trading company topping up its scheme in bad times. We have increasingly seen over recent years that as companies go bust, they get out of such pension schemes, so the certainty of final salary schemes for private sector employee; is going out of the window. Confidence has been eroded in the private sector, but not in the public sector.
  Sir John Butterfill: Of course, any view of the relative attractiveness to employers of defined benefit and defined contribution schemes varies according to the investment climate of the time. When we had a boom, all employers thought that DB schemes were wonderful because they could take contribution holidays. If they had been in defined contribution schemes, they could not have done that because they would have had to pay the same amount-the attraction of a contribution holiday would have disappeared. Everything depends on the snapshot of time at which one considers the situation.
  Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. Money purchase schemes can be just as attractive, or more attractive, in the long run because they do not give employers the incentive to take pension contribution holidays—they carry on paying into such schemes. Final salary schemes will wither and die, and, although it might be heresy to say it, I think that is good thing. Such schemes discriminate against the low paid and women—they are predominantly the low paid in those schemes. If people work in the same low-paid job for 30 years, they traditionally receive thirty eightieths of their pay under such schemes. People who work for 20 years in such jobs and get promoted so that they work for 10 years in higher-paid roles get the whole thirty eightieths—not just ten eightieths—of their pension paid at the higher rate. The schemes discriminate against low-paid people who do not receive promotion, and although the trade union movement traditionally defends them, we should have another look at them in the private sector because as confidence and certainty change, they will wither and die.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: If the complete lack of appreciation shown by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) of the importance of saving and having vigorous funded pension scheme including defined contribution schemes, for the econ my and the security of human lives and families is typical of the Labour party, it is not surprising that it has presided over such a disaster in pensions and savings in our country over the past six years. I accept that that was a political remark, but it was required and emerged spontaneously
  236
  because of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Nevertheless, given that we are contemplating a serious problem, I hope that we can try to reach the maximum possible degree of consensus.
  I hope that the House will agree on at least three points. The collapse of the pension schemes of companies that have become insolvent has been an unmitigated human disaster for many people. It emerged during the debate that the number of people affected is probably approximately 60,000—it was interesting that the Government confirmed that figure. That will inform the debate in the country as a whole.
  The second point on which I hope there will be a wide measure of agreement is that the collapse is a disaster in a second sense, because it has done traumatic damage to people's confidence in pension schemes, to the credibility of our whole pension system. That can only flow through, inevitably, into a lesser inclination to contribute to pensions, which is most unfortunate.
  Even though there may have been shortcomings in the 1995 Pensions Act—I have always thought that it was excessively bureaucratic—there was created in the 1980s and early 1990s a climate in which people felt that their pensions were secure. That was an enormous comfort to individuals, and it was an enormous benefit to the economy that we had a very large amount of savings generated through the pension schemes that emerged. I am afraid that we shall pay a terrible price for the blow to credibility that has resulted from the collapse of schemes and the fact that some people have been left high and dry. It follows a whole series of blows to pensioners, potential pensioners and the pensions industry.
  The third point that I hope the House will agree on is that there can be no marks at all for coming here and simply expressing sympathy for the victims of a disaster and not doing anything about it. The people who have to do something about it are the Government. It is no defence for them to tell the Opposition, "You haven't come up with any practical proposals." For heaven's sake, they are the Government—though I regret that—and it is up to them to come up with a solution. They have come up with none.
  The Secretary of State, who I regret is not here now, said this afternoon that he did not want to excite false hopes. One understands that. He added that he did not exclude the possibility of some compensation. If he does nothing, he will have aroused false hopes by putting things in that way. Unfortunately, he did not say that it was necessary for the Government to have more information or that certain preconditions had to be fulfilled before a decision could be made. In fact, it does not appear to me that the Government need any more facts than they have. They have simply tried to avoid the unpopularity of saying explicitly and frankly to the House this afternoon that they will not do a damn thing. I fear that that is their intention. They do not want to say that, because they know how unpopular that announcement would be, so they hope that they can get away with that kind of evasiveness, no doubt hoping that the political heat will go out of the issue.
  Kevin Brennan: Would it not be helpful if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues explicitly stated that they would support my proposal that, for example, some sort

  237
  of assistance or compensation—call it what you will—should be paid to at least the worst cases among the workers concerned? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the House that now, and perhaps to support early-day motion 200?
  Mr. Davies: I am not prepared to support early-day motion 200, for reasons that have already been given this afternoon, when it was very helpfully analysed. I do not want to go over them again, but I will live up to what I have just said and try to make some constructive and helpful suggestions, which I hope the Government will take on board.
  The first thing that the Government have a moral responsibility to do is to make an estimate of the extent to which they have directly and explicitly contributed to this disaster through the abolition of the dividend tax credit. That must be a calculation that it is perfectly possible to make on the basis of the portfolios held over the relevant period of years since 1998 by the relevant pension funds. I am sure intuitively that substantial amounts of money are involved. It was inadequate and spurious of the Secretary of State to say that the abolition of the dividend tax credit was just part of a reorganisation of corporation tax, that the mainstream rate had been reduced and that that had to be taken into account.
  The implication was that the abolition of the dividend tax credit or the so-called pensions tax was not a net tax-raising measure at all. It was part of a rearrangement of corporation tax. If the Secretary of State reads his remarks this afternoon in Hansard he will be thoroughly ashamed, as that was an extraordinarily disingenuous comment. We all know that the abolition of the dividend tax credit was conceived by the Chancellor as a massive net revenue-raising measure, and the inevitable consequence of that abolition were equally massive losses from gross funds.
  Mr. Watts: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating a return to the previous tax system, and is he saying that that is the Opposition's position? There are a lot of crocodile tears on the issue, but no constructive ideas. The hon. Gentleman is criticising the Government but has not suggested any options himself.
  Mr. Davies: I may have been hasty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as I was about to propose a practical idea based on the dividend tax credit. We ought to start a debate about the amount of compensation that could reasonably be made by the Government from the figure that I have just asked them to produce—namely, what they have raised incrementally from the schemes that have collapsed following the abolition of the dividend tax credit. There is no doubt that that will be a significant sum. In some cases, it may have pushed into insolvency schemes that would not otherwise have become insolvent. In other cases, the deficit will be much greater than would otherwise he the case. The Government have a moral responsibility to be straight with the public and to quantify the extent to which they have deliberately contributed to that disaster. We should have a discussion about the appropriate level of compensation to be paid by the Government based on that figure.
  238
  The Government should deal right away with the disaster—I am not talking about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted and the Pensions Bill that we will debate next weak—experienced by people who are suffering now. They should do something this week to change the guidance to trustees of schemes from themselves and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, which, frighteningly, has led trustees to take perverse measures. In most cases, when a company has gone broke and its pension scheme is insolvent or below full solvency it automatically winds it up and buys annuities at a disadvantageous price—as Members will know, the annuities market is entirely a seller's market and is distorted—which is a bad deal. Alternatively, the company sells the whole equity portfolio—the fall in the equity market over the past couple of years has largely contributed to the problems in these schemes—and moves it all into cash or fixed-interest securities. Again, that is the worst possible reaction, because it means that as the equity market takes an upturn, it is impossible for the schemes to recover lost ground. That does not make sense when the market—one never knows what the bottom or the top of the market is—has had an exceptionally striking fall from an historical high. It is crazy to get out oil equities altogether, which is the absurd and damaging course of action that trustees have taken.
  Something must therefore be done quickly about the guidance given to trustees. I suspect that they are taking such action because they have been advised that, to protect their position, they must go for the so-called lowest-risk solution—either buy final annuities or move into fixed-interest securities. As I have explained, that is the worst possible thing to do—trustees should increase their investment in he equity market, and they could increase their protection against a further fall in equity market through an appropriate derivative. As we have seen in the derivative market in the past few months, when the market is historically low, the cost of such protection is correspondingly low. The investment management strategies pursued by trustees in this situation have not been rational, and the Government should do something about that immediately. That point has not been made, and it badly needs making.
  I have two more proposals, which are focused on how the Government should go forward in trying to prevent the repetition of such a disaster. When something like this happens, the legislature must try to ensure that it is less likely that the ill from which we have suffered will recur. The first thing that the Government should do is to consider making pensioners preferred creditors. The situation that we are addressing results from a combination of factors. When a company collapses, it becomes insolvent and can no longer make statutory contributions to the scheme, and the scheme can be wound up only at a considerable loss because it is itself insolvent. That unfortunate combination of circumstances is particularly likely to arise during a downturn in the econ Amy when the stock market is at an historical low and there are a greater number of insolvencies in commerce and industry. That was the situation in 2002 and 2003. We should consider changing the law to make pensioners preferred creditors of companies that have become insolvent in those circumstances, exactly as employees are preferred

  239
  creditors at present, because a comp my that collapses has to pay its contractual obligations to its employees for the work that they have done.
  I recognise that one has to consider the disadvantages of any such move. I am not suggesting that it could be made retrospective, because supplier, have traded with the companies concerned, or lenders have lent to them, on the basis of the existing rules, which cannot be changed retrospectively.
  Sir John Butterfill: I hope that my hon. Friend would exclude from those preferred creditor s the directors who may have been pumping up their own schemes just as the company was going bust.
  Mr. Davies: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a just comment.
  As far as credit ratings are concerned, we must bear in mind that if my suggestion were to be implemented in law, there would be no significant change for the vast majority of companies where lender or suppliers see no real prospect of their going broke. There would be a problem between creditors only where a company became insolvent.
  My final point is very important. We must look again at the whole issue of pension holidays. One aspect of the fundamental lack of symmetry in flu present situation is inherently suspect—namely, that if a company finds that its pension scheme has a surplus, it can take a pension holiday, but if it has a deficit it does not have to make it up immediately. That is asymmetric. Nor does it make sense in terms of accounting or economic theory, because one has a liability that one should be providing for over the years as it accumulates There should be a ceiling up to which it is not possible for a pension surplus to result in a pension holiday. Actuaries should advise on that ceiling, taking into account the expected fluctuations in the markets.
  Clearly, at a time when equity markets are at an historical high, a well-managed scheme will always be in surplus. That should not mean that companies should cease to make any contribution unless the surplus is such as to provide protection against the likely cyclical downturn in the market. There should be symmetry on both sides. We should not have a situation in which companies can be expected overnight to make up a deficit in their pension fund because there has been a sudden fall in the market, but equally, by the same token, we should not have a situation in which if the pension scheme has a surplus of the company can declare a pension holiday. That is thoroughly unreasonable and needs to be looked at again.
  I am afraid that since this Government took over, the pension system, which was a flowering garden in the 1980s and early 1990s, has been turned into a desert.
  The figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Bitterfill) cited—I am glad that he did so because tilt y should be known throughout the country—say it all. Only one third of defined benefit schemes remain open. Since 1997, hardly a week has gone by without the closure of a defined benefit pension scheme. The pensions system was steadily built up under various Governments, especially the Thatcher Administration of the 1980s, but we can go
  240
  back to the 1950s. It was one of the glories of our country, an enormous economic asset and a great asset to individuals and their families. It has been eroded.
  The rhetoric of current members of the Labour party—for example, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—tries to rationalise the appalling position and pretend that it is thoroughly commendable that our pensions system is breaking down. I cannot imagine a more perverse or destructive policy. If this afternoon's debate has exposed the Labour party's genuine direction and goal on pensions, it has been worth while.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Unlike some Labour Members, I enjoyed listening to my hon. Friend—and near neighbour—the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who rightly pointed out that barely a week goes by without an announcement of a company closing down a final salary scheme. Last September, the Confederation of British Industry published a survey of 551 companies. It showed that half of employers had a final salary scheme that closed last year and that only 27 per cent. of firms continue to offer a final salary scheme—the figure last year was 43 per cent. The position is therefore serious, as my hon. Friend pointed out. John Cridland, deputy director general of the CBI, said the other day:
  "On pensions the dam has burst as rising costs overwhelm employers who are increasingly being forced to pull out of final salary schemes for new employees … We need radical proposals that will make pensions simpler and more affordable."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made an excellent and impressive opening speech. As he pointed out, our recent position was not only the envy of the world but extremely stable and exceptionally robust. Although Labour Members derided his words, he was right to point out that the Chancellor's smash-and-grab raid on pensions—£5 billion a year—started the rot. The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) said that there were strong, logical tax reasons for the change to advance corporation tax at the time. That may be true. The stock market was booming and many companies were taking pension holidays. However, the stock market subsequently went into decline and many schemes started to lose substantial amounts of capital value. Surely that was the time to reverse the policy. What was right in the Chancellor's first Budget was wrong two, three or four years later. The policy has taken a huge amount of money out of pension funds.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant also pointed out that minimum funding requirements were lowered by 10 per cent. in June 1998 and subsequently by a further 8 per cent. The position is therefore bleak. Today, we have heard about several companies, including Allied Steel and Wire workers and Dexion, about which The Mail on Sunday wrote recently. I want to bring to hon. Members' attention a company in my constituency. Its parent company went into liquidation and the subsidiary company in my constituency is called Fisher Frozen Foods.
  The Albert Fisher Group went bust in May 2002. There were 1,000 employees in the scheme—many in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the

  241
  Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). Although the scheme was under some pressure, the directors took a pension holiday as recently as four years ago. At the time, the fund was in surplus, but, as some hon. Members have pointed out, the tax regime bore down on the funds that were in surplus and getting too big. There was a tax disincentive, which was another big mistake.
  The scheme suffered a shortfall two and a half years ago. New trustees tried to make it up by raising contributions from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. The parent company, Albert Fisher Group plc, then went into liquidation. The deficit on the pension scheme was £35 million, which works out at roughly £35,000 per employee.
  That figure, however, is distorted. I have several constituents who were middle managers for Fisher Frozen Foods, and I spoke this afternoon to one who was with that company for about 20 years. Over that period, he invested 5 per cent. of his salary in his pension, while the company contributed 10 per cent., and his pot was in the region of £300,000. He has lost 90 per cent. of that pot. It is not surprising that, along with the employees of Allied Steel and Wire workers, Dexion and the many other companies that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant mentioned in his opening speech, my constituent and others like him are very angry indeed. As he pointed out to me, he is particularly angry and upset because a number of younger people took early retirement from Fisher Frozen Foods literally weeks before the Albert Fisher Group went into liquidation. They received their full entitlement, but those who stayed with the company, even those who were substantially older than that cohort, will receive 10 per cent. if they are lucky, as 90 per cent. of the value is being lost.
  Pinguin, the Belgian company that took over Albert Fisher's Fisher Frozen Foods subsidiary, refused to honour the final salary pension scheme. That was understandable, because Pinguin bought the company from the receiver when it had many serious problems. and not surprisingly, it refused to top up the pension fund.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge two points? First, one reason why employees on the cusp of retirement cannot access their full pension fund is because of the Pension Act 1995 and the regulations that it introduced. Secondly, in most such cases, including that of the Allied Steel and Wire workers from Cardiff, we are not talking about large pensions. We are talking about people who, after working for 30 or 40 years, might expect a maximum pension of £13,000. Therefore, if there were to be compensation, it could be capped at a reasonable level.
  Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman has done much work on this subject, and he and I were at the meeting of the all-party group on occupational pensions two or three months ago. I shall come back to his points in a moment when I mention retrospective compensation.
  As my constituent said to me today, to lose money that the company has paid into his pension scheme is one thing, but in his view—hardly surprisingly—to lose
  242
  what he himself has paid in is pretty outrageous, especially when he looks at neighbours who are receiving their full pension and enjoying a happy retirement, even though they are younger than him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant dealt very well with retrospective compensation. We badly need substantially more data. How can we commit ourselves to that retrospective compensation until we have those data? Can the Minister tell the House why those data are not in place? That seems extraordinary when there have been so many parliamentary questions on the issue.
  Will the Minister tell the House his views on the proposals made by Ros Altmann from the London school of economics, who came to the meeting organised by the all-party group on occupational pensions four or five months ago? She made it quite clear that because c f the huge cost of buying annuities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford alluded—the market for annuities is extremely difficult for buyers at the moment—if changes were made to the regime, the ongoing cost to the Government of retrospective compensation would be about £100 million.That cost is a fraction of the cost of the dome, a fraction of the cost of the increased bureaucracy involved in running Whitehall since 1997, a fraction of the cost of an asylum system in chronic meltdown and less than the cost of the proposed devolved assemblies that no one wants.
  So far as the Pensions Bill is concerned, the Government will he judged not just on their actions for people who will be affected by future schemes, and future meltdowns or wind-ups of schemes, but on what they do for people ho are really suffering now. Those people have lost everything that they were looking forward to—a happy, prosperous, or even simply a bearable, retirement That is how the Government will be judged, and I look forward to the Minister giving various answers when he winds up.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been a very interesting debate. We have ranged far and wide, and all the enthusiasts gathered here can regard it as an aperitif to the debate next Tuesday on the Second Reading of the new Pensions Bill. The excitement in the Chamber is palpable as I remind Members of that.
  I declare an interest as I have some private pension provision. We heard a good speech from the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham). I am delighted that he agrees with our policy of restoring the link. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth. West (Sir John Butte -fill) spoke with his usual massive authority on this subject, and I am delighted that our pensions are in his excellent and reliable hands. A fellow member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, south-West (Rob Marris), understated the extern of the current pensions crisis, but if he returns on Tuesday, I will tell him a bit more about why I disagree with hi n, and vice versa. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) provided an excellent analysis of many of the problems besetting pension schemes and provided some good ideas for solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk i Mr. Bellingham), who has taken a close interest not only in the specific case to which he referred of Fisher's but in the more general issues, made a welcome contribution.

  243
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke knowledgeably. As I understand the policies of the Liberal Democrats, they have signed early-day motion 200 and would write a cheque tomorrow, or at least the day after. That is not, of course, what my party proposes at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) explained.
  This problem is gathering pace, even as we debate it. I noticed only today in The Independent a report that the insurance broker, Jardine Lloyd Thompson, announced yesterday that it is closing its final salary pension scheme to new entrants. It has injected £50 million of its own money to try to alleviate the £157 mil lion pension deficit in its fund. It is not alone. It believes that that is the largest injection of any FTSE company relative to the size of its pension fund. Even companies that are trying to do the decent thing are struggling in the present climate.
  I want to dwell in most detail on the Secretary of State's speech. We heard the usual mantra about not wanting to raise false hopes. While I understand the logic of putting that caveat into every speech that he and his colleagues make on this subject, it must become monotonous, not least to those who have already lost their pensions. A real danger exists— I say this in sorrow rather than in anger—of the Government becoming part of the problem, not the solution. As I said, the Pensions Bill has been published, and we will debate it in detail next week. It was published to a chorus of disapproval. I have yet to find a single comment from any organisation, serious newspaper or anyone involved in the pensions industry—except possibly the TUC—that did not criticise it, often for its timidity, and, of course, for the fact that it deals with problems in the future.
  It was pretty clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant pointed out in an intervention, that the Secretary of State had written his speech before he had taken account of what my hon. Friend had to say. Carrying out the role of a serious official Opposition, my hon. Friend set out a range of possibilities—[Interruption.] It is the Secretary of State and his colleagues who are meant to be in charge of this area of policy, yet on 12 January, in this Chamber, he declined the request of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that he set up an independent inquiry to find out the scale of the problem.We set out not our alternatives, as the Minister says from a sedentary position, but the obvious alternatives—those put forward by other people—which are the only ones anyone can come up with to solve this problem. We remain to be convinced that the Government are doing any serious thinking about the subject.
  When pressed, the Secretary of State said that 60,000—the number of members of schemes who had lost most or all of their pension—seemed to be the "right scale". So we have managed to nail down one corner of the tent. He then said that the Government were not in a position to estimate the figures arising from that 60,000 figure. What we do not know is what he or his Department are doing to work on those figures. What work is being done, by whom, with what purpose and on what time scale—if not by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, perhaps by the Treasury? As we know, the DWP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Treasury in this Government.
  244
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) talked about drawing the boundaries. The Secretary of State seemed rather taken by that idea, as if it had never occurred to him before; but surely it, too, is part of the process. Throughout the debate, we have tried to tease out of the Secretary of State and his colleagues just how deeply the Government are and have been thinking about solutions to a problem that will not go away and will not be resolved by the Pensions Bill. I must say, with respect, that the Secretary of State seemed a little like a very well-meaning member of the public who had wandered in with a few thoughts about what might be the solution, rather than a Cabinet Minister with the resources of the entire civil service at his command. Surely there should be a battery of Wykehamists with double firsts working night and day on this problem. Perhaps there are; if there are, may we be told about it?
  We were told that something would happen about the priority order in the near future. We have heard such expressions before—"soon", "in the near future" and the like. They could mean anything. They could mean "by the time the snow is falling next year". The point about the priority order is that it was always going to be an interim measure, applied until the Bill became an Act. What is happening, and when will it have happened?
  Kevin Brennan: As we near the end of the debate, will the hon. Gentleman finally tell us whether he and his fellow Front Benchers believe there is a moral case for compensation or assistance for these workers?
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman has been the intervention king today. What we have not heard from him are his ideas about what should happen. Let me remind him that the official Opposition have taken this first opportunity since the publication of the Pensions Bill to call a debate in our Opposition time.
  Although the country faces an unprecedented crisis in savings and pensions, there is nothing in the Bill to encourage saving for retirement. Although final salary schemes continue to close at an alarming rate—I have just given one example—there is nothing in the Bill to encourage an employer to keep a scheme open, let alone open a new scheme. Although some 60,000 people have lost all or most of their pension entitlement in the last few years, there is nothing in the Bill to compensate them or even give them the hope of compensation. Meanwhile the Government, who for the moment are in charge of the issue, stand by impotent while the pensions crisis rages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant pointed out, it is as if there had been a household fire and, rather than offering to call the fire brigade, the Government merely offered insurance to cover the next fire.
  Our motion rightly accuses the Government of inaction in the face of the pensions crisis, and I commend it to the House.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I agree that this has been a wide-ranging debate, and I think that it has been an important one. The pensions question is rising on all the agendas that count in our society, and rightly so. In fact, it is really a series of

  245
  questions. When I reflect on the issues that have been discussed, I conclude that part of the pensions question has been determined by the past, that we need to address the present, and that we must also have a strong regard to the future.
  The incomes of today's pensioners, many of them very poor and in their 80s and 90s, are largely determined by their social circumstances, education and family and employment histories dating from the 1920s and 1930s. The position of today's elderly women, in particular, needs to be seen in that context.
  I shall say something about the pension credit later, but in looking to the future we are talking about incomes that today's young people will retire on in the middle decades of this century. They will experience an economy, educational opportunities, careers and family patterns that are radically different from those experienced by their grandparents or great-grandparents. So in some respects, the task of the Government and of Parliament is to understand and respond to a social and economic history that stretches over some 120 to 130 years.
  We have had some notable contributions and interventions during today's debate: from my Front-Bench colleagues; from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris); and from the hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). All were noteworthy in their own way. I always enjoy—I had better not say in particular—the contributions of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who, as has been acknowledged, is a great expert on these issues. As he pointed out, he largely welcomes the Pensions Bill, contrary to what one of his Front-Bench colleagues said. That colleague may want to take note of his hon. Friend in that respect. Indeed, many others have also welcomed the Bill.
  In a slightly more self-interested way, we took note of the fact that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who is chairman of the parliamentary pension fund trustees, said that he and his fellow trustees are sitting a learned institute's pensions exam. We were all very impressed by that. I noticed that from a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said that he hopes that they pass it.
  I shall not discuss in detail our strategy for the future because there is not sufficient time, but let us remind ourselves of some salient points. Although the concern of Members on both sides of the House has understandably concentrated on groups of existing workers who are in difficulties, we need to look at the future and at the pension protection fund. To dismiss this as insurance tomorrow is a trivial comment, if I may say so. I have drawn on the experience of a visit to Washington. I learned from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which has widespread political and other support in the United States—from industry and from unions—and a track record of more than 25 years. I believe that if we can establish the fund, subject to the will of this House, it will become a permanent part of our pension and social security architecture, and will be seen one day as a major social policy innovation
  246
  introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It will offer real guarantees for the future. When company schemes go bust, existing company pensioners will have 100 per cent. of their pension guaranteed, and scheme members of working age will have 90 per cent. guaranteed.
  I put it to the House that this is a policy worth supporting and worth getting right. Our deliberations in Committee will be very important in this respect, and we will consider all useful contributions. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said that he will enter into such discussions in a spirit of consensus, and I welcome that. We will not have a monopoly of wisdom on the details; we need to get things right.
  The policy will be funded by an annual levy and from the income of the assets that the fund takes over from company pension schemes. Although in the first year there will be flat-rate levy of only 50 per cent. of the eventual levy, with in a year we will roll out the risk-based levy, which will he at least 50 per cent.—I repeat: at least 50 per cent.—of the whole levy. We are very determined to haw a risk-based element, contrary to what was said in t knee-jerk press release from the Liberal Democrats, which was published the day before the Bill's publication. I was about to say that the Liberal Democrat in question was either foolish or prescient, but he cannot haw been the latter because he got it wrong.
  I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said about any assistance that may or may not be forthcoming to those groups of workers who are currently affected. It is not sensible for the opposition to mock the phrase "not holding out false hope", because I believe that it would be foolish to do so. We are in a very difficult position, in which only the most unwise voices somehow think that the state can nationalise all risk. It cannot, but we are examining sensible suggestions and much work is going on.
  In common wit' other Members who have met groups of workers, the ministerial team, which has met a large number, can tot fail to be moved by their plight when these honest and decent people speak about the contributions that May have made, sometimes for 40 years. They often speak in a dignified and quiet way about the effect on their marriages and their health. No one can fail to be moved and the House will have welcomed our debate on those important points.
  Mr. Waterson: I take the Minister's point about the "false hopes" argument—I thought that I had already dealt with it—but when he says that much work is going on, can he give the House some idea, in the dying minutes of the debate, what sort of work is going on and to what it is directed?
  Malcolm Wicks: Now is not the time to go into the detail, but we are examining the problems very carefully. As my right hon. Friend said, when we reach a conclusion one way or another, we will come before the House.
  I was asked about Equitable Life and the Penrose inquiry. All I can say is that Treasury Ministers have made it clear that the) intend to publish the report in full as soon as possible. They will keep the House fully informed.

  247
  Although the pension protection fund has gathered much interest around it, in some respects of equal importance in the Bill are proposals for a pensions regulator. By targeting the badly run and highest risk schemes, the regulator will enable well-administered and secure schemes to continue without unnecessary regulatory burden. The hon. Member for Northavon spoke about the importance of having clear requirements on information, and we can deal further with that important matter in Committee. We have also set out proposals for full buy-out and will have an employer taskforce to set out ideas about good practice in occupational pension schemes.
  One or two Members referred to at bother aspect of the pension question—pensioner poverty. When we came into power in 1997, the state pension system was lacking in investment and was in a state of disrepair. Many people were poor, particularly older elderly people and often women. Indeed, single pensioner women were expected in 1997 to exist on £ (8.80 a week. By introducing the minimum income guarantee and now the pension credit, we have increased that income in real terms by one third, which is important. We have also reduced pensioner poverty by about 60 per cent. since 1997.
  The Conservative proposals to place all the emphasis on raising the basic state pension—the Conservatives are now born-again earnings linkers, rather too late in our history—represent a hole that r hey are digging for themselves. It will mean that the poorest pensioners on pension credit will receive less—or little more—than the better-off half of pensioners. That is the logic of their proposals. Indeed, that was admitted a year ago by no less than the then shadow Chancellor, now the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. It was an honest remark and the current shadow Secretary of State needs to heed his leader's wise words when he said:
  "Those who are entitled to the pension credit and do claim … will not be better oft"
  under the Tory proposals. That is the logic of the scheme.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin:rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.
  Question,That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 319.

  Division No. 56

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bercow, John

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Bottormley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bacon, Richard

  Brady, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Barker, Gregory

  Brazier Julian

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Breed, Colin

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bruce, Malcolm

  248

  Burnett, John

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Burnside, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Burstow, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burt, Alistair

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Lamb, Norman

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Lansley, Andrew

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Cameron, David

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Fife)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cash, William

  Loughton, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Barnet)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chidgey, David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclean, rh David

  Clappison, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Conway, Derek

  Maples, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Cotter, Brian

  Atcham)

  Curry, rh David

  Mates, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Stamford)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Howden)

  Coldfield)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Forth, rh Eric

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Dinefwr)

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Garnier, Edward

  Rendel, David

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  M-Kent)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gummer, rh John

  Salmond, Alex

  Hague, rh William

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hammond, Philip

  Selous, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Harvey, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Heald, Oliver

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

  Heath, David

  Kincardine)

  Hendry, Charles

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Hermon, Lady

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Holmes, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Howard, rh Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Syms, Robert

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Inverness)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  249

  Teather, Sarah

  Willetts, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Thurso, John

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Willis, Phil

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Walter, Robert

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  (Macclesfield)

  Watkinson, Angela

  wishart, pete

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Weir, Michael

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mr. Hugo Swire and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Mark Field

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coaker, Vernon

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Connarty, Michael

  Darwen)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Austin, John

  Corston, Jean

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cousins, Jim

  Baird, Vera

  Cranston, Ross

  Banks, Tony

  Crausby, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Cruddas, Jon

  Battle, John

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cummings, John

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  David, Wayne

  Best, Harold

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, rh John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  E)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Wallsend)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bryant, Chris

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burden, Richard

  Edwards, Huw

  Burgon, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Burnham, Andy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Cairns, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flint, Caroline

  Casale, Roger

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Caton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Chaytor, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Clapham, Michael

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Gerrard, Neil

  Pentlands)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  250

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Grogan, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hain, rh Peter

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacDougall, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McFall, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hanson, David

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McKechin, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rhymney)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Healey, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sefton E)

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Julie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, rh John

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Illsley, Eric

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Owen, Albert

  Hatfield)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham,

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree,

  Prescott, rh John

  Kidney, David

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Purnell, James

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lammy, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Lidded, rh Mrs Helen

  Bellshill)

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Anniesland)

  Love, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  NW)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  251

  Ruane, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Chester)

  Touhig, Den (Islwyn)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Trickett, Jon

  Salter, Martin

  Truswell, Paul

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Sawford, Phil

  Kemptown)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Singh, Marsha

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Finsbury)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  White, Brian

  Lunesdale)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Soley, Clive

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winterton Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Stevenson, George

  C)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lochaber)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Margaret Moran and

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mr. Nick Ainger

  Question accordingly negatived>
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 187.

  Division No. 57]

  [7:16 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Alexander, Douglas

  Wallsend)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Browne Desmond

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Bryant, Chris

  Darwen)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Burgon, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burnham, Andy

  Austin, John

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cairns, David

  Baird, Vera

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Battle, John

  Casale, Roger

  Beard, Nigel

  Caton, Martin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Challen Colin

  Bennett, Andrew

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Chaytor, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh

  Blackman, Liz

  Pentlands)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clwyd. Ann (Cynon V)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coaker Vernon

  252

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, rh Geoffrey

  Corston, Jean

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Crausby, David

  Sefton E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hutton, rh John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  David, Wayne

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Denham, rh John

  Hatfield)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jones,Keven (N Durham)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones,martyn (Clwyd C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)>

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Efford, Clive

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kidney, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Farrelly, Paul

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Lammy, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Goggins, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Grogan, John

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hain, rh Peter

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonnell, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacDougall, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McFall, John

  Hanson, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKechin, Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Rhymney)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Healey, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Heyes, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  253

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Finsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Moffatt, Laura

  Lunesdale)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  Stevenson, George

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Lochaber)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stringer, Graham

  Owen, Albert

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Picking, Anne

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kemptown)

  Prescott, rh John

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Purnell, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Ward, Claire

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rammell, Bill

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Watts, David

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  White, Brian

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Bellshill)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Anniesland)

  Wills, Michael

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Winnick, David

  NW)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Rooney, Terry

  C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruane, Chris

  Worthington, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Chester)

  Yarmouth)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Salter, Martin

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Margaret Moran and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Nick Ainger

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Amess, David

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Bercow, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bacon, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Barker, Gregory

  Surrey)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Brady, Graham

  254

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Breed, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Burnett, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burns, Simon

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burnside, David

  Lamb, Norman

  Burstow, Paul

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cameron, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fife)

  Loughton, Tim

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cash, William

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Barnet)

  Maclean, rh David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Maude, rh Francis

  Conway, Derek

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cotter, Brian

  Mercer, Patrick

  Curry, rh David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Coldfield)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Stamford)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Öpik, Lembit

  Howden)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Dinefwr)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Fallon, Michael

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Flight, Howard

  Rendel, David

  Flook, Adrian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Francois, Mark

  M-Kent)

  Gale, Roger (TV Thanet)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rosindell, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Ruffley, David

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Salmond, Alex

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grayling, Chris

  Selous, Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Greenway, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gummer, rh John

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hague, rh William

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

  Hammond, Philip

  Kincardine)

  Hancock, Mike

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heath, David

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Steen, Anthony

  Hendry, Charles

  Streeter, Gary

  Hermon, Lady

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Holmes, Paul

  Syms, Robert

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howard, rh Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot,

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Teather, Sarah

  255

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Thurso, John

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Willis, Phil

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Walter, Robert

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Wishart, Pete

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Weir, Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. M irk Field and

  Willetts, David

  Angela Watkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports the Government's strategy to tackle pensioner poverty, and to deliver simplicity, security and choice in working and saving for retirement; condemns the pensions inheritance of 1997, with millions in poverty and the legacy of pension mis-selling; notes that the Government is spending £9 billion extra per year in real terms on pensioners compared with the 1997 system; condemns the unfair, unaffordable and unsustainable pensions policies of Opposition parties; expresses its sincere sympathy for those who have lost part or all of their pension as a result of their employer becoming insolvent; believes the Government should continue to look it all available options to help people affected, but that it would be cruel to raise expectations if no workable solution can he found; welcomes the publication of the Government's Pensions Bill; further believes that the Pension Protection Fund will bring real security for over 10 million defined benefit pension scheme members if their employer becomes insolvent and pensions schemes wind up in the future; further believes that firms should honour pension promises they have made; welcomes the Bill as a bi lanced package, with a new regulator and measures to simplify pensions legislation, making it easier for employers to run good schemes; further believes that pension reform should be a common cause; and calls on all Members of this House to support the Government's Pensions Bill.

  REGULATORY REFORM
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),

  SUNDAY TRADING
  That the draft Regulatory Reform (Sunday Trading) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved. —[Paul Clark.]
  Question agreed to

PETITIONS

  Hemel Hempstead General Hospital
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I present a petition on behalf of 22,116 residents and workers of the Dacorum district of Hertfordshire.
  The petition declares:
  That the threatened downgrading of Hemel Hempstead General Hospital is unjustified given that its catchment population is the largest in the county and that it is still growing.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to direct the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority to reinvestigate thoroughly the business case for selecting one option over another in relation to the future of Hemel Hempstead District General Hospital.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc
  To lie upon the Table.

  Gadebridge Sub-Post Office
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I wish to present a petition of the Gadebridge Community Association and residents of Gadebridge.
  The petition
  Declares that the Petitioners would be deleteriously affected by the closure of Gadebridge Sub-Post Office at Rossgate in Hemel Hempstead.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take steps to secure the future of Gadebridge Sub-Post Office, and the beneficial services it provides, for the members of the Gadebridge Community.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table

  VAT (Tourism)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn. — [Paul Clark.]
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: As a tourist destination, the United Kingdom offers a rich and diverse holiday experience to any tourist wishing to explore our national distinctiveness, our shared traditions and our unique heritage. As an industry, British tourism has enormous potential, offering the prospects of job creation, urban and rural regeneration and real economic and social benefits for all sections of our community.
  Tourism represents one of the largest industries in the United Kingdom, and makes a major contribution to the British economy. It is worth approximately £75.9 billion. In 2002, 24.2 million trips were made by overseas visitors to the United Kingdom, who spent approximately £11.7 billion, while British residents themselves made 167.3 million trips within the United Kingdom, spending more than £26.5 billion.
  Our tourist industry is, however, at a distinct economic disadvantage compared with those of our European neighbours, which is a cause of serious concern. The disadvantage is that the value added tax rate applied to Britain's tourist industry is substantially higher than that applied by the majority of European Union states. In particular, the VAT rate applied to tourist accommodation in the United Kingdom is more than twice the European Union average.
  With the exception of Denmark and Germany, EU states operate an average reduced rate of VAT on tourism of 8 per cent. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, continues to enforce a VAT rate of 17.5 per cent. on tourist services, including tourist accommodation. Consequently, the performance of the United Kingdom tourism industry over the past 15 years has been marked by a declining market share and a progressive deterioration in the balance of payments on tourism services. There is compelling evidence that there is a causal relationship between the two.
  Only Denmark, charging 25 per cent., has a higher rate of VAT on tourism than the United Kingdom. The negative effects on the Danish economy and tourist industry are undeniable. International tourist receipts in Denmark declined during the 1990s, leading to a fall in Denmark's share of the European tourist market, from 2.4 per cent. in 1991 to 1.83 per cent. by 1994. The Danish tourist industry is currently lobbying the Government to reduce the rate of VAT to a level more in line with those of its European partners.
  The Republic of Ireland provides an excellent example of the way in which extensive economic and employment benefits can be gained from the introduction of lower VAT, particularly on tourist accommodation. Following the Irish Government's decision to halve the rate of VAT applicable to visitor accommodation and restaurant meals in the mid 1980s, the number of overseas visitors to the south of Ireland increased from 1.9 million in 1986 to 3.1 million in 1990. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land border with another European Union state, and is clearly weakened by variable levels
  258
  within the EU of VAT on tourism. As it is isolated and more expensive to reach from Great Britain, it struggles to attract large numbers of UK residents. Moreover, Northern Ireland shares a land border with an EU state operating a reduced VAT of 13.5 per cent. The 4 per cent. difference has major cost implications for overseas tourists. In such circumstances, it is difficult to know how long the industry can be expected to remain attractive to visitors.
  The majority of the tourism industry in Northern Ireland is in small and medium-sized enterprises, which are committed to remain there to develop the economy and increase employment. The tourism industry demands fair treatment on a level playing field so that those expectations can be met. In 2002, 1.7 million people visited Northern Ireland and contributed £274 million to our economy. Domestic tourists spent £121 million on top of that figure. The tax contribution to Her Majesty's Treasury, according to the Northern Ireland Tourist Industry Confederation, is more than £207 million in VAT and national insurance contributions. Tourism employs 49,000 full and part-time workers, with hotels and restaurants alone employing more than 38,000 full and part-time staff.
  Tourism is estimated to contribute nearly 2 per cent. of Northern Ireland's gross domestic product, compared with 5.4 per cent. in the Republic of Ireland, 5 per cent. in Scotland and 7 per cent. in Wales. If Northern Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the UK are to improve their attractiveness to visitors and fully develop an internationally recognised and globally competitive tourism industry, the lowering of VAT on tourist accommodation is a vital first step. Reducing VAT on tourism, particularly on tourist accommodation such as hotels, farmhouse bed and breakfasts, guest houses and similar establishments would undoubtedly do wonders for the economy of the UK as a whole.
  Price is a crucial factor for most tourists when choosing a holiday destination. By attracting more visitors with cheaper accommodation, tourists would be encouraged to spend more money in our restaurants, shops and visitor au' actions and make use of our public transport and car hire facilities. As more business is generated, more jobs will be created. According to Deloitte and Touche's 1998 study of the effects of changing VAT rates on tourist services, a reduction of VAT on accommodation would create more than 50,000 new jobs. The UK's receipts from international tourism would increase by £2 billion in the first year following a reduction, rising to £3 billion in the third year. The direct loss of VAT receipts is more than made up for by gains in Income and corporation tax and reductions in social security payments. According to Deloitte and Touche' simulation, the potential indirect gains to the Treasury from those sources rises from £426 million in the first year following a VAT cut to £753 million by year 10.
  The potential for increased Treasury revenue and employment is further supported by more recent VAT calculations on UK in bound tourism from VisitBritain. The international passenger survey notes that UK inbound tourism receipts for 1992–93 totalled £11.7 billion. Expenditure on accommodation was only £3.94 billion, or 33.7 per cent. of total UK in-bound tourism receipts. The increase in in-bound tourism receipts as a result of reducing VAT on accommodation from 17.5

  259
  per cent. to 8 per cent. would produce £562 million per annum and result in a very significal it increase in full-time and part-time jobs.
  In the light of such significant economic and employment benefits, I ask the Minister to undertake pilot research into the real economic effects that changing VAT rates would have on the British tourism and leisure industry. The Treasury should consider reducing the rate of VAT on tourist accommodation to 8 per cent. to test whether the benefits of such a reduction in VAT could be applied with economic success across the whole of the all Northern Ireland's bed and breakfasts, guest houses and hotels are already certified and registered through the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, the region s clearly the most cost-effective part of the UK in which a pilot scheme could operate, because a reduced rate of VAT could be easily controlled and quickly administered. I urge the Minister seriously to consider the opportunity that is available in Northern Ireland and impress upon him the need urgently to address this source of competitive disadvantage with the rest of the European Union.
  I want briefly to outline the legislative basis for a change in the UK VAT rate. Alongside the standard rate of VAT at 17.5 per cent., the UK operates two reduced rates: one at 5 per cent., which is applied to domestic fuel, for example; and the other zero rated for goods such as children's clothes, foodstuffs and books. At first glance, that would appear to rule out the possibility of applying a further reduced rate for tourism accommodation, because under the EC sixth directive member states are entitled to apply for up to two reduced rates of VAT. However, the zero rating is not recognised by the EC directive as a reduced rate, which leaves the way open for a potential third option brought about by a change to domestic VAT legislation to include a reduced rate for tourist accommodation.
  It therefore seems possible to revise the domestic VAT legislation to include the provision of hotel and similar accommodation in the United Kingdom in a lower reduced rate, effectively reducing the VAT charge due on those services to no more than 8 per cent., thereby creating a level playing field with the rest of Europe. That would in turn allow the UK broadly to follow the VAT liability that is applied to the provision of hotel and similar accommodation throughout Europe. For example, France operates a discounted VAT rate of 5.5 per cent. on accommodation, with a standard rate of 19.6 per cent.; Portugal has a discounted rate of 5 per cent. and a standard rate of 19 INT cent.; Spain has a discounted rate of 7 per cent. and t standard rate of 16 per cent.; and Luxembourg has a discounted rate of 3 per cent. and a standard rate of 15 per cent.
  The Minister should know that I am certainly not alone in calling for a reduced rate of VAT on tourism. He will be aware of the early-day motion that I recently tabled on the issue. In calling on the Chancellor to reduce the rate of VAT on tourist accommodation, I attracted a significant level of support from Members of Parliament across all parties. I ant encouraged to note that Welsh Members of Parliament have taken steps to meet representatives of the Wales Tourism Alliance to discuss the best way in which they can take the matter forward locally. The issue cleary extends beyond the walls of Westminster.
  260
  Before the Economic Secretary replies, he should know that several tourist organisations are backing and, in most cases, actively campaigning for the proposal. As well as the Wales Tourism Alliance, the England Tourism Alliance, the Scottish Tourism Forum, VisitBritain, the Northern Ireland Tourist Industry Confederation, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, the Northern Ireland Hotel Federation, the Country Land and Business Association and the British Hospitality Association have extended their full support to my call for a reduction in VAT in the sector.
  Since the Chancellor will no doubt be concentrating heavily on his next Budget in the coming weeks, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss and debate the issue. The tourism industry throughout the United Kingdom clearly believes that the whole country will benefit from a reduction in VAT on tourist accommodation. Such a reduction will be especially helpful to the tens of thousands of bed-and-breakfast owners and small hoteliers in rural areas, and will encourage more people to holiday in our beautiful country. I hope that the Treasury will consider the proposal carefully.
  7.46 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on securing not only the debate but the support of 67 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion that he tabled on a reduced rate for tourism. As he said, he has significant support inside and outside the House for some his arguments.
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss tourism and the Government's approach to promoting and supporting the tourism industry in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom more generally.
  The Government recognise the vital importance of the tourism industry to the UK and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the great attraction of all parts of the UK to tourists from other countries. Last year, tourism spending in the UK was £76 billion. The wider industry employs approximately one in 13 of our work force, in the UK generally and in Northern Ireland.
  In recent years, there has been new investment, new services and new confidence in tourism. Last year's figures for holiday visitors in Northern Ireland show an expected increase of 15 per cent. on 2002. The Northern Ireland tourism industry earned £395 million in 2002—more than 12 per cent. up on the previous year. Of that total, £274 million came from staying visitors and £121 million from domestic holidaymakers.
  The Government therefore recognise the significance of tourism in Northern Ireland and strongly support its development. The hon. Gentleman may know that Invest Northern Ireland provides support with the operating, managing and development of tourism businesses, including grants for upgrading or developing guest houses and other holiday accommodation. A new development fund has been established to promote selected new air routes, especially to and from continental Europe, through investment support for local airports in the Province to reduce landing charges for carriers.
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has developed a "Strategic Framework for Action", which provides guidance on the development of the tourist industry in

  261
  the next three years. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland, in partnership with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, and alongside public and private sector agencies, will oversee the framework's implementation.
  Tourism is generally benefiting from the macroeconomic reforms that we introduced since coming to office in 1997. They have helped to create a stable and steadily growing economy. Some 1.7 million new jobs have been created since the Labour Government came to power.
  We have the lowest unemployment since the 1970s, and for the first time in 50 years, unemployment in Britain is lower than in the euro area, Japan and America together. This is the general picture across the UK, but it is particularly apparent in Northern Ireland, where unemployment has fallen by 27.5 per cent. since 1997, underlining the success of the Northern Ireland economy in recent years. Indeed, I heard the hon. Member for East Antrim himself say to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the House last month:
  "We in Northern Ireland are enjoying the lowest levels of unemployment and the highest levels of employment in my lifetime". —[Official Report, 29 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 381.]
  So we are having this debate against the background of a strong tourism sector in a strong economy.
  Lady Hermon: Does the Minister agree that one of the main contributory factors to the increase in employment and stability in Northern Ireland is the Belfast agreement, which he has not mentioned? Since Northern Ireland is now a much more attractive destination because we have peace—by comparative standards—does he recognise that to make it even more attractive for tourists, the serious issue of VAT must be addressed?
  John Healey: Northern Ireland is certainly a more attractive and secure destination for tourists than it was a few years ago, and I welcome that. I am about to come to the question of VAT that the hon. Lady urges me to address. I know that she and the hon. Member for East Antrim will wish me to treat his contribution to today's debate as a Budget representation, and I shall certainly do so. I shall also ensure that we look at the Deloitte and Touche modelling that he mentioned in his speech. He will know, however, that this is a relatively longstanding issue to which the Government have given careful consideration in the past.
  The hon. Gentleman will also know that the scope of VAT reliefs—including reduced rates—is governed by long-standing agreements with our European member state partners. Those agreements would not allow the application of a blanket reduced rate to all tourism-related activities, but they do allow member states, if they choose, to apply a reduced rate of VAT for certain goods and services that tourists might use, such as hotel accommodation, food, public transport and cultural activities. In the UK, our VAT zero rates are among the most generous and wide-ranging anywhere in Europe, including on items that tourists will benefit from, such as food and public transport. After 1997, we set up a special VAT refund scheme to support free admission to
  262
  national museums, including the Armagh county museum and the Ulster museum in Northern Ireland. We also exempt from VAT the admission fees to many cultural attractions such as certain zoos, museums, theatres.
  The specific case for a reduced rate for hotel accommodation was considered carefully in 1998, and we decided then that a persuasive economic case did not exist for such a move. We gave the matter further careful consideration during the foot and mouth outbreak, when the tourism industry faced severe difficulties and there were many calls for such reduced rate support. However, we said then that we did not regard such a blanket measure as a well-targeted, cost-effective use of resources. Instead we put in place a package of measures specifically targeted at those businesses affected by the outbreak, including direct help from Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue to help those businesses to cope with their tax bills.
  It may be useful if I explain why the Government still believe that a general approach is poorly targeted and that the VAT system already provides better-focused benefits for a high proportion of small and medium-sized businesses within the tourist industries. Many smaller hotels, bed and breakfasts, farm houses and guest houses, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, already benefit from the fact that the UK has the highest VAT registration threshold anywhere in Europe. Businesses with an annual turnover of less than £56,000 do not therefore have to register for VAT and can remain outside the scope of the VAT system altogether. That means that around half of guest houses and small hotels in this country do not have to charge VAT to their customers.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the reduced rate in the Republic of Ireland is 13.5 per cent.—4 per cent. below our standard rate. The reduced rate that we apply in the UK is of course 5 per cent., and we estimate that a blanket reduced rate for all hotel accommodation would cost in the region of £650 million. Moreover, the most likely beneficiaries would be major hotel chains and luxury hotels. Some argue, as he argued, that on a pilot basis a reduced rate could be targeted to apply only in Northern Ireland. Some also argue that it could be targeted only on supplies, such as accommodation, that are made to tourists. Let me be clear, however: although it is possible to introduce a reduced rate of VAT for hotel and other accommodation, legally, such reliefs cannot be confined to particular geographical areas such as Northern Ireland. Neither can such reliefs be applied selectively according to the use of the hotel or the status of the customer.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to highlight his concerns about Northern Ireland and the competition created by the fact that it has a land border with another European member state—the only part of the United Kingdom, as he said, in which that circumstance exists—[Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for North E own (Lady Hermon), although I am keen to answer the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
  Lady Hermon: With the latitude of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), I want to make a quick intervention. The Minister has just referred to the fact that the difficulty is a legal one. Is the

  263
  legal basis for our not being able to have a variable rate of VAT in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the Untied Kingdom founded on European Community law or on British law?
  John Healey: That is a legal constraint that exists for the UK within the framework of European VAT law.
  The Irish Republic does indeed apply a reduced rate of VAT of 13.5 per cent. for hotel accommodation, as it is entitled to do under the long-standing agreements between all EU member states. It is equally important, however, to take into account other VAT factors that work to the advantage of the Northern Ireland and UK tourism industry. We have the highest VAT threshold in Europe at £56,000. By contrast, service sector businesses in Ireland need to register when their turnover reaches €25,500—around £17,000, which is less than a third of our registration threshold. Our standard VAT rate is 17.5 per cent. In Ireland, it is 21 per cent., so most other goods and services consumed by tourists will be subject to this higher rate.
  We have a number of special schemes in place to help small and newly registered businesses reduce their VAT compliance costs, improve their cash flow and manage their entry into the VAT system. that benefits sectors such as the tourism industry in which, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, there is a high proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises. Those schemes include the flat-rate scheme, the cast accounting scheme and the annual accounting scheme. We also have a
  264
  special scheme that UK tour operators can use, which is known as the tour operators margin scheme, which was designed mainly to simplify the VAT system for such businesses by relieving them of the burden of having to register for VAT in all the member states in which they provide a travel package.
  Overall, of course, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures show that the UK is a relatively lightly taxed economy. We have one of the lowest tax burdens in the European Union, far lower than the EU average. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that, when we take a broader view, we see that the United Kingdom is not disadvantaged in comparison with other EU states, as he argued on the particularly narrow issue of a reduced VAT rate.
  The hon. Gentleman presented his arguments well. However, while we greatly value the contribution of the tourism industry to our economy, we continue to believe that a reduced VAT rate for hotel accommodation would be poorly targeted as well as expensive. We continue to believe that a reduced rate simply for accommodation for tourists, or for Northern Ireland, would not be permitted by VAT law. And we continue to believe that such a measure would not be as effective as the range of provisions that already exist in the VAT system and the economy generally to support UK tourism.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. IRENE ADAMS in the Chair]

Pre-legislative Scrutiny
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Ian Lucas: Good morning, Mrs. Adams. It is a pleasure to be opening this half-term's proceedings on such a fine morning and to begin discussing the interesting topic of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a topic of great importance, but it perhaps labours under the least attractive nomenclature of any parliamentary procedure. As someone who labours under the burden of having been trained in the legal profession, I struggle to think of a more unattractive name for a legal process. After a few minutes' thought on the tube this morning, the best alternative that I could come up with was "reflective law making"—lawmaking that reflects opinions from various sources and which proceeds in a considered way.
David Taylor: That is even worse.
Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend helpfully suggests that my version is even worse, so perhaps I should stick with "pre-legislative scrutiny".
It is rare indeed to find anyone with a bad word to say about the process of scrutinising draft laws, which involves considering improvements, refining the details and reintroducing laws in settled form. The Hansard Society says that it
"fully supports the continued use and extension of pre-legislative scrutiny"
In an impressive Adjournment debate only last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) highlighted the benefits of online consultation on draft legislation, which were demonstrated in the draft Communications Bill.
I do not propose to discuss the benefits of draft legislation, which have been well rehearsed. All parties agree that draft legislation has been a successful innovation, but it is time for us to move beyond general expressions of support for extending draft legislative scrutiny and to embed such procedures in the culture of Westminster. The burden of doing so falls to the Government, and we now need them to give a statement of intent and to give further momentum to the welcome process that began shortly after 1997.
What unites supporters of pre-legislative scrutiny is the belief that increased scrutiny makes for better laws, and few people dissent from that view. However, it would be useful for us to be clear about the Government's view of what such scrutiny should entail. We all want the vessel of pre-legislative scrutiny to be given a fair wind, but we need to be clear about the purpose of such scrutiny and about the Government's aims.
2WH
The 2000 review of the scrutiny of draft legislation, which was sponsored by the Constitution Unit and the Hansard Society, noted that committees that considered draft legislation
"were not clear whether they should challenge the underlying policy or concentrate on the technical detail."
To take just one example, if a Government proposed to ban hunting with hounds, would a Committee that was appointed to consider the draft legislation be entitled to conclude that a ban was not justified, or would its role be to work out how to implement the ban? If we are to have pre-legislative scrutiny, we must resolve such issues and be clear about the Government's answer to such questions. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views.
I believe that the Government should retain control of the legislative programme. They are the elected Government. As the Modernisation Committee pointed out back in July 1997:
"The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in reasonable time (provided that it obtains the approval of the House)."
Does the Minister agree that the primary purpose of the scrutiny of draft legislation is not to challenge the purpose of the legislation but to ensure that that purpose is achieved fairly, efficiently and clearly?
If the purpose is established, it may help to introduce clarity to the process of choosing what legislation should be considered in draft. Pre-legislative scrutiny has been welcomed almost without exception. My view is that it is one of the most successful innovations since the Government came to power in 1997.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Hansard Society commission headed by Lord Rippon thought of that in 1993, and that it was John Major who introduced it?
Ian Lucas: I am happy to concede that the Rippon commission reported on the matter in 1993 and that the matter was taken forward and introduced by John Major's Government. However, the hon. Gentleman has to concede that the real momentum behind the policy came about after 1997. I mean no disrespect to those who worked on it at an earlier stage. In fact, one can go back further to find examples of pre-legislative scrutiny in the 1970s. I believe that the devolution proposals introduced in the mid-1970s were originally to have been introduced in draft. However, for present purposes, and bearing in mind that other Members will have things to say, I have taken the 1997 general election as my starting point.
So why should not all legislation be considered in draft form? Clearly, there are circumstances in which emergency legislation is required and it is imperative that the Government act quickly. An obvious example was in the environment that followed the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in 2001; it was clearly necessary for the Government to act quickly in response to a dramatically changed situation. That was a valid exception to the general rule that pre-legislative scrutiny should take place.
It would be welcome if the Government made a presumption that legislation should be considered in draft as a matter of course. If draft legislation is a good

3WH
thing, it should be the rule, not the exception. If the Government believe that pre-legislative scrutiny should not take place, they should give their reasons, and those reasons should withstand scrutiny by Parliament.
Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that decision should be in the hands of the legislature rather than the Executive? Parliament should decide which Bills would benefit from earlier scrutiny, not the Government who are asking Parliament for its assent.
Ian Lucas: I am not sure that I agree. As I said earlier, I have thought about the matter at some length and I believe that the Government need to retain control of the legislative programme. They have the democratic mandate. If they suggest that a particular piece of legislation should not undergo pre-legislative scrutiny, their reasons should themselves be subject to scrutiny. Parliament should have the opportunity to address those matters and to discuss them.
David Taylor: I support almost everything that my hon. Friend has said so far. However, does he accept that, when broadening consultation to the general public—perhaps using the internet—there is a difficult balance to be struck between the Government getting their own way and their accepting refinements and consulting on the detail of legislation? Could not a well-organised, well-resourced minority hijack the process and table wrecking amendments that would head off a policy for which the Government had a mandate? Did we not see that with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and his attempt at wider democracy?
Ian Lucas: There may be difficulties with well-organised minorities trying to exert pressure on particular pieces of legislation, but the online consultation for the draft Communications Bill, for which the Hansard Society monitored the presentation of information to the Committee, worked very well. All my research to date indicates that that innovation was welcome. I am sure that there will be problems—my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) clearly had problems with his consultation—but if we work out how it can best be achieved, it is a useful and potentially helpful innovation.
Even in the short time that I have been in the House—since 2001—there have been legion examples of legislation that it would have assisted Parliament to publish in draft. One such example that comes to mind is the Licensing Act 2003. Letters on that subject swelled my postbag for months on end, but the complaints were generally a result of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and—to pick up on what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) just said—carefully constructed lobbying campaigns that were fuelled by the necessity of amending rigidly drafted legislation. People put forward numerous cases, such as church choirs singing for charity in chapel vestries, as matters that might be covered by the Act. I recall that the then Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the
4WH
Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), whose burden it was to deal with those particular difficulties, often loudly expressed his frustration. If there had been a consultation on a draft licensing Bill, similar to that for the draft Communications Bill, many of those difficulties would have been ironed out. That would have benefited not only the legislation but the Government and the poor Minister who had to deal with those problems —which he did competently, in his own way.
The proposed changes to the office of Lord Chancellor and the proposed creation of a supreme court should certainly be considered in draft. If one has confidence in one's argument, as I believe that the Lord Chancellor has, there should be no fear of scrutiny. We need to expose at an early stage, as often and as ruthlessly as possible, arguments such as the assertion that the supreme court cannot be introduced until it has its own building. That would be a helpful way of proceeding.
I accept that legislation will take longer to introduce if consideration of draft legislation becomes the norm, but if it is better, it will be worth waiting for. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was generally very positive, introduced antisocial behaviour orders, but difficulties in their implementation meant that it had to be followed by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. If the 1998 legislation had been considered in draft, some of the difficulties with practical implementation would have been resolved during that process. Such problems have not only occurred under Labour Governments. When I was a practising solicitor, the Conservative Government introduced the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which had to be replaced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 because it meant that the courts could not send young offenders into custody. Bad legislation requires replacement and uses valuable parliamentary time.
The Government need to define the role of pre-legislative scrutiny and drive it forward by creating a presumption that it should be used. However, Parliament is best suited to choosing which type of Committee should be used to scrutinise the legislation. I hold no hard and fast views on the matter. Indeed, I believe that there is much to be said for allowing flexibility. For example, when departmental expertise is especially important—perhaps with a piece of social security legislation—a Select Committee may be the most appropriate model. However, with a more broad-based piece of legislation, such as the Communications Bill, an ad hoc Committee could be appointed.
Speaking as an MP from Wales, I favour the flexibility of enabling MPs from Wales to sit with Members of the National Assembly for Wales to scrutinise draft legislation specific to Wales. I know that this approach secured some support from the Welsh Affairs Committee. Given that we sit on Joint Committees with unelected members of the other place, I see no reason why we should baulk at sitting with elected Members of the National Assembly for Wales. I was interested to read that members of the Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill said in 1999:
"we have all enjoyed the experience of working closely with members of 'the other place"'.
I, too, would welcome the chance to work with Members of another place, whether it be the Assembly or the House of Lords. It seems to me that in the context

5WH
of possible changes to the second Chamber at Westminster and of the development of assemblies in the English regions, the prospect of working with a different type of representative should be left open. It is a way of widening further the pool of good ideas from which solutions can be sought. I favour leaving the decision on which type of body is most appropriate to scrutinise a piece of draft legislation to the scrutineer, namely, Parliament.
When I was preparing for this debate, I was struck by the impressive first report of the Modernisation Committee. It was produced in July 1997, which was fast work, given that the election was only at the beginning of May of that year. I was most struck by the following paragraph:
"The Committee stage of a bill, which is meant to be the occasion when the details of the legislation are scrutinised, has often tended to be devoted to political partisan debate rather than constructive and systematic scrutiny. On Bills where policy differences are great, the role of Government backbenchers on a Standing Committee has been primarily to remain silent and vote as directed. By contrast the Opposition has often set out to devise methods designed simply to extend debate. The Government has then been forced to bring in a guillotine which has often been draconian, as a result of which large sections of the Bill have not been considered."
That was written just two months after 18 years of Conservative government. However, as a veteran of the Standing Committees that considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill and one Finance Bill, I can confirm that it still accurately represents Standing Committee life in 2004.
Scrutiny is limited, especially for Government Back Benchers, by its format on Second Reading and beyond. That is a political fact and it will be ever thus. I was made keenly aware of that by my experience of the Higher Education Bill, when political imperatives collided with proper consideration of the Government's proposals on Second Reading. Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Higher Education Bill would have helped the Government. In his Adjournment debate at the beginning of January, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North presented a compelling vision of how reflective law making, or pre-legislative scrutiny, could avoid many difficulties, such as those in which the Government found themselves on Second Reading. Pre-legislative scrutiny certainly would have denied critics the opportunity of saying that the policy had been sprung on them.
It is often said that Parliament is at its best when it is at its least partisan and when measured, studied debate takes place, as it did on stem cell research and same-sex adoption. That is certainly so in respect of the lawmaking process. The reality of the present Committee stages is that they are, at bottom, partisan and exist to carry forward the Government's legislative programme. This valid aim needs to be complemented by further development of pre-legislative scrutiny.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should be patient and courteous to Select Committees in the process? I know that he is a member of the Transport Committee. The Government forced that Committee to rush out its report on the Traffic Management Bill because they said that it was vital to have the Second Reading before Christmas, yet the
6WH
Committee that was to consider the Bill was not selected for several weeks because that suited the Government. Does he agree that that sort of thing has to be avoided?
Ian Lucas: That was unfortunate. The Transport Committee had to produce a report within, I believe, a week. The staff of the Committee did an excellent job and provided a very useful report before the Bill was introduced. Our difficulty is that the process of scrutinising legislation before it is introduced is not embedded in the culture of Westminster. The rules of its application are therefore not settled, which often leads to unfair and inappropriate ways of proceeding. What happened with the Traffic Management Bill was unfortunate. The Select Committee produced a detailed report on many issues that related to that Bill in the six months before its introduction. It would have been helpful if the Government had had more discussions with the Select Committee about the Bill.
There does need to be more consultation. I believe that the House broadly agrees on the success of pre-legislative scrutiny, which always depends on courtesy and on the Opposition not scoring party political points. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. Politicians on both sides of the House must be mature about these things. There are times when I, too, am tempted to try to score points. We all do that from time to time, but we need to be more grown up if we are to take a measured approach to law making—a key role for any MP.
I believe that Committees in their current form are partisan bodies, although they scrutinise legislation well. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I were members of the Committee that considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill. We were fortunate in that there was much mature and considered reflection in that Committee, and in the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill. However, the format of Standing Committees makes it difficult for Committees to scrutinise legislation in the right way. I am therefore strongly in favour of considering all legislation in draft form.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) deserves great credit for driving forward the process of scrutinising draft legislation after the 1997 election. The fact that the Select Committee on Modernisation produced a report so quickly in July 1997—a report that still reads so well—is testament to the momentum that existed on this issue. Pre-legislative scrutiny commands respect across the House, as I hope this debate will show. I know that the current Leader of the House is a reformer at heart. It falls to him to promote the cause, because it is for the Government to assert the value of pre-legislative scrutiny and to provide the momentum necessary to embed pre-legislative scrutiny into the culture of Westminster. If he does that, it will mark him out as someone who contributed hugely to the development and improvement of Parliament, and this place will once again be a model for others abroad to follow rather than a place that is treated with disdain by those whom we represent.
David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has made a compelling case for greater pre-legislative scrutiny by parliamentary Committees. Does he have any thoughts on how and when wider

7WH
public involvement via the internet and in other ways can be introduced into this process? Should it parallel the process that he is describing or should it follow the establishment of pre-legislative scrutiny as an effective tool within this place?
Ian Lucas: Parliament is still working out the different ways of making pre-legislative scrutiny operate most effectively. We should continue with it, but we need strong signals from the Government that they are committed to introducing it as a matter of course in the legislative process. We need to have a strong and clear presumption that pre-legislative scrutiny will take place. We need to have wide consultation on how interest groups and individuals with particular expertise can contribute.
My hon. Friend Member for Nottingham, North indicated that pre-legislative scrutiny was a very exciting opportunity to engage with the general public about laws, what can be done to improve them and their potential down side. This is something that can reconnect Parliament with the people whom we represent. It is a huge issue; a very important issue. It falls on the Government to make it clear that they are committed to the concept, that they want to draw the public into it and that they are committed to developing the good work that has been carried out.
9.58 am
Tony Baldry: The proof of pre-legislative scrutiny is what the Government do with it. One of the best examples recently of such scrutiny was the report on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill by the Home Affairs Committee. The Committee was chaired by a former Home Office Minister, and the report was unanimous. Let us look at the Second Reading debate, however. Did the Home Secretary take any notice whatever of any of the recommendations resulting from the pre-legislative scrutiny? Not a jot. There was not a single concession, nor a single example of the Government leaning towards the points made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and his colleagues.
I suspect that I am about to make a very liverish, self-indulgent and bad-tempered speech, but I want it on the record, before everyone forgets what life used to be like here. I acknowledge right away that I am one of those who do not see anything good having come out of the Modernisation Committee.
My concern about pre-legislative scrutiny is that, like so many things now in this place, it gives the impression that something is happening, when in fact it is not, and that Back Benchers have greater opportunity to scrutinise, when in fact they do not. When I was first elected to the House, Standing Committees were genuinely important, and they put Ministers under considerable scrutiny. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is absolutely right to say that Government supporters on a Standing Committee were exhorted to remain quiet, but it was a foolish Minister who did not
8WH
meet daily with all his Back-Bench colleagues on that Committee and go through any individual concern that they might have.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tony Baldry: I shall finish my point, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a self-admitted mushy pea member of the Labour party.
Ministers would carefully go through everything with Government Members, and that meant that when a Minister went to Committee, he or she was effectively standing pretty much alone at the wicket being lobbed balls by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and Opposition Back Benchers. They had an interest in thinking up probing amendments, amendments on policy or detail and other amendments that outside interest groups had suggested. That is a perfectly legitimate occupation for an outside group, whether it be the Law Society, licensed victuallers or others concerned about licensing legislation.
That process put Ministers on their mettle. They were obliged to consider legislation in detail and to explain in detail why the Opposition spokesman had got it wrong, forcing him to withdraw the amendment. Opposition Members knew that, within reason, they had limited time and that if they abused it, consideration of the Bill would be guillotined. Equally, Ministers had an interest in coaxing the Opposition into co-operating and getting the Bill through the House in reasonable time. The system worked, and one felt by and large that Bills had been scrutinised by the time they went to the House of Lords.
Now everything is timetabled. How has that changed things? By definition the more time that Ministers and Government Members take up on a Committee, the less time Opposition Members have to scrutinise the Government. If Ministers make long speeches, they wallpaper time that would otherwise be available for Opposition Members to submit amendments and probe Ministers. Increasingly, the House of Lords is dealing with Bills of which large chunks have never been scrutinised or even seen the light of day in Standing Committee. We do not yet know what will happen with House of Lords reform, so perhaps even the scrutiny that their lordships do effectively will be undermined.
We even see the problem increasingly on the Floor of the House—again, I shall make a bad-tempered comment, although I am probably in order. The other day we had a debate on the council tax which was unique, because it went from the opening speeches to the wind-up without ever touching the Back Benches: no Opposition Back Bencher had the opportunity to contribute. This year, my local authority and many others face being capped, so it would have been nice to put on the record the fact that I was present at that debate. If Ministers are allowed to wallpaper time and reduce the opportunity for scrutiny, such practices will become pervasive in the culture of this place.
Pre-legislative scrutiny is of course important: how could one object to giving colleagues the opportunity to examine Bills, particularly technical ones, in draft? However, let us not start singing the Hallelujah chorus until Ministers start taking notice of pre-legislative scrutiny. When Select Committees submit their pre-

9WH
legislative scrutiny reports to the House at the end of the year, it will be interesting to see how many, if any, recommendations on their specialist areas the Government have incorporated in legislation. I now give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor).
David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to council tax. When he examines the halcyon days of his jeunesse dorée in this place with his rose-tinted telescope, does he recall the role that the Standing Committees played in the development of the predecessor to the council tax, the poll tax? One presumes that the flaws of that tax were apparent to many Government Back Benchers then, yet it was passed into law with those flaws, which ultimately resulted in the downfall of the right hon. Lady to whom I believe the hon. Gentleman was Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Tony Baldry: Aeons ago I did a stint as PPS to the then Leader of the House. I have no quarrel with the general principle that the Government of the day have the right to get their legislation through the House. My concern is that the amount of scrutiny available to Members of Parliament now is considerably less than it was 10 or 20 years ago, because of the way in which Standing Committees have been undermined as a consequence of timetabling every Bill. That gives an incentive to Ministers and Government Back Benchers to wallpaper time, reducing the time available to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to put Ministers under test. Being in a Standing Committee as a junior Minister, or any kind of Minister, and having balls lobbed at one from all directions is fairly challenging, but if one simply gets soft, under-arm passes and dolly balls from one's own Back Benchers all the time, with amendments being tabled to and fro, that is not scrutiny.
Let us have pre-legislative scrutiny, but let us check at the end of the year how much notice the Government have taken of it. Let us also acknowledge that the way in which Bills are timetabled substantially reduces rather than enhances the opportunities for genuine probing scrutiny.
10.5 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this debate. It is a subject that we have considered with care over the past few years, but we still await a positive resolution of the question of the structure that we seek. The hon. Gentleman's comments were cogently framed and contained much that I could agree with.
I also agreed with some of the mini-rant from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). He said before he came into the Chamber this morning that he wanted to let off steam and he has done so. He was right to do so, because there are many frustrations in the present system. Although I do not agree with everything that he said, the conduct of Standing Committees still leaves a lot to be desired.
An unfortunate coincidence occurs when a Standing Committee is timetabled but there is unreconstructed behaviour on the part of its members, who still believe that their prime function is to extend debate pointlessly.
10WH
When there is a timetable, that practice is entirely pointless, and we end up with a lack of scrutiny. We must all learn new ways of behaving to maximise the opportunity to put Ministers under pressure to justify the proposed legislation.
The hon. Member for Wrexham did not like the term "pre-legislative scrutiny" and tried "reflective law making", which did not meet with the approval of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). We do not want to reflect what is happening elsewhere; we want to refract the input that we receive and concentrate it into better legislation. The sole argument for pre-legislative scrutiny is that it allows a period of genuine consideration rather than confrontation, which should give both the House and the Government an opportunity to get things in better order. That is where I share some of the frustrations of the hon. Member for Banbury. There is scant evidence that pre-legislative scrutiny has to date been used in the most effective way to improve legislation and, importantly, to extend or reduce its scope by taking into account observations from outside this place.
The process has gone so far, but it must now move forward, taking a leap into the unknown. The Modernisation Committee produced an excellent report early on in the Government's life. To give the Government credit, they were prepared to run with those concepts and give them life. However, the Liaison Committee's important report "Shifting the Balance" has not yet been properly reflected in the structures of the House.
I believe that we all felt, as I think the hon. Member for Wrexham reflected, a sense of forward impetus when the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was Leader of the House. That is no reflection on the present Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), or indeed on the Deputy Leader, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who is with us today. The clear agenda for change that existed when the right hon. Member for Livingston was Leader is not entirely dissipated, but it is now less focused. That needs to be addressed.
At the moment, we have a mish-mash. Far too many Bills receive no pre-legislative scrutiny whatever. The two Departments with which I have regular dealings—the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs—are prime villains in this matter. They produce legislation like a sausage factory produces sausages. Every year we revisit the same subjects with new legislation, and often a Bill is introduced before the previous legislation has taken effect. That is a quintessentially valuable area for pre-legislative scrutiny because we are dealing with structures of the law and personal freedoms. Those matters are of such importance that they need the most careful scrutiny, but such Bills receive less scrutiny than others that are considered interesting to talk about, which are happily given to Select Committees for consideration and are improved as a result.
There are Bills that are clearly not of the same import with regard to people's livelihood and liberties, but are still important to their way of life. The hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned the Licensing Bill, and I agree with him about that. I was one of the people who caused problems about that Bill and for the then Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I believed

11WH
that, in drafting the Bill, insufficient care had been taken in considering the interests of live music. In the end, compromises were made in the House of Lords, and we ended up with a better Bill as a result. That process could have been avoided if there had been a sensible period of pre-legislative scrutiny.
We need a clear structure in which such matters can be arranged and determined in future. I take the view—I make no apologies for this—that that is the property of Parliament, not Government. It is not for Government to decide how we scrutinise legislation. It is for Parliament to decide that and it is for Government to propose legislation, which we shall consider. We need much more clarity in the process of scrutiny, and we need to decide what is the best way to achieve that. Are departmental Select Committees the right way to do it? Is it better to set up ad hoc Select Committees for the scrutiny of a draft Bill or is it better for cross-departmental committees to take on aspects of a Bill?
The Joint Committee on Human Rights does a superb job. When I am dealing with home affairs issues, I always welcome a report from that Committee because it raises points that I would not otherwise have considered. Often, those points are very valuable to our considerations. There are other cross-departmental committees, and perhaps we should have more. I used to be a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is not used nearly enough to advise on matters that have a scientific impact. The expertise that is contained in that Committee and available to it could be used to good effect.
We must consider how we decide what legislation goes through the process in the first place. Again, that is a matter for Parliament, with some exceptions in the case of emergency legislation, although the House does not have a good record on that, and rushed legislation is often bad legislation. It should be the presumption that matters are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Often, urgency is assumed but it is of the Government's creation, rather than a product of external events.
There is also the issue of how we widen consultation. The House does best when it listens to those outside with repositories of knowledge that we do not have. That does not mean that we substitute the knowledge of the technologist or the special interest group for our opinion as legislators. It means that we listen to the expertise that is available to us before coming to a view. That does not happen very often, and we should find effective mechanisms for accomplishing it, whether through Select Committees or by widening access via the internet, for example. We should not seek to establish some sort of Athenian democracy, because that is not our governmental structure, but we should seek to benefit from the advice of those who understand specific areas of legislation better than we can within the confines of the available expertise in the House.
There are implications for the process of government. The Leader and Deputy Leader of the House must consider the matter in depth. I am looking not for a three-tier process of consideration in the House, but for a first stage where ideas are brought in, considered and, if possible, incorporated—an important point made by the hon. Member for Banbury. We might then move in Committee to table amendments that deal with areas
12WH
that have not been considered or extend further the detailed consideration of legislation, to which we might then agree.
The process will inevitably be extended for the best of reasons. If it is to take place without the Government losing their legislative direction— and it is not our intention that they should, because they must retain the ability to direct their programme— they must extend their legislative horizon. Bills must not be introduced in an almighty rush in the Queen's Speech, tumbling out of the civil service before they are ready and while they are half thought-out and missing huge chunks, which are introduced in Committee or on Report, or, worse, never come to the House because they are introduced in another place. That cannot be the right way to present legislation. Departments must look a little further ahead; the planning process must be extended that bit more; and we must have more order to the legislative process. I accept that it is not easy, but the Government must consider it.
I will finish by mentioning two other areas that we must consider. We do not do a very good job of analysing legislation derived from elsewhere, in particular European legislation, which impacts more and more as years go by. If we are to do right by the citizens of this country, we must have much better, more focused and less peripheral consideration of European legislation.
David Taylor: I agree with that point. Does the hon. Gentleman have any suggestions about how scrutiny of European legislation, which from my observations is too often tokenistic, marginal and ill-informed, could be improved within the existing Committee structure?
Mr. Heath: I am not sure that I have a pat answer. I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: it is very difficult within the current structures to graft on a whole new raft of legislation. It is important that we attempt to do so, and we should make it more central to our considerations so that we have more time in the House to consider important issues arising from European legislation. It would provide an opportunity to send the views of the House, and thereby those of the country, to those creating that legislation.
Many other legislatures have much better and more refined pre-summit and pre-treaty scrutiny. We are bound by the royal prerogative in that area, although I think that the royal, prerogative has had its day. I see that the Deputy Leader of the House is grimacing. The making of treaties that bind the British people and the making of war and of peace on their behalf is a matter in which Parliament should be intimately involved. It is not good enough for Parliament to be bypassed on everything other than the effects on domestic legislation. Other countries' Parliaments do this much better. When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee we looked at their processes in some depth. Ministers from other countries who attend the negotiations in Europe have a much clearer idea of what their Parliament thinks about an issue than our Ministers could possibly have, because ours do not have the opportunity of discussing it, other than by making a brief statement in the House, and even that is of limited effect.
The last point that I want to make, and I hope that by doing so I am not straying too far from the subject of the debate, concerns post-legislative scrutiny. Looking at

13WH
the effect of legislation, and reflecting on whether it has done the job that it was purported to do by Ministers at the time, whether it has worked in practice, and whether further amendments are necessary, is another key area. I said earlier that, in home affairs, we now have the extraordinary situation whereby we often repeal legislation before it has even come into effect, simply because another wheeze has come from America or from the tabloids and has to be put into effect. That is a bad way for us to do business. A sensitive and sensible Parliament would wish not only to look in detail at legislation that it proposes to pass and see its potential consequences, but to reflect after the event, and audit its effect, learning from its mistakes and, hopefully, occasionally celebrating its success.
10.22 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: It has been an exciting debate so far, although my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is rather grumpy and out of sorts. However, I am sure we all found it reassuring that he was prepared to come here today and explain the problems that he experienced in the Committee considering Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill and in other Committees.
It is right that we should be considering the role of the Standing Committees, as well as examining pre-legislative scrutiny. There is no doubt that the effect of wider pre-legislative scrutiny is felt in the Standing Committees. We need to look at the interaction of those two elements in the coming period. Two to three draft Bills a year were published under the Conservative Government whereas about 12 will be published this year. I agree that the former Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), took the process some way forward, and he is to be congratulated on that. However, the Government must decide on the template for the future, and it may be that a certain amount of experience must be gained before it is possible to see a clear way forward.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this debate. He made a good point when he said that there was a question to be asked about whether pre-legislative scrutiny should concentrate on issues of policy, or be restricted to issues of detail. It is quite difficult to separate the two. To give an example, the Joint Committee on the Draft Civil Contingencies Bill looked in great detail at that Bill, which obviously affects human rights and involves the Government declaring a state of emergency, being able to damage one's property without compensation, and so on. That Committee reached the conclusion that the definition of an "emergency" in the draft Bill was far too wide, and would enable the Government to exercise those powers in too many circumstances. The Committee suggested changes, which have narrowed down that definition.
It also suggested that the lack of safeguards requiring the Government to show that such action was necessary and proportionate needed to be addressed. To give the Government their due, they were prepared to look at those issues and have improved the Bill on that basis. However, the question whether something is or is not a national emergency is a mixed issue—it is not just one of detail but one of principle.
Equally, deciding what is necessary and proportionate when human rights are under threat is a matter of principle. Of course, we do not think that the
14WH
Government have gone anywhere near far enough in the Civil Contingencies Bill. One of the problems is that the Minister for the Cabinet Office felt that, by allowing pre-legislative scrutiny, he had moved some way. When, in Committee, I asked him to move further, he said, "You have had the pre-legislative scrutiny. Enough's enough." That affects the role of the Standing Committee.
My view is that there should be a two-stage process. The pre-legislative scrutiny should tease out the key issues. Some of them are issues of policy, others issues of detail. Yes, the Government make concessions at that stage, but that should not be the end of the process. There is still room in Standing Committee for consideration to be a worthwhile process in which everyone knows the key issues and the debate is much better than the sort of wallpaper-style debates that have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and the hon. Member for Wrexham. It should be possible, with that more honed-in approach, to produce a better Bill.
At the moment, if some ground is given on pre-legislative scrutiny, there is a tendency for the Government to say, "We've done our bit." Members of Parliament have a special role in scrutinising a Bill that deals with fundamental human rights. It is not enough to say, "We've listened to Justice and Liberty and various other pressure groups." The fact is that each Member represents 65,000 to 75,000 individuals. We have to ensure that our constituents' human rights are considered and respected. It is against that background that the role of the Member of Parliament has to be protected and viewed as important.
There have been some notable successes for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we support the process. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was a member of the Joint Committee that considered that Bill. He certainly felt that a good deal of expertise from both Houses was brought together—people with a background in banking and financial services who understood the issues—and that it was possible to move the process forward and create a better Bill. The Government made some suitable concessions: as usual, not enough, but some progress was made.
An online forum was set up on the Communications Bill. It was generally considered to be a model of its type. The pity is that we have not had more such examples. The Hansard Society moderated the online forum. It distilled the information so that members of the Committee were able to see the sensible ideas that had come forward displayed properly. Everybody felt that people's views had been properly taken into account.
Even with online forums, there is a problem with what exactly one is asking for people's opinions on. Some parts of a Bill are essentially matters of detail; others are matters of policy about which there is a political argument. When the Modernisation Committee talked to individuals around the country on the "Connecting with Parliament" report, people said that the online form was far too complicated because all that they wanted to say was that they did not agree with clause 16. Others said that filling in a detailed form was what they wanted, as they were providing an expert view on large parts of the Bill. Both views are valid. It is worth the

15WH
Government's knowing that there is huge opposition to a clause; equally, it is worth having the benefit of the expertise of the profession or interest that is dealt with by the Bill. The question is how to arrive at a way of dealing with online forums that provides for both the cry of outrage about clause 16 and the detailed briefing.
It is a pity that there is not more scope for using online forums. Part of the trouble is that the infrastructure is not in place—a point that I have put to the Minister before. I believe that the Hansard Society is not geared up to manage online forums for every draft Bill; if it is, I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why it is not doing so. I suspect that to run such forums needs more investment and planning, but I would certainly welcome more of them.
We also need to consider whether the law-making process should be a little more accessible. Many members of the public find it difficult to understand legal language. I should have thought that pre-legislative scrutiny could allow for the main provisions of a Bill and the scope of the argument to be expressed in simpler language. Certainly, when it comes to Standing Committee, it should be possible to timetable debates on key issues that are the subject of substantial public debate so that those who wish to catch the debates online can do so. Equally, material should be available to explain the process.
Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman share my experience, which is that a huge number of constituents have no idea about the accessibility of parliamentary proceedings through the internet? For example, even those who have access to the internet are wholly unaware that transcripts of debates and Committee proceedings are available the following day. Does he agree that we have a huge job to do to inform our constituents of that?
Mr. Heald: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the website itself needs further consideration. Five years ago, our system was considered to be cutting edge. Everyone said that it was marvellous and very accessible—but that was judged by the standards of the time. Many of those who have given evidence to the Modernisation Committee say that the websites of some other Parliaments are more accessible than ours and that it is easier to get into a debate on a particular Bill. There is scope for some form of virtual tour of the House of Commons, with an explanation of what is done by each part.
Tony Baldry: Will they put the Whips Office on it?
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend speaks sotto voce about the Whips Office, but we may have to leave the Whips out. It is suggested in the Civil Contingencies Bill that Her Majesty's Lords Commissioners to the Treasury—the senior Whips—should be able to declare a state of emergency, close roads, damage properties without compensation and so on; it seems extraordinary, but it is true.
Yes, we could do a lot more to make this place more accessible, and some of it would be fairly simple. It seems extraordinary that a full list of draft Bills is not
16WH
produced at the beginning of each Session. This year, we had the farcical situation in which I had to ask the Leader of the House, "Are we going to have a draft Bill on X?" If I got the question right and mentioned a Bill that might be coming up, he would say, "Yes."
Tony Baldry: The Kelly approach.
Mr. Heald: Yes. This is now known as the Kelly approach. We played "Guess a Bill" for three weeks. It seems daft, because there was no reason why the Government could not produce a list of their draft Bills. I see the Minister looking a bit cagey. Perhaps he could have told us about most of them. There were seven that I had to guess, and I managed to guess about five before the Leader of the House finally buckled and put a list in the Library. We could do better on this, I am sure.
The Select Committees cannot do all the pre-legislative scrutiny. They play a vital role in scrutinising Departments, and I would not want to see them becoming so overburdened with pre-legislative scrutiny that they could not do so effectively. Joint Committees, which bring together the expertise of both Houses, seem to us to be a good way of easing the burden on the Select Committees and ensuring that the necessary expertise is available.
We are also anxious to see more ad hoc House of Commons Committees used. They have not been used very much, but the Modernisation Committee identified them as a way forward. We see Joint Committees, more ad hoc Committees and Select Committees as the way forward for pre-legislative scrutiny, but we must also not lose the possibility of using Special Standing Committees. I called for one of these recently on the Human Tissues Bill, although in the event the Government were able to satisfy me that it was not appropriate. If a Bill is fairly short in compass but involves a significant ethical issue, or a particular amount of specialism, there is a case for having a Special Standing Committee rather than going through pre-legislative scrutiny, which can be quite a substantial process for a small measure. We would like to leave that option open.
So, without trespassing too much on the good will of the Chamber, may I say that we support pre-legislative scrutiny, but we are worried about the impact of it on the Standing Committees. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that some Standing Committees are not satisfactory. The timetabling is not working well, substantial numbers of clauses are not being properly considered, and the Government are not always showing the patience with the Select Committees that they should to ensure that pre-legislative scrutiny reports are available in time for debate. The House of Lords is having to pick up a lot of problems that we are creating in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has pointed out that the Government are taking liberties with the Standing Committee system by creating amendments that do not really scrutinise the Bill, and talking far more than is necessary in order to curtail the time available to the Opposition. All these tactics are obviously wrong and should not be used. Having said that, I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham for giving us the chance to say so.
10.39 am
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I thank hon. Members who have taken part in this interesting and important debate. Congratulations are due to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on obtaining it and I am grateful to you, Mrs. Adams, for allowing a fairly broad discussion on not just pre-legislative scrutiny, but the other side of the coin as well—the Standing Committees and their operations.
I shall try to answer as many questions as I can within the themes of my speech. I hope that what I say will move the position forward and provide signposts for hon. Members who asked about the Government's intentions on pre-legislative scrutiny. It is, I think, widely accepted that the Government are committed to it. We have shown that by our actions and have greatly increased the number of Bills that are published in draft form. Hon. Members may be interested in the figures: there were three draft Bills in 1997–98, followed by six in each of the following two years, two in the election year, six in 2001–02, nine in the last Session and, as has been said, possibly 12 in the current Session. We are committed to increasing the number of draft Bills. The phrase "the presumption of norm" was used and, with the few exceptions that I shall explain later, that is our goal.
Bills were occasionally published in draft before 1997. It is not wholly a new Labour idea, but the new Government took it forward most effectively. Bills were published in draft in the 1992–97 Parliament. Hon. Members might be interested to know that public consultations were held on clauses of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill in 1987 under the then Government. With the benefit of hindsight, it is interesting that the Child Support Bill of 1991 was subject to publication in draft form and to pre-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps that is not always the model we want to follow. I make no party political point because my party supported that Bill. All constituency MPs have regretted that day.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny because they believe that it enhances the quality of the laws that are passed. Pre-legislative scrutiny gives Parliament and stakeholders in the wider society an opportunity to influence the Bill's content when the Government's views have not been firmly set—the so-called set-in-stone stage. Examples given include the Civil Contingencies Bill, which is a good one, the Gambling Bill and the Communications Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that all were improved by the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. It has been alleged that the Government have taken no notice of other examples. Some may think that that is two steps forward and one step back, but it is progress none the less. I shall explain in detail how pre-legislative scrutiny gives opportunities to Parliament and stakeholders and why that is a good thing.
One purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny and draft publication is to connect better the process of law making with the public. It cannot be right that the intent of Parliament, which it is the purpose of law making to reflect, should more often be subject to interpretation by the courts rather than the clarity of the laws that are passed in this place. If we wish t o connect the public with
18WH
Parliament and encourage public consent for, and better understanding of, the laws that we pass, we must ensure that people have an opportunity to influence the law, either directly or through their various representatives in the form of pressure groups and interest groups, as well as their MP. We must ensure, first, that they believe that they can have an input and, secondly, that they better understand the law and its intent.
All MPs regularly experience in their constituency criticisms of the law, of what is believed to be the law and of what is believed to be the intent of Parliament. Unless the courts and the public have an opportunity clearly to understand that intent, the consent for Parliament will diminish and the political process will be damaged. Pre-legislative scrutiny is an opportunity to improve the law in its intent and clarity. That is the important point. We are striving to improve the process and to answer the important questions posed this morning about the criteria used to decide which Bills are published in draft and about the Committee's scope and remit, including whether a Select Committee, a Joint Committee or a special ad hoc Committee should consider the proposals.
The Government have taken note of the concern expressed by the Liaison Committee and others about the short notice of the publication of draft Bills. We appreciate that that can and has created difficulties for Committees in planning their programmes. We want to work with the Liaison Committee and the Select Committees to improve the process. Immediately after the Queen's Speech, in response to that concern, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House provided the Liaison Committee with a provisional list of draft Bills expected to be published this Session and a copy was placed in the Library.
It is not always possible in the sausage factory production of legislation to be precise. I am happy to place on the record that Departments rightly have to take advice from parliamentary counsel, whose function it is to probe and to seek clarification of intent. Sometimes there are unforeseen consequences in the preparation and sometimes it is not always possible to publish in draft form. That is a long-winded way of saying that it is not a perfect world.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to openness. In return, however, the House must understand that our legislative programme must have some flexibility and that the provisional list of draft Bills will be subject to change. The Government's proposals are subject to discussion in the usual channels in both Houses of Parliament—the Lords and the Commons—both of which we must take into account. For example, following such discussions it was agreed to introduce the civil partnerships Bill in this Session rather than as a draft Bill as the Government originally proposed. That was a good example of us responding to concerns.
Drafting resources may need to be diverted to other priorities and slippage may mean that there is insufficient time for publication in draft.
Mr. Heald: On the need to have a sensible list of possible draft Bills at the beginning of the Session, the Cabinet Office said that it would introduce a draft civil

19WH
service Bill this Session in response to the Public Administration Committee's report. Why is that not on the list of draft Bills for this Session?
Mr. Woolas: For the very good reason that in planning the legislative programme we have to plan our resources. in terms not only of parliamentary counsel but of Departments as well. The Select Committees have had concerns over their ability to plan and the Government have provided significant extra resources, which I will mention if I have time. We have also provided parliamentary counsel with extra resources in recent years to try to increase its capacity and therefore introduce greater flexibility. It is a statement of common sense that the preparation of Bills, whether they be draft Bills or full Bills, requires a great deal of resources. The implementation of drafting is not always predictable because of unforeseen complexities and difficulties.
Mr. Heald Mr. Heald rose—
Mr. Woolas: I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching to tease me even further.
Mr. Heald: If the Minister is saying that the Cabinet Office is going to produce a draft civil service Bill this Session, why is it not on the list of draft Bills for this Session?
Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake and eat it. He pushed us to introduce a civil service Bill. We responded to that concern and said that we would have one. That is evidence of openness, flexibility, transparency and democratic government.
Mr. Heald: Why is it not on the list?
Mr. Woolas: If the hon. Gentleman wants to move to a Stalinist five-year plan, the logical consequence of the discussions that he proposes would mean the abolition of annual Sessions, the increased carrying over of Bills and one Prorogation every five years. I am sure that his colleagues in the Opposition Whips Office would not support that aspect of modernisation.
To be fair, there are good reasons why flexibility and a rolling programme would be advantageous to the House.
Ian Lucas: Talking of Stalinism, may I return to the usual channels and the civil partnerships Bill? My hon. Friend said that, as a result of discussions among the usual channels, the Government have forgone a draft Bill in favour of the civil partnerships Bill. Does he think it right that an issue that will generate interest and discussion among my constituents is not presented in draft form simply because the usual channels believe that that is inappropriate?
Mr. Woolas: My view and, more importantly, the Government's view is that a Bill should be published in draft form unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Such reasons may be broader than my hon. Friend suggested. He talked about the need to respond to
20WH
emergencies and about the 11 September tragedy, but other forces majeures may require a legislative response from the Government. There may also be financial pressures, and the financial year is a key determinant in planning the legislative programme. I can also reveal that the business managers set about the timetable for the Higher Education Bill because of demands by the printers of university prospectuses. It was therefore a real-world timetable, which had little to do with the parliamentary timetable.
Some Bills are timetabled in response to decisions by our courts and the European courts. The timetable for the Gender Recognition Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday, was drafted in response to the need to protect the British taxpayer against liabilities as a result of the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. Those are examples of real-world pressures on timetables. Famous "events" can also change things. However, on the basis of a shared understanding of that framework, the Government's objective is to move towards the presumption of a draft Bill.
I understand why hon. Members have not gone into detail about the consequences of the greater use of draft Bills for other aspects of the parliamentary legislative process. The Government have given Select Committees greater resources, including staff resources. The new scrutiny unit is now fully functioning, and one of its primary functions is to assist with pre-legislative scrutiny. Following an independent review, the number of staff working directly for Select Committees will be increased over a three-year period. Hon. Members will also know that the payment of Select Committee Chairmen has been introduced. Those are some of the implications. Of course, Select Committees and the Liaison Committee have advised us formally and informally that the scrutiny of draft Bills has increased their work load extensively. That is why Joint Committees may be used increasingly and why we must be flexible in learning lessons at this stage. We should not tie our hands too tightly if we are to ensure that we can proceed.
The proposals also have implications for carry-over. If one is to have a successful programme for scrutinising draft Bills and for legislating subsequently, it is advantageous to have the facility to carry Bills over from a Session. Of course, the timetables and Standing Orders of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are not in sync.
We have touched on the important issue of programming in Standing Committees and on Report, and I am a big fan of programming, as are the Government in general. However, we recognise, as the Modernisation Committee did in its advice, that the current arrangements are not perfect. The hon. Member for Somerton and—
Mr. Heath:Frome.
Mr. Woolas:I apologise. My Lancastrian ignorance of the south-west is coming to the fore.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, programming, or timetabling as I prefer to call it, requires consent if it is to work. I readily admit that Front Benchers do not always co-operate, which is to be regretted. My main argument in favour of

21WH
programming, however, has nothing to do with how this place functions, but with the need for the public and stakeholders to know more about the process of legislation, as has been explained. I was a member of the Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill. We discussed key parts of that at 3 o'clock in the morning, which is ridiculous. A few of my constituents who use the internet late at night might have had access to those proceedings, but we could not tell them, as we could when the Local Government Bill was considered in the previous Session, that important aspects would be discussed in the morning and afternoon on Tuesdays and Thursdays at pre-designated times. Such information helps people to be involved in the legislative process, to follow it and to have an input. We need a commitment from Members on both sides of the House if we are to make progress and set signposts, and if programming is to work. I readily admit that that also applies to the Government and the usual channels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham argued for greater involvement in the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills that affect Wales—what we might call Wales-only Bills. The Government agree that it is desirable that Bills containing significant Wales-only clauses should be published in draft form whenever practical for scrutiny by Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. My hon. Friend is already working to achieve that. We have a good record on that. The National Health Service (Wales) Bill and the Public Audit (Wales) Bill were both published in draft form in the previous Session.
In the case of Bills that relate to both England and Wales, it is not usually practical to separate out the parts that relate to Wales for separate scrutiny or for earlier publication. We are, however, committed to publishing those Bills in draft form whenever we can, so long as that is consistent with the overall needs of the legislative
22WH
programme. Last November, following the publication of the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House met the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly. A working party has been established to see how we can make progress.
On the very important question of whether the Committee's remit is to consider the principle, the policy or the implementation of a Bill, a Committee of politicians will always want to consider the principle. It should be free to consider the coherence of draft legislation, to examine the policy and to disagree with it if it so chooses, but it should concentrate on the successful implementation of that policy by consulting stakeholders.
In anecdotal terms, the objective is to diminish the law of unintended consequences. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) pointed out many times in Committee that there are laws of unintended consequences, and that legislative scrutiny exists to tease them out. That can be done particularly well when considering draft Bills. We have drawn the remit wide, but encourage the emphasis to be placed on testing the successful implementation of policy and examining the unintended consequences.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was going to make a bad-tempered speech. It is always a good idea to tell people if one is going to make a bad-tempered speech because then no one thinks that it is. He made his point effectively without upsetting anyone. There was no golden age of scrutiny, as the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee pointed out. It is nice for him to look back through rose-tinted glasses, but the truth is that we scrutinise more clauses and more Bills, and have a more modern and effective process, as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny. I commend hon. Members on the points that they made.

Northern Uganda
11 am
Valerie Davey: I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the brutal conflict which, after 18 years, continues to traumatise the lives of more than 1 million men, women and, most significantly, children in northern Uganda. Sadly, the debate has become more relevant following the massacre by the Lord's Resistance Army of over 200 people in a refugee camp north of Lira at the weekend.
At first there was little media coverage, but Andrew Harding's report last night for BBC News, with the images of the charred bodies of people burned alive in their huts and the numb anguish on the faces of women who had lost as many as 12 members of their family, brought home the horror of what had happened. One casual remark from a parent at the scene was that he had lost two children. Even now, no one knows how many children were abducted in the raid. We all join Kofi Annan in condemning the massacre.
In these circumstances it is hard to know how to extend a hand of sympathy and support to those grieving, terrified families, yet that is what we all want to do. I trust that all of us, everyone who could and should have done more in the past 18 years to end the conflict, will be committed to taking urgent action now. This conflict—uniquely, to my knowledge—is targeted at children, 20,000 of whom have been abducted during the past five years. They have been abused and forced to be child soldiers or sex slaves. I ask that we use this debate to recognise the extent and nature of the tragedy, and to reflect on what can be done to bring it to an end.
Last November, after a visit to Uganda, a senior United Nations official, Jan Egeland, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, said:
"The conflict in Northern Uganda is the biggest forgotten, neglected humanitarian emergency in the world today."
He went on to say:
"We the United Nations have done too little. The donors have done too little. The Government of Uganda has done too little. We have all done too little."
The facts and figures that emerge underline that statement.
The Lord's Resistance Army, under the self-styled mystic Joseph Kony, while claiming to oppose the Ugandan Government or to protect the Acholi people, attacks the civilian population of northern Uganda. It is estimated that 85 per cent. of the LRA forces are 11 to 15 years old. These children are abducted during raids on schools and villages, and are often forced first to kill their own families and to mutilate or kill any children who resist.
Twenty thousand children have disappeared over the past five years, over half of them since June 2002–20,000. I repeat that figure, because I still find it virtually incomprehensible, but little has happened as a result. One child's torso was taken from the Thames. That sparked a criminal investigation across two continents. The trauma in northern Uganda is hard to comprehend. Violence and fear have led to the internal displacement of over 1 million people, with tens of thousands moving every night to find safety in the nearest town.
24WH
Wider knowledge of the situation emerged in England last year, thanks to the Break the Silence campaign run by the Churches, especially the Anglican Church in dioceses such as Bristol, which has close links with Uganda. Last summer the Bishop of Kitgum, the Right Reverend Ben Ojwang from northern Uganda, stayed with constituents of mine and spoke on Radio Bristol. Having spoken about the atrocities, he went on to ask the British Government to mediate, or, in his words, be a midwife to deliver peace after all the pain and anguish. The Government have a strong link with Uganda, as we all know, and they have expertise in conflict resolution, which may well be needed in this situation. Help in these tragic circumstances has been given, notably by donor countries, and also by UNICEF, Save the Children Fund and Christian Aid. The present appeal is poignantly headed: "Over a million Ugandans are scared of the dark". Indeed they are.
The need is to stop the killing, mutilation, rape and abduction. The nature of the situation bears some resemblance to the inexplicable nature of the war going on in the middle east and Iraq. We fail in our comprehension of how to combat an enemy that resorts to suicide bombing. In the case of Uganda, how do we react to an enemy that brainwashes terrified children and uses them to fight their own people? In that situation, when the Ugandan militia or the military attack the rebels, they are just as likely to be killing their own children. Remember that 85 per cent. of the LRA forces are 11 to 15–year-olds who have been abducted.
This is all horrific and difficult to understand, but we do need to understand it. We need to understand the reasons behind the conflict in northern Uganda. What led to this situation? I do not pretend to be an expert or to have the facts and figures, but I did come across a report published earlier this month by the refugee law project at the faculty of law at Makerere university. It is headed: "Behind the Violence: Causes, Consequences and the Search for Solutions to the War in Northern Uganda."
Even reading the press release that announced the report contributes to a better understanding of the tensions that arose after Obote's departure—the tension between northern Uganda and the new Ugandan Government—and of the earlier attempts at rebellion. Into that vacuum of tension and mistrust came the incredible figure of Joseph Kony, with all the evil that his self-styled rule as mystic and spiritual leader has brought about. I recommend the report to anyone who is at all interested in the tragedy and reconciliation in the area.
Let us consider the people who could and should have helped. There is the United Nations. In 2003, the United Nations passed resolution 1460 to provide a framework to protect children affected by armed conflict. It noted that the conscription of children under 15 into armed forces, or using them to participate actively in hostilities, is classified as a war crime by the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, which has recently been enforced. That resolution ended with a cryptic final decision that was very much in the style of a UN resolution. The final decision was
"to remain actively seized of the matter."

25WH
Kofi Annan was seized of the matter, and last November he produced a further report on children and armed conflict. Only last month, 38 members of the United Nations debated that report and what could be done to prevent violence against children, including sexual abuse, maiming, kidnapping and their use as child soldiers. At that meeting the UN special representative for children and armed conflict, Olara Otunnu, said:
"The struggle to ensure the protection, rights and well-being of children exposed to armed conflict has reached a watershed moment".
Those are fine words. There is indeed a new watershed in northern Uganda following the massacre of the past weekend. We need to take further action.
It is easy to look back and to criticise those involved—to criticise Museveni, the Ugandan Government and the donor countries for not doing more. The criticisms have been strong. President Museveni has criticised donor countries for not allowing more of the aid to be used for his army. Critics of the donors have been concerned that some of their money has not reached the humanitarian ends for which it was given, but is being used by Museveni for armed troops in the Congo.
We know that our Government have given considerable aid—£2.5 million for humanitarian purposes in the past year, and now a further £3 million. As I described, we have a good record in debt release and in the important quantity of aid provided to Uganda. However, we have to question whether we have taken enough care and whether, in our intense anticipation of success for Uganda, we have not turned a blind eye to the troubles of northern Uganda. Indeed, in a northern part of this country we have our own experience, which so many of us have wanted to ignore. That experience should well equip us to help Uganda.
We must put the key emphasis on humanitarian aid and on stopping the violence. When he answered questions on the issue in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) emphasised the need for dialogue, although he recognised the need for security. Such atrocity and warfare will not be overcome by further warfare.
Over the past week three headlines appeared in sequence, and they illustrate the trauma of what is happening. On 19 February the BBC's website headline read "Army 'hunts down' Ugandan rebels". It continued:
"More than 30 Lord's Resistance Army rebels have been killed in the north, say the Ugandan army."
There followed an almost provocative statement, as I realised when I read it. One of the Ugandan army officials said:
"We followed them. It was simply good battle planning and we first encircled the enemy and pinned them down and we destroyed them using ground forces and helicopters".
As I read that statement at the weekend in preparation for the debate, a chill went down my spine.
On Monday, headlines in The Guardian and The Independent reported that Ugandan rebels had left 192 dead in the village massacre. On the same day, the BBC website published the headline "Uganda vows to avenge massacre". It continued:
26WH
"The Ugandan defence minister says the rebels behind a massacre in the north will be repaid in the same way."
While that violence continues and is exacerbated, children are dying. Families were brutally killed in the massacre at the weekend and there seems to be no hope. The BBC reported a member of the camp who said, "I have no hope".
The International Criminal Court has now said that it will take action. Last December, President Museveni asked the Court to look at the actions of the LRA. Both Amnesty's response and that of Human Rights Watch was that we should investigate all sides in Uganda. There are reports of human rights abuses and the use by the Government army and the militia of youngsters under 15, who have been set up with arms in northern Uganda to try to deal with the LRA. The criminal court will take time and it will need to arrest Joseph Kony and his rebel leaders.
Is there hope? I still have hope because of the Ugandan people I have met, and because of the bishop from Kitgum and his visit to Bristol, the personal links that are being strengthened and the support that will be given. I have hope as a result of a recent delegation to this country led by the Right Reverend John Baptist Odama, the archbishop of Gulu archdiocese. He came with a delegation of six church and community leaders and human rights activists. I do not need to spend long on their report because I am sure that the Minister has a copy. They talked about the key human rights violations, the abductions and the displacements, the child night commuters, the attacks on humanitarian convoys and the human rights abuses carried out by the Ugandan Government.
The delegation went on to make five main recommendations: to end the conflict by prevailing on the warring parties; to place the situation of northern Uganda on the agenda of the UN Security Council; to ensure that the protection of children who have been abducted and forcibly recruited is addressed independently of any ongoing political process; to strengthen the international monitoring presence in the north and follow up human rights abuses; and to facilitate the support of the national and community process that will foster a sustainable peace.
I urge the Minister to ponder long and hard these incredibly dignified, patient people who come with a solution that does not involve further violence. I urge him to take action in the UN, with European Union members, and as a representative of a donor country. All of us have a part to play.
When I think of Uganda, I hear and see two things. I think not of the latest scenes of the massacre, but of an interview on the radio that first inspired me to take action. It was the emotion of the interviewer, and not the Ugandan teenager who had been rescued from the LRA, that was so poignant. He finally asked the boy, "How many have you killed?" The curt and quick reply came, "Forty-six". Finally, I see the face of Angelina Acheng Atyam, a member of the delegation, who is the chairperson of the Concerned Parents Association—a group of 5,000 parents working to secure the release of their sons and daughters. Angelina's daughter was abducted in 1996 and remains in captivity. I urge the Minister to do all he can, and look forward to his response. We need to bring an end to this children's war —this war on children.
11.18 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing this timely debate on northern Uganda. The Lord's Resistance Army has been waging a war against the Government and the people of Uganda for over 18 years. The conflict has caused untold suffering to the civilian population in northern Uganda.
We utterly deplore the brutal massacre of nearly 200 displaced persons in a camp north of Lira last weekend. United Nations agencies have now reached the area and are setting up medical and feeding centres. We have been in contact with the UN and are satisfied that they are doing all they can. Burns victims have been transported to Lira hospital, for the situation in the area remains very bad. Such an incident could be repeated any time. That is a chilling prospect. I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend to set out the action we are taking to promote a solution.
The actions of the rebel leader, Joseph Kony, and his LRA are deplorable. The Lord's Resistance rebellion emerged from the remnants of various anti-Museveni groups that existed among the Acholi people of northern Uganda during the late 1980s. The LRA does not have a coherent political programme in the usual sense. Its leader, Joseph Kony, claims a mystical or spiritual authority for his actions. The LRA is undoubtedly one of the most despicable groups in the world, because of the way in which it carries out its activities. Brutal punishments are used to maintain discipline among the LRA, and enforced participation in such acts is used as a means of binding Kony's adherents together.
The LRA's use of child soldiers is particularly deplorable, as my hon. Friend said. Recruitment is largely through abduction. The vast majority of LRA fighters are the innocent children of civilians, forced to fight against their will. It is estimated that some 20,000 children have been abducted for recruitment over the past 10 years. The degree of violence shown in the attack of 21 February and the practice of making children a main target of the war is so deeply repellent that it defies words.
Most recent reports from our high commission in Kampala indicate that there has been an increase in LRA child abductions in the past few weeks. We are aware of the impact that this is having on the local communities, which are in great fear, and the plight of the night commuters, the children living in rural areas who walk miles each night to sleep in churches or in town, on shop verandahs, in a desperate attempt to avoid abduction. The clear, depressing message is of a sharp deterioration in the security situation, with intensified attacks on soft civilian targets.
We remain extremely concerned about the impact of the conflict on the humanitarian situation in northern Uganda. Over the past two years the number of internally displaced persons has risen from 500,000 to 1.4 million. They are living in camps and enduring worsening conditions. Relief organisations are at full stretch and coping, but reaching populations in need of humanitarian aid in these large rural areas is dependent on the fragile security situation.
28WH
The UK's response to the crisis is focused on supporting humanitarian relief efforts and promoting closer co-ordination among the donor communities; encouraging the Ugandan Government to consider all options to resolve the conflict, not just the military response; strengthening civil society groups in the north, which have a vital role to play in the long-term resolution of the conflict; and building on opportunities created by the Sudanese peace accords.
We have significantly increased our humanitarian support in response to the crisis. We have spent £8.4 million in the past 12 months. Officials in Kampala from the British high commission and Department for International Development regularly visit the north to assess the situation and see what more we can do to assist. We are also working closely with the international community to improve donor co-ordination. We need to ensure that the aid gets through to those who need it most.
The UK was instrumental in the founding of the donor technical group on the north in Kampala and currently holds the position of deputy chair of the group. This is the most important co-ordinating forum for donor responses to the conflict. It has contributed to the development of programmes in support of conflict resolution. Access to camps in a number of areas is risky. The LRA has attacked humanitarian vehicles and convoys. We regularly urge the Government of Uganda to redouble their efforts to protect the civilian population in the north and to ensure the safe delivery of much needed humanitarian relief supplies.
The LRA is a difficult phenomenon to deal with and there is no quick fix, President Museveni's Government have adopted several different approaches in the past, but they have concentrated their efforts on the military approach, which has so far not succeeded. In March 2002, the Ugandan Government launched Operation Iron Fist, billed as a measure to put an end to the insurgency in the north. Capitalising on the new relationship with the Sudan, the Uganda People's Defence Force sent a force into southern Sudan where they claimed to have destroyed the LRA's rear camps. However, the operation resulted in resurgent LRA activity inside Uganda, which continues with varying intensity.
We understand the Ugandan Government's need to deliver a security response, but we believe that they must also explore complementary methods of bringing the conflict to an end. The United Kingdom Government discussed the north with the President of Uganda during his visit to London at the end of January. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister urged President Museveni to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict if possible, and we encouraged him to take steps to improve the prospects for dialogue.
Several possible measures could build confidence in the Ugandan Government's commitment to resolving the conflict: re-energising the presidential peace team, removing from the north those Government security personnel who violate human rights, and developing an open, credible and coherent media strategy on the insurgency to get messages across about how the Government hope to resolve the issue.
We are aware that some people are calling for international mediation, but we do not consider it to be a solution at present. Third-party mediation has been

29WH
tried before and it has failed. Any sustainable solution must involve civil society actors such as Acholi religious and traditional leaders. Those groups have been at the forefront of contact with the LRA and the search for a peaceful solution, and as such they are well placed to act as mediators of dialogue.
Valerie Davey: May I emphasise that it is those very community leaders who are in London asking for third-party help with their work?
Mr. O'Brien: I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have every hope that we will be able to talk to those community leaders, as well as to representatives of the Ugandan Government, to ensure that we can work with people who might be able to find a way forward in the appalling situation.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) met northern Uganda civil society groups on 2 February and encouraged them to continue their efforts. At a local level, we continue to support peace building initiatives and British officials based in Kampala are working with local groups involved in conflict resolution.
Since 2001 we have spent almost £1 million supporting conflict reduction and peace programmes, and a further £1.6 million is committed until March 2005. We support the development of the editorially independent FM radio, Mega FM, which has a developing listenership. Over the past year, the UK has given £1.3 million to UNICEF and Save the Children Fund for relief activities, to protect children at risk of abduction and to reintegrate child, ex-combatants into society. That is enormously difficult to do, given the sorts of activities in which they have been involved, which were described so well by my hon. Friend. Some of them have been committing large-scale murder and torture. It is an incredibly difficult situation.
We are committed to helping to resolve the conflict in northern Uganda. We will continue to engage with the Ugandan Government and representatives of the Acholi population, and we will also continue to work closely with partners in Uganda and with the international community, particularly the United Nations, the United States, which has a role, and the European Union. My hon. Friend asked us to do that and I assure her that we will.
The LRA has largely been sustained through its depredations on the Acholi community, but Sudan also has a history of involvement that links with the larger regional picture and the Sudanese civil war. We hope that the successful completion of the Sudanese peace process will provide a window of opportunity also to secure peace in northern Uganda. There are prospects for hope, but in many ways it is a depressing situation. We will continue to do all we can to work with the Ugandan Government, and others, to try to resolve the situation.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Family Court Cases
2 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I welcome this timely opportunity—in fact, more timely than I thought when I applied for the debate—to discuss issues that the Minister raised in her statement to the House yesterday. I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is present today and who is Angela Cannings's constituency MP. He has worked hard and effectively on her behalf, and together we have worked for our two constituents, Sally Clark, with whom my hon. Friend also has a connection, as he represents her father, and Angela Cannings. The Appeal Court's judgment is the reason for asking for the debate today.
My interest in the matter arose because of the small role that I played in trying to get justice for Sally Clark, who was my constituent until she left prison. When I became the MP for Tatton two and a half years ago, my predecessor, Martin Bell, briefed me on several issues but particularly on the Clark case, which had been a large constituency case for him. We spoke about how to take forward the work that he had done for Sally Clark's family. I also met Stephen Clark, Sally's remarkable husband. My meeting with him dispelled any doubts that I had at the back of my mind about the merits of the case. He convinced me that a huge, terrible miscarriage of justice had taken place. Without him and the small team of relatives and supporters that came together to help Sally, she and perhaps other people would still be in prison. It was her case that brought forward the appeals of others and led to the series of events that we are discussing today.
When I first met Stephen, who came to Parliament to talk to me, there were few options open to us. Sally's first appeal had been dismissed and it seemed very unlikely that the Court of Appeal would consider that case again before some considerable time had passed. The General Medical Council was dragging its feet in investigating complaints that Martin Bell had brought against Dr. Alan Williams, who is also a constituent of mine, and Professor Michael Green. Both were key witnesses at Sally's trial. Indeed, it is a disgrace that three and a half years after Martin Bell first made those complaints to the GMC it has still done nothing about them, but that is not the main purpose of calling this debate.
I also applied to the Home Secretary to have Sally Clark's life tariff reviewed and reduced. I know from my conversations with him that he took his duties in this case very seriously but, sadly, he came to the decision that he could reduce by only one year the life tariff that had been set for Sally Clark at the time of her conviction. In short, we were getting nowhere. We found few people in the Government or the medical and legal establishment who were prepared to listen to our arguments about the unreliability of Professor Meadow's theories about sudden infant death syndrome. There was an unspoken but clearly implied suspicion among many people whom I met that, by speaking up for Sally Clark, one was in some way excusing the actions of a mother who had killed her children. That was the prevailing view that I encountered.
That was then, but much has changed. Sally was released after a second appeal last January. Then came the Trupti Patel acquittal and, finally and most

31WH
crucially, the Angela Cannings appeal and the clear and welcome judgment from the Court of Appeal. The Government and the medical and legal establishment are now falling over themselves to unravel what may be the greatest miscarriage of justice in this country in living memory—mothers wrongfully imprisoned after already suffering the agony of losing a child, families torn apart by evidence that, in some cases, they never even saw and could not challenge, lives destroyed by spurious medical theories, and a world of social services departments and family courts that were convinced by them. I say all that because it is important for all of us, as law makers, as Ministers and as representatives of our society, to remind ourselves of the cruelties and injustices carried out in the name of the law and society, and to resolve to learn from the experience and at least lessen the chance of it happening again.
When I applied for the debate two weeks ago, before I went off on my half-term holiday with my children, I feared that the Government were not doing all they could to right the wrongs of what had happened or to address all the implications of the Angela Cannings judgment. On the day of that judgment a month ago, the Attorney-General announced an immediate review of 258 criminal convictions for the murder, manslaughter and infanticide of a child under two where there may have been similar miscarriages of justice.
From the response of the Solicitor-General to an urgent question asked in the House the next day by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), it was clear that the work of identifying those 258 cases had begun the moment that Angela Cannings was released and before the Court of Appeal had published its full judgment. I have called ever since for a review of the Sally Clark case, and raised the issue with the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions in the middle of last year. I made the point that although the principal criticism in the Court of Appeal's judgment was directed at the pathologist, it also criticised the use of statistical evidence by Professor Meadow. I believed at the time that the work of Professor Meadow should have been reviewed as well as the work done by Dr. Williams, but that is in the past. As I said, the Attorney-General announced last month that there would be a review of the 258 criminal convictions.
It was also clear following the question that I asked the Solicitor-General on the same day that no similar review was under way for family court cases. Instead, she told me:
"The process of how to go about a review in family cases is now being considered."—[Official Report, 20 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1221.]
It was not clear at the time, and it is still not clear, why the Government had not done the same preparatory work on a review of family court cases as they appeared to have done for a review of criminal cases while awaiting the full judgment of the Court of Appeal. Instead—I warn the right hon. Lady that this is the only criticism that I intend to make, but I will get it out of the way—the Minister gave an ill-advised interview to The Sunday Telegraph the day before the judgment on 18 January, which she may concede was a mistake.
32WH
Certainly, the headline, "'We can't reunite thousands of mothers with children wrongfully taken from them'—Minister admits", caused many families unnecessary distress. The Minister went on to say that the number of family cases could run into
"thousands or even tens of thousands",
that the Government could not
"turn back the clock",
and that she
"hoped families understand that these are really, really difficult decisions we have to take."
As I said, that interview caused unnecessary alarm and distress, and it was wrong to have given the interview before the Court of Appeal had made its judgment. It would have been far better if the Minister had made the sort of announcement that she made yesterday. I am not saying that my calling for the debate and the production of the Minister's statement are connected, but they might be. I used to work in government and know that a parliamentary debate sometimes forces the mind of Departments and produces statements. If they are connected, calling for the debate has more than served its purpose.
Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman can set his mind at rest about whether his debate triggered yesterday's announcement, because it certainly did not. I and several other Back Benchers have had long discussions with the Minister about the best way to proceed, and it is not the case that the Government were unprepared for the judgment. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, it is far more complicated to decide how to tackle the present issue than the relatively simple issue that the Attorney-General had to tackle and about which he was, therefore, able to make an announcement very quickly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his debate would have been the last thing to trigger the Minister's announcement yesterday.
Mr. Osborne: I was not claiming credit for that. I said that I was sure that my debate had not triggered the announcement. It was merely a coincidence that it happened the day before.
The Government could have spelled out much more clearly a month ago the approach that they were likely to take with family court cases. If the hon. and learned Lady reads the interview that the Minister gave in The Sunday Telegraph, she will see that the Minister outlined virtually everything that was announced yesterday. The Government could have said a month ago, "We are likely to ask local authorities to do this. We are likely to proceed in this manner." However, that is in the past, and I am prepared to move on.
We had nothing like the clarity with family court cases that we had with criminal cases.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has given due consideration to the fact that the Minister has been consulting. Is it not extremely important to consult all the relevant bodies?
Mr. Osborne: Of course consulting the relevant bodies is important. I am being dragged into a debate about the Minister's interview on 18 January. It was a big story in

33WH
The Sunday Telegraph, although I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw it. I have the article here and I am happy to send it to her and to the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). It makes the Minister's plans clear at considerable length. It states:
"Another option being considered by Mrs Hodge is to appoint a judge to trawl through the records of each authority to identify possible miscarriages of justice, but this would prove costly."
It also notes:
"Mrs Hodge is likely to ask local authorities to search through their records to find all family law cases involving Meadow."
Again, that is misleading, because she is not asking them to do that. However, the Minister gave that interview a month ago.
Vera Baird: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He asks why the Government have waited a month to make an announcement, when the Minister said everything a month ago. He then reads from the extract only to show that she did not say then what she announced yesterday. Clearly, she was in the process—the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and I have recommended this to the hon. Gentleman as a good way to proceed—of thinking about what to do and of consulting others. Is the Minister really to be criticised for that?
Mr. Osborne: Instead of giving an interview a month ago, the Minister should have said, "We are looking at how to take these family court cases forward. These are the options that we are considering, and we are going to consult on them." That was the approach taken by the Solicitor-General, and it would have inspired more confidence in the ultimate outcome in this case. As I said, however, that is the past.
I would prefer everything to have happened last year. Indeed, I regularly asked oral and written questions in Parliament, and it took many weeks to get any kind of response from the Government. I sought meetings with Ministers, but they were not granted. I have been trying to take matters forward for more than a year. None the less, we are where we are.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who speaks for my party on such issues, I welcome what the Minister said yesterday. I also welcome the guidance that she is issuing to local authorities and the arrangements set out by the president of the family division. However, I have some concerns, which I hope the Minister can address. The first and most serious is an issue that I raised yesterday.
The review that the Minister has asked local authorities to carry out involves only cases in which
"a final care order was made in the past which involved harm to the child or a sibling, and in which the grounds for making an order depended exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between medical experts about the cause of harm."
When I asked the Minister why she was restricting the review to cases in which there was a serious disagreement between medical experts, she explained that this was because she was
"mindful of the Cannings judgment, which was very narrow indeed."
That means that the review leaves out cases in which there was no serious disagreement between medical experts, but where we now have strong grounds for
34WH
supposing that the medical evidence offered, although uncontested, was unsound. In criminal cases, which are what primarily concern the Court of Appeal, medical evidence is likely to be contested. A competent defence team will produce rival experts to try to convince the jury that the prosecution has got its case wrong.
I am not a lawyer, so I tread carefully in this area, but it seems to me that that does not necessarily happen in all family cases, perhaps because the family do not feel up to the ordeal of challenging the evidence, because they cannot find a suitable expert prepared to argue against the likes of Professor Meadow, because social services departments threaten the family with further action, possibly criminal action, if they contest the family court proceeding. The last point is particularly serious, and I ask the Minister to address it. I have spoken privately to the Solicitor-General about this—she is aware that there is a considerable issue here, and perhaps the Minister could address it in her response.
As I understand it, the Minister's review offers nothing for families where there is uncontested medical evidence. All she feels able to say is that she has
"no doubt that local authorities will, in cases where one particular individual was the sole expert in the proceedings, act in a sensible and rational manner and review them."
In other words, she seems not to be asking local authorities to review cases in which only one medical expert was involved, but she hopes that they will, none the less, review them. This seems a rather curious position to take—if she wants the cases reviewed, why does she not spell it out? Why this game of cat and mouse? Perhaps she can explain this position of not asking local authorities to review cases but hoping that they will. Surely the Court of Appeal judgment raises sufficient doubts about the theories of, for example, Professor Meadow, to justify a review of cases involving only his evidence.
The Minister was careful in her response yesterday to avoid mentioning Professor Meadow by name, and kept referring cryptically to "a particular individual", until she was eventually challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). She then said that it would be inappropriate
"to pass judgment on all the cases in which Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence, and in particular those involving children, before the General Medical Council has examined Sir Roy Meadow's professional competence and his evidence."—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 38––46.]
In my experience, waiting for the GMC is a bit like waiting for the next ice age. The complaints brought against two other experts in the Sally Clark case by my predecessor, Martin Bell, to the GMC three and a half years ago, have still not been dealt with. I do not wholly trust the medical profession to judge itself in these matters.
The Court of Appeal has delivered a damning verdict on the judgment of Sir Roy Meadow's evidence. Lord Justice Judge warned of the dangers of "an extensively dogmatic approach" and said very clearly:
"What is abundantly clear is that in our present state of knowledge it does not necessarily follow that three sudden, unexplained infant deaths in the same family leads to the inexorable conclusion that they must have resulted from the deliberate infliction of harm."
Lord Justice Judge also reminded us that the Court of Appeal had, in the Sally Clark case, been critical of Professor Meadow and his use of statistics, in particular

35WH
his now infamous claim that the likelihood of two sudden infant deaths was 73 million:l. That judgment, in Lord Justice Judge's words,
"served to undermine his high reputation and authority as a witness".
If that is the view of the Court of Appeal, why does the Minister feel that she still needs to wait on the GMC? Surely it would be sensible to ask local authorities at least to review all cases involving Professor Meadow's evidence, whether it was disputed or not, rather than relying, as the Minister seems to want to do, on the good sense of those local authorities to do so anyway.
If the first and most serious concern is the narrow scope of the review that the Minister has ordered, my second concern is what the Minister said about reuniting adoptive children with their birth parents. I fully accept that this is an extremely difficult area, and that the interests of the child must be paramount. However, I ask the Minister and, through her and this debate, the courts and local authorities to be as flexible as possible.
The Minister says that the scope for reopening existing adoption cases is extremely rare. Even the newspaper headlines today say, "Hodge rules out adoptions reversal." I understand that she quite properly does not want to give false hope to families, and that adoption is supposed to ensure permanence and finality for all involved. I can see that reopening adoption cases that are years old is very unlikely to be in the best interests of a child, even if a tragic mistake has been made. As a parent, I am not sure how I would react if my child had been taken away from me on the basis of false or misleading evidence. I can see that it is in the best interests of the child to be left in place.
What about more recent adoptions? What about those that took place a month ago or sometime last year? Are we really saying that it is impossible to unpick such cases when they are very recent? We should at least consider the option of trying to put families back together. One irony of the Sally Clark case is that she has been reunited with her family, even though she served time in prison for the murder of two of her children. Other families who have been before family courts may not have that option available to them. To borrow the Court of Appeal phrase, we must not be over-dogmatic in our approach, but there may be so many pressure groups and entrenched interests in the world of adoption that we may fall into the trap of being over-dogmatic.
Several hon. Members touched on my third concern—the role of local authorities in the review process. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said that
"bureaucracies are often ill-placed to review their own past assumptions and the errors flowing from them."—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 40.]
It is sensible to ask local authorities to review cases, as they are the only ones in a position to do so quickly. It would also be sensible to provide an external audit to make sure that they are carrying out their responsibilities rigorously and independently. Not all social services departments are as good as they should be. Some may have poor record-keeping; and others may be institutionally unwilling to revisit the decisions that they have taken.
36WH
The Minister says that she is confident that the independent review officers in local authorities provide sufficient independence to give her "confidence in the procedure". What about the confidence of parents? The hon. and learned Member for Redcar said that local authorities were the adversaries of parents in the vast majority, if not all, of such cases. Understandably, parents may be less trusting of local authorities in that process than the Minister. Would it not make sense for her to appoint a senior independent figure or panel to provide an external audit and oversee the process to guarantee its independence and thoroughness?
Finally, I raise a broader issue about how we allowed such a huge miscarriage of justice to occur in the first place. I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer. but I feel that all too often our legal and medical establishments get swept along by new-fangled theories and fads. Perhaps they are just like the rest of us. It seems to be the case particularly in the sensitive area of child abuse.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy is the latest in a long line of theories that has now been discredited. Child abuse is, of course, a real and serious problem and we should do everything we can to stop it and root it out, but is it not time to heed the words of Dame Butler-Schloss 17 years ago? Her 1987 report after the Cleveland child abuse scandal warned of excessive reliance on expert opinion by local authorities and social services departments without sufficient corroborative evidence. The report said that it was important that social workers should not act solely on the basis of medical diagnoses, yet local authorities and courts continue to be blinded by the evidence of experts such as Professor Meadow without looking for corroborative evidence. How many more cases such as those of Sally Clark or Angela Cannings must we suffer before we as a society learn the lesson?
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. It is my intention to call the first Opposition spokesman at three o'clock. There appear to be five hon. Members who wish to catch my eye. If that is the case, I would like to call everyone, but it is in the hands of hon. Members. I hope that they will bear those time constraints in mind.
2.25 pm
Vera Baird: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing the debate, and on the diligence with which he has advanced his constituents' interests and joined others with a common interest to oppose this miscarriage of justice. I applaud the clarity with which he set out his concerns.
I am in the unique position in this Chamber of having cross-examined Professor Meadow. His is not just the latest of a recent set of theories. He has advanced his arguments for an enormous length of time. I cross-examined him in l988. It is not unkind to say that he invented Munchausen syndrome by proxy, and I do not use that word in a pejorative sense. He created it and has lived on it ever since. He was a permanent professional witness in cases where he felt that the syndrome—now highly questionable—existed, which is a difficult model.
It seemed that Professor Meadow was called into cases where there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that would answer the question of whether

37WH
injuries or deaths of children were accidental or deliberately caused by a parent. He was called in to say, "Now that I have looked at one of these parents"—almost invariably the mother—"she resembles the type of person who does injure their child." That was about the size of the evidence that he gave. It was an extra difficulty for anyone labelled as a sufferer of Munchausen syndrome that he asserted that a characteristic of the syndrome was that people who had it denied that they had it. Consequently, one went in circles trying to get out from under the expertise that he proffered, which was dangerous indeed.
I have to say, not necessarily in Professor Meadow's defence, that during the case in which I cross-examined him there was compelling evidence that one of the parents had been involved in harming children, so I suppose that there must be something in his theory. However, the matter has been troubling and it calls into question, as the hon. Gentleman said, the way in which the courts approach such evidence.
There is no doubt that such witnesses become very arrogant. Professor Meadow is the world expert in the subject, to whom everyone defers. Judges do not try to restrict that way of behaving. It is clear, as Lord Justice Judge said, that matters have become too dogmatic in the cases of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings. By that stage, I think we have gone beyond arrogance and dogmatism. We have stretched things so far that Professor Meadow, a paediatrician, is talking about statistics in front of a court that does not question his ability to do so for one moment. It is not his field at all. The Royal Statistical Society referred to his one in 73 million figure, which has already been mentioned, as a complete error, but he was allowed to give such evidence despite the fact that he was a paediatrician and not a statistician.
One problem with professional evidence is that it is hard for anyone who is less professional and less expert properly to judge it, or properly to restrain such experts from going too far. We now have the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, which is intended to accredit competent forensic practitioners. Its register relies upon peer review, but that would not have saved anyone from Professor Meadow, because it was not easy to review his work. One cannot engage in a peer review of the work of the man who has invented the syndrome and taken it forward himself. There is no peer to review it; thereafter, we can have only disciples. It is a difficult and problematic notion.
I shall not stray far from the subject of professional evidence but, in order to illustrate the importance of the debate, I should mention that other kinds of expert evidence can cause similar difficulties. I shall not give too many anecdotal examples but, in cases as recently as 2000, DNA could be checked down to about six strands only. Professional expert witnesses on both sides would agree that the figure might be one in double-figured millions, but they would still claim that it was one person and not another. DNA can now be taken down to 10, 12 or even 14 strands. In one case that went to appeal, the figure used at the original trial showed that it was either the accused person or the 37 million and first person after him. However, because in the intervening
38WH
three years, analysis went twice as far, the Court of Appeal was able without hesitation to say that it was not him. Expertise moves on, whether good or bad.
Ms Ann Coffey: Can my hon. and learned Friend help? I am not a lawyer. One thing that perplexes me is that in the original trial there was presumably a defence lawyer, a prosecution lawyer and a judge who at the end of the case gave a summing up. From what I have read, it appears that, when someone gives evidence as an expert witness, all of a sudden nothing else happens in court. Does not the defence challenge the expert witness? Does not the judge give guidance on the evidence when summing up?
Vera Baird: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Those steps are gone through in a number of cases. I am sure that Professor Meadow would be opposed by another paediatrician who would say that the evidence was not as clear as suggested. He may not call into question his theory about Munchausen by proxy syndrome, but he would say that the person did not fit that syndrome so neatly as suggested. Judges always have a duty to tell juries that we do not have trial by expert. They will say that the jury must decide which expert is right but that if they cannot decide they must give the benefit of the doubt.
It is an immensely difficult task and we have to countenance the fact—I shall return to it briefly—that for the past 20 years Professor Meadow has taken judges along with him. Most, if not all, of the cases that the hon. Member for Tatton mentioned were not jury trials, but cases in which the decisions were taken by the judges, who followed the professional evidence to the end. In my view, that causes a further problem.
Mr. John Burnett: The hon. and learned Lady always speaks on these matters with the greatest knowledge and experience, and in such measured terms. However, although I am sure that she is right to say it, I was surprised to hear that in a number of cases no one was called to challenge the evidence of experts such as Professor Meadow. My experience as a lawyer is not in that field but in taxation and planning, but whenever expert evidence has to be given in such cases—perhaps because more money is at stake—experts are always available to challenge the expert evidence.
Does the hon. and learned Lady believe that it is unacceptable to have only one expert witness at a trial? There should always be experts for the other side, and they should be properly funded.
Vera Baird: Again, that is a very important point, but difficulties can arise where one instructs an expert intended to oppose someone such as Professor Meadow and discovers that he agrees with him. Professor Meadow is leading his disciples. He is the predominant theorist on paediatric death. He is a teacher of many other paediatricians. The matter is not always as straightforward as it might appear at first sight. I heartily agree that expert evidence must always be properly funded in cases where it is required, but there can be pitfalls.

39WH
One can frequently be placed in the position—this may have been mentioned—where the only available challenge is what counsel can conjure up by way of cross-examination.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Lest it be thought that those representing the families were negligent in the way they presented their cases, I suggest—the hon. and learned Lady may agree with me—that in many cases there was nothing they could do to put up an expert on what is ultimately a matter of opinion and where there was probably no medical evidence as to what caused the child's death in a physiological sense. Therefore, they would have had to rely on other material and cross-examination. Yesterday, I raised the anxiety that the only cases being reviewed are those where other medical evidence was advanced.
Vera Baird: Again, I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made yesterday that it may not be sufficient. I had a tentative solution yesterday, to which I shall return briefly at the end, if I may, although I feel that the Minister has made a balanced and sensible announcement as to the right way to proceed.
We are countenancing difficulties that judges have had even over the past 20 years—as far back as my memory goes and perhaps longer—dealing with the power of such expert evidence. We must raise the question of what jurors are supposed to do, since they have far less training than judges in analysis, concentration and evaluation. Is it the position now, as Lord Justice Judge said, that if the outcome of a criminal trial depends on the serious disagreement between reputable experts, it will be unwise and therefore unsafe for prosecutions to proceed? If that is the case, what is the position in civil cases, where the only way to proceed on a lesser burden of proof is to do something as drastic and difficult as to take someone into care and then have them adopted? Is it to be that if there is a dispute between experts it is safer for social workers and local authorities not to proceed? That is a dangerous position in which to leave children and the issues are extremely complicated.
Mr. Robert Key: May I take the hon. and learned Lady back a step in the process and ask her to share with us her experience of the role of the police in investigating such cases? Certainly in the Angela Cannings case it was suggested that the police had made up their minds at an early stage that it stood to reason that three deaths must be murder.
Vera Baird: Professor Meadow has been treading the boards for 20 years saying that that is the case. It is probably difficult for anyone to take their judgment out of context and to think in another way. In the end, they had resort to Professor Meadow to see whether he could assist their position. There was no sign on the face of it—I will have to defer to the hon. Member for Tatton—of any lax investigation by the police. They appeared to be unable to decide what was what and so turned to expert evidence that was intended to help.
40WH
I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. May I quickly raise one or two other concerns? The first is what we do about expert evidence. Secondly—I shall put this in a much lower key—what are we to do about the judiciary? There have been not just one or two appeals but the failure at trial. There is no doubt that a large number of the judiciary have been carried along by evidence that they probably should never have been carried along by. Cases yet to go to the Court of Appeal will represent the same model. Not only have experts been allowed to become, as Lord Justice Judge puts it, too dogmatic but, as I said, they are allowed to stray out of their area of expertise on the basis that, if they are superhuman about paediatrics, they must know about everything else and we cannot criticise them.
Another factor, which is hugely important in this case, is that most of the judiciary have been taught by Professor Meadow that this is the right approach to sudden infant death, because he was the lecturer of choice at the Judicial Studies Board for a long time. Therefore, there is not only the current problem but the problem that many of the judiciary continue to believe that Professor Meadow has something to say about paediatrics that they should follow. Although they will be well aware of the position today, once people are trained and enmeshed in a framework of thinking, it is quite difficult to get them out of it. Should we be trying to do something about that?
I come back to the point that there has not been the adversarial position of expert against expert that one would hope to find in most cases, mostly, one imagines, because of the phenomena that I have described: the leading opinion of the day tends to direct those behind it to some extent; or, as others have canvassed, people feel that they cannot oppose someone so mighty and powerful or, for many other reasons, do not do so. Therefore, the case has folded and has never been contested under the pressure of evidence from experts who may be called into question.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to think carefully about what I suggested yesterday. Social services departments are now being asked to look religiously and carefully through all their cases to find those that are subject to this kind of evidence and decide whether there should be a fresh hearing. It is almost inevitable that, once one has been in an adversarial position, with the best will in the world and with the best of intentions, one remains in it. Is it sufficiently independent just to settle for that? That, of course, does not cover cases where there has not been an adversarial position. It would be a long and difficult task for social services to go through all their uncontested files and ask "Which of these thousands had Professor Meadow in them?"
Would it not be a good idea to look at the other side, too? There has now been a great deal of publicity and many affected parents will know that they were subjected to that kind of evidence, but many may not. Many may not know the name of the expert who gave evidence against them, or the reason why their children were taken away. It will be a hard task for the Minister to tell everybody in the deepest, darkest corners of the world that they are in this situation and should look again at their child's case. If she were to ensure that a notice went out to all the family law solicitors registered

41WH
on the Law Society's panel, who are bound to have represented most of those affected by that kind of evidence, they could simply be told that, if they had such cases, they might like to look at the appeals of Cannings and Clark and may want to open their files and give their clients further advice. That would protect against all the dangers that arise from this slightly one-sided position. I commend that option to the Minister as something that she might seriously consider. None the less, I compliment her on her balanced judgment about the way in which we should go forward.
2.43 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I shall be brief. I have just three questions for the Minister, but first I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on his persistence in this matter and on obtaining today's debate.
Yes, Sally Clark's father remains a constituent of mine. I knew Sally Clark when she was a schoolgirl, attending the same school as my daughters in Salisbury. It came as an enormous shock to the whole community that this should have happened. Similarly, Mr. and Mrs. Cannings are constituents of mine and were popular in the community. It also came as an enormous shock to us all when their case occurred.
The three questions that I have for the Minister are straightforward. First, it is clear that prosecutions are continuing in the courts almost as if nothing had happened. Angela Cannings's solicitor, who is also my constituent, recently told me that he has two similar cases ongoing in the Crown courts and 10 more in the pipeline. What guidance have judges been given in the handling of those cases that should be treated with caution following the Cannings case? It is important that the public know what is happening.
Secondly, following the review, will the Minister issue guidelines, in good time, on how claims for compensation will be assessed? There will be compensation claims. What advice will local authorities be given? How will they be told to settle the claims? Will it be made clear that they should try to expedite those payments and not drag things out for years on end? Given the pressure on local authority resources and the Deputy Prime Minister's threats of capping, will those payments come out of ordinary social service budgets, or will the Government make available special resources over and above the normal local government settlements?
Thirdly, in the Chamber yesterday, I asked the Minister how social services departments could properly review those cases in which the evidence was heard in camera. She said that we would have to trust the professionals to take a common-sense approach. She is right about that, but can she confirm that suitably anonymised records have been made public in some of the cases that were heard in camera? Following the cases of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark, have judges been offered any advice as to whether that practice might be extended in the cases that have been referred to this afternoon, as opposed to the criminal cases involved? Those are the steps that we should and can take incrementally to improve the understanding of the situation and to ensure that the Government provide proper advice to all concerned.
2.46 pm
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: I rise to speak warily, as there are so many people with expert knowledge in the Chamber, such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who has a professional background in child safety, and the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who have direct knowledge of this matter from the cases of their constituents, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings. We must also remember the telling case of Trupti Patel.
We have specifically been discussing expert evidence and the problem that arose from Sir Roy Meadow's evidence, but it is incumbent on us, as parliamentarians, to put into context our resolute and steadfast desire to protect children and to reaffirm the principles contained in the legislation on children, which we all support, whether or not we were in Parliament when it was introduced. Having recently become a mother, I know what the hon. Member for Tatton meant when he talked about being a parent. I sat for night after night considering the cases of those three women, wondering how I would have stayed sane in the same situation. When it comes to issues of child protection, especially those cases in which children have been adopted for many years, we know that the tenet set out in the legislation is that the best interests of the child should prevail.
While there are undoubtedly many wrongs, as those three cases illustrate, we must also put into context the small minority of figures and cases that we are talking about. People who do not have that insight may think that we are talking about thousands of people. Many parents may erroneously believe that their circumstances will somehow change. It is clear from the guidance in the Minister's balanced and well thought out statement yesterday that there are, in the family courts, somewhere in the region of 400 cases such as those that we are discussing, of which, I am led to believe, about 100 do not involve adoption. If those numbers are spread over the 150 or so social services councils, we are talking about very small numbers. It is important to clarify that.
Many hon. Members who have been in Parliament longer than me, or who have expert professional backgrounds, will be aware that, sadly, many parents do harm children. We must recognise that the overwhelming evidence is that the greatest harm that happens to children is perpetrated in the home.
What happened to those three women was a tragedy, and it is undoubtedly evident from the way in which expert evidence has been used that other cases will emerge, for which I am sorry. However, it is still the case that children are actually hurt and sometimes killed in the home by their parents. As a constituency Member, I have dealt with two cases of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. I am relieved to say that neither case was one of infanticide; however, both were serious, and they were dramatically different.
I want the Minister to concentrate on the fact that we will never be in a situation where we can rely on anything other than expert evidence. One of the problems that I had early on in my parliamentary career, which our social services department also had,

43WH
was the singular lack of choice of expert evidence. At that time only one person was prepared to talk to the council about Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
In one of the cases in my constituency, many decades of historical evidence were sadly available, which meant that the expert was not needed. There was undoubtedly a danger to the unborn child who eventually had to be removed from the parents. However, in the other case, which involved a very young Asian woman with a family background of not very high educational achievement, I am worried to this day that justice was not done. That does not mean that there were not serious problems that needed intervention from social services. However, in one case the diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by proxy was undoubtedly clear over decades of evidence from the medical profession that had tracked that family and those parents; in the other, the diagnosis was so weak that it was lamentable.
It is incumbent on all of us who deal with child protection issues to keep the matter in context. My heart goes out to the three women who are most in the public mind: Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar has spoken eloquently about the dangers of using singular and flawed expert evidence that is not questioned and scrutinised in the way. that would be necessary for justice to be done. However, it is incumbent on us all to realise that, sadly, we live in a world where children are not protected by the people who should care for them the most. We must not raise false hopes.
We heard yesterday from hon. Members who have adopted children. Trauma and turmoil must be going on in every adoptive parent's mind. They must be wondering whether their children, whom they take care of to the best of their ability, whether they are three, five, 15 or older, will somehow be wrenched from them.
We must ensure that at the end of the day we are very precise about what we do. We should review, as the Minister has suggested, those open cases that we can actively determine now. We should leave it to the Attorney-General to review the 258 cases on which he has embarked. We should look urgently at how expert evidence and singular expert evidence are used in a court of law. Let us not—especially not as a Parliament that has seen the publication of the most important Green Paper, "Every Child Matters"—lose sight of the fact that it is our job to ensure that children are protected everywhere by everybody.
2.53 pm
Ms Ann Coffey: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on her statement. Child protection is an extraordinarily difficult area and it arouses strong feelings. Parents are often afraid that at some time a social services department will come and lift their children for no reason. Strong feelings also emerge in the community at large. One need only look back at headlines over recent years to see how society reacts when it feels that a child has not been sufficiently protected. Some of the difficulty for people who work in that area comes from the fact that it is often not straightforward: there is often not clear evidence to show that a child has been abused. There may be no
44WH
marks, no bruises, no visible evidence, which is why expert witnesses are so attractive. They seem able, in a situation in which there is no clarity of evidence, to give clarity. That is their power. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) is right in what she was saying about that. I also agree with her that dealing with expert evidence per se is not enough. We have to have a court system that is robust and in which the knowledge has to be invested in everybody in the judicial process hearing cases such as the Cannings case.
I entirely support the Minister's decision not to open adoptive cases. "Cases" is a word used when we are describing children. It is a difficult equation when talking about a concept such as justice, which we all adhere to, but sometimes justice for parents does not serve the best interests of the child. It would be absolutely wrong to open those cases in which children have been through a long process—as someone who has worked in adoption, I know that it can be a long process, one into which a lot of thought is put—and placed in families, only for that placement to be disturbed two or three years later. We cannot always have a perfect circle and perfect justice. I would entirely support the idea that we do not disturb adoptive placements.
Irrespective of everything else, the interests of the child must be paramount. Sometimes that is difficult when put alongside parents' rights. I am not sure we will ever have a perfect solution, which is why I believe that in this very difficult area and circumstances the Minister has presented a very balanced and fair way forward.
2.56 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), because it has been a very timely debate—whatever the reason for the timing? It gives us a much better chance to raise further questions.
Rather than going into the details of the legalities, which have been so admirably covered, we need to think about what lessons can be learned, what questions should be asked and what is the best way forward. I would like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Members for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) that the child's interests are paramount and that all the professionals must not be discouraged from investigating any alleged child abuse. It is a tremendous problem in our society. It may be the downside of some of the points that we have to talk about in this case.
We have heard the statistics so many times: one in 73 million for two sudden infant deaths in one family—on that basis, I cannot do the arithmetic to get it up to three sudden deaths. However, the statistic totally ignores the fact that there may be unknown genetic or other factors that predispose a family to sudden infant deaths. It is invalid. With hindsight—always very clever—we see how that false statistic had such a dramatic effect on all the media reports, and it is very difficult to believe that it did not influence judgments at the time.
It has now emerged that there was a history of sudden infant death in Angela Cannings's family. Her great grandmother and grandmother both lost babies in unexplained circumstances, suggesting that there might be a genetic link. There is also the claim that the effects

45WH
of a drug called Cisapride have resulted in hundreds of cases of wrong diagnosis worldwide. Although this drug has now been withdrawn from the UK market, I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be an investigation into it and any bearing that it might have on child deaths attributed to Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
It is now clear that when several child deaths occur in the same family there should not be an automatic conclusion that the dead infants were deliberately killed. There has to be an evaluation of the many other factors that might have contributed to the deaths. However, great weight was placed on Professor Sir Roy Meadow's theory and evidence over the years, and this may well have blinkered the people dealing with the child abuse cases. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense, but with so much weight being given to a particular aspect, I wonder whether they might not have picked up all the other clues. The Court of Appeal judgment is very clear, that
"the prosecution of … parents for murder should not be started, or continued, unless there is additional cogent evidence, extraneous to the expert evidence …which"
leads to
"the conclusion that the infant … was deliberately harmed."
However, we still have to ask the same questions as far as the family court is concerned: what will be the role of expert witnesses, and how will they be handled in the future? I do not have the knowledge, but I have the questions here.
Given the fact that there could be thousands of cases in which some form of injustice has occurred, the Minister has been in the unenviable position of deciding the best way forward. I share her concerns as well as expressing my sympathy for all the families that have been involved in this. I would like to thank the Minister for the clear and logical statement yesterday, and wholeheartedly agree with her underlying premise that the children's interests must be paramount. However, questions remain about how far we can proceed.
I asked a question yesterday about a national helpline, because I believe that there needs to be more publicity regarding help, advice and perhaps even counselling for all the people caught up in these tragedies. Some families have described themselves as going through hell. The Minister said:
"If birth parents are worried, they should take their own legal advice"—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 39.]
I am emphasising that and perhaps taking it out of context, but it is not good enough—people need more support than that. I am aware that every local authority is required to have an adoption support services adviser, but would everybody who might want advice know that? Will anybody who believes that their children were falsely taken away from them want to go back to that same local authority for advice? I ask her to give more thought to this issue of how those troubled people get help and support.
Social services departments throughout the country now have the task of reviewing cases directly or responding to the Attorney-General's review. I presume that the same staff who were instrumental in children being taken away from their parents, and in some cases arranging adoption, will carry out the review. Given the circumstances, and the fact that we now know that
46WH
undue weight was given to certain expert witnesses, will the Minister give consideration to the points that I raised yesterday on monitoring councils, and indeed to the helpful remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) suggesting the involvement of the Law Society's family law practitioner group?
The president of the Association of Directors of Social Services said in a press release in January:
"No child will have been adopted or taken into care solely on the basis of expert witnesses. Decisions to recommend their adoption and being received into care will have been made by courts who will have ascertained that the cases pass all the other welfare tests contained within children's legislation."
I want to place it on the record that I admire the professionalism of all those involved in child protection, but I have a niggling doubt about the blinkering effect, and not being able to see the wood for the trees. I wonder whether an external review of a sample of cases might be considered. I take on board what the hon. Member for Tatton has said about those cases in which expert evidence was not challenged, and it is a concern that these matters are not really being considered. The Minister said yesterday that care orders are reviewed every six months. Will she give some additional guidance for those six-monthly reviews? More could be done there.
I asked a question yesterday that did not work out very well, given the time span, so if the Minister will forgive me I will expand on it slightly. I am concerned about investigations into the deaths of children who have been adopted. Has there been any research on the links between such children and families allegedly affected by Munchausen syndrome by proxy? Perhaps that clarifies my point. Such research would throw further light on the evidence that Sir Roy Meadow gave and would provide more information. Come what may, we must learn from all these events.
Mr. Grieve: I doubt whether such research would be very beneficial, as sudden infant death syndrome, or cot death, occurs in the first few months of life. It is most unlikely that there would be meaningful statistics about the incidence of death for children who survived long enough to go through the care and adoption process.
Mrs. Brooke: I am aware of the short time span, which is why I believe that such research would not be an enormous piece of work. Some children are placed quickly. If there were such a threat, it would be interesting to examine it.
I wish to join those who point to the need for resources for social services departments. We know how hard-pressed they are. It is incredibly important that this enormous piece of work is done thoroughly.
The issue of compensation has also been raised. Again, I add my voice to those urging the Minister to consider how it will be provided. It is important to make a statement as soon as possible. It is almost impossible fully to understand the trauma that would result from unpicking cases in which adoption has taken place. However, visitation rights will be incredibly important. I hope that she will encourage everyone to be as flexible as possible while taking on board the best interests of the child.

47WH
This has been an important debate and there are many questions to be answered. I hope that the Minister will continually review the whole process, as there will be changing aspects and further questions as we go along. Most of all, we must respect the fact that many people are troubled and damaged as a consequence of a miscarriage of justice.
3.7 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing this debate, which is very important and particularly opportune in the context of the Minister's statement yesterday. I wish to avoid repeating too many of my comments in response to that statement, but several matters have been touched on this afternoon that are of relevance when we consider, first, how to deal with the serious problem that has arisen in respect of children who have been taken into care or adopted, and secondly, how we might avoid a repetition of such events.
Let me begin by discussing the Minister's announcement on what she and the Government will do about what has happened in the context of family cases. I am delighted that she announced a review of cases. I am sure that it will go a long way towards enabling miscarriages of justice to be remedied. I fully accept that turning the clock back may be impossible if, for instance, a child was adopted some time ago. She was perfectly right to make that point clear. I do not want to get bogged down in the initial discussion about what happened before the announcements of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, but it was unfortunate that she did not wait to tell the House about her plans before telling a national newspaper. I believe that it distorted some of the things that she said, which is perhaps an illustration of why it is dangerous to do that rather than telling us first.
On the reviews, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made some important points about the nature of child care cases. As the Minister knows from my comments yesterday, I am concerned that we are being too restrictive in relation to the categories of cases that will be reviewed. I fully understand that it makes sense, in theory, that they should be the cases in which there was a clash of medical evidence. However, I fear that there will have been many cases—I was pleased that the hon. and learned Lady echoed this-in which, in practical terms, the evidence of Professor Sir Roy Meadow went unchallenged. It was, after all, not evidence about the physical condition of a child. It was evidence relating to a theory, with some statistics thrown in. Such evidence is difficult to challenge.
Speaking to professional colleagues of mine, I detect—this is no more than anecdotal evidence, and I could not look up the statistics, because I would not have access to them—that there will have been, first, many cases in which the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service combined with the local authority to commission Professor Meadow to give an agreed report; and secondly, many cases in which families decided on perfectly sensible legal advice that although they would challenge other areas of the case,
48WH
and indeed cross-examine Professor Meadow, they would not, in the light of other circumstances, try to find an expert opinion of their own to counter it.
There must be a serious danger that, if we confine the review cases to those outlined by the Minister, we will miss many other cases that need to be reviewed as well. Of course, they can still be reviewed if the family goes to court, but as the Minister acknowledges, the reason for asking a local authority to carry out a review is that there is a clear understanding on the part of the Government that there is an onus on the local authorities, helped by the Government, to remedy possible miscarriages of justice.
I ask the Minister to speak to her advisers about the matter and consider it further. The issue is serious. We are likely to find that the more articulate families—those with better resources—will start to bring challenges, and it will then become clear that those cases need to be reviewed as well. I have not the slightest idea how many cases might fall into that category, but I have an absolute gut feeling that there will be some.
I want to deal with the other point that I raised, about local authorities reviewing themselves. The Minister is quite right: there is no criticism of local authorities as such in relation to what has happened. They went on expert advice. However, she must be alive to the realities of the limitations on local authority social services, especially in relation to child care. I have been dealing with one local authority close to me over the past nine months in relation to a child in care. It has struck me forcefully that every letter that I write is replied to by a new key worker for that child. The turnover of staff means that there will be difficulties relating back to what was going on when the events took place.
Assumptions come to be made in bureaucracies, and having been taken down one road, with a particular set of assumptions, it may be difficult to shake off that mindset and start to take an independent and critical view of what was done in the past, even if it was done properly and with the best of intentions. The Minister mentioned yesterday that there was an independent review officer who might be able to help. She may be able to amplify that. There needs to be a transparent measure of independent scrutiny. Reasons need to be given, to families in particular, so that people understand what is happening if local authorities decide that a case does not require reopening.
In the short time available—I want to give the Minister an opportunity to respond—I will turn to one or two background issues. How did we get ourselves into this mess? This is not the first time this has happened. The Cleveland child abuse case was a telling example of how one gets oneself into such a hole. Anxiety about children being sexually abused was widespread in the country and there was the belief that sexual abuse was under-diagnosed. I even remember the name of the doctor: Marietta Higgs. She came along and said that it was possible to make a definite diagnosis of child abuse based on a particular kind of physical examination. As soon as that news came out, the local authorities in that part of the world leapt on the bandwagon and said that the development provided an answer to what had previously been unanswerable. It was only when the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) stepped in and said that all common sense had been

49WH
abandoned that common sense slowly returned. By that time, however, a huge amount of damage had been done.
I am conscious of the fact that we are under a requirement to protect children, but with all respect to the hon. Members for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey), there is a blame culture in our society, and we as MPs are partly responsible for it. There is a belief that somebody must be responsible for everything and that nothing should remain inexplicable. Taken together, those views have become powerful forces in initiating what turn out to be witch hunts. We then latch on to the people who will help us to carry them out, and I am afraid that that is what appears to have happened in the case of Sir Roy Meadow. He provided an answer to a question that had previously been unanswerable, and the mantras that he recited overcame our anxiety about inexplicable cot deaths. I fear that the same will happen again unless we constantly remind ourselves that judgments in human society are fallible and that some things will always remain unexplained. Much as we may wish to protect children, we must accept that the benefit of the doubt lies with families. When a child's death is unexplained, we should not interfere lightly in family members' relations with other siblings.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to misrepresent what I said. Having dealt with child protection issues for a considerable time and in considerable depth as a Member of Parliament, he will agree that he is talking about the minority of cases. I was trying to put on record the belief that we must not, as a result of such cases, go against the huge amount of sterling work that organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have done to get people to acknowledge how big an issue child abuse by family members is. I was separating the two issues, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar also eloquently made the point about unchallenged expert evidence.
Mr. Grieve: Of course I agree with the hon. Lady, and I did not want to misrepresent her. We are talking about a minority of cases, and child abuse is a serious problem in families. The problem is that situations such as the one that we are discussing can damage the entire system of protections against child abuse, and miscarriages of justice can undermine its credibility. That is why we must be so careful.
I wish to give the Minister ample time to reply, and I apologise for going slightly over time. These are important issues, and I look forward to continuing to co-operate with her on them. However, we must start thinking carefully about how to avoid a repetition of such tragedies.
3.17 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing the debate, which, fortuitously, takes place on the day after my statement.
I want to say three things about why I took some time before making yesterday's statement. First, I felt that it was more important to get it right than to get it out fast.
50WH
The issues with which I had to deal were extremely complicated and touched on the lives of many children, their birth families, and in some cases their adoptive families, so I wanted to get them right. Every time one sits down and thinks about them, other issues arise. I am sure that hon. Members have also done a lot of thinking about these extremely complicated issues.
Secondly, I wanted to consult, and before coming to the House yesterday I consulted widely with all the stakeholders—the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Association of Directors of Social Services and those responsible for the justice system. I felt that it was important to have that process of consultation.
Thirdly, let me explain one of my reasons for giving the interview to The Sunday Telegraph. When the House or the Government attempt to reach decisions on such complex issues, it is important that we share some of the complexities with the wider public. Of course, the House is the place where we discuss and decide on issues, but the wider public also have an interest. I was attempting in that article to raise some of the difficulties with which we have to contend.
The hon. Member for Tatton asked whether the scope of the review was too narrow. We have had to operate within the confines of the judgments in question, as is appropriate. It would be inappropriate for the Government to come to a judgment about people such as Professor Meadow or anyone else before the relevant authorities had validated it. Hon. Members would have criticised us if we had come to those judgments before the General Medical Council, the courts or any other body charged with making such judgments had reached a decision. We had to work within those confines. We have made the review wider in that we have gone beyond those instances where a child has died. We have asked local authorities to review those care cases in which the disputed medical evidence was the principal reason for the decision to take care proceedings. That is already widening the judgment.
I accept the difficulties with the credence given to Professor Meadow that a number of hon. Members have raised. However, we do not know whether he was right or wrong in many of the cases in which he gave expert evidence; nobody has challenged his judgment in every case in which he was an expert witness. We also have no knowledge of all the cases in which he was involved.
Mr. Burnett: I am sure that the Minister will concede that no one, not even the greatest expert, has a monopoly of learning and wisdom, so that in any case with such profound consequences every expert should be challenged by another expert.
Margaret Hodge: That is an interesting presumption. One of the issues that I have been discussing with the president of the family division is whether it might not be better if there were not always contested expert evidence given in cases and whether agreed expert evidence might not be given across the parties. People are moving in that direction, because in that way the exceedingly difficult judgments that our judges or juries must make to determine who among those giving contested medical evidence is right are not left to the lay

51WH
person. The hon. Gentleman says that there ought to be contested medical or expert evidence given in cases so that judges or juries can consider the different points of view, but the argument that agreed expert evidence can be more helpful in reaching a proper decision is equally valid.
Professor Meadow's evidence is still under question, which is why we must await the outcome of the GMC inquiry, frustrating as that might be to some hon. Members and to families whose children's future hinges on it.
Given the absence of certainty about the credibility or otherwise of Professor Meadow's evidence, if we had extended the inquiry to consider cases in which only one expert witness was called, we would have had to go further and consider cases with all other expert medical witnesses. That would have opened the parameters of the inquiry too far. The judgment was difficult, but I think that we got it about right.
I share the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and others about adoption. It would have been wrong for us to try to reopen cases in which, because of the interests of the child, adoption orders are unlikely to be undone. Opening a review would have been beyond the parameters that we set out in our statement yesterday, and would have given false hope. It would also have greatly concerned a huge number of adoptive parents and adopted children, who may be safely settled in their homes.
I also have to be very conscious of my proper role as the Minister for Children, in which I have authority over the way in which social services departments conduct themselves. The decisions taken by courts are theirs to take. If a court has taken a decision about an adoption order, and if all the individuals concerned in that adoption, be it the birth parent, the adoptive parent or the adopted child, believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice, it is right that they should return to the courts so that they can feel that justice is done.
The hon. Member for Tatton also made a point about the role of local authorities. We have introduced several mechanisms that will ensure that local authorities act properly and objectively, taking into account the interests of all parties. Most authorities now have advocacy arrangements as well as an independent reviewing officer. All authorities will have advocacy arrangements by April this year. Those are two examples of existing mechanisms that will ensure that we can protect the interests of all those who have an interest in the issue.
52WH
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) asked whether we should write to the Law Society to draw its attention to the Cannings judgment—a point that she made yesterday—to encourage it to communicate with former clients. I am considering that possibility with colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs to see how we can take that further.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made several detailed points. I can tell him that the president of the family division will issue to judges advice arising from the Cannings judgment.
Several hon. Members mentioned claims for compensation. That is it matter for individuals, but I will keep it under review and see what happens. Each case will be very different, and we will have to monitor them. The president of the family division is also considering whether she can make the anonymised records more public in the judgments made in the family courts around these proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale talked about lack of choice in expert evidence. One of the dangers of swinging the pendulum too far against expert evidence is that we discourage many medical experts from engaging in the very important work of investigating cases in which there is a suspicion of harm. We want to ensure that we safeguard children. I agree with her point that people are now unwilling to participate in such work. Not enough paediatricians are prepared to engage in work relating to allegations of child abuse. That is why I went out of my way yesterday to state the very great support that we give to all professionals, be they police officers, paediatricians or social workers, in the work that they do to safeguard children. I reiterate that we, as a society, must recognise that contribution and continue to support them in that work.
Finally, the interests of children must be at the heart of everything that we do, as several hon. Members have said. I must be sure that I constantly pursue my legitimate role as Minister for Children, which is to look after those children who come into the care system, while others have the job of looking after children in other areas.
Children are abused, and we cannot walk away from that. We face the difficulty of achieving a balance. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) quite rightly states that judgments are bound to be fallible. We have to accept that, but we must be prepared to learn from our mistakes and absorb new knowledge, and especially medical expertise, as medicine changes so quickly. That will ensure that at all times we have the best possible evidence for making the very difficult judgments that have such a huge impact on the lives of children, their parents and their adoptive parents.

Children's Fund (Somerset)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a great pleasure to have this debate, although it seems a little harsh on the Minister for Children to have to respond to two consecutive debates.
I suspect that many of our constituents and some right hon. and hon. Members have only a hazy concept of the children's fund and what it sets out to achieve. I do not intend to criticise it, its objectives or the way that it operates in Somerset. Quite the reverse: it is a most valuable tool for performing some important tasks that would otherwise slip between the responsibilities of the statutory agencies.
If we are serious about helping disadvantaged children in a wide range of spheres we must have such funding, particularly in a county such as Somerset, which often loses out on mainstream funding because it does not meet the criterion of inner-city deprivation. Contrary to the established view, I would argue that to be a poor child in a rural area is to be much more excluded than a child in similar circumstances in an inner-city area.
The fund has already accomplished a significant amount in Somerset. I will not read out all the schemes operating in the county which are on the very long list of those paid for by the fund. In my town of Frome there are schemes to support the transition of children at year 8 in the middle school system; summer activities on the Mount estate, which is one of the more disadvantaged estates; breakfast and after-school clubs; and Frome inclusion partnership, which provides one-to-one support for five to 13–year olds. In the wider rural area, particularly in south Somerset, there are schemes that deal with at-risk children and bullying; schemes that provide support for children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves involved with the women's refuge in Yeovil, which, although located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), also serves mine; and schemes for young carers, who are often forgotten about.
On a county-wide basis, there is support for the youth offending team. That is desperately important if we are serious about fighting the causes of crime, which means intervening at an early stage to help young people avoid getting into a criminal way of life. A restorative justice team works within schools to provide a new and, many would argue, better way of dealing with young offenders and with traveller children, which is a significant issue throughout much of my constituency.
I hope that I have provided an overview of a very successful and worthwhile partnership that is very much in line with the Government's stated objectives for young people, as set out in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters". They include the hope that young people will grow up healthy, emotionally secure and confident; that they succeed at school and stay out of trouble; that they live in a safe place; and that they have the opportunity to succeed in achieving their dreams. Those are exactly the objectives that we would want for our own children and all the other children in our communities. That is why the issue is so important.
Somerset has developed a n effective local preventative strategy. All credit is due to Barnardo's, the lead agency in Somerset, and the statutory and the
54WH
voluntary agencies that co-operated with it. Indeed, that seems also to be the view of the Government, whose Government office for the south-west commended the local team on its delivery plan. It was praised for its strong management board, which devised a comprehensive and carefully crafted programme of services to meet local needs. That is in all ways a good news story, something to applaud and something worth while—so why am I having this debate?
I am not here entirely to celebrate the work of the children's fund in Somerset, as the Minister will quickly appreciate. The first person to visit my surgery in Frome two or three weeks ago was Margaret Binney, a lady whom I know reasonably well. She is a tower of strength in the local community and works tirelessly in all sorts of ways in community education and with people who are disadvantaged. She has recently been giving her time voluntarily to a two-week summer school serving children in the most disadvantaged wards in Frome. It was attended by more than 70 children and, by all accounts, was a great success. It was hugely appreciated by the children and their parents.
Margaret Binney was distraught because she had learned that the scheme, which she thought was going from strength to strength and which she hoped to expand in the coming year, was facing a 24 per cent. cut in funding. She said that all her hard work, optimism and enthusiasm were not to be rewarded. She was followed at the same surgery by a succession of other constituents who had been involved with children's fund activities. They all confirmed the situation faced by the fund in Somerset and all expressed concern about the consequences for the scheme.
The Minister will know that Somerset is involved in a wave 3 scheme—we often seem to be latecomers to many programmes, but better late than never. As a result, the scheme did not start until April last year. The programmes were developed on the basis of a promised £3.6 million over three years, starting in April 2003, with an average annual allocation—that is how such matters are now accounted—of £1.2 million.
The organisers of the programme took careful account of the advice that they received from the Government office for the south-west, which was to build up the funding gradually. They were told not to spend every penny in the first year because the business of letting contracts and making other arrangements would mean that it was not feasible. It was suggested that they built it up in the first year, go for full funding in the second year and then back to an average of £1.2 million in the third year. That is exactly what was done, based on the experience in the south-west of the first and second wave in Bristol and Cornwall. Not only did the organisers plan expenditure on that basis, but they made contracts with other providers to make it a reality.
The first sign of a problem—I shall set aside for a moment the clawback of underspend, which I understand; I am not asking for the impossible—was a warning from the Department for Education and Skills last autumn that the figures previously announced might not be met in full. The reality is that they are not going to be met anything like in full. The Somerset children's fund schemes have been told that they face cuts of 15 per cent. below the average annual allocation

55WH
in 2004–05 and 33.3 per cent. below AAA in 2005–06. As a result of the profile of spend, with that hump in the middle, next year we face a 24 per cent. cut.
That is distressing in a number of ways, not simply because of the worthwhile schemes that now might not go ahead, but because of its impact on those who provide and run the schemes, whose enthusiasm we need and whose encouragement should be a high priority. It is also distressing for the children themselves, who had raised expectations which they now find dashed. I understand—the Minister will correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick—that the problem of funding the scheme over the next couple of years is national. My attention has been drawn to the editorial in the February edition of Children Now. It is not desperately friendly towards the Government on the impact of the funding problem, although it is supportive of their intentions, which is exactly my position. I, too, am supportive of the intention, but concerned about the consequences.
Children Now makes an important point: if we are to achieve the things the Minister wants to achieve in her Green Paper—most reasonable people would support the completion of those plans—we need the trust, enthusiasm and skills of people not only in the professional sector and the statutory agencies, but in the voluntary sector as well. The editorial says:
"The Government needs to retain the trust of professionals and managers in the statutory and voluntary sectors for its proposed reforms to stand a chance. At the moment it is squandering that trust".
I suspect that the Minister has good news and will tell me that money has been found. There was a verbal announcement last week of an extra £20 million across the country. I hope that she confirms that figure today. It would be very welcome. I do not know which back pocket it came from. Perhaps she will tell me—or perhaps not—but at least someone has recognised that there is a problem. However, the money will still not meet the needs of the schemes around the country. It will improve the funding in Somerset, but we will still be below the AAA level and well below the contracted amount. So there will still be substantial cutbacks in programmes next year. That is a disaster in all sorts of ways.
I draw attention to the situation in Somerset because I feel for my constituents when they come to see me and say how disappointed they are with the situation. My duty as a constituency MP is to bring that to the attention of the House and to tackle Ministers on it. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that additional figure because it is important. I understand that it has not yet been put in writing to the various schemes around the country, but I hope that it soon will be.
Perhaps the Minister will explain why we are in this situation. Has the statutory sector within the DFES swallowed up the funding; is it a knock-on effect of the difficulties that we all acknowledged with schools' funding last year; or is it a result of the impact of higher or further education? What is eating into the Minister's funds in that way to result in such a change? Can she continue the three-year rolling funding programme? The worst thing that can be done is to promise people
56WH
three years' funding and then change one's mind after one year. That is no way to run anything. I am afraid it smacks of—I will not say incompetence because difficult decisions have had to be taken—the fact that somebody somewhere along the line has got the sums wrong. That problem should be recognised.
What will happen next year? I understand that the £20 million is a one-off payment for this year. Perhaps the Minister will tell IT e that it is recurrent expenditure. That would be helpful in relation to forward planning, but perhaps it is not recurrent. Will she confirm that it is the Government's view that the children's fund is achieving their objectives? If it is, are they prepared to supply the financial and political backing to make it work? Will they provide the assurance, which the voluntary and the professional sector is waiting to hear, that such a situation will not be allowed to happen again? There must be a clear funding stream available in the Department which the Minister can control so that she ensures that it gets to where it is needed.
I finish with the conclusion of the letter from my constituent, Margaret Binney:
"In Britain today we seem to have fallen into the trap of cutting everything that is good and successful. Please can you tell the politicians to stop offering new initiatives without proper thought as to where sustainable funding will come from? It is essentially very cruel to raise people's expectations only to dash them almost immediately."
I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that is. not the situation today, and that it will not be the situation in future, if we are to support such worthwhile schemes.
3.46 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate. I hope that I can give him the assurances that he seeks. I endorse what he said about the importance of the children's fund. It is one of the Government's exciting and successful innovations to invest in services for a group of children who often miss out: the five to-year old group.
We have developed services for under-fives, we do quite a lot to provide for children in their teenage years, but we often forget about services for the crucial five to 13-year-old group, at which the children's fund is directed. The fund has been successful in building lots of exciting projects that support children, most of them run by the voluntary sector. They provide key support for children before things go wrong. We provide preventative services that are crucial in ensuring that children can meet their potential and do not fall through the net into greater difficulties, increasing the demand on public services and damaging their life chances.
That process is important, and it is why we emphasised the shift to prevention in the Green Paper entitled "Every Child Matters". I see a future for children's fund activities within a world in which children's trusts, which we hope will be in place in most authorities by 2006–08, have the responsibility and funding to support such projects in every community, determined locally and meeting local needs, aspirations and priorities. That is how we anticipate that developing. The children's fund sets the tone and demonstrates the sot of policies that will work in the context of our new proposals for children's services.

57WH
I pay tribute to the Somerset children's fund. Barnardo's, which runs many of the children's fund partnerships for us throughout the country, is doing a very good job. A lot of good projects have begun in Somerset. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned one or two. I have been told about a couple of programmes in Somerset, such as Somkids, which is a parenting course for families with children aged five to 13 who have early signs of emotional difficulties. The course helps parents to understand and to listen to their children. It will help children feel happier and more confident about themselves. Groups for children and young people run alongside the parenting groups.
The other scheme that was drawn to my attention and sounded very good was the Minehead middle school transition service, which supports children and parents through the transition from first schools to middle school, in years 4 and 5. There arc two liaison workers, who spend every morning in first schools getting to know the pupils and supporting them in year 5, in September. That is a targeted service for those in the eight to 10-year-old group who are experiencing special educational needs or learning difficulties, who may be subject to bullying or antisocial behaviour or who may themselves have shown some criminal behaviour. Again, that is a good project.
I pay tribute to what is happening in Somerset around the particular needs of people such as traveller children, those from ethnic minorities, children living in temporary accommodation, children with learning and physical disabilities, those with hidden disabilities, children in rural isolation and refugee children. Those are all very good things, which we want to sustain.
I come to the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about funding for his particular children's fund. He is right to say that there has been an impact in Somerset and Frome and in partnerships across country. I sincerely regret and recognise the problems that there have been in the funding of the children's fund and the uncertainties that that has caused in partnerships not just in Somerset but across the country. I sincerely apologise for those difficulties and I assure him, you, Mr. Amess and other hon. Members that we are working hard to get stability back into the programme, and to ensure that the budget is better identified and better managed from here onwards.
Let me explain why we have got ourselves into this situation. We embarked on the children's fund some three or four years ago. The funding is for very small voluntary organisation projects on the ground in every community. It took some time to get those projects off the ground. Therefore, in the early years of the children's fund, there was a considerable underspend. I am sure that you, Mr. Amess, will know that that has been drawn to the attention of hon. Members in the House every now and again.
To deal with that underspend, some sensible decisions were taken, as well as some perhaps less sensible ones. Sensible decisions were taken to top-slice some money for projects such as the summer play schemes for children in danger of getting involved in crime, or to fund some of the work that we are doing around information referral and tracking systems, which are part of the Green Paper proposals. Some money was used for contact centres for children who were not living with both their parents—their parents were separated or
58WH
divorced. That was sensible. We never cut the money and it has not been used for other purposes. It was always used in the preventative area for the five to 13year-old age group.
There were still fears that we would underspend the budget, so we gave allocations to partnerships that represented over-programming—15 per cent over-programming, more money than was available—and we allowed partnerships to carry forward underspends. The mix of allowing over-programming and carrying forward underspends led us into some of the financial difficulties. It meant that we were heading for an overspend—not that we were removing the funding that was available for these particular projects on the ground in local communities—and that we were in danger of spending more than the £450 million that we had been given by the Treasury towards children's fund activities. That is why we started looking at how we could cut spending plans to stay within the budget framework that we had been set by the Treasury.
Having taken those earlier decisions, however, I recognised that, for many partnerships, that change halfway through meant that projects that thought they had secure funding suddenly faced cuts. That is why I am pleased to confirm that we have found extra money for 2004–05, which will bring the allocation back to the £160 million that the partnerships were expecting. It will mean that, on our present plans, we will actually spend during the three-year period in excess of the £450 million that was allocated by the Treasury. With the additional £20 million, we will probably spend closer to £470 million.
We hope by the end of this week to give information to individual partnerships about how the additional national resources can be used locally. The Somerton and Frome partnership will then have a clearer indication of the resources available to it for 2004–05.
Mr. Heath: I am pleased with what the Minister is saying. Can she tell me whether any view has been taken on the spending profile that was urged on the partnerships by the Government? Will it be recognised in the allocation of additional funds? It seems critical that spending bulges are recognised.
Margaret Hodge: We recognise that problems may still exist for authorities that were in the so-called wave 3 programme, because of the way in which they profiled expenditure, with less spent in 2003–04, much more in 2004–05 and gradually declining amounts in 2005–06. It is to deal with such problems that we will set aside from the additional moneys a small contingency figure. It will be mainly but not solely available to authorities in the wave 3 programme that are facing particular problems. Again, we will make that clear to partnerships such as Somerton and Frome when we write to them at the end of this week.
The hon. Gentleman asked about 2005–06, which still leaves us with some difficulties. I want to approach that in a collaborative way with all the stakeholders: the large voluntary organisations, the many small voluntary organisations that have initiated good projects out of the funding and the local authorities and others who have an interest in the matter. I understand that everyone is keen to get some indication of the funding

59WH
that will be available for 2005–06, so that they can start to plan effectively. Therefore, we have set a figure of £110 million for 2005–06, but I emphasise that final decisions will depend on the outcome of our discussions with partnerships and, of course, on the outcome of the spending review on which we are just embarking.
I hope that I have given some certainty to the hon. Gentleman and to people in his community who have been very distressed by the instability caused by decisions that were taken by the Department at an earlier stage. I leave him with this reassurance. The projects and programmes that have been initiated through the children's fund are vital. If we are to shift the emphasis of what we do from intervening when things go wrong in children's lives to preventing things from going wrong, these small, targeted, preventative programmes in local communities are utterly central. That is why I wish to engage in discussions and collaboration with the organisations on the ground and the partnerships to consider how we can best achieve stability in the next two or three years and how we can then sustain the effort and projects into the new world when children's trusts will drive children's services in every community.

Asbestos Claims
4 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I thank Mr. Speaker through you, Mr. Amess, for giving me the opportunity to stage this short debate today. It is a debate that I wish I did not have to initiate or contribute to, because it concerns the firm of Mclvor and Sons Ltd. in Birkenhead, which was established in 1864 and until recently employed 25 people. It has now shut its doors and called in the liquidators, and it is the circumstances of that liquidation that I wish to debate with the Minister today.
In a sense it is appalling that I am having to ask for a debate on this issue, but it is doubly appalling given who I am debating with. I have said before, although I do not say it often now because it may damage her political future, that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is clearly our most attractive younger Minister. If one were thinking of putting money on who would go near the top, one would be wise to put money on her. Yet I hope that she will draw two important lessons from today's debate and that the Treasury will not only answer letters more efficiently but will be more receptive to the policy issues raised. I shall now detail the backbone of my complaint.
The person who ran Mclvor contacted me in mid-June and I immediately inquired in the House of Commons Library which civil servant in which Department was in charge of the asbestos claims procedure. I have no complaint to make against the Library, because within days I was told who the person was, and I phoned the Treasury on a number of occasions to ask to speak directly to him. During that week, he was endlessly away from his desk, no doubt quite properly: civil servants, like the rest of us, are entitled to holidays.
The weeks went by and I was still not getting a reply from the Treasury, though people were promising me one, so a month later I wrote to the Chief Secretary to ask him whether I could meet the official to talk about the moral hazard faced by the firm that I represent in Birkenhead and all the other firms in the country with asbestos claims. Even though premiums were paid to a company called Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd., that company did some very unpleasant footwork with the premiums, set up a holding company, shunted into it all the main asbestos claims and then took the rest of the business off and let the company sink. My constituents and others, who had paid in even when they did not have to, found that the insurance cover that they had bought was of no value.
To their half credit, the Government said that, if a firm goes bankrupt because it does not have the cover that it has paid for goodness knows how many years, the taxpayer will pick up the cost, but if the firm survives, it must meet the claims itself. Therefore, there is an incentive in the system for firms to go bankrupt and perhaps re-establish themselves later, minus the debts. This was a firm that had managed to survive all sorts of Government policies since 1864, but it was defeated by this one.
As I said, I asked the Chief Secretary whether I could meet the civil servant in charge of policy, because it is the policy that needs changing, so that we can overcome this

61WH
moral hazard and firms can receive some help with their claims while still being allowed co continue trading. I wrote to him on 17 July. My office and I then made a number of calls to his office asking whether I would receive a reply. As a result of those phone calls, the Financial Secretary wrote on 4 September to say that she was the Minister responsible and that she would reply.
I phoned the Financial Secretary's office and then wrote again on 16 October asking for a speedy reply. I still received no reply, so finally in. December I tabled a question asking whether I would get a reply to any of the letters that I had written. At that stage she replied to me. However, because McIvor's had told me how difficult the circumstances were—its bankers were beginning to question whether it should continue trading—I asked her Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), whether he would look at the papers and brief her, given that I was not keen to rely on the Treasury's internal post any longer.
Unfortunately, the first batch of letters did not arrive, so I re-copied them to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who then referred them to the Treasury. By that stage, seven months after I started the correspondence, my constituent told me that the banks had sent in the liquidators. Those liquidators told my constituent that not only did they have to deal with his liquidation, but in the same area they were dealing with a similar liquidation of a company that had paid all its premiums to Chester Street Insurance Holdings and now found itself without cover for its workers who might make claims against it for asbestosis. That firm had similarly gone bankrupt.
Up to the point of bankruptcy and closure, no taxpayers' money would be made available to help those firms meet claims, which they wished to meet, should any of their past or current employees claim that their health was damaged by working for them. Both firms gained no help; both have gone out of business. The work force and previous work force of both firms are now covered by the Government's guarantee on behalf of taxpayers. Therefore, I want to raise only two issues.
An apology does little good to those 25 people who lost their jobs in Birkenhead and who might not have lost their jobs had the Treasury responded from mid-July with even the modest efficiency that the Chancellor accuses the rest of British industry of when it comes to productivity. We might not then ha re needed this debate today. We are not after apologies. First, there is clearly something wrong with the way in which the Treasury deals with correspondence from Members of Parliament, let alone everybody else.
Secondly, and even more important, there is the policy issue that I tried to raise with the Treasury in mid-June: is it acceptable to have a scheme that offers no help to those firms that in the past have paid all their insurance premiums to Chester Street Insurance Holdings, only to find that that company ripped them off, put their liabilities in a company that it allowed to fold and then walked away with all the other business that it could make a profit on? Is it sensible to have a system that helps those decent employers—or rather the work force of those decent employers—only when we have managed to smash the employer on the floor and
62WH
that employer has closed the business? Should we not be looking at developing the scheme and eradicating this moral hazard?
Would not a better use of taxpayers' money have been to help meet not all—that was never what was asked for-but part of the cost of the asbestosis claims of past employees? That would have meant that the firm did not have to go out of business. Would that not have been better than the taxpayer meeting all the claims after it had gone out of business? We have destroyed really good, productive jobs in the meantime. We are talking about a firm that began operations in 1864 and has provided people with family wages in Birkenhead since then. It closed for business, needless to say, on Friday the 13th of February.
4.10 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. I know that he is not looking for apologies, but I apologise profusely for the way in which his correspondence was treated and the fact that the issue was not dealt with immediately in July, or beforehand. That is inexcusable. I hope he will accept those apologies. I am extremely sorry that the firm in his constituency, about which he wrote to me, became insolvent in the intervening period. Clearly, the situation is entirely unsatisfactory.
The Government have enormous sympathy for the victims of industrial diseases, such as asbestos-related diseases, vibration white finger and industrial deafness, which are particularly unpleasant and distressing for both the sufferers and their families. We are sensitive to the anxieties of those who may have come into contact with asbestos in the past and live with the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be affected in the future.
The underlying principle, which we should not lose sight of, is that employers are responsible for securing the health and safety of their employees while they are at work. When employers are found to have failed in that regard, they are liable to compensate employees who are injured or made ill at work. It is for the employer to meet that liability. Employers' liability insurance enables employers to insure against the costs of compensation payable to those employees who are injured or suffer from a disease as a result of their work. It provides greater security to employers in relation to costs that could otherwise result in financial difficulty, and means that employees know that resources will be available for compensation even when employers have become insolvent or have limited resources of their own available. It supports the right of employees who suffer from injury or disease as a result of their work to be fairly compensated and the responsibility of employers to fund the true costs of their business—the "polluter pays" principle.
Under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 it became compulsory from 1972 for employers to insure against liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by employees arising out of, and in the course of, their employment in Great Britain. That point will become relevant when I come to consider the case in my right hon. Friend's constituency.
The Government are committed to encouraging better health and safety in order to reduce costs to firms from injury, illness and absence. In the past months the

63WH
Government have worked with business, the insurance industry, lawyers and unions to review and improve the operation of employers' liability insurance.
My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I consider the history of the Chester Street insolvency. Yet again, it is particularly relevant to the case in his constituency. He is aware of the uncertainty that was caused in 2001 as a consequence of the insolvency of one insurer, Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. That was particularly worrying for victims of asbestosis and other industrial diseases and their families, whose employers had insured with Chester Street. It was worrying when the exposure occurred prior to 1972, when employers' liability insurance became compulsory. The Government worked extremely hard, in partnership with the insurance industry, to end the uncertainty. The arrangements were set out in May 2001 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
When an employer still exists and is solvent, or its liabilities have been carried forward to another business, that employer or successor business is liable to pay any compensation due for workplace injury or disease. The employer or successor will have a right to full reimbursement from the financial services compensation scheme, applying the rules applicable under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, if the liability was covered by compulsory insurance. Employers who are sole traders or partnerships will have a right to reimbursement of 90 per cent. if the liability was covered by non-compulsory insurance. Where the employer is insolvent or no longer exists and there is no successor business now liable, under the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend, the Government are meeting their liabilities to former public sector employees, and the insurance industry is covering claims from former private sector employees.
Broadly speaking, those private sector employees of insolvent companies are receiving compensation in three ways. First, the financial services compensation scheme is making payments in accordance with the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 for awards made against employers, or settlements agreed by employers, prior to Chester Street's insolvency in January 2001. Secondly, the insurance industry, via the Association of British Insurers, has funded equivalent payments for awards or settlements made between Chester Street's insolvency in January 2001 and the commencement of the financial services compensation scheme on 1 December 2001. Thirdly, the scheme is funding payments—under transitional arrangements provided for by the Treasury when the scheme began—for cases where the liability of Chester Street to the employees concerned was not determined until after 1 December 2001.
In all, more than £25 million has been paid in claims against Chester Street by the Policyholders Protection Board and subsequently by the financial services compensation scheme between 2001 and 2004.
Mr. Field: The firm to which I referred voluntarily insured before it had to. As the Minister knows, one evil of this disease is that the symptoms do not become apparent until decades later. Those companies that were
64WH
good enough to insure their employees before the introduction of compulsory insurance are not covered by the measures that the Government have since announced. The measures cover the period since compulsory insurance.
Ruth Kelly: My right hon. Friend is right, and I will come on to his specific point. He raises the particular issue about arrangements for companies that took out employers' liability insurance with an insurer that is now insolvent and unable to meet claims. He is concerned about whether employers should receive compensation if they would otherwise become insolvent as a result of meeting such claims. It is an incredibly complex situation, with different funding streams pre-insolvency, post-insolvency and pre-and post-financial services compensation scheme. It bears telling the full story before dealing with the specific point that he raises.
The financial services compensation scheme acts as a safety net for customers of finance sector companies. It compensates such customers if an authorised company is unable to pay claims. It covers insurance, deposits and investments and is funded by a levy on the financial services industry. I understand from the scheme that where an insurer has become insolvent before 1 December 2001, the scheme will apply the provisions of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 to determine whether compensation is due to the employer, subject to certain transitional provisions. Under section 6(4) of the 1975 Act, which relates to certain compulsory insurances, the scheme will offer 100 per cent. compensation to policyholders for employers' liability insurance claims incurred from 1 January 1972, when such insurance became compulsory.
Under sections 6(6) and 8(2) of the 1975 Act, which relate to other non-compulsory insurances, the scheme is able to pay 90 per cent. compensation to policyholders who are in partnerships or are individuals. The Act does not permit payment of compensation in respect of non-compulsory insurance to policyholders that are limited companies. Therefore, limited companies are not eligible for compensation in respect of non-compulsory, pre-1972 employers' liability insurance, as my right hon. Friend is aware.
Where the insurer has become insolvent after 1 December 2001, I understand from the scheme that it will apply its own rules in determining whether compensation is payable. For compulsory insurances, the position remains that all policyholders will be able to receive 100 per cent. compensation. Broadly speaking and subject to certain transitional provisions, for non-compulsory insurances, including pre-1972 employers' liability insurance, the scheme will pay compensation of 100 per cent. of the first £2,000 of any claim and 90 per cent. of the balance to individuals and small businesses. In addition to small partnerships and individuals, small companies are eligible for compensation, but large partnerships will be excluded from receiving it. The relevant criteria are set out in the financial services compensation scheme rules.
Those new rules, however, apply only in relation to policies purchased after 1 December 2001, when the FSCS came into force. In respect of policies purchased before that date, my right hon. Friend makes an important and valid point, which is that the FSCS rules that determine eligibility and compensation levels will

65WH
more closely reflect the payments that were available under the 1975 Act. That means that, in respect of policies purchased before 1 December 2001, large partnerships will be eligible for compensation in respect of non-compulsory insurance. All companies, other than small companies, will continue to be excluded from compensation in respect of the pre-1 December 2001 non-compulsory insurance policies. That is the gap that my right hon. Friend identified.
I understand the concern that my right hon. Friend raised about the situation of companies where insurances are not compulsory—for example, the distinction between employers' liability insurance before and after 1 January 1972. He set out the consequences for a company in his constituency and he made a compelling argument about moral hazard. I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to views on the subject today. As I explained, companies are generally excluded from compensation under the financial services compensation scheme. except for relevant compulsory insurances. Under the 1975 Act, any policyholder is eligible for compensation for relevant compulsory insurances. Employers' liability insurance policies were compulsory after 1 January 1972.
Before 1972 there was no obligation to take out employers' liability insurance, and those who chose to take out insurance did so aware of the risk that if the insurer collapsed, the liabilities would fall back on them. It is possible to argue that it is right that employers should take primary responsibility for settling claims resulting from their own business activities. It has been put to me that any change to those arrangements would impact on the costs of the compensation scheme and would be reflected in insurance premiums. I have been led to believe that such costs could be significant if solvent, larger businesses were included, where they are not obliged to take out compulsory insurance policies. It is difficult to estimate the impact of that on insurance premiums, but it could be substantial
There is an argument to be made about small companies. My right hon. Friend made his point eloquently and persuasively, and we failed to consider the issue adequately in the first instance. Given that, I promise to ensure that after this debate my officials will liaise with him and with the Financial Services Authority, which determines the rules for the FSCS, to see if the gap can be filled by a change in the rules, or whether allowing retrospection for the group of companies that he mentioned would have unintended consequences in other areas.
Mr. Field: I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking, but before she concludes, will she undertake to impress on those who are to be party to those discussions that we are talking about the most noble group of companies? Those companies did not
66WH
have to do what they did. They cut their profits and their directors' take-home pay because they wanted their employees to be covered. They did not expect—none of us did—that Chester Street Insurance Holdings would devise such an evil little scheme to dump its insurance on to a company that was going to fold. We are not talking about the worst parts of British industry, but about people who should be held up as a model. We want employers to go the second mile, not just the first. I hope that this will be given emphasis in the discussions. We are talking about people who went two miles, when most employers went no miles.
Ruth Kelly: I accept my right hon. Friend's point. It is important to look at the individual circumstances of firms when they were prepared to take out non-compulsory insurance pre-1972. It is only right, however, as I am sure he will accept, that we balance that consideration against the potential cost for the financial services compensation scheme of meeting all retrospective claims in the manner in which he suggests. It is impossible for me today to know how those two considerations will weigh against each other. However, I pledge to my right hon. Friend that my officials will liaise with him and with the FSA to consider the issue seriously and keep him fully informed as that discussion progresses.
Mr. Field: Much as I welcome all this, I am slightly worried. Would it be possible for the Minister to specify a date by which she will come back to me?
Ruth Kelly: I can promise my right hon. Friend that within a month officials will liaise with him to keep him informed of any progress, if any has been made. They will at least let him know the situation. Following this debate they will pursue their inquiries with the FSA, which is responsible for the FSCS rules, to determine whether they have been set in the appropriate manner, and whether there is scope for improvement. I am not suggesting that we, in principle, accept my right hon. Friend's case, merely that we will investigate to see whether the rules have been set appropriately and whether the case has been made adequately.
It is certainly the case that the FSCS rules are extremely complex, but it is the FSA, rather than the Treasury, which has primary responsibility for setting them. I would urge my right hon. Friend to take up his case directly with the FSA, as well as with the Treasury, as I am sure that he will want to hear for himself the arguments that they are making. I hope that the debate has been of some value to him and, as promised, I will keep him in touch with developments.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock.

HEALTH

  Health Facilities (Eastern England)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for(a) new diagnostic and treatment centres and (b) new acute hospitals in the eastern region of England. [155731]

  Dr. Ladyman
  By 2005 there will he a further four new Treatment Centres in the eastern region of England providing services for NHS patients. In addition further investment is being made in expanding NHS hospital services at four main sites.

  National Service Framework for Long-term Conditions
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made in preparing a national service framework for long-term conditions. [155732]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We are making good progress in developing the national service framework for longterm conditions which will focus on improving services for people with neurological conditions. We plan to publish the framework in December 2004 for implementation from 2005. Only yesterday, I met the Chairs of the External Reference Group to discuss progress, and I expect to receive final advice from the group in the spring.

  Children's Hospices
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the amount of NHS funding allocated to children's hospices. [155733]

  Dr. Ladyman
  National Health Service funding is available through negotiation between children's hospices and primary care trusts. which are responsible for funding health care for their resident population. There are no limits to the amount of funding which may be provided; this is for local decision.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding guidance issued to doctors concerning the prescribing of benzodiazepines. [155734]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Guidance on the prescribing of benzodiazepines is provided in i he British National Formulary, which is sent to all doctors within the National Health Service and on the Internet at Electronic Medicines Compendium. The guidance has been reiterated in the Chief Medical Officer's Update 342W
  dated January 2004 Which announced the Department's intention to introduce instalment dispensing of benzodiazepines to minimise access to extensive doses.

  Obesity
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to combat obesity in school children. [155735]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government takes the issue of tackling obesity in children very seriously. Prevention is the best long-term approach, by improving diet and promoting physical activity. Strategies are being developed through the Food and Health Action Plan that promotes healthy diet and the Activity Co-ordination Team that promotes physical activity.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to tackle obesity through increasing physical activity. [155742]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, I chair the cross-Government Activity Co-ordination Team, which is preparing a delivery plan on how the Government will increase physical activity in England. We aim to publish a consultation document on physical activity proposals in April as part of the Public Health White Paper consultation process.

  I have also commissioned 10 Local Exercise Action Pilots across England, which are currently under way. These will evaluate a range of different methods—and establish which are most effective—in driving up sustained physical activity rates across the population.

  Domiciliary Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on domiciliary care. [155736]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Domiciliary Care Agencies Regulations 2002 and National Minimum Standards for Domiciliary Care came into force on 1 April 2003. People using domiciliary care services are protected for the first time by a regulatory framework.

  Progress on the target to increase by March 2006 the number of those supported to live intensively at home to 30 per cent. of all those being supported at home or in residential care, is encouraging. The percentage has risen by nearly two points from 27.2 per cent. to 29 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Tertiary Treatment Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost of travel and accommodation for(a)patients undergoing tertiary treatment and (b) their relatives or carers. [155737]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Patients eligible under the NHS Low Income Scheme are entitled to full or partial reimbursement of their costs to hospital under the Hospital Travel Cost Scheme. The transport costs of an escort may also be reimbursed, but not the cost of accommodation, or any cost associated with relatives.
  343W

  General Practitioners
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of out-of-hours general practitioner services. [155738]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts are working with general practitioners and other organisations to develop out-of-hours services that meet national quality standards and local needs. With more direct control over the way these services are commissioned and provided they will be able to ensure they are better integrated with other unscheduled care services.

  Trauma Consultants
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of trauma consultants needed by the NHS in 2010; and how many such consultants there were on the latest date for which figures are available. [155739]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 30 June 2003, there were 1,396 consultants in trauma and orthopaedic surgery, an increase of 32 per cent. since September 1997. We are planning to increase trauma and orthopaedic consultant numbers by a further 9 per cent. between March 2004 and March 2006.

  The national health service will continue to plan, for three-year periods, its future workforce requirements and steps will be taken to address the identified need.

  Hospital Star Ratings
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the star rating system for hospitals. [155740]

  Mr. Hutton
  From April 2004, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will take over the responsibility for performance rating the national health service. It will be up to CHAI to determine what form performance assessments will take in the future.

  Crohn's Disease
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of bone marrow treatment for those suffering from Crohn's disease. [155741]

  Dr. Ladyman
  While we welcome new developments that improve our understanding of distressing conditions like Crohn's disease, we would need to see a rigorous scientific and clinical analysis of this particular procedure, and its outcomes, before we could judge whether it was suitable for NHS patients with Crohn's disease.

  The assessment of new treatments is a gradual process. Evidence from clinical trials may suggest that a new treatment is effective. Further research is then undertaken to provide substantive evidence around issues like long-term safety, before moving to the implementation stage. We have to await evidence provided by the medical and research community before we implement new procedures and treatments.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provison is made for ambulance drivers to receive(a) initial and (b)refresher training; and if he will make a statement.[155462]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  National health service trusts are responsible for ensuring that their staff are suitably trained and qualified to perform their duties. Ambulance staff employed on emergency driving duties receive initial driving training, are required to satisfy proficiency standards and to receive periodic refresher training to maintain proficiency in accordance with a national syllabus and standards.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has published on the vision levels that ambulance drivers need to achieve and on how frequently they should receive eye checks. [155463]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Through its occupational health service each national health service trust is responsible for setting and monitoring staff health standards—including eyesight—and for ensuring that they conform to driver licensing requirements and relevant occupational health guidance.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what standards of driving test ambulance drivers are required to meet; and what the failure rate was in each year since 1997. [155464]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Ambulance drivers are required to hold the driving licence appropriate to the class of vehicle they drive and to undertake training and an assessment as part of their initial and refresher training. Information on success or failure rates is not held centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the guidelines published by his Department on the disciplinary code for ambulance drivers. [155465]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Each national health service trust is responsible for developing, adopting and implementing an appropriate disciplinary code for its staff.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what disciplinary measures are taken against ambulance drivers who are involved in road accidents. [155466]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is the responsibility of each national health service trust to investigate any accidents, alleged failure or misconduct on the part of its staff and where necessary to instigate disciplinary action in accordance with its local procedures.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance drivers in the NHS have not received additional driver training; and if he will make a statement. [156002]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We are not aware of any specific instance of a national health service ambulance driver having failed to receive suitable driving training.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date specialist ambulance driver training became mandatory. [156003]
  345W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The mandatory requirement is that ambulance drivers are requited to hold the driving licence appropriate to the class of vehicle they drive. In addition, ambulance drivers engaged on emergency duties should undertake specialist driver training in an accredited driving school as part of the basic ambulance training course. This requirement has been in place since 1968, when the responsibility for ambulance services rested with local government.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accidents involving ambulances there were(a) in total and (b) involving fatalities, in each year since 1997 in (i) England and (ii) each ambulance trust; and if he will make a statement. [156001]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on accidents involving ambulances is shown in the table. Figures for each individual ambulance trust are not collected centrally.

  Accidents involving ambulances, by : England, 1997–2002

  Severity

  1997

  1998

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Fatal

  4

  3

  7

  4

  3

  5

  Serious

  35

  38

  29

  37

  22

  33

  Slight

  232

  282

  246

  299

  278

  257

  All

  271

  323

  282

  340

  303

  295

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets for ambulance 999 calls in rural areas have been set; and what the latest figures for performance against these targets are. [154906]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Current ambulance response targets are:category A calls—presenting conditions which may be immediately life-threatening and which should be responded to within eight minutes irrespective of location in 75 per cent. of cases;
  category B calls—presenting conditions which, though serious, are not immediately life-threatening and should be responded to within 14 minutes (urban) and 19 minutes (rural) in 95 per cent. of cases;
  category C calls—presenting conditions which are not immediately life-threatening or serious but should also be responded to within 14 minutes (urban) and 19 minutes (rural) in 95 per cent. of cases; and
  urgent cases—in addition to emergency 999 calls, ambulance services are required to take patients to hospital where the need is identified by a doctor as urgent and these patients should arrive at hospital within 15 minutes of the arrival time specified by the doctor in 95 per cent. of cases.

  Information about performance of ambulance trusts is published annually in a statistical bulletin. The latest data are in "Ambulance Services, England: 2002–03". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.pdf

  Cataract Operations (Kent)
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cataract operations will be carried out in Kent in financial year 2003–04. [155729]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Kent and Medway Strategic Health Authority plan to provide a total of 11,084 cataract operations this year in Kent. As a result, the 346W
  maximum waiting time for cataract operations in Kent will be down to six months by 31 March 2004—a year-and-a-half ahead of the NHS Plan target.

  Child Social Work Team (Gatwick Airport)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of proposals to fund a joint unit at Gatwick Airport between immigration officials and members of West Sussex Social Services Child Protection Division. [144997]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have not as yet received formal proposals from the local authority on the structure and function of a Children Social Work team at Gatwick. The amendment to section 110 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 allows us to provide funding for special projects of this nature, and we will give full and careful consideration to any proposals from West Sussex once we receive them.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Electoral Pilots
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what the cost of the Electoral Commission report on Electoral Pilots at the June 2004 elections was. [155119]

  Mr. Viggers
  I am advised by the Chairman of the Commission that the total cost to it of reporting on the most suitable European Parliamentary regions for electoral pilots at the June 2004 combined European Parliamentary and local elections, as directed by the Government under section 6(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, is estimated to have been approximately £32,000.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal By-Products Regulations
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place the Department's guidelines on the implementation of the EU Directive on Animal By-Products in the Library. [153469]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Guidance is available on the Defra website at hhtp://defraweb/animalh/by-prods/default.htm.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the proposed new EU regulation on animal transport. [155663]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are seeking measures that result in improved conditions and better enforcement throughout the EU.
  347W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether there is a central register of those convicted of cruelty to animals in the United Kingdom; [155570]

  (2) whether there is a central register of those banned from keeping animals in the United Kingdom. [155571]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no central register of people convicted of cruelty or who have been disqualified from keeping animals. However, the Department is considering, as part of the proposed Animal Welfare Bill, the introduction of an Animal Welfare Enforcement Database, which would assist in the enforcement of animal welfare legislation in England and Wales. It is proposed that the database would include details of those people who have been convicted and disqualified from keeping animals.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the natural predators of the badger are, other than man; and what effect they exert on the United Kingdom badger population. [153961]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Adult badgers have no natural predators, other than man in Britain. It is not unusual, however, for badger cubs to be killed by dogs, foxes and sometimes by adult badgers1.

  Table summary of badgers taken during trial operations to 12 January 2004

  May 1998 to January 1999

  May 1999 to January 2000

  May 2000 to January 2001

  May 2002 to January 2003

  May 2003 to January 2004

  Total

  Triplet Proactive (P) or Reactive (R)

  P

  R

  P

  R

  P

  R

  P

  R

  P

  R

  P

  R

  A

  55

  0

  0

  34

  149

  47

  52

  36

  256

  117

  B

  238

  0

  85

  73

  74

  34

  49

  84

  172

  110

  618

  301

  C

  246

  0

  111

  178

  126

  115

  132

  101

  615

  394

  D

  293

  0

  368

  122

  661

  122

  E

  1744

  0

  96

  62

  258

  126

  1,098

  188

  F

  451

  0

  248

  145

  103

  290

  802

  435

  G

  428

  0

  205

  172

  144

  84

  777

  256

  H

  162

  0

  231

  16

  71

  143

  464

  159

  I

  219

  0

  175

  94

  394

  94

  J

  441

  0

  187

  0

  628

  0

  Sub total

  238

  386

  73

  1,970

  246

  2,057

  641

  1,662

  1,106

  6,313

  2,066

  Total (P and R)

  238

  459

  2,216

  2,698

  2,768

  8,379

  1Combined total for initial and follow-up cull completed in the same culling year

  Note:

  No data for May 2001-January 2002 when trial suspended due to FMD

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what targets have been set for the bovine TB testing of herds in the last five years for which figures are available; how many have been completed; and how long it will take to clear the backlog of required tests. [155082]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The State Veterinary Service has two targets relating to TB testing of cattle herds:

  95 per cent. of herds to be tested within one month of the due date, and

  100 per cent. of herds to be tested within three months of the due date.

  348W
  The impact of non-human induced mortality on the national badger population has not been quantified.

  1The Handbook of British Mammals (1991). Third Edition. Edited by G. B. Corbet and S. Harris. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers have been culled in each of the(a) proactive and (b) inactive cull areas in each of the selected trial zones in each year since the trials commenced. [155081]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Randomised Badger Culling Trial compares 30 areas of 100 km2, grouped into 10 triplets. One of the following three "treatments" is allocated to each trial area:
  'Proactive' culling whet e badgers are trapped and culled at the outset of the trial and at intervals afterwards.
  'Reactive' culling where badgers are trapped and culled from social groups associated with farms which have a confirmed incident of bovine TB during the course of the trial.
  'Survey only' areas where no trapping or culling takes place. Setts are surveyed regularly to check for signs of unlawful removal of badgers. These areas act as a scientific control against which the impact of the two culling strategies can be measured.

  Culling in the reactive areas of the trial has been suspended.

  Details of the badgers culled in the proactive and reactive treatment areas are given in the following table:

  The following table details the performance figures for the years where figures are available.

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Number of herds due to be tested

  12,207

  19,877

  15,524

  Completed tests within one month of the due date (percentage)

  14.5

  47.4

  78.7

  Completed tests within three months of the due date (percentage)

  22.7

  65.0

  92.7

  1to end September

  The number of tests overdue at the end of December 2003 was 3,623 of which only 163 were more than 12 months overdue (provisional data). This is similar to the number of overdue TB tests recorded before the FMD epidemic.
  349W
  The number of overdue TB tests has remained more or less stable since April 2003, with no significant trend up or down. It is therefore considered that the clearance of the backlog of TB tests, which accumulated during the FMD epidemic, has been completed.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what budget was set by her Department for each year for all aspects of bovine TB research, testing, culling, compensation,

  Expenditure on bovine TB in Great Britain: 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Expenditure in £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Compensation1

  3,491

  5,303

  6,632

  9,243

  31,146

  TB testing

  7,247

  8,329

  8,675

  3,571

  12,398

  Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) and associated research

  2,988

  4,392

  6,630

  6,001

  6,479

  Other research (not including RBCT)

  2,541

  4,114

  5,266

  6,112

  6,824

  Other costs2

  8,617

  9,002

  8,996

  5,557

  17,055

  Total (rounded figures)

  24,883

  31,141

  36,199

  30,485

  73,902

  1Includes compensation paid for cattle and deer slaughtered as a result of TB control measures.

  2Includes State Veterinary Service staff costs and diagnosis carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.

  Fieldwork costs are included in the expenditure shown for the RBCT and associated research.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much beef was not allowed into the country on health grounds in the last year for which figures are available. [155349]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Centrally kept statistics do not provide information to answer the question in the form asked. I can say that in the year 2003, out of 15,294 consignments of imported meat and meat products, derived from cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses presented for veterinary checks at Border Inspection Posts in the UK, 215 were rejected for various reasons. It is not possible to say how many were rejected on health grounds as consignments rejected for other reasons—for example, because of incorrect certification or because they did not tally with the accompanying documentation, would not be further checked to see if there were also health problems.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the(a) operational and (b) safety impact of including steaming time in the days at sea allowance. [150324]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  For vessels using demersal trawls of over 100 mm mesh, the total allocation of days per month is 15, the same as last year, though the total last year included a separately identified element for steaming days. There need, therefore, be no differential impact this year. We do not, however, propose to require vessels to include time lost in life-threatening circumstances at sea (such as going to the aid of another vessel in distress) as part of their allocation.
  350W
  fieldwork and other costs for the last five years for which figures are available; and what the actual spending was in each year. [155083]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Historical information on the budgets originally set for various elements of the bovine TB programme is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a breakdown of the actual spend for the last five financial years is shown in the following table:

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the economic impact on the UK retail market of the UK fishing fleet producing a surplus of haddock in the absence of adequate cod supplies. [152368]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Because of the global nature of the markets for the main whitefish species, the impact of such changes is difficult to quantify, since there is no simple relationship between local catch levels and market prices.

  Flood Alleviation (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure that the plans by South Somerset District Council for a Merriott flood alleviation scheme (phase 2) receive early approval from(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency to enable it to qualify for funding available before 31 March; and if she will make a statement.[155107]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the significant flooding in autumn 2000, the Department agreed to consider special cases supported by the Environment Agency (EA) HQ for particularly deserving river defence schemes that did not achieve the priority score threshold for Defra funding. Such schemes still had to meet the other basic criteria for funding. For special case consideration, EA HQ identified criteria that were then not reflected fully in the priority scoring system. On that basis, they supported a number of special cases that the Department accepted in July 2001. Much of the special case criteria was incorporated into the revised priority scoring system that came into effect in April 2003. When notifying details of 2003–04 allocations to flood defence operating authorities in February 2003, officials indicated that, given special cases were identified as urgent following the autumn 2000 floods, the Department would not expect to extend special treatment beyond 2003–04.
  351W
  I understand that the South Somerset District Council is urgently seeking the necessary consents from the Environment Agency and English Nature and will then submit an application. The Department will consider the application as swiftly as possible.

  Game Licences
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the impact of game licences on(a) the sport of shooting, (b) the quarry species and (c) the environment; and if she will make a statement. [155180]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No assessment has been made of the impact of game licences on the sport of shooting game, the quarry species covered by these licences or the environment more generally.

  Poultry Imports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1301W, which EU countries ban the import of chickens infected with salmonella; and for what reasons the United Kingdom does not ban salmonella infected chickens. [155184]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]There are no bans as such on imports into EU countries of live chickens or chicken meat because of salmonella. However, European Community legislation stipulates that live chickens intended for breeding or production imported from third countries have to be accompanied by certification confirming that they are from flocks which have been submitted to a disease surveillance programme for salmonella pullorum and salmonella gallinarum.

  Live chickens traded between member states must come from flocks that are routinely monitored for salmonella pullorum and salmonella gallinarum. In addition, the chickens must be monitored for salmonella while the birds are in quarantine. Those birds intended for slaughter and destined for Finland or Sweden, must be subject to a microbiological test by sampling in the establishment of origin.

  Chicken meat imported from third countries and destined for Finland and Sweden must be subject to a microbiological test by sampling in the establishment of origin.

  The UK complies fully with European Community rules as outlined above.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will list the water supply and urban and rural drainage bodies in England which are companies where a holding company or majority of shareholdings are not of the 352W
  United Kingdom, stating in each case the country and name of the ultimate owner, together with date of acquisition. [145468]

  Mr. Morley
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 January 2004, Official Report, c. 742W]In my answer I referred to information on Cambridge Water and Folkestone and Dover. This was incorrect.

  The correct information for Cambridge Water and Folkestone and Dover is as follows:

  Water only undertakers

  Ultimate holding company and where headquarters is based

  Date of acquisition

  Cambridge Water plc

  Union Electricia Fenosa

  January 2000

  SA (Spain)

  Folkestone and Dover

  Veolia Environnement

  Owned since before

  Water Services Ltd.

  (France)

  1989

  The rest of the answer remains correct.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Amendments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will ensure that amendments to Bills which appear on the Order Paper are available at the same time on the parliamentary website. [154571]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The timetable for electronic publication of House of Commons documents is based on the recommendation of the Information Committee: that they should be made available as soon as practicable after release to Members. However, it also takes into account the potential cost to the House of moving to earlier publication. Although times of publication have been advanced in instances where this can be achieved at little cost, simultaneous publication is not practicable.

  At the moment marshalled lists of amendments are made available electronically by 12 noon on the day of publication in printed form. Discussions with the House's contractor indicate that this time could be brought forward to 9.30 am without giving rise to substantial additional costs; and this option will be pursued

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his Department's expenditure on recruitment advertising was in each of the last three years, broken down by publication; and what proportion of such expenditure was(a) to advertise vacant posts and (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155520]

  Hilary Benn
  The proportion of our overall advertising expenditure spent to(a) advertise vacant posts and (b) in the form of other recruitment advertising, is shown in the following table.
  353W

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total advertising expenditure (£)

  1,208,190.72

  914,571.19

  849,196.36

  Total spent on advertising vacant posts (£)

  836.848.13

  702,098.15

  746,712.70

  Percentage spent on advertising vacant posts

  69

  77

  88

  Total spent on other recruitment advertising (£)

  371,342.59

  212,473.04

  102,483.66

  Percentage spent on other recruitment advertising

  31

  23

  12

  It would involve disproportionate cost for DFID to break down our recruitment advertising expenditure by publication.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Child Murders (Drugs)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Solicitor-General whether investigations into the criminal cases in which a parent has been convicted of murdering a child will include an assessment of whether(a) cisapride and (b) other drugs contributed to the deaths. [153753]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since the release of Angela Cannings by the Court of Appeal and its published judgment, the Attorney-General has instigated a number of measures. A total of 258 convictions over the last 10 years for the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of a child under two by its parent have been identified. Of those, a total of 72 relate to persons still serving a custodial sentence. These will be accorded the utmost priority. Currently, some 365 boxes of evidence relating to 52 high profile cases have been recovered from central storage and dispatched to CPS areas for them to conduct an initial review. The remaining high profile cases are being recovered from the areas themselves.

  With the help of the Interdepartmental Group a system of review has been established. Each individual case will first be subject to a preliminary review by the relevant CPS Area to identify its key characteristics. Each case will then be reviewed by a central review team to establish whether any features identified by the Court of Appeal in Angela Cannings' judgment make the conviction potentially unsafe. As the review proceeds, the issues in each case will become clearer and the review team will be alert for any factors, including drugs, which were held to have contributed towards the death of an infant.

CABINET OFFICE

  Internet
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is being done to raise levels of internet usage among those sectors of the population whose usage is under the national average, with particular reference to the(a) 55 to 64 and (b) 65 and over age groups. [155264]

  Mr. Alexander
  Opportunities to physically access the internet are now pervasive for all age-groups. Research by the Oxford Internet Institute has found that 96 per cent. of the population are aware of a place where they could get online.
  354W
  For those, like some older people, who may need additional support to get online there is a network of over 6,000 UK online centres which offer community-based internet access and training at low or no cost. Last year the 'Get Started' campaign aimed to drive up internet use among key groups such as the elderly, those with disabilities and the unemployed. Of those who responded, 37 per cent. were over 65 and 45 per cent. were retired.

  In addition on 15 December 2003 the Government announced a Digital Inclusion Panel which will advise Government and industry on how to ensure a digitally United Kingdom. Digital connectivity among older age-groups will be one
  area to be reviewed.

  Better Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list executive board members appointed to promote better regulation, broken down by department; and what their respective private sector experience is in each case. [155277]

  Mr. Alexander
  As of 1 February 2004, the network of departmental board level members for better regulation consisted of:

  Board member

  Margaret Aldred

  Home Office

  Alan Davey

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Karen Dunnell

  Office for National Statistics

  Eddie Frizzell

  Scottish Executive

  Paul Gray

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Stephen Haddrill

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Mike Hanson

  HM Customs and Excise

  Dave Hartnett

  Board of Inland Revenue

  Donald Mcrae

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs

  Peter Makeham

  Department for Education and Skills

  Willy Rickett

  Department for Transport

  James Sassoon

  HM Treasury

  Jonathan Spencer

  Department of Constitutional Affairs

  Richard Stagg

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Pat Stewart

  Food Standards Agency

  Hugh Taylor

  Department of Health

  Peter Unwin

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Jane Willis

  Health and Safety Executive

  Baroness Young of Old Scone

  Environment Agency

  These senior departmental nominees draw on a wide range of experience in advising within their organisation on private sector, public sector and European regulatory issues.

TRANSPORT

  A35
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to upgrade the A35 between Dorchester and Honiton. [155299]
  355W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no current plans for significant upgrading of the A35 between Dorchester and Honiton.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve(a) traffic flow and (b) road safety at Raymond's Hill on the A35. [155300]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency substantially completed a safety improvement scheme at Raymond's Hill last year, which includes new signs, red anti-skid surfacing and two traffic islands. It will prevent overtaking through the junction, help traffic entering or crossing the trunk road and assist pedestrians crossing the road. A reduction of the speed limit to 40 mph is also planned and this proposal has recently been advertised.

  The new scheme will have limited effect on traffic flow but should make a significant improvement to road safety. Its impact will be monitored to see if further measures are necessary.

  A404
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he will set a date for the resurfacing of the A404 Marlow by-pass; [155068]

  (2) whether the A404 Marlow by-pass meets the criteria for remedial action on environmental grounds to reduce noise pollution. [155069]

  Mr. Darling
  The A404 Marlow Bypass is currently in a satisfactory condition as far as safety is concerned and is not expected to require resurfacing within the next few years. As a result, no date has yet been set.

  However, I can confirm that the A404 Marlow Bypass meets the criteria announced on 22 March 1999 for consideration for remedial action on environmental grounds to reduce noise pollution.

  Aviation Security
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions his Department has had with counterparts in the Transport Safety Authority of the US Administration concerning matters of aviation security. [155221]

  Mr. McNulty
  Departmental officials are in very regular contact with their opposite numbers in the US Transportation Security Administration, about a range of aviation security matters.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the disclosure to the Sunday Telegraph of the Strategic Rail Authority's latest study of the Central Railway proposal; and if he will make a statement. [155242]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is not the Department's practice to comment on such matters.

  Cycling
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for each local authority the financial support given by the Department to support cycling proficiency tests in 2003–04; [155868]
  356W
  (2) how many cycling proficiency tests were completed last yeas; and what the pass rates were for those tests, broken down by local authority. [155870]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local authorities fund cycle training from within their overall resources for transport. We do not hold data centrally on how many cycling proficiency tests are undertaken.

  The Government are supportive of cycle training and our research has shown that it is effective, with trained children found to be significantly safer than untrained children when knowledge and skills were tested two years after training. We want to see an increase in the level, and improvement in the quality, of cycle training for children.

  The Department has been working closely with a number of groups to develop cycle training. With our support 'Guidelines for the management and Operation of Practical Cyclist Training Schemes' were revised and published by RoSPA in June 2000. In July 2001 the Department for Transport and the Department of Health gave grant funding amounting to £76,000 to the Cyclist Touring Club to run a three-year project to develop a cycle training scheme for adults and teenagers. This led to the development of the publication, "Adult Cycle Training—A Guide for Instructors and Organisers", which was launched in May 2003 and sent to all road safety officers. We are also working with a group of cycle training experts to develop a new National Standard for child cyclist training. This will be piloted in schools from April, with a view to a launch later in the year.

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who pays the minimum usage charge paid to Eurotunnel. [154910]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Minimum Usage Charge (MUC) is a top-up mechanism that assures Eurotunnel of a minimum income from Eurostar and rail freight services for the first 12 years of commercial operations. It is a contractual commitment to Eurotunnel by the French and UK railways currently operating through the Tunnel. For the UK, Eurostar UK Ltd. is responsible for all payments relating to passenger services, and the Strategic Rail Authority currently makes the payments for freight services. On the French side, the payments are made by SNCF.

  Infrastructure Improvement Schemes (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the infrastructure improvement schemes in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley; and what their projected cost is. [153500]

  Dr. Howells
  The Chorley Transport Interchange opened in March 2003 at a cost of £2,500,000. Work is currently under way improving Chorley Railway Station at a cost of £309,000. Details of other local transport infrastructure schemes and projected costs are set out in the Local Transport Plans and Annual Progress Reports, published by Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Borough Council and Blackburn-with-Darwen Borough Council.
  357W
  Additionally, both Chorley and Lancashire will benefit from the £7.5 billion West Coast Mainline route modernisation programme that is currently under way.

  Details of infrastructure improvement schemes for the motorway and trunk road network in Lancashire, including projected costs during 2003–04, are set out in the following table.

  Highways Agency: Infrastructure Improvement Schemes

  Category/Scheme Description

  2003–04 Full Year Forecast (£000)

  Safely Improvements

  M6 Preston Signage and Road Markings, Junctions 30 to 32

  145

  M6 Road Markings

  31

  A585 Thornton Roundabout Improvements

  127

  A585 Thistleton Junction Improvements

  178

  Safety Improvements—Minor Schemes

  178

  Congestion Easing

  A585 Singleton Crossroads

  33

  Renewal of Roads

  M6 North of Junction 34 to 35, Carnforth

  3,632

  M55 Broughton Crash Barriers

  1,710

  M6 Junction 32 Broughton Electric Cabling for Road Signs

  219

  Minor Capital Maintenance

  670

  Renewal of Bridges and Structures

  M6 Three Pinned Concrete Footbridge

  298

  M6 Forton Service Area Piers

  26

  M6 Golden Fleece

  10

  M6 Carnforth

  800

  M6 Occupation Bridges Bailtons

  3

  M6 Occupation Bridge Mount Pleasant

  100

  Block Allocation for other Bridge Schemes

  455

  Accessibility Improvements

  Improvements for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Horse Riders

  35

  Tourism Signage

  M6 Strategic Tourism Signing

  300

  Total

  8,950

  Road Safety
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports from judges the Government have received in relation to concluded cases of failure to stop after a road crash. [154917]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Failing to stop after an accident is a summary offence and as such it would normally be dealt with at a magistrates' court. Judges would not therefore deal with such offences unless they were committed for sentence to the Crown Court together with an indictable or triable either-way offence. My Department does not hold data centrally relating to reports from Judges who sat on particular cases.

  Road Resurfacing
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the latest criteria for prioritisation of resurfacing of roads are. [155979]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The criteria for the prioritisation of resurfacing flexible trunk roads are related to the condition of the surface. The combined assessment of levels of rutting, surface crack intensity, unevenness,358W
  skid resistance, the general wear of the surface material and the frequency of accidents associated with the surface condition, is used to determine the programme for resurfacing. The aim is to maintain the trunk road network using the principle of minimising whole life costs, taking account of disruption to the road users and the need to keep the road in a safe and serviceable condition.

  On concrete roads, priorities for dealing with the most pressing cases of traffic noise have been established as set out in the Secretary of State's announcement to the House on 1 April 2003, and these will be progressed as funding allows.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the criteria for categorisation of sites for each level of noise reduction road resurfacing programmes; and what the effect of each categorisation is. [155983]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Categorisation of sites for low noise surfacing is primarily based on maintenance need. In addition, we have criteria for categorisation for noise reduction of roads with concrete surfaces. I announced these criteria on 17 October 2001; they are:

  that wherever possible the application of quieter surfaces will fit in with normal maintenance needs;

  that priority will be given to those sites where treatment would benefit the greatest number of people;

  that the works will be carried out in such a way as to minimise disruption to general public and users of the network;

  that priority will be given to roads, opened since June 1998, where actual noise levels have turned out to be significantly higher than predicted at the time of Public Inquiry.

  Priority is given to road surfaces that are deteriorating and to locations where road safety is an issue. Where the resurfacing is specifically for noise reduction purposes priority will be given to those cases in which the actual noise levels exceed those predicted by at least three decibels, or where more than 100 properties per kilometre are effected by excess noise.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change there has been in estimated costs of resurfacing the M1 between junctions 20 and 21 since the initial announcement; and if he will make a statement. [155987]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Final cost details for resurfacing of the M1 between Junctions 20 and 21 will not be available until current investigations by the Highways Agency are completed. It was initially anticipated that part of this section of the M1 would be resurfaced in 2004 but Value Management assessments have shown that other areas of the network need to be given higher priority. The assessments demonstrated that better value for money would be obtained by undertaking more work than simply resurfacing, although this would result in increased capital cost.

  Rolling Stock
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) actual and (b) percentage increase in power supply is required to operate an eight-car new third-rail train compared with its slam-door predecessor, assuming no change in average speed; and if he will make a statement. [155416]
  359W
  Mr. McNulty
  At lower speeds the new trains are more efficient. At higher speeds—up to 75mph—the traction draw is higher. The power draw for the new trains travelling at up to 75mph is capped at 1500 amps. For Mark I trains the draw is 750 amps. In percentage terms, a Siemens Class 450 Desiro train draws 39.6 per cent. more traction power than a Mark I train. A Bombardier Electrostar Class 375 draws 35 per cent. more traction power than a Mark I train.

  Shipping
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1235W, if he will introduce primary legislation to revise the eligibility criteria for the scheme; and what discussions his Department has had with representatives of seafarer trade unions concerning alterations to the Crew Relief Costs Scheme. [155511]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Primary legislation will be introduced when Parliamentary time is available. The proposed extension of the Crew Relief Costs Scheme was discussed with members of the Shipping Working Group, including seafarer trade unions, when the policy outlined in the White Paper "British Shipping: Charting a New Course" was being developed.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1242W, if he will make a statement on the progress made towards implementing the actions contained in "British Shipping: Charting a New Course"; whether it is his policy to implement all the actions in the paper; and when his Department will conclude the implementation of these actions. [155513]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's shipping policy is stated in the White Paper "British Shipping: Charting a New Course". Some of the actions are on-going and so will not have a date by which they will be completed. It is therefore not possible to issue a timetable showing when the implementation will be concluded. An update of the current status of the 33 actions from "Charting" has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Snowfall Measures
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department issues for local authorities in respect of measures to deal with snowfall. [155798]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport strongly recommends that local highway authorities carry out winter maintenance in accordance with the Code of Practice for highway maintenance, "Delivering Best Value in Highway Maintenance", which was published in July 2001.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding his Department has provided for each speed camera partnership in England and which partners are involved in each partnership. [155213]
  360W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Eight partnerships, six in England, trialled the safety camera cost recovery scheme from April 2000 to March 2002. A further seven (six in England) joined during 2002.

  Funding for the camera activities of the Safety Camera Partnerships in England, met from conditional fixed penalty fines for speeding and red light offences, for 2000–01 and 2001–02, is as follows:

  Number

  2000–01

  Cleveland

  771,901

  Essex

  1,846,480

  Lincolnshire

  512,721

  Nottingham

  622,371

  Northants

  1,702,404

  Thames Valley

  1,825,639

  Total

  7,281,516

  2001–02

  Cleveland

  486,891

  Essex

  3,003,763

  Lincolnshire

  516,818

  Nottingham

  778,536

  Northants

  2,247,838

  Thames Valley

  2,617,031

  Cambridgeshire

  113,760

  Derbyshire

  455,659

  Lancashire

  761,017

  Norfolk

  433,100

  Staffordshire

  629,246

  Warwickshire

  355,068

  Totals

  12,398,727

  Information on the Partnerships' expenditure for 2002–03 is being prepared and will be published shortly.

  Safety Camera Partnerships comprise representatives of the police force (or forces), local authorities and Magistrates' Courts Committees for the areas concerned. Some Partnerships also include representative of the Highways Agency and local Health Authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his oral answer of 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 616, how many people were (a) killed and (b) seriously injured in the three years prior to the establishment of camera sites in the Christchurch constituency, and how many have been (i) killed and (ii) seriously injured since, in respect of each of the camera sites. [155507]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]My Department does not hold statistical information broken down by Parliamentary constituency areas. The hon. Member may wish to contact the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership for more detailed information.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Retirement Age
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are in place to determine the(a) minimum and (b) maximum armed forces retirement age; and if he will make a statement. [154960]
  361W
  Mr. Caplin
  The question of retirement procedures is a complex one as each of the Services have their individual regulations and, indeed, within each Service retirement criteria can vary considerably depending on factors such as length of service, rank and professional specialty. In addition, the introduction of the Three Tier Commission (short, medium and full) in April 1999 and such initiatives as the Common Terms of Service for medical officers mean that the already complex situation is exacerbated as the legacy rights of personnel serving before the introduction of these schemes have to be taken into consideration. However, in order to offer some indication of the minimum and maximum retirement ages the following can be used as a generic guide. Further more detailed information can be provided on specific cases if required.

  There is no standard minimum retirement age as personnel can leave at various points after enlistment. However, in general terms, to receive an immediately payable pension officers would have to serve a minimum of 16 years from the age of 21 (37), whilst non-commissioned officers would have to serve a minimum of 22 years from the age of 18 (40). Personnel who leave too early to receive the immediately payable pension may be entitled to a preserved pension, based on their length of service, which is payable at the age of 60.

  The normal maximum retirement age is 55 but again this can vary depending on factors such as seniority and professional specialty. For example, a Medical Officer in a senior position could stay in post until the age of 65. It should also be noted that any individual may have their service extended beyond their normal retirement age if to do so would be of mutual benefit to the Service and the individual.

  Consultation Documents
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individuals and organisations to whom(a) his Department, (b) its executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible sent a copy of the consultation document, "The Future of the Defence Diversification Agency". [153852]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Consultation Document "The Future of The Defence Diversification Agency" was published on 8 February 2001. I have placed a list of the individuals and organisations which were sent a copy of the document in the Library of the House.

  Defence Estates Core Sites
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Defence Estates Core Sites Report of March 2003 will be published. [155558]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is not our intention to publish the list, which is a working document and subject to constant detailed revision as the department undertakes further work to clarify where estate rationalisation may be possible. Any specific proposals arising from these studies will be subject to proper announcement to the House and full consultation.
  362W

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures United Kingdom forces have taken in the area of Southern Iraq under British control to ensure no weapons of mass destruction, their components, relevant explosives or contaminants are smuggled out of Iraq. [152318]

  Mr. Hoon
  Specific searches for WMD are the responsibility of the Iraq Survey Group, although UK forces routinely conduct a range of anti-smuggling operations as a part of continuing security operations in the UK area of responsibility in Southern Iraq. UK forces are also involved in training Iraqi border officials.

  Missile Defence Technology
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2004, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch),Official Report, column 920W, if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the research projects funded by his Department, the Longer Range Threat, BMD studies and the Capability Gap Work; and if he will place reports relating to these projects in the Library. [155656]

  Mr. Hoon
  We keep the threat posed by ballistic missiles to the United Kingdom and its deployed forces—and the best means of countering this threat—under constant review. An unclassified summary of the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme referred to in my answer of 19 January to the hon. Member for Hereford Official Report, column 920W has already been placed in the Library. However, much of our work in this area must remain classified. The Longer Range Threat and the Capability Gap Work programmes, together with the Ballistic Missile Defence studies, form part of our new Ballistic Missile Defence programme, and no unclassified summary of this work is available.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated costs of plans to upgrade nuclear weapons design and production facilities at Aldermaston are; how much has been allocated for this upgrade; and what the timetable is for its completion. [154079]

  Mr. Hoon
  The refurbishment and replacement of older facilities, and the decommissioning of those no longer required, is a continuing programme of work at AWE to meet safety, regulatory and operational requirements. We made clear in paragraph 3.11 of the Defence White Paper published in December (CM 6041—1) that we will take appropriate steps to ensure that the range of options for maintaining a nuclear deterrent capability is kept open until we need to take decisions on whether to replace Trident.

  The costs of the continuing programme are included in the overall incentivised price of the 25-year AWE Management and Operation contract. The precise timing, scope and cost of all the investments required over the 25 year period have yet to be finalised with the

  363W
  AWE contractor. The total cost of operating AWE for the current financial year is expected to be of the order of £310 million.

SCOTLAND

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in his Department have been(a) suspended, (b) dismissed, (c) prosecuted and (d) convicted for involvement in benefit fraud in each of the last six years; and what the amounts involved were in each of the cases listed. [154543]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. Since that date no disciplinary action or prosecutions have taken place against staff for involvement in benefit fraud.

  Census Records
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which years each of the 1851 to 1901 decennial censuses of population for Scotland were released for public inspection; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for release of the 1911 census records for Scotland. [153936]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The General Register Office for Scotland (GRO(S)), an associated department of the Scottish Executive, is responsible for carrying out periodic censuses of Scotland's population.

  The Scottish Census returns for 1841–71 were opened to public inspection in 1923. The returns for 1881 and 1891 were opened to public inspection, though with some restrictions on copying, in 1955. The records for 1901 were opened to public inspection at the end of 2001.

  I understand the returns for 1911 will not be opened to public inspection until 2011.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much space, expressed in square metres, the Office occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150278]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office occupies 1,857 sq m of Dover House in central London. The remaining space in the building is shared between a number of other Departments; the Scottish Executive: 320 sq m, Scottish Development International: 57 sq m and other parts of the Department for Constitutional Affairs: 111 sq m.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last used a train in connection with his ministerial duties. [155169]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Secretary of State regularly travels by all modes of public transport. My right hon. Friend last travelled by train in connection with his ministerial duties on 2 February.
  364W
  All ministerial travel on official business is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in "Travel by Ministers".

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in his Department in the last 12 months. [147981]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Staff of the Scotland Office have reported one security pass as stolen and four as lost in the last 12 months.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Gift Aid
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations her Department has received from(a) the museum and (b) the heritage sectors in relation to introducing Gift Aid tax relief (i) in writing, (ii) in meetings and (iii) in any forms since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [156009]

  Mr. Caborn
  Such information as is available about the representations this Department has received from the museums and heritage sectors since 1997 in relation to Gift Aid tax relief is provided below. These relate to the changes to the Gift Aid Scheme announced in the Pre-Budget Report (Cm 6042).

  Written representations have been received from The Charleston Trust, Chatham Historic Dockyard, Bronte Society and Dulwich Picture Gallery, Mr. G. Lovewell Blake and R. P. Heyworth.

  In addition representatives from the following representative bodies and associations and DCMS sponsored bodies attended a recent meeting arranged by the Department with Inland Revenue officials to discuss the implementation of the proposed changes: Association of Independent Museums, Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions Ltd, Chatham Historic Dockyards Trust, ECSITE-UK, English Heritage, Historic Royal Palaces, Millennium Commission, Museums Association, National Maritime Museum, North of England Zoological Society, Visitor Attractions Forum, Zoological Society London.

  The Government are consulting closely with charities that might be affected by changes to the Gift Aid legislation announced in the Pre-Budget Report, through their associations and representative bodies, on the detail of how the change may be best achieved.

  Ministerial Visits
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the ministerial visits(a) she and (b) her Ministers have made in the last 12 months. [145600]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am arranging for a list of visits made by DCMS Ministers in the past 12 months to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  365W

  Railway Carriages
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she received concerning the campaign to retain Wagon-Lits railway carriage 2757 in the UK prior to its purchase by Dutch interests; and when, and how, the matter was first raised with her Department. [155992]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]My right hon Friend the Secretary of State did not receive any representations concerning the campaign to retain the Wagon-Lits railway carriage 2757 in the UK prior to its purchase by Dutch interests in November 2003. The first representation received by the Secretary of State was a letter from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), on behalf of a constituent.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's expenditure on recruitment advertising was in each of the last three years, broken down by publication; and what proportion of such expenditure was(a) to advertise vacant posts and (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155518]
  366W
  Mr. Caborn
  The department's expenditure on recruitment advertising in 2002–03 and 2003–04 to date is shown as follows. Equivalent information for 2001–02 is no longer available.

  2002–03: £59,922
  2003–04: £51,349.

  All expenditure is linked to the advertising of vacant posts. A breakdown of expenditure by publication is not recorded. However the Department will typically advertise senior posts in the Guardian and/or Times, and, where appropriate, in specialist publications (e.g Accountancy Age, Museums Journal). More junior posts are advertised in the local press.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from motorsport interests in connection with the cessation of tobacco advertising. [153036]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have received one representation from the motorsport industry relating to the ban, seeking clarification of the EU Directive. It is not a matter for DCMS and I have referred the query to the Department of Health.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum/Immigration
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is Home Office policy to resist applications for adjournments of asylum cases where applicants prima facie fall within the amnesty. [152464]

  Beverley Hughes
  Home Office policy, generally, is not to oppose applications for adjournments of asylum appeals when asked for a view by Adjudicators in cases where applicants may fall for consideration under the indefinite leave to remain exercise announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 24 October 2003.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to make provision for children who are not offered temporary residence but whose parents are; [144614]

  (2) what factors underlay the decision to grant non-British citizens longer stays in the UK than their children. [144613]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is our usual policy to grant dependent children leave to enter or remain in line with that of other parents or carers. As all applications are considered on their individual merits, there may from time to time be cases where a different period of leave is granted. There is no category of temporary residence under the Immigration Rules and there are no plans to introduce one.

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were resident in Glasgow in the last year for which figures are available. [153730]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Statistics on the location of asylum seekers in the UK are linked to the available information on the support that the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers currently in the UK are either in receipt of support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) or from local authorities, or are supporting themselves. Statistics regarding the location of asylum seekers not in receipt of NASS support are unavailable.

  The table gives quarterly data on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in Glasgow.
  368W

  In NASS accommodation

  In receipt of subsistence only support from NASS

  December 2002

  5,665

  140

  March 2003

  6,070

  140

  June 2003

  5,885

  140

  September 2003

  5,730

  125

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to track the outcomes of unaccompanied children returned under the new pilots to ensure that the return is in the best interests of the child; and what he will do if the assessment of the child's circumstances suggests that removal places him or her at risk. [155401]

  Beverley Hughes
  The returns programme is still in the early stages of development. The programme will include a monitoring and evaluation strategy. A child/young person will only be returned under the programme after an individual assessment has been made on their suitability for return. This assessment will be made in partnership with local authority Social Service Departments and will include a judgment as to whether a return is in the child's best interests and whether the child/young person faces any risk on return.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current backlog of cases is at each directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [142926]

  Beverley Hughes
  At the end of December 2003, the latest date for which published data are available, the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision had continued to fall, to 24,500, the lowest level for a decade, and 40 per cent. lower than at the end of December 2002 (41,300). The number of initial decisions continues to exceed the level of applications. The speed of decision making is at record levels with initial decisions made and served within two months on 80 per cent. of applications1 received in April to September 2003.

  In October 2001 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a package of measures to improve the asylum process. Part of this package was to reduce the number of outstanding asylum cases to a steady state of work in progress. In order to do this the immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) expanded their capacity to process asylum appeals from 4,000 to 6,000 asylum appeals a month by November 2002. These increases, added to other successes in reducing the asylum intake, have meant that the number of outstanding asylum appeals is now reducing down to frictional levels.

  A record 81,725 appeals were determined by adjudicators in 2003, more than a quarter (27 per cent.) higher than in 2002 (64,405). The number of appeals determined by adjudicators in Q4 2003 was 22 per cent. higher than Q4 2002 (from 16,615 to 20,285). As a result, the number of asylum appeals lodged with the Home Office which had not been sent to 12,000, 60 per cent. lower than at the end of December 2002 (30,000). A proportion of asylum appeals lodged do not result in appeal bundles being sent to the IAA.
  369W
  The available information on the number of cases dealt within is given in the Home Office Annual Report 2002–03, copies of which are available from the Library.

  Information on the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision and on the number that had not been sent to the IAA is published quarterly on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  1excluding withdrawals and third country cases.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports in the care of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for the processing of applications have been(a) lost and (b) stolen in each of the last five years. [148498]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information dating back to 1998 for each of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND's) buildings is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. For the period 1 April 2003 to 31 January 2004, IND processed 451,974 applications. For the same period, 694 Loss of Passport Letters were issued. This represents 0.15 per cent. of applications received.

  A range of measures including the setting up of secure handling areas and the early return of sponsors' passports have been put in place to improve IND's ability to find and return documents at the time of requests.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the maximum length of time is that a child has been detained in(a) Dungavel, (b) Tinsley House and (c) Oakington. [151865]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]Information on the maximum length of stay of people resident in Immigration Service Removal Centres is not available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of people detained solely under Immigration Act powers at 27 December 2003 is due to be published on 24 February in the Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2003 publication on the Home Office website: www homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was imposed in fines on(a) airlines and (b) other carriers for transporting illegal immigrants in the last year for which figures are available. [155958]

  Beverley Hughes
  Separate records are not kept of charges relating to air carriers only.

  During 2003 the total demanded of all carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and under Section 40 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was £7.55 million. These charges relate to persons arriving in the United Kingdom without the required documents. Such charges may arise where persons arrive with genuine passports but do not have the required visa, where they arrive with forged documents or impersonate the rightful holder of a document or where they arrive with no document. In the majority
  370W
  of cases the persons concerned are classified as inadequately documented passengers. rather than illegal entrants.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the benchmark street price for cannabis used when calculating the value of seizures by his Department was in each of the last five years; what changes have been made to this figure in the last six months; and what the reasons for those changes were. [155559]

  Caroline Flint
  According to data collected by the National Criminal Intelligence Service the UK average street price for cannabis has been as follows over the last five years.

  £ per ounce

  As at December

  Herbal Cannabis

  Cannabis Resin

  1999

  89

  100

  2000

  82

  85

  2001

  80

  77

  2002

  83

  81

  2003

  72

  66

  In August 2003 the figures were £74 and £66. We are not aware of any other changes in recent months.

  Correspondence
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central dated(a) 16 September 2003 re: Mrs. MG, references P014031/3 and G 1057225/2 and (b) 29 October 2003 re: Mrs. FA, references 0/988549 and A544430. [154487]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 February 2004]The information is as follows:

  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 12 February 2004.

  The Immigration and National Directorate (IND) wrote to my hon. Friend on 19 February.

  Crime (Havering and Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to reduce levels of youth crime in the London Borough of Havering. [154854]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are supporting a wide programme to tackle youth crime in all areas to prevent children being drawn into crime in the first place, with more targeted initiatives focusing on those young people most at risk, supported by effective youth justice interventions to reduce reoffending.

  The programme in Havering sees a number of agencies, including the Youth Offending Team, the police, education, health, housing, community safety, and the youth service working together to reduce youth crime in the borough, by supporting a range of preventative and diversionary schemes. Specific programmes include the Positive Activities for Young People programme targeting young people during the school holidays; the London Connexions Truck which visits venues on a two-week basis to provide intensive

  371W
  outreach work with young people at risk; the introduction of a Youth Inclusion and Support Panel to target those eight to 13-year-olds most at risk of both offending and anti-social behaviour; a dedicated outreach worker to provide drugs awareness and education information to young people; and the local "U" Project. working with year 11 school leavers who are not in education, training or employment.

  There is also a clear focus on reducing reoffending by young people, including through the expansion of the Intensive Supervisions and Surveillance Programme which is targeted at the more persistent young offenders in order to tackle their offending behaviour.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the crime and disorder steering groups that include hon. Members; and if he will make a statement on the involvement of hon. Members on crime and disorder groups. 154314]

  Ms Blears
  We recognise that hon. and right hon. Members are in a unique position to reflect community concerns as a result of their dealings with their local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships.

  At a national level, there are two key groups that engage Ministers, who are Members of this House and another place, and drive forward the Government's crime reduction agenda. These groups are CJS(CR) and my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister's regular stocktakes.

  The Ministerial Committee on the Criminal Justice System Sub-Committee on Crime Reduction (CJS(CR)) oversees the Government's programme to reduce crime. In addition, the Prime Minister has regular stocktakes with Ministers, officials and stakeholders to consider the pressing issues relating to crime reduction.

  Criminal Intelligence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department has issued to police forces on the use of(a) criminal pattern analysis and (b) comparative case analysis. [1546351

  Ms Blears
  No formal guidelines have been issued although research studies have been published relevant to this area.

  The Department has supported the roll out of the National Intelligence Model and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has produced a set of minimum standards for the model. These were circulated to forces in 2003. The National Policing Plan expects forces to adopt the model to these minimum standards by April 2004. The standards include the creation of four intelligence products that inform the setting of local and force priorities and the making of tactical resourcing decisions. The four intelligence products are informed by nine analytical techniques, one of which is Crime Pattern Analysis (analysis of the criminal would form the basis of one of the model's intelligence products). The techniques are used by trained intelligence analysts operating at both Basic Commend Unit and force level.
  372W
  Crime Pattern Analysis informs Comparative Case Analysis. Comparative Case Analysis is a standard analytical technique of the Serious Crime Analysis Section (SCAS) of the National Crime and Operations Faculty at CENTREX. The technique is predominantly utilised for, and suited to, serious crime and a code of practice on Serious Crime Analysis Compliance is nearing completion.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many volunteers working in athletics have(a) applied for and (b) been approved by Criminal Records Bureau checks in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154129]

  Ms Blears
  I am unable to answer the hon. Member's question about the number of applications submitted by volunteers working in athletics to the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in each year since 1997 because the Bureau does not hold information in that format. Nor can I provide details of the number of applications from volunteers working in athletics that have been approved by the Criminal Records Bureau. It is outside of the remit of the Bureau to do so.

  The Criminal Records Bureau will process an application that has been submitted for a preemployment check on an individual and issue a Disclosure that may or may not contain details of criminal convictions or other information that might be pertinent to the position sought. The information is presented to an employer, who will make a decision on the applicant's suitability.

  Hen Harriers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for persecution of hen harriers in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [1547281]

  Ms Blears
  Information collected centrally by the Home Office on court proceedings under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not enable the type of bird involved to be identified.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will ensure that(a) human rights and (b) civil liberties will not be violated under the proposed identity card scheme. [155340]

  Beverley Hughes
  A s set out in "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" (Cm 6020), data held on the National Identity Register will be basic identity information. Only Parliament would be able to change the statutory purposes of the scheme or the information that could be held by the scheme. Organisations using the National Identity Register to verify identity will not be able to get to other personal information, for instance health or tax records via the register.

  Police and other organisations will not have routine access to data stored on the National Identity Register. Access would only be authorised in specific circumstances. Such access would be subject to legal and

  373W
  procedural safeguards and independent oversight. There will be no new power for the police to stop someone and demand to see their card.

  Research suggests that a majority of people in minority ethnic communities overwhelmingly support the idea of a national identity card scheme and do not feel that the proposals would be discriminatory; however, we will continue to work with organisations like the Commission for Racial Equality to ensure this in practice.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will ensure that the central register used in the identity card scheme will be more(a) accurate and (b) transparent than existing databases. [155342]

  Beverley Hughes
  The central register, the National Identity Register, will be built from scratch using information provided by individuals as they are issued with identity cards and will not rely on other sources of data that may have historical or other errors. However, before an entry is confirmed, it will be checked against other databases such as passports, driving licences and immigration records to establish a person's historical footprint. The register will also link each individual's record to biometric information that is unique to that person. This will help prevent multiple registrations and people's identities being stolen. The National Identity Register will therefore be a single, highly reliable record of a person's identity. By establishing in statute the National Identity Register, there will be transparency in the purposes of and in the data held by the scheme, which could only be changed by a decision of Parliament.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect of the initiative to deactivate stolen phones upon mobile phone theft. [154855]

  Ms Blears
  Home Office research ("Mobile Phone Theft", December 2001) found that mobile phone theft was fuelling the rise in street robbery. The Government have worked in partnership with the mobile phone industry and the police to address the issue through the Street Crime Initiative.

  As part of this work, from 1 November 2002, all six UK network operators have snared a database on mobile phones so that lost and stolen handsets can be blocked from use across all UK networks. A publicity campaign has informed people of this. There are now over 1.1 million handsets on the UK database, making them less attractive as objects of theft. Street robbery went down 17 per cent. in 2002–03 compared with 2001–02 across the 10 street crime police force areas as a result of the implementation of this and other measures.

  Police
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are undergoing firearms training; and what the figure was five years ago. [154686]
  374W
  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving police officers are qualified in the use of firearms; and what the figure was five years ago. [154687]

  Ms Blears
  The number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs) in police forces in England and Wales for years 1998–2003 is shown in the table.

  Number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs)

  1997–98

  6,585

  1998–99

  6,308

  1999–2000

  6,262

  2000–01

  6,064

  2001–02

  5,776

  2002–03

  5,763

  Tom Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what offences arrests can be carried out by a police officer only in uniform; and what the reason is for this condition. [154003]

  Ms Blears
  The full information requested is not readily available and further research is required to provide a comprehensive reply. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police cells are in use in Lancashire. [153505]

  Ms Blears
  The Chief Constable of Lancashire informs me that there are 176 cells in use within the police area.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police cells are available per head of population in each police force area. [153507]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of cells is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cells were used for housing prisoners in each police force area on the latest date for which figures are available. [153508]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held centrally. This is an operational matter that falls within the remit of the individual Chief Constables.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis he has calculated the provisional increase in direct Home Office grant to police authorities for 2004–05. [151873]

  Ms Blears
  We decided, exceptionally, on an increase of 3.25 per cent. in general grant to meet general inflationary pressures and allow all police authorities to set budgets that do not place excessive burdens on local taxpayers.
  375W
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has put in place to ensure that police authorities receive sufficient funding to meet their commitments under their statutory Police Plans. [151877]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's key priorities for policing over the next three years were set out in the National Policing Plan 2004–07. This national plan provides the framework within which local policing plans are prepared. Local policing plans and the funding of commitments contained in them are matters for individual police authorities.

  All police authorities in England and Wales will receive a 3.25 per cent. increase in general grants next year. This exceeds projections of general inflation of around 2.6 per cent. On top of this, funding for a range of targeted programmes and capital provision will be made available.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been provided to each police authority from Airwave grant in 2003–04; and what the planned provision is from Airwave grant for each police authority for 2004–05. [150630]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]The distribution of money from the Airwave grant to police authorities in 2003–04 is as shown in the following annex 'A'.

  In 2004–05, the Airwave grant payable to police authorities is to be absorbed within the general Home Office grant to the police.

  This funding is to be distributed as shown in the following annex 'B'.

  Annex A: Allocation of Airwave grant 2003–04

  £000

  Revenue

  Capital

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  505

  —

  505

  Bedfordshire

  233

  —

  233

  Cambridgeshire

  338

  —

  338

  Cheshire

  246

  4,193

  4,439

  City of London

  119

  —

  119

  Cleveland

  432

  —

  432

  Cumbria

  0

  —

  0

  Derbyshire

  307

  —

  307

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  —

  0

  Dorset

  157

  —

  157

  Durham

  184

  —

  184

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  577

  577

  Essex

  443

  1,884

  2,327

  Gloucestershire

  154

  —

  154

  GMP

  1,128

  —

  1,128

  Gwent

  155

  —

  155

  Hampshire

  593

  7,597

  8,190

  Hertfordshire

  293

  —

  293

  Humberside

  341

  —

  341

  Kent

  0

  7,153

  7,153

  Lancashire

  541

  —

  541

  Leicestershire

  307

  —

  307

  Lincolnshire

  429

  —

  429

  Merseyside

  1,236

  2,631

  3,867

  Met

  3,355

  11,663

  15,018

  Norfolk

  0

  3,232

  3,232

  North Wales

  0

  843

  843

  North Yorkshire

  232

  —

  232

  Northamptonshire

  99

  2,532

  2,631

  376W

  Annex A: Allocation of Airwave grant 2003–04

  £000

  Revenue

  Capital

  Total

  Northumbria

  635

  —

  635

  Nottinghamshire

  943

  —

  943

  South Wales

  548

  —

  548

  South Yorkshire

  903

  4,695

  5,598

  Staffordshire

  0

  4,357

  4,357

  Suffolk

  207

  —

  207

  Surrey

  531

  2.762

  3,293

  Sussex

  0

  1,873

  1,873

  Thames Valley

  674

  —

  674

  Warwickshire

  40

  2,023

  2,063

  West Mercia

  340

  —

  340

  West Midlands

  860

  14,687

  15,547

  West Yorkshire

  866

  3,227

  4,093

  Wiltshire

  195

  —

  195

  Totals

  18,569

  75,929

  94,498

  Allocation of Airwave grant to general grant 2004–05

  £000

  Allocation

  Avon and Somerset

  840

  Bedfordshire

  320

  Cambridgeshire

  380

  Cheshire

  560

  City of London

  240

  Cleveland

  450

  Cumbria

  310

  Derbyshire

  530

  Devon and Cornwall

  870

  Dorset

  330

  Durham

  440

  Dyfed Powys

  260

  Essex

  840

  Gloucestershire

  310

  GMP

  2,040

  Gwent

  370

  Hampshire

  990

  Hertfordshire

  540

  Humberside

  600

  Kent

  950

  Lancashire

  950

  Leicestershire

  530

  Lincolnshire

  310

  Merseyside

  1,290

  Met

  9,460

  Norfolk

  430

  North Wales

  390

  North Yorkshire

  380

  Northamptonshire

  330

  Northumbria

  1,150

  Nottinghamshire

  660

  South Wales

  870

  South Yorkshire

  920

  Staffordshire

  570

  Suffolk

  340

  Surrey

  460

  Sussex

  820

  Thames Valley

  1,110

  Warwickshire

  260

  West Mercia

  560

  West Midlands

  2,080

  West Yorkshire

  1,550

  Wiltshire

  310

  Totals

  37,920

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the
  377W
  Government's policy for the funding for 2004–05 and future financial years of police authority expenditure now financed by the Airwave grant. [150631]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]The Government's policy is to give the police authorities maximum possible flexibility and discretion in the use of the grants provided to them by the Home Office. £38 million previously intended to be provided to police authorities as a grant specifically for Airwave in 2004–05 will now be provided to police authorities as part of the general Home Office giant to the police.

  Funding for future years is the subject of discussion as part of the 2004 settlement.

  President Bush (Visit)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimate of the cost of security for the recent visit of President Bush to the UK is; and whether he expects that figure to change.[154850]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me the total cost to the Metropolitan Police Service relating to the state visit of the President of the United States between 18 and 21 November 2003 was £3,924,680. This includes additional costs of £1.45 million, of which £0.8 million was incurred in overtime payments. These figurer are not expected to change as all claims have been processed.

  The Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary tells me that the total cost to Durham Constabulary regarding the President's visit to Sedgefield on 21 November was £985,000. This figure may change.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last used a train in connection with his ministerial duties. [154696]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I regularly use trains in the course of my ministerial duties.

  All ministerial travel on official business is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Unaccompanied Children
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the piloting of removals of unaccompanied children will involve their detention. [155444]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to detain unaccompanied children who will be removed under the returns programme. Unaccompanied children are only ever detained in the most exceptional circumstances and then normally only overnight while alternative care arrangements are made. Arrangements for return will be planned in partnership with Local Authorities; this will include an assessment of the child/young person's suitability for return and whether return is in their best interests.
  378W
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he intends to make to ensure that appropriate reception arrangements are in place for unaccompanied children who are removed under the new pilots. [155445]

  Beverley Hughes
  The returns programme for unaccompanied asylum seeking children who have been refused asylum is still in the early stages of development. We are currently exploring the kinds of reception arrangements that could be put in place. Before any child or young person was returned under the programme we would need to be confident that the arrangements put in place were of an acceptable standard and that the person's return was not in breach of our international obligations.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were awarded to health workers to work(a) in the UK National Health Service and (b) the non-NHS sector for each of the last 10 years. [154602]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 February 2004]Due to the structure of the Work Permits (UK) database a breakdown of the number of work permits awarded to health workers by employer type i.e. in NHS or non-NHS employment, can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Devolution
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost to public funds of setting up devolved government in Northern Ireland was. [154398]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is not possible to determine the cost of setting up devolved government in Northern Ireland. However, any costs incurred by the Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration have been absorbed within the Northern Ireland block, which was not increased specifically as a result of devolution.

  Agreed Behaviour Contracts
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many agreed behaviour contracts (ABCs) have been issued in Northern Ireland since their introduction; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of ABCs in tackling anti-social behaviour. [153853]

  Mr. Spellar
  Acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) have not been introduced in Northern Ireland. They form part of the current consultation on measures to tackle anti-social behaviour. In considering proposals for consultation I have been informed by Home Office Research in England and Wales, which found that ABCs were effective in reducing anti-social behaviour by those young people subject to them.

  Batteries
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the dangers to the environment from batteries containing mercury and other toxic metals, being dumped in local waste dumps in Northern Ireland. [155506]

  Angela Smith
  The potential adverse environmental impacts from mercury are universally accepted. However, the EC Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment recognises that there is no methodology to assess the long-term risks of leachate from landfills.

  Industry voluntary measures introduced in 1985 and EC legislation since 1991 have gradually reduced the amount of mercury in batteries, resulting in a reduction in landfilled mercury across the UK from an estimated 4.4t in 1994 to 0.028t in 2000; over time this amount will effectively fall to zero.

  Other current EC legislation will increase the collection and recycling of spent batteries and ban the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste at landfill sites.

  Cross-Border Bodies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of cross-border bodies. [154842]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have no such plans at present.

  Dental Health
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the standard of dental health of the Province's population. [154591]

  Angela Smith
  There has been a gradual improvement in the standard of oral health in adults in Northern Ireland over the last 10 years. However, the general level of oral health here is still considerably worse than in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, particularly among children.

  The Chief Dental Officer has recently established a Steering Group to develop a new Oral Health Strategy, which will set the oral health agenda for the next 10 years. This new Strategy will identify the oral health needs of the population here, determine desired outcomes and identify areas where oral health can link into the wider health agenda.

  EU Regulations
  Mr. Nigel Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many European Union regulations relating specifically to Northern Ireland have been published in each year since 1997. [155579]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  EU regulations have general application. They are binding in their entirety and are directly applicable in all member states.

  Based on the records in the Official Journal of the European Union (copies available in the House Library) we assess that the number of EC, ECSC and Euratom regulations made was as follows.
  380W

  Number

  1997

  2,339

  1998

  2,852

  1999

  2,802

  2000

  2,882

  2001

  2,600

  2002

  2,125

  2003

  2,176

  European Year of Disabled People
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action was taken in Northern Ireland to support the United Kingdom theme for the European Year of Disabled People to promote rights and participation. [154156]

  Mr. Spellar
  A Northern Ireland Regional Steering Group, representing a wide range of interests, was established to promote and develop a successful programme of activities within Northern Ireland consistent with the UK theme for the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 of promoting rights and participation. It organised a range of events which also included Ministers.

  A NI Grant Scheme resulted in 22 organisations in Northern Ireland collectively receiving £100,000 for projects which promote rights and participation. This adds to the £222,000 awarded to 12 other Northern Ireland projects from the UK fund for the year. A new award scheme was also launched by the Employers' Forum on Disability aimed at acknowledging best practice among employers who do most in Northern Ireland to promote employment of people with disabilities in the workforce. An awareness raising media campaign entitled "Think for a Change: It's Time for Change", highlighted disadvantage experienced by people with disabilities in terms of lower income, education and employment.

  A two-day Conference entitled "Breaking the Barriers" recently took place aimed at exploring how services can be improved to take account of the needs and rights of people with disabilities. The European Year of People with Disabilities has since been extended to 31 March 2004 in Northern Ireland.

  Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of consultant orthopaedic surgeons in Northern Ireland. [154592]

  Angela Smith
  The number of consultant orthopaedic surgeons increased to 41 by December 2003, representing a 37 per cent. increase in five years. In recognition that there is a need to further increase the number of consultants, the number of specialist trainees has also been increased to the current level of 23, an increase of over 50 per cent. in five years.

  Pension Books
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average length of time taken
  381W
  to replace pension books when they expired was in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available. [154411]

  Mr. Spellar
  Unfortunately the information requested is not available.

  Renewal pension books are issued automatically three weeks in advance of the date of the first order in the new book.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pension books were issued in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [154412]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of pension books issued in each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Number of pension books

  1999

  196,000

  2000

  194,000

  2001

  191,000

  2002

  189,000

  2003

  166,000

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of automated credit transfer for payment of pensions in Northern Ireland. [154413]

  Mr. Spellar
  At December 2003, just over 34 per cent. of Pensions customers were paid by Direct Payment. Between April 2003 and January 2004, the Social Security Agency has contacted 159,000 pensioner customers asking them to convert to Direct Payment. Seventy nine thousand customers have provided account details and these will be activated as the current order book expires. A further 23,000 customers have responded positively to Agency correspondence.

  A customer satisfaction survey was carried out in September 2003 for customers who had converted to Direct Payment and the results were very positive. A further survey is to be carried out in April 2004.

  Planning
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the determination of the application for planning permission, reference number P/2000/2176 was; when it was made; and when it was communicated to the applicant. [153626]

  Angela Smith
  Planning Service determined that the application should be approved. A Decision Notice was issued to the applicant's agent on 2 February 2004.

  Police
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will revoke the decision to disband the full-time police reserve in the light of on-going activity of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. [154836]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government accepted, subject to the security situation, the recommendation in the Patten report that "the future police service should not include a Full Time Reserve". In October 2002 the Chief Constable put to the Policing Board a human resource 382W
  strategy to meet the staffing needs of the Police Service over the next 8 to 10 years which the Policing board endorsed. This included a phased run-down of the Full-Time Reserve over an 18 month period from April 2005, subject to no further deterioration of the security situation and the continued success of the recruitment campaign for the Police Service.

  Later this year the Chief Constable will put forward advice to the Board and the Secretary of State on these matters. The Government recognises the major contribution that members of the Reserve have made to the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland and the high price that they and many of their families have had to pay in doing so.

  Prisons
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of maintaining the prison population in Northern Ireland was in the past three years; and what the average cost per prisoner was in each of those years. [153845]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost of maintaining the prison population in Northern Ireland in the past three years and the average cost per prisoner place in each of those years was as follows:

  £

  Cost

  Cost per prisoner place

  2000–01

  93,230,000

  74,580

  2001–02

  87,486,000

  71,475

  2002–03

  95,564,000

  68,999

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reinstate the Braille Unit at HMP Maghaberry; and if he will make a statement. [153529]

  Jane Kennedy
  The implementation of the Steele recommendations has seriously impacted on the Governor's ability to maintain and sustain the regime and at present only a restricted range of services can be provided. It is hoped that with full implementation of Steele, the prison can quickly restore a fully resourced Integrated Regime including braille transcription and related services. It is intended that work will commence at the beginning of April 2004 to re-locate the Braille Unit to a much larger facility within the prison workshop area and to expand the range of services provided.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of variable top-up fees on university students in Northern Ireland. [152576]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Higher Education Bill, which includes proposals for the introduction of variable deferred tuition fees, does not, in the main, apply to Northern Ireland. It has, however, significant implications in view of the strong links between the higher education sectors and the level of student flows between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
  383W
  I have been giving careful considerations to the implications, taking into account discussions with local stakeholders and advice from the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council (NIHEC). It is my intention to bring forward proposals soon for the way forward in Northern Ireland.

  Work Force Statistics
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland hat the composition of the monitored full-time what the composition of the monitored full-time work force was, broken down by religious designation, in(a) 1992 and (b) 2002. [155002]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information regarding the composition of the monitored full-time workforce, broken down by religious designation, can be found in the Fair Employment Commission Monitoring Report (No. 3), which summarises the 1992 monitoring returns and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Monitoring Report (No. 13), which summarises the 2002 monitoring returns. Copies of both reports are available for reference from the Library of the House.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Advisers' Discretionary Fund
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent on the Advisers' Discretionary Fund in each year since it was set up; what figures his Department collects on the breakdown of spending via the Advisers' Discretionary Fund; and if he will make a statement. [153460]

  Mr. Browne
  The total spend per year on the Advisers' Discretionary Fund, introduced in July 2001, is shown in the table.

  Advisers' Discretionary Fund

  £

  Spend

  July 2001 to March 2002

  6,191,945

  April 2002 to March 2003

  15,975,996

  April 2003 to December 2003

  23,765,210

  Total

  45,933,151

  The figures on breakdown of spending are not centrally collated.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 4 February 2004, Official Report, column 957W, on pensions, if he will estimate the net Exchequer effects of the pension reforms set out in the answer, based on the additional assumption that all age-related income tax personal allowances are abolished as part of each reform package. [155568]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  384W

  £ billion

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  Over 65

  8.0

  8.2

  8.7

  9.4

  10.1

  Over 70

  5.6

  5.8

  6.2

  6.7

  7.2

  Over 75

  3.6

  3.8

  4.1

  4.4

  4.7

  Notes:
  1. Figures are in 2003–04 price terms rounded to the nearest £100 million. It is assumed the change comes into effect from April 2004 on the same basis as the previous answer.
  2. The costing assumes that aged and super aged personal allowances are reduced to the personal allowance level.
  3. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2003 assumptions. Estimates are all based on the new (2002) population projection and allow for recent revisions.
  4. The costs take into account income related benefit offsets, which are calculated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2004 benefit rates.
  5. Additional income tax revenue is estimated by the Inland Revenue using 2004 tax rates.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) operational and (b) advertising costs of the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in each of the last six years. [151017]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table:

  National benefit fraud hotline

  £

  Operational costs

  Advertising costs

  1997–98

  1—

  225,000

  1998–99

  1—

  290,247

  1999–2000

  1—

  337,672

  2000–01

  627,804

  425,178

  2001–02

  1,086,000

  2—

  2002–03

  959,277

  2—

  1Not available.

  2Not separately assessed.

  Notes:
  1. Operational costs for the National Benefit Fraud Hotline are only available for the last three years. Operational cost figures are not available prior to 2000–01.
  2. The National Benefit Fraud Hotline (NBFH) number was advertised separately up until 2000–2001. Since the Targeting Fraud (now Targeting Benefit Fraud) advertising campaign started in 2001, the NBFH number has been included in the campaign advertising and has not been the subject of any advertising on its own.
  3. Operational costs include staffing costs and goods and services costs.
  4. The operational costs of administering the National Benefit Fraud Hotline include the costs of administering report-a-cheat-online. These costs cannot be separated.
  Source:
  Operational costs—National Benefit Fraud Hotline.
  Advertising costs—DWP Communications Directorate.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 731W, how many people have been found to have committed benefit fraud against his Department on (a) one. (b) two, (c) three, (d) four, (e) five, (f) six, (g) seven, (h) eight, (i) nine, (j) 10 and (k) more than 10 occasions since the powers to sanction benefits introduced by the Social Security Act 2001 took effect. [156023]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not available.
  385W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 731W, how many people have been (a) investigated and (b) prosecuted for committing benefit fraud against his Department on two or more occasions since the powers to sanction benefits introduced by the Social Security Act 2001 took effect. [156025]

  Mr. Pond
  The information on investigations is not available.

  On prosecutions, our latest information is that 30 people have been convicted of benefit fraud on at least two occasions since the powers to sanction benefits introduced by the Social Security Act 2001 took effect. However, data is incomplete and subject to change due to late notification.

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures are in place to address the causes and effects of economic inactivity; and if he will make a statement. [152938]

  Mr. Browne
  Nearly three quarters of people of working age are in work—not just in one year but year-on-year. High levels of employment are not enough. Active labour market policies ensure people can take advantage of the many job opportunities coming up all the time. This is especially true for those most disadvantaged including the long-term unemployed, lone parents, people with disabilities and older workers.

  There are a number of measures in place to tackle the causes of inactivity. For example, where people lose, or risk losing, their jobs due to illness, injury or disability, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is working to help employers, in partnership with their employees, to prevent long term sickness from turning into unemployment.

  There are a number of programmes and initiatives aimed at helping people find and remain in work. The New Deal Programmes aim to help different groups of people who have been out of work to move into work or improve their prospects of doing so, through for example job search and skills training. The national minimum wage, tax credits and various other financial incentives ensure that people who do take up opportunities and find work are better off in work.

  For example the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) available to all lone parents who are not working or working less than 16 hours per week offers lone parents advice with job seeking, training, in-work benefits and child care.

  For people on incapacity benefit we are piloting reforms to support a return to work. More information is available in 'Pathways to Work: Helping people in employment; CM 5690'. This sets out the strategy for encouraging and assisting people with health problems and disabilities to return to work, and enable them to become and remain independent and enjoy the personal, social and financial benefits that having a job brings.

  More help is also being provided for those who face the greatest barriers to work, for example former drug mis-users, the long-term unemployed and people from
  386W
  minority ethnic communities. In particular areas of labour market disadvantage Action Teams provide individually tailored, innovative ways to help jobless people overcome the barriers to work they may face. This might include, for example, debt counselling or help with work clothes and child care costs.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place an obligation on companies to publish, within their annual report, a statement containing(a) their health and safety policy and (b) initiatives that have been taken to implement these policies. [155820]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to place an obligation on companies to publish within their annual report a statement containing their health and safety policy.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to lift Crown immunity with regards to health and safety legislation. [155821]

  Mr. Browne
  The requirements of health and safety legislation apply to Crown bodies, but they are immune from statutory health and safety enforcement.

  The Government will seek a legislative opportunity, when parliamentary time allows, to remove this immunity.

  In the meantime the Health and Safety Executive uses non-statutory arrangements to enforce health and safety requirements in Crown bodies', including censuring Crown bodies in circumstances, where but for Crown immunity, prosecution would have been justified.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the budget was in(a) cash and (b) real terms of the Health and Safety Executive for each year since 1997; and what the forecast budgets for the next three years are. [155822]

  Mr. Browne
  The annual budgets allocated to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) from 1997–98 to 2005–06 are set out in the table.

  HSE's annual budgets

  £ million

  Budget1

  1997–08

  174.1

  1998–09

  175.7

  1999–2000

  180.6

  2000–01

  181.3

  2001–02

  199.4

  2002–03

  210.4

  2003–04

  225.5

  2004–05

  225.5

  2005–06

  223.5

  1 The budget for HSE in 2006–07 will be confirmed by autumn this year as part of the 2004 spending review exercise.

  Notes:
  Budget figures are the total amount voted by Parliament to HSE. HSE's budgets up to and including 2000–01 were based on the Grant in Aid (cash) voted to the organisation. From 2001–02, Government replaced 'cash' allocations with Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) arrangements. Under RAB, HSE bids for resources and produces accounts on an accruals

  387W
  basis, which include costs for depreciation, the cost of capital and provisions for liabilities. The 'cash' and 'RAB' figures are not directly comparable.
  Rounded to the nearest £100k.
  Following the Cullen Inquiry additional ring-fenced funding was allocated to HSE to spend across years 2002–03 to 2004–05 to improve rail safety. This is not shown in the annual budget figures.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government has to promote the use of Post Office card accounts in Scotland. [155473]

  Mr. Pond
  Our nationwide direct payment information campaign has an important role to play in the way we take customers through the associated changes.

  When it is their turn to change customers are being provided with all the information they need on all of their "account options". This information lists all the accounts, which can be accessed at post office branches and sets out how to apply for a Post Office card account. It will be for customers themselves to decide which

  Wine

  Excise duty rate

  Spirits £/Litre of alcohol

  Beer £/h/1 per cent. alcohol.

  Still

  Sparkling

  ABV

  £/hl

  ABV

  £/hl

  UK

  19.60

  12.22

  > 2 per cent. < 4 per cent.

  48.91

  > 5.5 per cent. < 8.5 per cent.

  166.70

  >4 per cent. > 5.5 per cent.

  67.25

  > 5.5 per cent. < 15 per cent.

  158.69

  > 8.5 per cent. < 15 per cent.

  220.54

  15 per cent. to 22 per cent.

  211.58

  Spain

  5.20

  1.43

  0.00

  0.00

  France

  10.20

  1.83

  2.39

  5.90

  The second table shows the cost in excise duty and VAT revenue forgone if the UK were to apply the excise duty rates applicable in France in December 2003. These figures are derived from the HM Treasury alcohol demand model published in May 20031, which is used to estimate associated effects on demand. This shows that the total cost of equalising excise duty rates for beer, wine and spirits with those in France would be more than £6 billion, equivalent to a 1.5 per cent. increase in the standard rate of VAT or around 2p extra on the basic rate of income tax.

  Revenue Forgone

  £ billion

  Spirits

  0.80

  Beer

  3.44

  Wine

  1.88

  Total

  6.12

  1Further technical details relating to this econometric model can be found in Government Economic Service Working Paper No. 140.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days on average his Department took in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a388W
  account will best meet their needs and circumstances. Any benefit or pension customer who wishes to open a Post Office card account will be able to do so.

TREASURY

  Alcohol Duty
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the level of duty is in(a) the UK, (b) France and (c) Spain on (i) beer, (ii) wine and (iii) spirits; [155234]

  (2) if he will estimate the effect on United Kingdom duty revenues of equalising UK duty on (a) wine, (b) beer and (c) spirits with levels in France. [155239]

  John Healey
  Alcohol duty rates in European Union member states are published in the European Commission's 'Excise Duty Tables—Alcoholic Beverages'. The table gives figures for the UK, Spain and France from the tables published in December 2003, converted to pounds sterling from euros using the average exchange rate for December 2003 as published by the Office for National Statistics in Table 7.1A of "Financial Statistics", and converted to pounds per hectolitre per cent. of alcohol (where necessary) using an approximation of 12.5° Plato to 5 per cent. alcohol by volume (ABV).

  parliamentary question for ordinary written answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a question was. [155915]

  John Healey
  In the 2002–03 Session, Treasury Ministers answered ordinary written questions substantively in an average of just under six working days. 2,548 of 3,343 questions concerned (76.2 per cent.) were answered within a week of tabling.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  EU Funding
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 26 January 2004.Official Report, column 157W, whether the difference in the figures between already allocated EU funds and the total funding of €440 million for the North West, €136 million for the North East and €466 million for Yorkshire and Humber has yet to be allocated for the remaining period in 2000–06. [155045]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The figures tabled in the answer of 26 January related only to the European Regional Development Fund and did not include the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) or the
  389W
  Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). Allocations, in euros, for all European structural funds in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber Government Office areas for Objective 1 and 2

  Allocation(000)

  Programme

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF

  FIFG

  Total

  North East Objective 2

  581,330

  135,670

  0

  0

  717,000

  North West Objective 1

  893,048

  434,300

  5,500

  0.400

  1,332,848.4

  North West Objective 2

  808,330

  0

  0

  0

  808,330

  Yorkshire and Humber Objective 1

  785,558

  363,842

  23,050

  0

  1,172,450

  Yorkshire and Humber Objective 2

  448,360

  69,480

  0

  0

  517,840

  Government Grants
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister from which financial year the(a) £780 million Government grant for the North West, (b) £350 million grant for the North East and (c)£570 million grant for Yorkshire and the Humber referred to in the "Your Say" booklets is calculated. [155013]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The figures referred to in the "Your Say" leaflets for the North West. the North East and Yorkshire and the Humber were calculated on the basis of the 2002–03 financial year.

  Local Government
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses have been received to date in response to the consultation on the future configuration of local government in the North West Region from residents of(a) Cheshire, (b) Lancashire, (c) Cumbria, (d) Greater Manchester, (e) Merseyside and (f) the North West Region what the cost has been of the consultations; what costs have been incurred by (i) Vale Royal Borough Council, (ii) Chester City Council, (iii) Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council and (iv) Cheshire County Council in relation to this issue and the consultation exercise; and what rights of recovery of these costs councils have in the event of a no vote in a referendum on an elected North West regional government. [155627]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Boundary Committee's consultation on its draft recommendations is a matter for that independent Committee.

  Councils that respond to the Boundary Committee's consultation exercise do so on their own initiative and have no right to recover any costs they incur.

  Public Funding
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what sources of public funding are available to local authorities other than Council Tax and central Government grant. [154920]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In addition to various forms of central Government grant, which includes National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR), local authorities are able to access other forms of grant such as European funding and lottery funding.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the size of central government 390W
  programmes are tabled as follows. All the funds have been allocated to programmes but some of the funds have still to be awarded to actual projects.

  grant to an elected regional assembly in (a) the North East, (b) the North West and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber in its first financial year. [155129]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Based on figures for 2002–03, and including European programmes, an elected regional assembly in the North East would be responsible for around £350 million a year, in the North West for £780 million and in Yorkshire and the Humber for £570 million. In addition each assembly will receive grant in respect of its Fire and Rescue responsibilities.

  "Supporting People"
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the funding of "Supporting People" in Lancashire. [153719]

  Yvette Cooper
  The final "Supporting People" grant awarded to Lancashire in 2003–04 was £30,781,847. This was the full verified amount submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by the Lancashire team. The Lancashire "Supporting People" team also received £767,000 to help with the administration of the programme.

  Thurrock Urban Development Corporation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reasons greenfield green belt land has been included within the boundary of the area of the Thurrock Urban Development Corporation. [153857]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Urban Development Corporation (UDC) boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries for Thurrock Council's administrative area. This provides the UDC with the flexibility to consider development opportunities across the borough, to create new settlements and to improve the sustainability of existing communities. It also enables the UDC to undertake a detailed appraisal of current land-use within the borough and to develop strategic proposals for regeneration, housing and economic development, which will ensure balanced and sustainable growth across the borough.

  Travellers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) estimate and (b) provision he has made for expenditure by local authorities on opening sites for temporary accommondation by Travellers in the coming financial year. 155549]
  391W
  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made £8 million available for 2004–05 via the Gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grant. Bids for 2004–05 are currently being evaluated.

  It is for local authorities to determine, based on an assessment of need, whether they will bid for funding from this grant, or make provision from their own resources.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Expert Witnesses
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, for the Home Department what proportion of criminal cases involved evidence from expert witnesses in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these witnesses were registered with the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners. [147187]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is not collected centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Court Fees
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) how the existence of the judicial power to waive or remit fees in the small claims track is publicised; [155377]

  (2) how the power in Article Six of the County Court Rules to waive fees for exceptional circumstances involving exceptional financial hardship is publicised. [155379]

  Mr. Leslie
  There is no judicial power to waive or remit court fees. Court Service staff administer fees remissions on behalf of the Lord Chancellor. The provision for remission of court fees is publicised by way of posters displayed on public notice boards in court offices and also by cross-referencing in relevant forms and leaflets.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Connexions
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Connexions Partnerships have established their working arrangements with voluntary youth services by way of a partnership agreement. [155646]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]Information on the number of working agreements between Connexions Partnerships and voluntary youth services is not collected centrally.

  All Connexions Partnerships are encouraged to work with their local Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) partners to meet the needs of young people and there is strong evidence of such working relationships across the country.

  From 1 April 2004 each Connexion Partnership must develop a clear and systematic local strategy for the involvement of the VCS in service design, planning, delivery and evaluation.
  392W

  Contingency Planning
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what terrorist contingency planning advice is available to schools and headteachers via the recently updated Teachernet website; [155677]

  (2)how much funding was provided for (a) the recent updates to the Teachernet website and (b) educating schools and head teachers on contingency planning for terrorist attacks; [155678]

  (3) what terrorist contingency planning advice is available for schools. [155679]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Specific detailed Government advice on terrorism is provided by the Home Office. The Teachernet website provides a link to their site. I refer my hon. Friend to Official Report, 5 February 2004, column 1033W for the cost of producing the emergency planning website on Teachernet. The purpose of the site was always to provide advice to schools, in one place, about drawing up an emergency plan for all types of emergencies and primarily on how to cope with the sudden death of a pupil. In an emergency, head teachers know that they should dial 999 and the emergency services will then take control of the situation. Local authorities have responsibility for emergency planning at local level and that includes schools.

  Education Funding
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools in(a) North Lincolnshire and (b) North East Lincolnshire which ran a deficit budget in 2001–02; and how much each deficit is. [155575]

  Mr. Milliband
  The information requested is contained within the following tables:

  North Lincolnshire schools which ran a deficit budget1 in 2001–02

  School name

  Deficit1 (£)

  Frederick Gough School

  54,910

  Brumby School

  18,756

  St. Bernadette's Catholic Primary School

  9,457

  St. Mary's Catholic Primary School

  9,124

  Huntcliff School

  7,787

  Baysgarth School

  3,571

  Priory Lane Infant School

  621

  1 Deficit budget is taken from table 2 column 12—Balance Carried Forward.

  Notes:
  1. The balance to be carried forward represent total resources available to the school less school expenditure and unspent allocations.
  2. The data are as reported by North Lincolnshire LEA within their 2001–02 Section 52 Out turn Statement (table 2) submitted to the DfES.

  North East Lincolnshire schools which ran a deficit budget1 in 2001–02

  School name

  Deficit1 (£)

  The Lindsey School and Community Arts College

  81,554

  Welholme Infants' School

  35,105

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  6,005

  Healing Comprehensive School

  5,841

  1 Deficit budget is taken from table 2 column 12—Balance Carried Forward.

  393W
  Note:
  1. The balance to be carried forward represent total resources available to the school less school expenditure and unspent allocations.
  2. The data are as reported by North East Lincolnshire LEA within their 2001–02 Section 52 Outturn Statement (table 2) submitted to the DfES.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total education budget is in Gloucestershire in 2003–04; what percentage of that budget is spent in schools; and if he will make a statement. [153403]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]The information requested is given in the following table.

  Gloucestershire education budget and percentage spent in schools for 2003–04

  £

  Percentage

  Individual schools budget

  221,544,390

  77

  Central elements within the schools budget

  35,695,453

  12

  Total schools budget

  257,239,843

  90

  Total LEA budget

  29,357,448

  10

  Total education revenue expenditure

  286,597,291

  100

  Notes:
  1. The data are as reported by Gloucestershire LEA within their section 52 Budget Statement (table 1) for 2003–04 submitted to the DfES at 9 February 2004. It is still subject to basic validation and could change
  2. Percentages may not sum due to rounding.
  3. Taken from line 1.0.1—Individual schools budget (ISB). This is the amount available for delegation to schools after provision has been made for retained items.
  4. The central element within the schools budget is the total schools budget minus the ISB. This money is spent on schools rather than in schools. The data is not collected in such a way that we can say precisely how much of this central element is spent in schools.
  5. Taken from line 1.7.1—Total schools budget.
  6. Taken from line 2.8.1—Total LEA budget.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria need to be met for a new faith school to open within the state sector. [153270]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]School Organisation Committees or Schools Adjudicators decide proposals for new schools on individual merit and in the light of local circumstances. They must have regard to statutory guidance which specifies the factors that have to be considered for all new schools including the effect on standards, need for places, costs, impact on community cohesion, views of interested parties etc. The guidance is available on the Department's website at www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolorg. Where a competition has been held for an additional secondary school, proposals are decided by the Secretary of State, taking into account comments by the SOC. While there are no factors that relate specifically to faith schools whether or not they are being considered as part of a competition or otherwise, the decision maker will take account of the level of parental demand for the type of school proposed.

  Free School Meals
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children were entitled to free school meals in each school in a principal seaside town on the latest date for which figures are available, listed in descending order; and if he will make a statement. [154947]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is the Department's policy not to publish figures about individual schools unless the schools concerned have had the opportunity to check or confirm that information. Therefore, aggregate data for the principal seaside towns in England is shown in the table.

  The definition of a seaside town has been taken from a report published by Sheffield Hallam University, entitled, "The Seaside Economy".

  Maintained primary schools1: number and percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals2 January 2003: Principal seaside towns in England3

  All pupils4

  Primary Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Blackpool

  11,180

  2,890

  25.8

  Bridlington

  3,100

  670

  21.4

  Southend-on-Sea

  7,470

  1,590

  21.2

  Clacton-on-Sea

  5,450

  1,150

  21.0

  Morecambe and Heysham

  4,680

  980

  21.0

  Hastings/Bexhill

  6,010

  1,220

  20.2

  Great Yarmouth

  9,490

  1,780

  18.7

  Scarborough

  6,000

  1,110

  18.5

  Isle of Wight

  7,270

  1,310

  18.1

  Lowestoft

  5,100

  920

  18.0

  Torbay

  10,330

  1,850

  17.9

  Brighton

  14,730

  2,580

  17.5

  Eastbourne

  7,210

  1,200

  16.7

  Penzance

  3,130

  500

  15.9

  Weston-super-Mare

  6,800

  1,060

  15.6

  llfracombe

  1,300

  190

  14.7

  St. Ives

  760

  110

  14.5

  Dawlish/Teignmouth

  2,010

  290

  14.2

  Minehead

  870

  120

  13.6

  Whitby

  1,840

  240

  13.1

  Exmouth

  2,720

  360

  13.0

  Deal

  2,700

  350

  12.8

  Falmouth

  2,170

  280

  12.8

  Skegness

  2,320

  290

  12.6

  Whitstable/Herne Bay

  5,260

  620

  11.7

  Southport

  7,340

  850

  11.5

  Folkstone/Hythe

  1,290

  150

  11.3

  Bournemouth

  11,490

  1,170

  10.2

  Newquay

  2,110

  200

  9.7

  Burnham-on-Sea

  1,040

  100

  9.5

  Bognor Regis

  4,510

  430

  9.4

  Sidmouth

  880

  80

  8.6

  Whitley Bay

  3,420

  270

  8.0

  Weymouth

  4,720

  370

  7.7

  Worthing

  8,910

  650

  7.3

  Swanage

  560

  20

  3.6

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  3Based upon postal town of schools with the exception of Isle of Wight and Torbay for which the respective local education authorities have been used.

  4Includes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  395W

  Maintained secondary schools1: Number and percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals2 January 2003: Principal seaside towns in England3

  All pupils4

  secondary Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Blackpool

  8,670

  1,840

  21.2

  Clacton-on-Sea

  3,520

  680

  19.3

  Lowestoft

  6,790

  1,290

  19.0

  Morecambe and Heysham

  2,760

  500

  18.2

  Brighton

  7.080

  1,250

  17.6

  Folkstone/Hythe

  1,270

  210

  16.9

  Isle of Wight

  12,060

  1,930

  16.0

  Great Yarmouth

  4,550

  710

  15.7

  Penzance

  2,220

  340

  15.4

  Falmouth

  1,270

  190

  15.1

  Southend-on-Sea

  4,460

  670

  15.0

  Bridlington

  2,540

  370

  14.7

  Scarborough

  4,290

  600

  14.1

  Eastbourne

  5,570

  780

  14.0

  Torbay

  9,020

  1,250

  13.9

  Weston-super-Mare

  4,240

  580

  13.7

  Hastings/Bexhill

  4,670

  640

  13.6

  Whitstable/Herne Bay

  2,340

  310

  13.3

  Minehead

  1,860

  250

  13.3

  Skegness

  1,860

  250

  13.3

  Deal

  1,370

  160

  11.7

  Southport

  4,930

  570

  11.5

  Whitby

  1,810

  200

  11.1

  St. Ives

  720

  80

  10.5

  Dawlish/Teignmouth

  1,880

  200

  10.4

  Weymouth

  3,660

  380

  10.3

  Bournemouth

  9,960

  1,000

  10.0

  Newquay

  2,640

  260

  9.9

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1 number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals2 As at January 2003. By Local Education Authority area

  All pupils3

  Number on roll

  Primary Schools Number of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number on roll

  Secondary Schools Number of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  England

  4,309,780

  727,630

  16.9

  3,308,490

  478,920

  14.5

  North East

  226,230

  50,420

  22.3

  180,390

  32,670

  18.1

  841 Darlington

  9,050

  1,670

  18.5

  6,310

  1,030

  16.2

  840 Durham

  44,250

  8,770

  19.8

  32,580

  5,610

  17.2

  390 Gateshead

  17,230

  3,980

  23.1

  11,880

  2,310

  19.5

  805 Hartlepool

  9,720

  2,280

  23.5

  6,720

  1,490

  22.2

  806 Middlesbrough

  14,820

  4,300

  29.0

  7,030

  2,270

  32.3

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  20,030

  6,450

  32.2

  17,810

  4,210

  23.7

  392 North Tyneside

  17,190

  3,380

  19.7

  13,640

  2,100

  15.1

  929 Northumberland

  20,420

  2,810

  13.7

  30,680

  3,460

  11.3

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  14,450

  3,270

  22.6

  10,380

  2,180

  21.0

  393 South Tyneside

  14,040

  3,930

  28.0

  10,410

  2,340

  22.5

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  18,520

  3.590

  19.4

  12,790

  2,300

  18.0

  394 Sunderland

  26,510

  6,000

  22.6

  19,970

  3,380

  16.9

  North West

  629,440

  130,710

  20.8

  470,930

  88,610

  18.8

  889 Blackburn with Darwen

  15.060

  3,760

  25.0

  9,560

  2,420

  25.3

  890 Blackpool

  12,270

  2,980

  24.3

  8,670

  1,840

  21.2

  350 Bolton

  26,120

  4,480

  17.2

  19,770

  2,990

  15.1

  351 Bury

  16,830

  2,300

  13.6

  11,940

  1,690

  14.2

  875 Cheshire

  58,090

  6,740

  11.6

  47,290

  4,480

  9.5

  909 Cumbria

  42,360

  5,810

  13.7

  34,610

  3,940

  11.4

  876 Halton

  11,090

  2,890

  26.1

  8,350

  1,860

  22.3

  340 Knowsley

  17,110

  5,780

  33.8

  10,280

  4,010

  39.0

  888 Lancashire

  98,780

  15,580

  15.8

  76,410

  10,750

  14.1

  341 Liverpool

  41,300

  14,450

  35.0

  33,750

  10,720

  31.8

  352 Manchester

  41,690

  18,180

  43.6

  24,070

  10,090

  41.9

  353 Oldham

  23,660

  5,480

  23.1

  16,780

  3,610

  21.5

  354 Rochdale

  21,040

  4,980

  23.6

  14,450

  3,560

  24.6

  355 Salford

  21,150

  6,050

  28.6

  12,700

  3,150

  24.8

  343 Sefton

  25,120

  4,650

  18.5

  21,280

  3,770

  17.7

  342 St. Helens

  16,660

  3,250

  19.5

  12,180

  2,180

  17.9

  396W

  Maintained secondary schools1: Number and percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals2 January 2003: Principal seaside towns in England2

  All pupils4

  Secondary Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Whitley Bay

  5,010

  490

  9.8

  llfracombe

  1,290

  120

  9.6

  Worthing

  4,860

  420

  8.7

  Exmouth

  2,290

  170

  7.5

  Bognor Regis

  3,860

  280

  7.1

  Sidmouth

  850

  60

  6.6

  Swanage

  460

  20

  4.8

  Burnham-on-Sea

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  3Based upon postal town of schools with the exception of Isle of Wight and Torbay for which the respective local education authorities have been used.

  4Includes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  5Not applicable, no schools of this type

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils were eligible for free school meals in 2002–03, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [155457]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]The information requested is shown in the following table.
  397W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1 number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals2 As at January 2003.By Local Education Authority area

  All pupils3

  Number on roll

  Primary Schools Number of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number on roll

  Secondary Schools Number of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  356 Stockport

  25,130

  3,030

  12.0

  17.010

  2,180

  12.8

  357 Tameside

  21,600

  3,830

  17.7

  15,830

  2,890

  18.2

  358 Trafford

  19,890

  2,340

  11.8

  16,080

  1,910

  11.9

  877 Warrington

  18,270

  1,850

  10.1

  14.060

  1,260

  9.0

  359 Wigan

  27,900

  4,510

  16.2

  21,140

  2,970

  14.1

  344 Wirral

  28,330

  7,810

  27.6

  24.730

  6,350

  25.7

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  466,730

  81,680

  17.5

  347,630

  55,580

  16.0

  370 Barnsley

  21,470

  3,990

  18.6

  13,490

  2,930

  21.7

  380 Bradford

  51,270

  11,480

  22.4

  34,510

  9,150

  26.5

  381 Calderdale

  19,700

  3,260

  16.5

  15,330

  2,160

  14.1

  371 Doncaster

  29,110

  5,490

  18.9

  21,720

  3,480

  16.0

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  27,200

  2,630

  9.7

  23,350

  1,790

  7.6

  810 Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  24,430

  6,160

  25.2

  16,310

  3,960

  24.3

  382 Kirklees

  36,810

  6,490

  17.6

  26,790

  4,570

  17.1

  383 Leeds

  65,360

  12,210

  18.7

  47,780

  8,080

  16.9

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  15,350

  3,330

  21.7

  11,830

  2,220

  18.8

  813 North Lincolnshire

  14,380

  2,030

  14.1

  10,820

  1,340

  12.3

  815 North Yorkshire

  47.120

  3,910

  8.3

  41,640

  2,390

  5.7

  372 Rotherham

  25,260

  4,650

  18.4

  20,160

  3,110

  15.4

  373 Sheffield

  44,740

  9,110

  20.4

  31,360

  6,080

  19.4

  384 Wakefield

  30,680

  5,600

  18.3

  22,210

  3,560

  16.0

  816 York

  13,860

  1,340

  9.6

  10,370

  780

  7.6

  East Midlands

  372,890

  47,700

  12.8

  297,460

  33,420

  11.2

  831 Derby

  22,350

  4,400

  19.7

  15,260

  2,750

  18.0

  830 Derbyshire

  66,290

  8,130

  12.3

  49,650

  4,940

  9.9

  856 Leicester

  29,150

  7,150

  24.5

  18,250

  4,100

  22.5

  855 Leicestershire

  50,300

  3,650

  7.3

  46,370

  2,680

  5.8

  925 Lincolnshire

  54,880

  3,370

  6.1

  46,260

  3,430

  7.4

  928 Northamptonshire

  53,990

  4,960

  9.2

  50,700

  4,950

  9.8

  892 Nottingham

  25,540

  7,740

  30.3

  13,910

  4,540

  32.7

  891 Nottinghamshire

  67,760

  8,160

  12.0

  54,760

  5,940

  10.8

  857 Rutland

  2,640

  130

  4.8

  2,300

  80

  3.4

  West Midlands

  487,700

  90,150

  18.5

  378,640

  60,320

  15.9

  330 Birmingham

  103,580

  33,410

  32.3

  70,620

  22,320

  31.6

  331 Coventry

  27,980

  5,650

  20.2

  21,460

  3,670

  17.1

  332 Dudley

  29,950

  4,280

  14.3

  20,710

  2,910

  14.0

  884 Herefordshire

  13,930

  1.200

  8.6

  10,330

  850

  8.2

  333 Sandwell

  31,410

  7,110

  22.6

  19,780

  4,490

  22.7

  893 Shropshire

  22,220

  2,050

  9.2

  18,260

  1,400

  7.7

  334 Solihull

  21,090

  2,320

  11.0

  15,780

  1,640

  10.4

  860 Staffordshire

  67,430

  7,530

  11.2

  62,290

  5,420

  8.7

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  21,850

  6,040

  27.7

  15,200

  3,210

  21.1

  894 Telford and Wrekin

  16,030

  3,350

  20.9

  10,500

  2,000

  19.1

  335 Walsall

  27,020

  4,750

  17.6

  21,820

  3,370

  15.4

  937 Warwickshire

  41,920

  4,050

  9.7

  33,920

  2,400

  7.1

  336 Wolverhampton

  24,230

  5,020

  20.7

  16,870

  3,310

  19.6

  885 Worcestershire

  39,040

  3,410

  8.7

  41,110

  3,340

  8.1

  East of England

  454,950

  53,690

  11.8

  383,910

  36,720

  9.6

  820 Bedfordshire

  25,340

  2,740

  10.8

  37,650

  3,650

  9.7

  873 Cambridgeshire

  44,650

  3,840

  8.6

  32,140

  2,470

  7.7

  881 Essex

  111,150

  12,390

  11.1

  89,500

  7,990

  8.9

  919 Hertfordshire

  95,910

  8,390

  8.7

  78,350

  5,120

  6.5

  821 Luton

  18,910

  4,360

  23.0

  12,450

  3,090

  24.8

  926 Norfolk

  67,370

  8,990

  13.3

  46,120

  4,410

  9.6

  874 Peterborough

  15,560

  3,100

  19.9

  12,970

  2,030

  15.6

  882 Southend-on-Sea

  14,730

  2,610

  17.7

  12,020

  1,350

  11.2

  935 Suffolk

  47,250

  5,170

  11.0

  54,220

  5,440

  10.0

  London

  632,950

  163,370

  25.8

  417,940

  100,470

  24.0

  Inner London

  231,730

  86,920

  37.5

  127,690

  50,370

  39.4

  202 Camden

  11,430

  4,880

  42.7

  9,600

  2,860

  29.8

  201 City of London

  220

  70

  30.6

  4–

  4–

  4–

  204 Hackney

  18,090

  7,430

  41.1

  7,910

  3,300

  41.7

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  9,690

  4,200

  43.4

  7,300

  2,390

  32.8

  309 Haringey

  22,030

  7,450

  33.8

  10,890

  4,090

  37.6

  206 Islington

  15,100

  6,090

  40.3

  7,780

  3,340

  42.9

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  7,020

  2,660

  37.9

  3,540

  1,000

  28.2

  208 Lambeth

  19,990

  7,470

  37.4

  7,400

  2,710

  36.7

  398W 399W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1 number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals2 As at January 2003. By Local Education Authority area

  All pupils3

  Number on roll

  Primary Schools Number of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number on roll

  Secondary Schools Number of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  209 Lewisham

  22,620

  6,420

  28.4

  11,620

  3,440

  29.6

  316 Newham

  31,530

  10,760

  34.1

  18,110

  7,810

  43.1

  210 Southwark

  23,820

  8,610

  36.1

  10,820

  5,080

  46.9

  211 Tower Hamlets

  22,060

  11,780

  53.4

  14,340

  8,890

  62.0

  212 Wandsworth

  17,440

  4,950

  28.4

  10,090

  2,590

  25.7

  213 Westminster

  10,700

  4,170

  38.9

  8,300

  2,880

  34.6

  Outer London

  401,210

  76,450

  19.1

  290,250

  50,100

  17.3

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  18,640

  4,300

  23.1

  11,670

  2,820

  24.2

  302 Barnet

  25,950

  4,700

  18.1

  21,050

  3,150

  14.9

  303 Bexley

  21,680

  2,870

  13.2

  17,700

  1,710

  9.7

  304 Brent

  22,850

  6,210

  27.2

  16,280

  3,750

  23.0

  305 Bromlev

  24,470

  3,280

  13.4

  21,840

  2,380

  10.9

  306 Croydon

  30,720

  6,610

  21.5

  18,400

  3,450

  18.8

  307 Ealing

  26,320

  6,420

  24.4

  15,590

  4,580

  29.4

  308 Enfield

  27,030

  6,310

  23.4

  21,120

  4,070

  19.3

  203 Greenwich

  20,680

  7,320

  35.4

  13,550

  3,950

  29.1

  310 Harrow

  19,550

  2,840

  14.5

  8,980

  1,590

  17.7

  311 Havering

  20,480

  2,350

  11.5

  16,340

  1,630

  10.0

  312 Hillingdon

  24,530

  3,700

  15.1

  17,420

  2,640

  15.1

  313 Hounslow

  19,150

  4,190

  21.9

  16,500

  3,120

  18.9

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  11,710

  860

  7.4

  9,090

  800

  8.8

  315 Merton

  14,490

  1,980

  13.6

  8,560

  1,380

  16.2

  317Redbridge

  23,820

  3,810

  16.0

  19,710

  2,850

  14.5

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  12,430

  1,210

  9.7

  7,390

  1,200

  16.2

  319 Sutton

  15,400

  1,920

  12.5

  15,400

  1,230

  8.0

  320 Waltham Forest

  21,330

  5,580

  26.1

  13,690

  3,820

  27.9

  South East

  645,590

  65,790

  10.2

  507,310

  42,410

  8.4

  867 Bracknell Forest

  8,990

  580

  6.5

  5,990

  330

  5.5

  846 Brighton and Hove

  17,580

  3,090

  17.6

  12,470

  2,000

  16.1

  825 Buckinghamshire

  40.490

  2,200

  5.4

  34,220

  2,150

  6.3

  845 East Sussex

  37,760

  5,140

  13.6

  28,610

  3,210

  11.2

  850 Hampshire

  100,760

  8,650

  8.6

  72,610

  4,550

  6.3

  921 Isle of Wight

  7,270

  1,310

  18.1

  12,060

  1,930

  16.0

  886 Kent

  113,760

  14,010

  12.3

  96,740

  8,380

  8.7

  887 Medway

  23,960

  2,910

  12.2

  20,490

  1,950

  9.5

  826 Milton Keynes

  22,520

  2,680

  11.9

  12,480

  1,330

  10.7

  931 Oxfordshire

  45,250

  3,990

  8.8

  38,600

  3,310

  8.6

  851 Portsmouth

  15,100

  2,560

  16.9

  10,200

  1,520

  14.9

  870 Reading

  10,260

  1,620

  15.8

  6,290

  750

  12.0

  871 Slough

  11,350

  1,840

  16.2

  8,160

  1,190

  14.5

  852 Southampton

  17,140

  3,730

  21.7

  12,150

  2,020

  16.6

  936 Surrey

  79,700

  5,930

  7.4

  58,520

  3,390

  5.8

  869 West Berkshire

  12,240

  830

  6.8

  11,940

  520

  4.3

  938 West Sussex

  60,470

  3,680

  6.1

  44,500

  2,830

  6.4

  868 Windsor and Maidenhead

  8,410

  580

  6.9

  10,360

  520

  5.0

  872 Wokingham

  12,620

  480

  3.8

  10,930

  520

  4.8

  South West

  393,320

  44,130

  11.2

  324.290

  28,720

  8.9

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  12,670

  1,210

  9.5

  12,360

  820

  6.7

  837 Bournemouth

  11,150

  1,150

  10.4

  9,960

  1,000

  10.0

  801 Bristol, City of

  30,690

  7,130

  23.2

  17,830

  3,490

  19.6

  908 Cornwall

  40,860

  4,650

  11.4

  32,760

  3,540

  10.8

  878 Devon

  55,680

  6,220

  11.2

  41,700

  3,590

  8.6

  835 Dorset

  25,090

  1,380

  5.5

  50,240

  2,010

  6.6

  916 Gloucestershire

  45,320

  4,370

  9.6

  39,870

  2,670

  6.7

  420 Isles of Stilly

  270

  0

  0.0

  4–

  4–

  4–

  802 North Somerset

  14,920

  1,580

  10.6

  12,780

  980

  7.7

  879 Plymouth

  20,430

  3,770

  18.5

  19,010

  2,280

  12.0

  836 Poole

  10,900

  600

  5.5

  8,560

  480

  5.5

  933 Somerset

  38,390

  3,630

  9.4

  32,740

  2,710

  8.3

  803 South Gloucestershire

  23,330

  1,770

  7.6

  16,870

  1,160

  6.9

  866 Swindon

  17,350

  2,070

  11.9

  11,590

  1,050

  9.1

  880 Torbay

  10,330

  1,850

  17.9

  9,020

  1,250

  13.9

  865 Wiltshire

  35,960

  2,770

  7.7

  28,990

  1,710

  5.9

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. There may be discrepancies between the sum of constituent items and totals as shown.

  3Includes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  4Not applicable, no schools of this type

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  400W 401W

  Homeless Young People
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are made for the continuation of social services support for a young person who has been refused a home by his or her family and has not been made ward of court, once he or she becomes 16 years old. [155640]

  Margaret Hodge
  Local authority social service departments have a range of powers and duties under the Children Act 1989 to provide services for children in need in their area.

  A general duty is placed on local authorities by section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need by providing a range of services appropriate to those needs. The definition of a child in need is set out in section 17(10) of the Act, which applies to all children, regardless of whether or not they reside with their family.

  There is also a duty under section 20 of the Children Act to provided accommodation for children in need if necessary.

  Jenny Gray
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2004,Official Report, columns 579—80W, under which section of the Code of Practice on Access to Information he declined to provide the information requested; and whether Jenny Gray is a full-time employee of his Department. [153588]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]I refer the hon. Member to exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. In line with this exemption, it is not our policy to disclose information on individual civil servants that may constitute or could facilitate an invasion of privacy.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what instruction he gives learning and skills councils on the extent of their written communications with hon. Members. [155240]

  Alan Johnson
  As an executive Non Departmental Public Body, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) comes within the remit of "The Code of Practice on / Access to Government Information". This includes a requirement to answer requests for information, and to provide full facts and analysis of major policy proposals.

  As part of the Management Statement agreed with my Department, the LSC required to answer correspondence and questions of an operational nature
  402W
  from hon. Members. We are also keen for the LSC to engage with hon. Members on major issues affecting post-16 learning within their constituencies.

  Medical Students
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to provide additional places for UK students wishing to train as a medical practitioner; and if he will make a statement. [155882]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England allocated, between 1999 and 2001, a total of 2,145 additional medical school places to higher education institutions. Eligible medical students have their fees paid by the NHS for the fifth and, where there is one, sixth years of their courses and receive a means-tested NHS Bursary of up to £2703 (in London) in those years. In addition, they may receive a maintenance loan under the student support regulations.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many days on average his Department took in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a Parliamentary Question for ordinary written answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a question was. [155929]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At present, our records system does not allow us to retrieve the information requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  School Capital Investment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on new capital investments in each school in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne including private finance initiative projects in each year since 1997–98; and what type of project it was in each case. [154616]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about all the capital investments in each school; this should be held locally. The following table sets out the capital support made by this Government to Newcastle upon Tyne LEA since 1997–98, in total and by programme, including devolved formula capital grants to each school.

  We have also allocated indicative funding for future years worth approximately £70 million in 2004–05 (this includes £60 million of PFI credits) and £5 million in 2005–06. Additionally we have just announced that Newcastle LEA will be part of the first wave of Building Schools for the Future commencing in 2005–06. We will be working with the LEA over the coming months to confirm details and funding of their plans.
  403W

  Capital allocations for Newcastle upon Tyne LEA

  £000

  Newcastle upon Tyne LEA capital allocations

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Formulaic funding for VA schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  262

  340

  Basic Need

  407

  451

  896

  644

  241

  79

  181

  City Learning Centres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1200

  —

  —

  Class Size initiative

  —

  367

  70

  80

  342

  —

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1955

  3058

  3907

  Devolved Formula

  —

  —

  —

  1787

  1434

  2173

  3351

  Energy

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1346

  2533

  New Deal for Schools (NDS) 1

  487

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS2

  —

  4612

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 3

  —

  —

  6318

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 4

  —

  —

  —

  3300

  —

  —

  —

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  65

  —

  —

  —

  Private Finance Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47100

  —

  —

  School Labs

  —

  —

  —

  170

  170

  —

  —

  School Security

  68

  84

  85

  84

  57

  49

  —

  Schools Access Initiative

  30

  70

  100

  139

  220

  355

  519

  Seed Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  172

  193

  321

  318

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  —

  300

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  68

  135

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  1185

  1394

  605

  —

  353

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  430

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding—VA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4996

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  837

  702

  237

  328

  1216

  653

  —

  Total

  3014

  7750

  8344

  7069

  54956

  8364

  16280

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which year each(a) language college and (b) specialist school achieved specialist status; how many and what percentage of pupils at each obtained five A*-C GCSEs in each year since two years before it achieved specialist status; and how many language (i) GCSEs at A*-C grade and (ii) A-levels were obtained at each in each year since two years before it achieved specialist status. [155270]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The list below shows the year in which each specialist school, including Language Colleges (a specialism which has existed since 1995), achieved specialist status. The list also shows how many and what percentage of pupils at each school obtained five A*-C grades at GCSE in each year from two years before it achieved specialist status.

  Number of specialist school designations, de-designations and re-designations1 by year

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Specialism

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Arts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Business and enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Language

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Mathematics and computing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Science

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Technology

  49

  —

  —

  52

  —

  —

  Combined

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  404W
  The information requested regarding language GCSEs and A-Levels is not published at school level. To collate this information would involve disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which year since 1992 each specialist school was established as such; in which year each of those schools which ceased to have specialist status did so; and what the value is of(a) capital grants and (b) revenue funding to each school consequent upon its specialist status since its establishment. [155276]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]The following table shows the number of schools designated, re-designated, or de-designated as specialist schools, by specialism, for each of the years since the programme began in 1994. Funding information is not readily available at school level for each of these years. However, the table shows the overall level of capital grants and recurrent funding for each year.

  Designated specialist schools receive a one-off £100,000 capital grant and £126 per pupil per annum for four years. At current rates, a typical specialist school of 1,000 pupils would receive £100,000 capital funding and £504,000 revenue funding over a four-year phase.
  405W

  Number of specialist school designations, de-designations and re-designations1 by year

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Specialism

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Totals

  49

  0

  0

  58

  0

  0

  Year total

  49

  58

  Cumulative

  49

  107

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Specialism

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Arts

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Business and enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Language

  25

  —

  —

  19

  —

  —

  Mathematics and computing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Science

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sport

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  Technology

  50

  —

  —

  41

  2

  —

  Combined

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  75

  0

  0

  77

  2

  0

  Year total

  75

  75

  Cumulative

  182

  257

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Specialism

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Arts

  11

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  Business and enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Language

  11

  —

  —

  15

  1

  —

  Mathematics and computing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Science

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sport

  15

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  Technology

  46

  13

  —

  42

  4

  1

  Combined

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  83

  13

  0

  80

  5

  1

  Year total

  70

  76

  Cumulative

  327

  403

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Specialism

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Arts

  28

  —

  —

  34

  —

  —

  Business and enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Language

  28

  —

  —

  27

  —

  —

  Mathematics and computing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Science

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sport

  30

  —

  —

  34

  —

  —

  Technology

  51

  5

  2

  56

  4

  2

  Combined

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  137

  5

  2

  151

  4

  2

  Year total

  134

  149

  Cumulative

  537

  686

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Specialism

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Arts

  82

  —

  —

  57

  3

  —

  233

  Business and enterprise

  18

  —

  —

  64

  —

  —

  82

  Engineering

  4

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  14

  Language

  31

  —

  —

  32

  1

  —

  196

  Mathematics and computing

  12

  —

  —

  64

  —

  —

  76

  Science

  24

  —

  —

  97

  —

  —

  121

  Sport

  60

  —

  —

  68

  1

  —

  230

  Technology

  78

  2

  1

  59

  4

  —

  564

  406W 407W

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Specialism

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Designated

  De-designated

  Re-designated

  Combined

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Totals

  309

  2

  1

  461

  9

  0

  1,526

  Year total

  308

  452

  1,446

  Cumulative

  994

  1,446

  1The term re-designation is used here to indicate a school which was de-designated but subsequently regained specialist status.

  Note:

  The first specialist schools became operational in September 1994 under the technology specialism. Further specialisms have since been added with the first language colleges becoming operational in September 1995 followed by sports and arts colleges in September 1997.

  The first business and enterprise, science, maths and computing and engineering colleges became operational in September 2002. The first music and humanities colleges were designated in January 2004 but do not become operational until September 2004.

  Funding (calculated by financial year)

  £ million

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  1994–95

  5.0

  3.0

  8.0

  1995–96

  7.0

  9.0

  16.0

  1996–97

  7.0

  16.0

  23.0

  1997–98

  7.5

  25.6

  33.1

  1998–99

  8.0

  32.8

  40.8

  1999–2000

  7.6

  42.2

  49.8

  2000–01

  13.2

  58.7

  71.9

  2001–02

  15.4

  78.6

  94.0

  2002–03

  30.8

  114.4

  145.2

  2003–04

  56.0

  193.0

  249.0

  Total

  158

  573

  731

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people employed in his Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148625]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The numbers of staff in my Department who have claimed statutory sick pay during the years 2000 to 2003 are as follows. The numbers include DfES staff working in the Government office regions. No records are held for the years prior to this.

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Less than one week

  598

  667

  692

  694

  One to three weeks

  448

  424

  458

  481

  Four to six weeks

  100

  128

  156

  139

  Seven to 12 weeks

  93

  121

  131

  120

  13 to 20 weeks

  65

  82

  111

  98

  21 to 28 weeks

  41

  64

  84

  53

  Total

  1,345

  1,486

  1,632

  1,585

  Student Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of graduates in receipt of income contingent student loans who will take career breaks to bring up children; and what assumptions about the consequent subsidy costs have been included in the Government's overall estimates for student loan subsidy provisions. [155374]

  Alan Johnson
  Our estimates of the cost of subsidising both maintenance and fee loans in 2006–07 terms were published in the Regulatory Impact Assessment 408W
  associated with the HE Bill. The economic cost of providing student loans is made up of the interest rate subsidy on loans together with the cost of any loans that are never repaid (e.g. due to death, permanent disability or loans being written off after 25 years). Modelling this cost requires taking into account a great number of factors. Important factors include:

  The number of students in Higher Education;

  The parental income of those students (or their own income if independent);

  The proportions of students studying in London, at home or elsewhere;

  The propensity of students to take out each loan;

  The distribution of fees actually charged by Higher Education institutions from 2006–7;

  The distribution of lengths of courses (based on internal modelling):

  The pattern of withdrawals from HE courses (based on internal modelling);

  The earnings profiles of graduates; and

  Macroeconomic conditions.

  In relation to factor (vii), the modelling of the cost of providing student loans uses Labour Force Survey (LFS) data to inform the probability of borrowers being in employment, unemployment, or economically inactive. We have used the LFS data to take account of those people who take career breaks-to raise children or for other reasons. The impact of those who take career breaks to raise children is thus reflected in the modelling but it is not possible to estimate how many borrowers will take career breaks for this reason—or to estimate the cost associated with this factor—in isolation.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial assumptions were made in calculating the provision of £25 million to cover the cost of writing off outstanding student loans after 25 years. [155375]

  Alan Johnson
  Our estimates of the cost of subsidising both maintenance and fee loans in 2006–07 terms were published in the Regulatory Impact Assessment associated with the HE Bill. The economic cost of providing student loans is made up of the interest rate subsidy on loans together with the cost of any loans that are never repaid (e.g. due to death, permanent disability or loans being written-off after 25 years). Modelling this cost requires taking into account a great number of factors. Important factors include:

  The number of students in Higher Education;

  409W

  The parental income of those students (or their own income if independent);

  The proportions of students studying in London, at home or elsewhere;

  The propensity of students to take out each loan;

  The distribution of fees actually charged by Higher Education institutions from 2006–7;

  The distribution of lengths of courses (based on internal modelling);

  The pattern of withdrawals from HE courses (based on internal modelling);

  The earnings profiles of graduates; and

  Macroeconomic conditions.

  The Regulatory Impact Assessment estimated the cost of writing-off loans at 25 years at £30 million. This is the extra economic cost of not collecting any repayments that would have been made on loans older than 25 years.

  Temporary Mobile Classrooms
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in each London borough make use of temporary mobile classroom accommodation; and what the timetable for replacement of this accommodation is in each borough. [155091]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]The following table shows the number of schools with temporary classrooms in each London borough. It is based on data provided to the Department in May 2002, by local education authorities as part of the asset management planning process.

  The bulk of schools' capital is now allocated by formula to authorities and schools so that they can address their local priorities, including the replacement of temporary accommodation in poor condition. Prioritisation of need is through asset management planning and on an open and rigorous consultative process, based on the needs of all schools. The Department does not collect detailed information on investment plans or timetables of authorities.

  Numbers of schools in London boroughs with temporary building

  LEA

  Number of schools with temporary buildings

  Barking and Dagenham

  7

  Barnet

  —

  Bexley

  56

  Brent

  36

  Bromley

  16

  Camden

  0

  City of London

  —

  Croydon

  60

  Ealing

  54

  Enfield

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  Hackney

  10

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  Haringey

  21

  Harrow

  58

  Havering

  1

  Hillingdon

  44

  Hounslow

  40

  Islington

  9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  Lambeth

  28

  410W

  Numbers of schools in London boroughs with temporary building

  LEA

  Number of schools with temporary buildings

  Lewisham

  22

  Merton

  3

  Newham

  46

  Redbridge

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  12

  Southwark

  8

  Sutton

  44

  Tower Hamlets

  9

  Waltham Forest

  11

  Wandsworth

  9

  Westminster

  0

  Where no figures are shown, either no data have been supplied by LEAs, or there are clearly significant data anomalies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bankruptcies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individuals in the East Riding of Yorkshire were declared bankrupt in each of the past five years. [154563]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Bankruptcy figures are only available on the basis of the Official Receivers Office dealing with the cases, therefore it is not possible to separate bankruptcies pertaining to the East Riding of Yorkshire exactly. The following table gives annual figures for the number of individual bankruptcies dealt with by the Official Receivers Office in Hull, which covers the county courts of Beverley, Great Grimsby, Grimsby, Hull, Kingston-upon-Hull, Malton, Scarborough, Scunthorpe, Whitby and York. The Hull Office covers the majority of the East Riding of Yorkshire but also includes a number of county courts from neighbouring counties/unitary authorities. A small part of the East Riding of Yorkshire (the county court of Goole) is administered by the Official Receivers Office at Sheffield.

  Individual Bankruptcies Registered at the Official Receivers Office in Hull 1999–2003

  Number

  1999

  690

  2000

  796

  2001

  907

  2002

  926

  2003

  906

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) personal and (b) corporate bankruptcies there were in East Devon in each of the past seven years. [155297]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Insolvency figures are only available on the basis of the Official Receivers Office dealing with the cases, therefore it is not possible to identify precisely
  411W
  insolvencies in East Devon. Company insolvencies are made up of Company Compulsory Liquidations and Creditors Voluntary Liquidations of which only Company Compulsory Liquidations are available on an Official Receivers Office basis. The following table gives

  Individual bankruptcies and company compulsory liquidations registered at the Official Receivers Office in Exeter

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Individual insolvencies

  494

  628

  761

  566

  795

  919

  902

  Company compulsory liquidations

  46

  51

  56

  43

  38

  64

  33

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) personal and (b) company bankruptcies in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough there were in each of the last three years for which figures are available; what assessment she has made of recent trends; and if she will make a statement. [155275]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]Insolvency figures are only available on the basis of the Official Receivers Office dealing with the cases, therefore it is not possible to identify precisely insolvencies in Greater London or in individual boroughs. Company insolvencies are made up of Company Compulsory Liquidations and Creditors Voluntary Liquidations of which only Company Compulsory Liquidations are available on an Official Receivers Office basis. The following table gives annual figures for the number of individual Bankruptcies and Company Compulsory Liquidations dealt with by the Official Receivers Office in London, which covers the county courts of Barnet, Bloomsbury and Marylebone, Bow, Brentford, Chingford, Clerkenwell, Edmonton, Lambeth, Marylebone, Bloomsbury, Mayor's and City of London, Shoreditch, Wandsworth, West London, Westminster and Willesden.

  Individual Bankruptcies and Company Compulsory Liquidations Registered at the Official Receivers Office in London

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Individual Bankruptcies

  1,427

  1,457

  1,933

  Company Compulsory Liquidations

  911

  1,147

  864

  Broadband
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in London have access to(a) broadband internet via satellite service and (b) average variable cost broadband; and if she will make a statement. [155272]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]Broadband internet access via satellite is available to the vast majority of households across the UK, including in London. Terrestrial broadband internet access services, such as ADSL and cable modem, which are generally available at less than £30 per month, are available to 85 per cent. of households in the UK including the vast majority of households in the London area.

  Business Link
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 642W, on
  412W
  annual figures for the number of individual bankruptcies and company compulsory liquidations dealt with by the Official Receivers Office in Exeter, which covers the county courts of Barnstaple, Exeter, Newton Abbott, Shaftsbury, Torquay and Yeovil.

  Business Link, when her Department will publish the gross value-added measure for Business Link operators. [155356]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Initial Gross Value Added (GVA) data, covering the period April to June 2004, will be available from July 2004.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 642W, on Business Link, how many studies have been commissioned; what their titles are; and when they were published. [155359]

  Mr. Timms
  Since the introduction of Business Link there have been 17 studies which are available from the Small Business Service Analytical Unit (0114-279-4442):KPMG Evaluation of Business Links: Final Report (1994)
  MORE Business Links: the business advice market among small and medium sized enterprises (1994)
  MORI Business Links (Wave 2): the business advice market among small and medium sized enterprises (March 1995)
  MORI Business Links (Wave 3): Business advice among SME and the 'Business Link' campaign. (Sept, 1995)
  MORI Business Links (Wave 4): Business advice among SME and the 'Business Link' campaign (April, 1996)
  MORI Business Links (Wave 4): Business advice among SME and the 'Business Link' campaign (Sept, 1997)
  Business Planning and Research International Mystery Enquirer Programme 1995–96. (1997)
  Ernst and Young Evaluation of Business Links (1996)
  Ernst and Young Business Link Follow-up study (1997)
  Kingston Business School The Business Link Tracker Study, Published at 24th ISBA
  Small Firms Policy and Research Conference proceedings (ISBN 9000862 45X)
  Public and Corporate Economic Consultants Business Link—Value for Money Evaluation (1999)
  ECOTEC Evaluation of Innovative Business Support Projects (1999) York Consulting Ltd Early Assessment of Centres of Expertise (2000)
  CEEDR/Data Build Evaluation of High Growth Start up Programme (2002), Published at 25th ISBA Small Finns Policy and Research Conference proceedings (ISBN 1 901177 03 3) (2002)
  Business Support Needs Study (June 2001)
  Mystery Enquirer study of Business Link National Contact Centre (April 2002)
  Mystery Enquirer study of Business Link Website (April 2002)

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter from the hon.
  413W
  Member for Totnes of 9 December 2003 concerning Mr. Trevor Sams of Totnes and business practices on the Internet. [155099]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]My Department has no record of receiving your letter of 9 December. We now have a copy, and I will ensure you receive a response in due course.

  Departmental Functions (Beer)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is on the serving of beer at official functions. [155784]

  Ms Hewitt
  The decision whether to serve beer at official functions is made on an event by event basis depending upon the purpose, nature and format of the function.

  EU (High Level Group)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list outstanding European Union issues due to come to the High Level Group under the International Accountancy Standards Board; what the United Kingdom position on each issue is; and what the membership of the High Level Group is. [154558]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The high level European consultative group set up to advise the International Accounting Standards Board will be made up of senior officials from European banking, securities and insurance regulators and from the accounting, banking and insurance industries. The European Commission will be an observer on the group. The group will focus specifically on certain basic issues related to the application of accounting standards to financial institutions. Copies of the press notice announcing the group have been deposited and are available for reference in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government take no position on the individual technical issues but do believe that it is important for a complete package of accounting standards to be available to companies as soon as possible in view of the move to International Accounting Standards from 2005.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many illegal fireworks were seized in(a) 2003 and (b) the past five years. [154887]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]The question is taken to refer to three areas where fireworks could be illegal, those are:(a) fireworks seized that do not comply with the British Standards (BS 7114); (b)those seized at port by Customs and Excise; and, (c) those found to be illegally stored (in unregistered premises).

  With regard to (a), such information is not centrally available from Trading Standards Departments.

  With regard to (b), Customs and Excise have seized the amounts set out in the following table. The Figures provided are for a three year period—as information prior to April 2000 is not available.
  414W

  Individual fireworks

  Boxes of fireworks

  April 2000 to March 2001

  2,681

  8

  April 2001 to March 2002

  142

  5

  April 2002 to March 2003

  702

  27

  March 2003 to December 2003

  17,872

  24

  The large number of fireworks seized last year can be put down to a single seizure of approx 3.5 tons (17.4000 individual fireworks) which were detected upon entry into the UK.

  The figures compiled by Customs and Excise also include flares.

  Finally, with regard to (c), I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 10 November 2003, Official Report, column 146W.

  Grocery Market
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Office of Fair Trading has made of the potential impact of encroachment by multiple stores into the convenience sector of the grocery market on(a) sustainability of the industry and (b) the independent retailers and small groups within it. [155241]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  These are matters for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) as an independent competition authority. I have asked the OFT to respond to you directly on the points raised.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many speeches she made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156155]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have spoken, in my Ministerial capacity, at a number of events during this period and my keynote speeches are available on the DTI website.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has commissioned since 1998–99 to assess the impact of the National Minimum Wage on 16 to 17-year-olds participating in Government-supported training; and if she will make a statement. [155438]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 23 February 2004 ]Work on the position of 16 to 17-year-old workers, including those on Government-supported training, is taking place in two strands. First, the Government asked the independent Low Pay Commission in spring 2003 to consider the case for introducing a minimum wage rate for 16 to 17-year-old workers. I understand that the Commission have commissioned research and consulted widely on this issue. A copy of the Government's evidence to the Commission can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/er/nmw. We expect to receive the Commission's report by the end of this month and then to publish it, with the Government's response, around the middle of March.
  415W
  The Government have also been conducting a wider review which is looking at the financial incentives for young people to participate in education and training and the system of financial support for young people. We expect this review to report in the spring.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements are in place to enforce the provisions of the EU Social Chapter throughout the supply chain in construction projects for Britain's offshore oil and gas industries; and what the relationship is between these obligations and her Department's licensing regime. [154269]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The statutory employment rights provided by the Directives which the Government have implemented under the Social Chapter since 1997 extend to all those working in the United Kingdom in these industries.

  Implementation of Directives under the EU Social Chapter does not impact the administration of the licensing regime under the Petroleum Act 1998.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the balance between the supply of(a) high, (b) intermediate and (c) lower level qualifications in the workforce and employers' requirements for qualifications across the UK. [155288]

  Ms Hewitt
  The evidence gathered to inform the National Skills Strategy highlighted the fact that 56.9 per cent, of the UK workforce have lower level qualifications, 27.7 per cent, intermediate and 15.4 per cent, higher level.

  Understanding employers demand for skills and qualifications and encouraging effective deployment of skills in the workplace are key to my Department's agenda. I will continue to work with the Sectors Skills Development Agency and the Skills for Business Network to ensure that employers have the skills they require both now and in the future.

  Scientists (Productivity)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on levels of productivity amongst scientists in the UK. [155258]

  Ms Hewitt
  A recent international benchmarking study commissioned by my Department confirmed that in addition to the high quality of UK science and UK scientists are highly productive. On widely accepted measures of scientific productivity UK leads the G8 in terms of both papers published and citations acquired per researcher in international scientific journals.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small and medium-sized enterprises she estimates have started business in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [155585]
  416W
  Mr. Timms
  Value added tax (VAT) registrations are the best official guide to the pattern of business start-ups. These cover businesses of all sizes. Large changes in the level of the VAT threshold mean that data before 1994 is unavailable on a consistent basis with the current series.

  The number of businesses registering for VAT in each calendar year from 1994 to 2002 in the UK is as follows:

  VAT registrations in the UK

  1994

  170,000

  1995

  165,810

  1996

  171,005

  1997

  187,690

  1998

  187,515

  1999

  181,370

  2000

  184,035

  2001

  174,620

  2002

  175,800

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service

  While the number of new VAT registrations peaked in 1997 there were still more registrations in each year from 1997 to 2002 than in any of the three years proceeding this period. The reason why VAT registrations have fallen since 1997 is not clear. Many factors influence the number of new VAT registrations. These include global economic conditions and attractiveness of salaried employment compared with self-employment. A stable economy with low interest rates, coupled with a range of government initiatives to help start-ups, has assisted the net growth of business in the UK—at the start of 2003 there were 117,000 more VAT registered businesses than at the start of 1997

  University Science Funding
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) current and (b) future funding levels for university scientists in the UK. [155261]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government has invested heavily in the science and engineering base, of which the research conducted in universities forms the larger part. In the current spending review period the science budget is growing at 10 per cent, year-on-year in real terms, building on the average 7 per cent, growth over the previous spending review period, and reaching just short of £3 billion by 2005–06. The recent announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his intention to develop a 10-year investment framework for science and investment, to be announced at the time of the next spending review settlement, signals the Government's continuing long-term commitment to science.

  Further details of current and future funding levels by Government Departments and Research Councils are set out in 'The Forward Look 2003 Government funded science, engineering and technology', copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the
  417W
  potential cost of prohibiting employees from working longer than an average 48 hours per week to (a) small businesses and (b) the UK economy as a whole. [153916]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Employers are likely to respond in a variety of ways if legislation were passed to prevent employees from working longer than 48 hours on average. Firstly employers may absorb the curtailment in working hours either through reducing output or realising productivity gains through changed work arrangements. Alternatively, employers may replace in whole or part the lost hours by recruiting more staff or asking existing staff to work longer hours (while remaining below 48 on average).
  418W
  The extent to which employers do not compensate employees for lost hours and reductions in overtime pay would partly offset employers' costs in replacing lost long hours worked. This makes any precise estimate of the cost of prohibiting employees working longer hours difficult.

  However, DTI estimate that if one quarter of the hours worked over 48 per week were replaced by employers at extra cost then the value of those hours would be around £3 billion per annum. If three-quarters of long hours worked were replaced at extra cost then the value of these hours is estimated at around £9 billion per annum.

  Estimates for small businesses are not available.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs DEL will be decreased by £77,907,000 from £3,035,822,000 to £2,957,915,000 and the administration costs limits will be decreased by £193,238,000 from £540,470,000 to £347,232,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  -32,035

  2,378,872

  397,641

  2,776,513

  Capital

  -45,872

  286,873

  75,745

  362,618

  Depreciation*

  -

  -83,495

  -97,721

  -181,216

  Total

  -77,907

  2,582,250

  375,665

  2,957,915

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  a take up of £6,317,000 administration resources from ODPM for accommodation costs relating to Ashdown House;
  a decrease of £95,000,000 in our non-voted resource budget relating to funding originally provided in respect of the Environment Agency Closed Pension Fund, but which is no longer required in 2003–04;
  a reclassification of £45,919,000 capital flood defence grants (paid to the Environment Agency) to non-Voted resource DEL and matching grant in aid, to reflect the correct accounting treatment of these grants (see below offsetting decrease in capital);
  an increase to our non-Voted resource DEL of £1,948,000 to complete the transfer of English Nature's unfunded pension liabilities into the Principle Civil Service Pension Scheme;
  a transfer of £105,000 administration resources to the DTI for the Farm Business Advice Service (FBAS);
  a reclassification of £199,486,000 administration resources to programme resources in respect of the Department's front line services, as agreed with Treasury;
  a movement of £50,000,000 from non-Voted resources on to the Estimate (Vote) to reflect latest allocations/forecasts, as agreed with Treasury;
  10WS
  an increase of £2,000,000 to our resource expenditure and operating income to reflect the receipt from British Waterways of interest and capital repayment on its National Loans (NLF) loans and its onward payment to NLF;
  an increase of £3,951,000 programme resources and appropriations-in-aid in respect of Pig Industry Restructuring;
  a take-up of £8,184,000 programme resources from DWP in respect of Warm Front Pension Credit Costs;
  the take-up of our Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) of £10,689,000 as programme resources;
  a take-up of £500,000 programme resources from DfES for School Milk;
  the take-up of £36,000 administration resources and £95,000 programme resources from the Invest to Save Budget, representing Defra's successful projects in the fifth round of awards;
  a take-up of £71,000 programme resources from SEERAD for Emissions Trading Registry.
  an increase of our Executive Agencies' administrative resources and appropriations-in-aid by £20,000,000 to take account of latest allocations/forecasts and to reflect the appropriations-in-aid target in the Estimate.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  a reclassification of £45,919,000 Capital flood defence grants (paid to the Environment Agency) to non-Voted resource DEL and matching grant in aid, to reflect the correct accounting treatment of these grants (see above offsetting increase in resource);
  switch on the Estimate £60,000,000 from in-house capital to resources (Local Authority Grants) to reflect latest allocations/forecasts. Note: This switch is Budget neutral, i.e. Local Authority Grants are classified as resource for Estimate purposes but capital in the Budget;
  an increase in capital expenditure and non-operating appropriations-in-aid of £2,510,000, in respect of grain store receipts. This relates to an agreement with Treasury-which allows us to recycle grain store receipts in to the Rural Payments Agency's (RPA) Change programme by increasing expenditure in line with income received;
  take-up of £47,000 capital from the Invest to Save Budget, representing Defra's successful projects in the fifth round of awards.

  Forestry Commission
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Forestry Commission's DEL will be reduced by £1,450,000 from £84,620,000 to £83,170,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  -1,450

  78,097

  2,653

  80,750

  Capital

  833

  2,657

  3,490

  Depreciation*

  -1,070

  -

  -1,070

  Total

  -1,450

  77,860

  5,310

  83,170

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  11WS
  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from transfers of £1,200,000 and £250,000 to the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales respectively. This transfer is required to fund functions transferred from the Forestry Commission Westminster Vote (which covers activities in England and those functions which it carries out on a GB-wide basis), to Forestry Commission Scotland and Wales following the recommendations of the Forestry Devolution Review.

  Rural Delivery Review (Integrated Agency)
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  In my statement of 11 November 2003 on the rural delivery review, I accepted Lord Haskins' broad recommendation to bring together elements of the work done by English Nature, the Countryside Agency and Defra's rural development service into an integrated agency. It is important to me that the integrated agency should have a strong and authoritative voice commanding respect both within and outside Government. It is equally important that the advice I receive from the integrated agency is not only independent, but is seen to be independent. I have therefore decided that this new agency will be established as an executive non-departmental public body.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Work and Pensions DEL will be increased by £382,965,000 from £ 8,228,690,000 to £8,611,655,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £283,684,000 from £6,052,007,000 to £6,335,691,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  239,021

  7,100,263

  1,456,179

  8,556,442

  Capital

  142,674

  170,140

  1,202

  171,342

  Depreciation*

  1,270

  -115,415

  -714

  -116,129

  Total

  382,965

  7,154,988

  1,456,667

  8,611,655

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  i. a transfer of provision of £143,000,000 (other current) to capital for Job Centre Plus roll out expenditure;

  ii. a transfer in provision of £1,125,000 (administration costs) to the Scottish Executive for the administration costs of Training for Work;

  iii. a reduction in provision of £200,000 (other current) to the Welsh Assembly for costs incurred by the Adult Learning Inspectorate;

  iv. a reduction in provision of £50,000 (administration costs) due to a transfer to the Department of Health for Care Direct;

  12WS

  v. a reduction in provision of £5,000 (administration costs) as a result of a transfer to the Ministry of Defence in connection with the Ilford Park Polish Home;

  vi. an increase in provision of £93,000 (other current) as a result of a transfer from the Department for Education and Skills for Cross Departmental Working with Parents;

  vii. an increase in provision of £223,000,000 (administration costs) and £148,305,000 (other current) under the End Year Flexibility Scheme;

  viii. an increase in provision of £1,400,000 (administration costs) as a result of a transfer from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the New Deal for Communities;

  ix. an increase in provision of £365,000 in due to a transfer from the Cabinet Office (invest to save budget) in respect of a project to assist with the more effective administration of Free School Meals;

  x. an increase in provision of £200,000 (administration costs) as a result of a transfer from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the New Deal for Communities;

  xi. an increase in provision of £243,000 (administration costs) as a result of a transfer from the Scottish Executive for the Family Resources Survey;

  xii. an increase in provision of £9,795,000 (administration costs) for the Makinson Bonus scheme.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  a. a transfer of provision of £143,000,000 (other current) to capital for Job Centre Plus roll out expenditure;

  b. an increase in non operating appropriations in aid of £326,000 due to a revised forecast

TRANSPORT

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Transport DEL for 2003–04 will be increased by £185,735,000 from £10,642,808,000 to £10,828,543,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £12,166,000 from £379,261,000 to £391,427,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  494,266

  4,853,504

  3,295,458

  8,148,962

  Capital

  29,698

  1,846,521

  1,469,442

  3,315,963

  Depreciation*

  -338,229

  -636,382

  -

  -636,382

  Total

  185,735

  6,063,643

  4,764,900

  10,828,543

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The £272,789,000 increase in the voted resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i)take up of £291,284,000 (non cash) reserve claim for the Highways Agency to cover accounting changes in the valuation of road schemes when completed, depreciation of non-pavement assets and the creation of new provisions offset by changes in existing provisions;

  (ii) take up of £18,376,000 end year flexibility, comprising:

  13WS

  (a) £12,726,000 (administration costs) for expenditure by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

  (b) £2,487,000 (administration costs) for expenditure by the Highways Agency;

  (c) £2,400,000 for the Driving Standards Agency to fund Automated Driver Licence issue; and

  (d) £763,000 (administration costs) for the Department for Transport;

  (iii) a net transfer of £9,606,000 from other Government Departments, comprising:

  (a) £4,792,000 from the Scottish Executive being an adjustment, to transfers previously made by the Department to the Executive, to reflect ScotRail performance receipts and reductions in ScotRail access charges (£4,504,000) and a transfer in respect of consultant costs on speed cameras (£288,000);

  (b) £146,000 from the Department for Trade and Industry in respect of the Low Carbon Partnership (£195,000) partially offset by a transfer to that department for the FP6 Sustainable Surface Transport programme (£49,000);

  (c) £705,000 (administration costs) from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of managing the Transport and Works Act (£410,000) and counselling and support services (£295,000); and

  (d) a machinery of Government transfer of £3,963,000 from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the European Regional Development Fund;

  (iv) a net transfer to non-voted resource provision of £46,477,000 comprising:

  (a) a transfer of £50,000,000 to cover Highways Agency cash payments against provisions;

  (b) a transfer of £500,000 (administration costs) to cover Maritime and Coastguard Agency cash payments against provisions and release of provisions;

  (c) partially offset by a transfer of £4,023,000 (administration costs) departmental unallocated provision to voted provision for Department for Transport;

  (v) receipts of £4,289,000 (administration costs) used for Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency publicity costs (programme);

  (vi) a transfer of £226,000 (administration costs) from the Department for Transport to the Vehicle Certification Agency in respect of Electronic Delivery Systems.

  Within the non-voted resource element of the DEL, there has been an increase of £221,477,000 comprising:

  (i) a take up of £175,000,000 (non cash) reserve claim for the Highways Agency for release of provisions adjustment; and

  (ii) a net transfer from voted resource provision of £46,477,000.

  As a result of the above changes to the resource element of the DEL there has been a net increase of £12,166,000 in the gross administration costs limit, from £379,261,000 to £391,427,000 and an increase of £226,000 in the Vehicle Certification Agency net administration limit from £41,000 to £185,000.
  14WS
  The increase of £29,698,000 in the voted capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of £20,926,000 (non cash) reserve claim for the Highways Agency in respect of provisions for lands and major schemes claims;

  (ii) a net transfer of £4,244,000 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for various dual and shared Strategic IT and e-business projects; and

  (iii) £4,528,000 machinery of government transfer from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the European Regional Development Fund.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Sustainable Communities
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I am today publishing for consultation a draft of planning policy statement 1 (PPS1)—"Creating Sustainable Communities" the core statement of the Government's key planning policies.

  I am also publishing a paper on the Government's approach to community involvement in planning.

  PPS1 is the key overarching document which sets out the Government's high level principles for planning.

  Clause 39 (clause 38—the sustainable development clause—as was) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill requires regional and local plans to be drawn up with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The clause requires that in doing so, planning authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. PPS1 will be a key document underpinning this requirement.

  PPS1 is based on three themes:
  Planning for sustainable communities and sustainable development;
  The new approach to planning we are promoting as part of planning culture change (the spatial planning approach); and
  Community involvement in planning.

  Sustainable development

  Our legislation will make contributing to the achievement of sustainable development the key purpose of the planning system. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should expect planning policies to pursue proactively the four aims of sustainable development—economic development; social inclusion; environmental protection; and prudent use of natural resources—in an integrated way, in line with the Government's overall strategy for sustainable development.

  Spatial Planning

  The new regional and local plans provided for in the Bill are based on the philosophy of spatial planning. Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function.
  15WS
  PPS1 sets out the spatial planning approach that will be adopted in the new planning system. These planning tools will reflect real geographies and real community issues, and are thus a flexible approach to planning and sustainable development.

  Community involvement

  Effective community involvement is a vital element in delivering sustainable communities. Our aim should be to develop effective community involvement processes which enable a better understanding of the sometimes difficult choices which have to be made in considering development and more ownership of the accompanying decisions.

  We need of course to strike a balance between promoting effective community involvement without allowing the system to be bogged down by endless consultation exercises. I want the reformed system to emphasise community involvement as a way of helping resolve problems early in the process and secure ownership, so that when plans and proposals are put forward, there are fewer objections.

  The paper makes clear that community involvement should be based on a real understanding of the community's needs, should be fit for purpose, and should be "front loaded" ie involvement early in the process.

  PPS1 can only set out the key policy principles for community involvement in planning. To put these in context, the community involvement paper sets out our general philosophy on community involvement in planning, and puts this in the broader context of policy.

  Copies of the two documents will be available in the Libraries of the House. They will also be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at (www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/sectionhomepage/odpm_planning_page.hcsp)

  Local Government Members (Code of Conduct)
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government have today published a consultation paper setting out its proposals for draft Regulations under section 66 of the Local Government Act 2000. These proposals will make provision for local government monitoring officers in England, in cases where ethical standards officers of the Standards Board for England deem it appropriate, to investigate allegations that local authority members have breached their code of conduct. The Government are consulting on this issue over the next three months, and at the same time the Standards Board for England is consulting on draft guidance for monitoring officers on how they can best undertake their duties under the proposed Regulations.

  We need to ensure the highest possible ethical standards in local government. But we need a system, which is efficient and workable. This approach is a sensible, effective and proportionate way of handling allegations of misconduct at a local level.

  Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to local authorities and will be available in the Libraries of both Houses, as well as being made available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at www.odpm.gov.uk.

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2003–04 will change as follows:

  (1) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Main Programmes DEL will be increased by £272,415,000 from £6,914,649,000 to £7,187,064,000 and the administration costs limit will be decreased by £6,003,000 from £396,378,000 to £390,375,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  -141,377

  2,858,504

  2,015,267

  4,873,771

  Capital

  413,792

  1,042,127

  1,271,166

  2,313,293

  Depreciation*

  -5,323

  -21,791

  -2,000

  -23,791

  Total

  267,092

  3,878,840

  3,284,433

  7,163,273

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL, since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of End Year Flexibility of £286,081,000 comprising:

  (a) £85,888,000 for the Regional Development Agencies;

  £45,000,000 for European Structural Funds;

  £11,656,000 for the Sustainable Communities Plan;

  £67,000,000 for Housing programmes expenditure;

  £37,290,000 for Fire Services (transitional funding, expenditure on fire dispute including Ministry of Defence costs and New Dimension Search and Rescue;

  £332,000 from the Invest to Save Budget for Fire Services;

  £2,293,000 for the Fire Service College;

  £6,601,000 for Ordnance Survey expenditure and capital charge on the trading fund's assets;

  £21,000 for New Ventures Fund;

  £30,000,000 non-voted for English Partnerships;

  a net transfer of £12,712,000 to other government departments, comprising:

  (a) £109,000 from The Scottish Executive for housing;

  (b) £1,000,000 from Department for Work and Pensions for Housing;

  (c) £1,798,000 (administration costs) from Cabinet Office to cover the rent and service charges on 26 Whitehall;

  (d) £342,000 (administration costs) from the Office of National Statistics for work on housing, the physical environment, fire and Best Value Performance Indicators;

  (e) £19,000 (administration costs) from Home Office for work on antisocial behaviour;

  (f) £47,000 (administration costs) from Department for Education and Skills to Government Offices administration for work on their core agenda;

  (g) £360,000 (administration costs) from the Home Office to Government Offices administration to cover work on the Criminal Justice Interventions and Treatment programme;

  (h) £3,963,000 European Structural Funds provision to Department of Transport;

  17WS

  £1,350,000 to Department for Education and Skills, £1,600,000 to Department for Work and Pension for Job Centre Plus and pension services, £2,155,000 to Home Office for adventure capital and capacity building funds;

  (j) £425,000 (administration costs) to Department of Constitutional Affairs in respect of the transfer of work on devolution;

  (k) £6,189,000 (administration costs) to Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to cover the baseline budget for Ashdown House retail rent;

  (l) £705,000 (administration costs) to the Department for Transport to cover interdepartmental services;

  (iii) An increase in receipts of £33,431,000 to offset similar increases in provision of £15,568,000 for administration costs, £5,504,000 for Government Offices administration costs, £8,743,000 for Fire services, £2,573,000 for The Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency, £510,000 for Ordnance Survey Trading Fund, £225,000 for Housing services, £306,000 for Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Executive Agency Trading Fund and £2,000 for Planning.

  (iv) A transfer of £54,471,000 from resource investment to capital within Sustainable Communities.

  (v) A transfer of £376,949,000 from resource investment to capital within the Regional Development Agencies.

  (vi) A transfer of £11,000,000 to resource investment from capital within the European Structural Funds. This reflects the correction of the split between capital grants to local authorities and capital grants to the private sector.

  (vii) A transfer of £2,564,000 to resource investment from capital due to a classification error within Fire Services.

  (viii) A transfer of £390,000 to Request for Resources 2 from Request for Resources 1.

  (ix) A net transfer of £769,000 from voted to non-voted provisions comprising:

  (a) a transfer of £4,555,000 to non-voted DEL for South East of England Development Agency work in delivering Other Growth Area and Thames Gateway projects and to support Thurrock Urban Development Corporation;

  (b) transfers of £1,470,000 and £1,750,000 from Sustainable Communities Plan and New Ventures Fund respectively to non-voted DEL;

  (c) a transfer of £459,000 to non-voted Housing Corporation;

  (d) a transfer of £2,000,000 from non-voted resource investment DEL to voted capital DEL for Housing programmes;

  (e) a transfer of £2,300,000 to voted DEL for the Thames Gateway programmes;

  (f) a transfer of £3,165,000 to voted DEL to fund capital charge on Fire Service College assets;

  (x) Provision of £4,500,000 in respect of future pension liability for non-voted Housing Corporation. This is a classification change.

  (xi) Provision of £1,000,000 in respect of future pension liability for non-voted English Partnerships. This is a classification change.

  (xii) As a result of the changes to Request for Resources 1, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's administration provision has been increased by £17,642,000 from £408,920,000 to £426,562,000.

  18WS
  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of end year flexibility of £2,708,000 comprising of:

  (a) £2,217,000 for the Disable Facilities Grant;

  (b) £50,000 from the Invest to Save Budget for Fire Services;

  (c) £40,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for Public Space improvement programme;

  (d) £401,000 from Sustainable Communities;

  (ii) A transfer of £54,471,000 from resource investment to capital within Sustainable Communities.

  (iii) A transfer of £376,949,000 from resource investment to capital within the Regional Development Agencies.

  (iv) A transfer of £11,000,000 from capital to resource investment within the European Structural Funds. This reflects the correction of the split between capital grants to local authorities and capital grants to the private sector.

  (v) A transfer of £2,564,000 from capital to resource investment due to a classification error within Fire Services.

  (vi) A transfer of £8,772,000 to Department of Transport comprising of £4,244,000 for shared IT projects and £4,528,000 for European Structural Funds provision.

  (vii) Within the capital element of the DEL there is a net transfer of £10,130,000 from voted to non-voted provision comprising of: £1,030,000 from voted to non-voted provisions in respect of the Ordnance Survey Trading Fund; a transfer of £2,000,000 from non-voted resource DEL to capital DEL for Housing programme; a transfer of £10,800,000 to non-voted DEL for English Partnership work on Pathfinder projects and a transfer of £300,000 to non voted Housing Corporation.

  (2) The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Local Government DEL will be increased by £1,923,000 from £41,359,492,000 to £41,361,415,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  870

  40,929,679

  97,973

  41,027,652

  Capital

  1,053

  324,710

  9,053

  333,763

  Depreciation*

  -400

  -400

  0

  -400

  Total

  1,523

  41,253,989

  107,026

  41,361,015

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of End Year Flexibility of £550,000 comprising:

  (a) £250,000 for Best Value Parish Councils;

  (b) £300,000 for Valuation services;

  (ii) a transfer of £390,000 from Request for Resources 1.

  19WS

  (iii) a transfer of £39,000 from the Office of National Statistics for Local Government research, publicity, mapping and electoral law costs.

  (iv) a transfer of £109,000 of the Standards Board own spending to capital.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of End Year Flexibility of £944,000 for the Standards Board own spending.

  (ii) a transfer of £109,000 of the Standards Board own spending from resource.

  Housing Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  On Friday the Government tabled amendments to the Housing Bill, which is currently being considered by the House in Committee. These amendments meet a number of the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party and aim to deal with some of the key concerns about the existing legislation.

  They amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to require a written statement of terms to be given to a prospective occupier 28 days before the agreement to station a park home on a site is entered into. At present Written statements may be given up to three months after the agreement has commenced.

  In the event of the owner failing to produce the written statement in advance, any express terms contained in the agreement will not be enforceable at the suit of the owner. This is to encourage the site owner to produce the written statement in advance, and is not likely to hold up the process of a sale.

  The amendments create a power by which the Secretary of State (in Wales the National Assembly for Wales) can add additional terms to be implied into the agreement, and repeal and vary those in the Mobile Homes Act 1983. This power might be used, for example, to give an occupier the right to quiet enjoyment of their home, whereas currently an occupier would have to go to court to have this term implied into their agreement.

  Because existing agreements are of infinite duration, we need to be able to amend the statutory implied terms for existing agreements, where these are clearly inadequate. Provision has therefore been made for the first exercise of the power to have retrospective effect, i.e. to allow amendment of the implied terms operating as part of existing agreements. Future exercises of the power will be non-retrospective. Any order made under the power is subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament, and the clause contains a consultation requirement for the Secretary of State to consult interested parties as to the proposed amendments. Representatives of both site owners and occupiers will therefore be consulted about the terms of any order to be made.

  Site owners will in future have a time limit of 28 days for giving or withholding approval of a prospective purchaser. By the end of this time limit a decision must have been given in writing. If not, the occupier can apply to the court for an order giving approval to that purchaser, which if given would involve the site owner in costs.
  20WS
  The age of a home is removed as a relevant criterion for ending an agreement. Currently a site owner may terminate an agreement on grounds of 'age and condition' of the unit. The amendment will remove the reference to age from the 1983 Act, as the age of a unit is irrelevant. The amendment will enable courts to consider the condition of the unit and to allow time for appropriate repairs (if reasonably practicable).

  The amendments increase the protection of occupiers of park homes against harassment and illegal eviction by amending the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to mirror the wording in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which governs the protection given to occupiers of conventional housing against eviction and harassment. The wording for the existing offence for a site owner doing "acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort" of the occupier which cause him to abandon his home, has been relaxed to "acts likely to interfere" with such peace or comfort, which is obviously an easier test to satisfy. A new offence has been introduced which does not require specific intent by a site owner or his agent to cause an occupier to abandon his home. This will increase the protection available to occupiers and the chances of successful prosecutions.

  The remaining recommendations of the Working Party need further work to ensure that when fully implemented they will work effectively in practice. To that end, we have recently commissioned consultants to develop proposals on the implementation of the recommendations in relation to site licensing.

HEALTH

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  Subject to the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department of Health's element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £262,454,000 from £65,583,213,000 to £65,845,667,000 and the Administration Cost Limit will decrease by £4,042,000 from £297,448,000 to £293,406,000. The overall DEL including the Food Standards Agency will increase by the same amount £262,454,000 from £65,722,240,000 to £65,984,694,000. The impact on resource and capital are set out in the following table.

  Change £ million

  Voted £ million

  New DEL Non-voted £ million

  Total £ million

  Department of Health

  Resource DEL

  95.348

  63,334.252

  -310.127

  63,024.125

  Capital DEL

  167.106

  653.611

  2,167.931

  2,821.542

  Total Department of Health DEL

  262.454

  63,987.863

  1,857.804

  65,845.667

  Depreciation*

  0.078

  -352.570

  -44.369

  -396.939

  21WS

  Change £ million

  Voted £ million

  New DEL Non-voted £ million

  Total £ million

  Total Department of Health spending (after adjustment)

  262.532

  63,635.293

  1,813.435

  65,448.728

  Food Standards Agency Resources

  0

  136.368

  0

  136.368

  Capital

  0

  2.659

  0

  2.659

  Total Food Standard Agency DEL

  0

  139.027

  0

  139.027

  Depreciation*

  0

  -2.004

  0

  -2.004

  Total Food Standards Agency spending (after adjustment)

  0

  137.023

  0

  137.023

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since the capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the DEL arises from the take up of end year flexibility £260,978,000 (£1,572,000 administration costs) for capital, revenue and administration budgets as set out in Table 6 of the Public Expenditure 2002–03 Provisional Outturn White Paper Cm 5884 published in July 2003. A net transfer from the Home Office of £1,980,000 (£50,000 administration costs) mainly for training costs at special hospitals, drugs misuse pilot projects and voluntary sector care projects helping to increase volunteers in intermediate care; from the Department of Trade and Industry £1,070,000 (£70,000 administration costs) for contributions towards the human genetics commission and to support development of genetics knowledge parks to increase understanding into a range of genetic based issues including research; from the Department for Work and Pensions £10,343,000 for the NHS low income scheme and a contribution to the care direct budget; to the Scotland Executive £88,000 for their share of the reimbursement from manufacturers 3M associated with the ending of a hip replacement programme; a net transfer to the Department for Education and Skills £12,544,000 (£-1,733,000 administration costs) mainly for capital projects, machinery of government changes and NHS diploma students offset by contributions towards teenage pregnancy, children's trusts and communications budgets; a net transfer from the DHSS Northern Ireland £735,000 for out of area treatments offset by a contribution to CJD care fund; to the National Assembly for Wales £20,000 (administration costs) for prison healthcare.

  The administration cost limit has reduced by £4,042,000 from £297,448,000 to £293,406,000. In addition to the changes detailed above there is a decrease of £3,981,000 for transfers to programme budgets mainly for capitalisation of software developments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) DEL will be increased by £28,325,000 from £1,180,916,000 to £1,209,241,000. The administration cost limit has been increased by £34,000 from £163,375,000 to £163,409,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  Resource

  28,325

  1,136,389

  400,441

  735,948

  Capital

  0

  72,852

  30,113

  42,739

  Depreciation*

  10,956

  22,209

  27,467

  49,676

  Total

  17,369

  408,345

  751,220

  1,159,565

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from a change in the budgeting treatment for pension schemes (£25,000,000) and from the net effect of transfers to and from other Government Departments (£3,325,000). The increase in administration costs (£34,000) is also, as a net effect of transfers to and from other Government Departments.

  General Consumer Council
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland 2002–03 annual report and accounts were deposited in the Library of the House today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Charity Commission DEL will be increased by £83,000 from £28,198,000 to £28,281,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £83,000 from £27,409,000 to £ 27,492,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  83,000

  27,492,000

  -

  27,492,000

  Capital

  -

  1,399,000

  -

  1,399,000

  Depreciation*

  -

  -610,000

  -

  -610,000

  Total

  83,000

  28,281,000

  -

  28,281,000

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the take-up of £83,000 End-Year Flexibility funding, of which £50,000 will fund unavoidable medical retirements, £15,000 will fund costs relating to

  23WS
  the replacement of the Commission's current payroll provider and £18,000 will fund the implementation of a non-pay staff benefit scheme. The change in the administration costs limit arises from the same take-up of £83,000 resource End-Year Flexibility funding.

  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Plans of changes to the Departmental Expenditure Limit and Administrative Cost Limit for 2003–04.

  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Home Office's Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) for 2003–04 will be increased by £238,426,000 from £12,534,970,000 to £12,773,396,000. These changes cause the administration costs limit to increase by £38,097,000 from £3,431,703,000 to £3,469,800,000. In addition to normal administration costs, the Home Office administration costs limit also includes the costs of front line Prison, and Immigration service staff. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  226,341

  10,357,050

  1,569,960

  11,927,010

  Capital

  27,023

  841,847

  241,295

  1,083,142

  Depreciation*

  14,938

  -197,663

  -39,093

  -236,756

  Total

  238,426

  11,001,234

  1,772,162

  12,773,396

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from: revised IND budget addition of £171,000,000 comprising £33,899,000 to subhead 11, £143,668,000 to subhead I2, reduction of £6,977,000 to subhead I3 and a reduction in receipts of £410,000 to subhead I5; £52,500,000 additional resources for the Recovered Assets Incentive Scheme; EYF of £2,662,000 programme expenditure to RfR 1 subhead C2

  ISB funds: £1,051,000 to RfR 1 subhead H3 for the GuideStar UK project;

  Additional resources of £7,179,000: for RfR2 subhead B1 following an adjustment to the imputed cost of capital associated with the Prisons PFI contract;

  Transfers from other Government Departments total £11,719,000. This comprises:
  £7,502,000 from the Department for Constitutional Affairs to RfR 1 comprising £4,850,000 to subhead ADS for meeting the needs of the Criminal justice IT delivery plan; £2,610,000 to subhead E2 for Crown courts; £24,000 to subhead H3 for strategic funding of Mediation UK and £18,000 to subhead E3 as a contribution to the group of states against corruption (GRECO).
  £2,215,000 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to RfR 1 comprising £2,000,000 to subhead B3 for capacity building in 67 neighbourhoods with high crime rates; £155.000 to subhead H3 in respect of the Adventure Capital fund; £60,000 to subhead B1 for work on local public service agreements.
  24WS
  £50,000 from the Office of National Statistics to RfR1 subhead K1 for work associated with the neighbourhood statistics programme.
  £1,792,000 from the Department for Education and Skills to RfR 1 comprising £1,500,000 to subhead AMI; £159,000 to subhead H3 for the mentor point programme and £133,000 to subhead AM2 for Treasury solicitors fees on past litigation for approved schools.
  £140,000 from Customs and Excise to RfR1 subhead A2 for funding the special projects and electro mechanical services.
  £20,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to RfR1 subhead E3 as a contribution to the group of states against corruption (GRECO);

  Transfers to other government departments totalling £19,756,000. This comprises:
  £628,000 from RfR1 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs comprising £500,000 from subhead E2 for local criminal justice boards; £68,000 from subhead HI for staff costs involved in administering the golden jubilee awards in the Scottish and Welsh Devolved administrations and £60,000 from subhead E3 for the victims and witnesses survey.
  £63,000 from RfR 2 subhead C1 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs for staff costs for prison adjudicators.
  £5,950,000 from RfR1 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office comprising £2,088,000 from subhead I1 for the European Union Residence Permit; £305,000 from subhead I1 for the Colombo biometrics pilot; £250,000 from subhead I1 for the wider biometrics scoping study;
  £185,000 from subhead I1 for the East Africa biometrics project; £2,000,000 from subhead D3 and £1,000,000 from subhead C2 for contributions towards the FCO's Afghanistan drugs plan and £122,000 from subhead K2 for research into techniques for identifying and measuring opium cultivation.
  £4,199,000 from RfR1 to the Crown Prosecution Service comprising £3,300,000 from subhead C2 for costs associated with the proceeds of crime act 2002; £500,000 from subhead El for the confidence unit and £210,000 from subhead C3 to cover cost under the recovered asset incentive fund; £189,000 from subhead B2 to support joint working and improve effective use of enforcement measures for Anti-Social Behaviour.
  £3,413,000 from RfR1 to Customs and Excise comprising £1,570,000 from subhead C2 for costs associated with Project Cyclamen; £1,003,000 from subhead C3 for legal teams associated with the proceeds of crime act and £840,000 from subhead C3 for the Regional Assets recovery Teams project.
  £1,980,000 from RfR1 to the Department of Health comprising £1,000,000 from subhead D3 for heroin pilots in the Drug Misuse service; £270,000 from subhead H3 for immediate care services and £150,000 from subhead H3 for "Care direct", a match funded project; £50,000 from subhead AM1 for funding of the Mental Health bill team and £510,000 from subhead AM2 for central support cost for the Community Project (£350,000); for CBT training at Ashworth Hospital (£97,000); for general training at Broadmoar and Rampton Hospital (£25,000 each) and for evaluation of the Drug Education/Young People pooled Budget (£13,000).
  £1,080,000 from RfR1 to the Cabinet Office comprising of £1,050,000 from subhead C2 for drugs projects and £30,000 from subhead AM1 for cost associated with the Carter review.

  25WS
  £406,000 from RfR1 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for business crime advisor and anti social behaviour unit.
  £417,000 from RfR2 to the Department for Trade and Industry comprising £385,000 from subhead C2 and £32,000 from subhead C1 for the pay review body.
  £288,000 from RfR1 to the Department for Education and Skills comprising £201,000 from subhead I1 for the moorfoot building agreement; £54,000 from subhead H3 for the community championship programme and £33,000 from subhead B1 for the street crime action team.
  £610,000 from RfR 2 subhead A2 to the Department for Education and Skills for transferring education responsibility from HMPS.
  £642,000 to the National Assembly of Wales comprising £250,000 from RfR 1 subhead D3 for throughcare and aftercare; £43,000 from RfR 1 subhead B1 for business crime reduction advisors and £349,000 from RfR2 subhead Al for additional prison health care costs
  £55,000 from RfR 1 subhead H3 to the Ministry of Defence for volunteering opportunities, a match funded project.
  £25,000 from RfR 1 subhead C3 to the Asset Recovery Agency for the Recovered Assets Incentive Fund;

  Machinery of Government changes totalling £14,000 comprising:

  Additional £14,000 provision for Family policy to be transferred from RfR 1 subhead H1 "Community policy" to the Department for Education and Skills;

  The change in the capital element of DEL arises from:

  Revised IND capital budget addition of £46,000,000;

  EYF totalling £11,295,000 comprising:

  £10,000,000 to RfR2 subhead A7 for building prison capacity; £654,000 capital expenditure to RfR 1 subhead C7 and £641,000 to RfR 1 subhead L7 for work relating to the Hoclas project;

  Transfers to other government departments totalling £30,272,000. This comprises:
  £22,324,000 from RfR1 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs comprising £15,800,000 from subhead E7 to meet the cost of the overall delivery plan for 2003–04; £5,000,000 from subhead E7 for the crown courts; £1,000,000 from the Departmental unallocated provision for criminal justice IT work; £264,000 from subhead E7 to support improvements in inputting Crown Court decisions into the Police National Computer and £260,000 from subhead E7 for IT interface work. £5,500,000 from RfR1 subhead 17 to the Ministry of Defence in respect of RAF Newton.
  £2,047,000 from RfR1 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office comprising £1,013,000 from subhead 17 for the new visa regime in Kingston, Jamaica; £912,000 from subhead 17 for the European Union Residence Permit and £122,000 from subhead 17 for capital expenditure on biometrics in East Africa.
  £401,000 from RtR1 subhead C7 to Customs and Excise for costs associated with Project Cyclamen.

PRIME MINISTER

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Security and Intelligence Agencies' DEL will be increased by £27,620,000 from £1,497,446,000 to £1,525,066,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by 26WS
  £4,295,000 from £566,324,000 to £570,619,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  13,819,000

  1,119,106,000

  11,750,000

  1,130,856,000

  Capital

  14,402,000

  530,411,000

  5,000,000

  535,411,000

  Depreciation*

  601,000

  141,201,000

  -

  141,201,000

  Total

  27,620,000

  1,508,316,000

  16,750,000

  1,525,066,000

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  1. the take up of End of Year Flexibility of £9,198,000.

  2. a transfer of £7,016,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to reflect funding for Conflict prevention.

  3. a transfer of £85,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to fund planned programme activity.

  4. a transfer of £1,050,000 from the Home Office.

  5. a transfer of £120,000 from the Ministry of Defence for the payment of electricity.

  6. a switch of £2,000,000 to Capital.

  7. a decrease of £735,000 Resource due to an increase of £735,000 in the forecast Profit on Sale of an asset. This is a non-cash item.

  8. a decrease of £915,000 in other non-cash items due to new
  forecasts.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  1. the take up of End of Year Flexibility of £ 11,531,000.

  2. a switch of £2,000,000 from Resource.

  3. a transfer of £861,000 to the Cabinet Office.

  4. An increase of £1,732,000 due to the virement of' £735,000 from Resource (non-cash) to Capital (cash) from the profit of a sale of an asset and £997,000 to correct the figures given in the Winter Supplementary.

CABINET OFFICE

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Cabinet Office DEL will be increased by £2,043,000 from £311,289,000 to £313,332,000 and the gross administration costs limits will be increased by £2,644,000 from £223,733,000 to £226,377,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  1,182

  277,297

  0

  277,297

  Capital

  861

  86,189

  0

  86,189

  Depreciation*

  0

  -50,154

  0

  -50,154

  Total

  2,043

  313,332

  0

  277,297

  27WS
  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from additions from the DEL reserve of £3,500,000 for human resources restructuring, draw down of £140,000 end year flexibility on Invest to Save funding provided to the Centre for Management and Policy Studies and net transfers to other government departments of £2,458,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from transfers from other departments of £861,000.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Attorney-General's DEL will be increased by £19,955,000 from £568,904,000 to £588,859,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £9,683,000 from £429,591,000 to £439,274,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  19,575,000

  573,179,000

  0

  573,179,000

  Capital

  380,000

  15,680,000

  0

  15,680,000

  Depreciation*

  0

  -4,573,000

  0

  -4,573,000

  Total

  19,955,000

  584,286,000

  0

  584,286,000

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The Crown Prosecution Service's element of the Attorney-General's DEL will be increased by £16,574,000 from £511,661,000 to £528,235,000 and the Administration Costs Limit will he increased by £7,683,000 from £401,574,000 to £409,257,000.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  Administration costs changes resulting from the take up of DEL End-Year Flexibility of £5,000,000, as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5884); a transfer of £543,000 from the Department of Constitutional Affairs to support Effective Trial Management pilots; a transfer of £500,000 from the Home Office to support Local Criminal Boards in increasing local confidence in the Criminal Justice System; a transfer of £40,000 from the Department of Constitutional Affairs to fund Local Criminal Justice Board support; and an internal transfer of £1,600,000 from programme expenditure to administration costs to support the increased deployment of Higher Court Advocates in the Crown Court; and
  Programme expenditure changes in respect of the take-up of DEL End-Year Flexibility of £6,792,000, as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5884); a transfer of £3,300,000 from the Home Office to support the joint delivery of government targets for recovering Proceeds of Crime; a transfer of £210,000 from the Home Office Recovered Assets Incentivisation Fund to fund a Scoping Study and Framework Agreement for the Appointment of
  28WS
  Receivers; a transfer of £189,000 from the Home Office to support joint working and improve effective use of enforcement measures for Anti-Social Behaviour; a internal transfer of £1,600,000 programme expenditure to administration costs to support the increased deployment Higher Court Advocates in the Crown Court; and a transfer of £7,000,000 from non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision to voted programme expenditure in resource DEL.

  The Serious Fraud Office's DEL will be increased by £3,000,000 from £28,850,000 to £31,850,000 and the Administration Costs Limit will be increased by £2,000,000 from £18,475,000 to £20,475,000.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from a part claim on the DEL Reserve of £1,000,000 in respect of additional costs relating to two blockbuster cases; the take-up of End-Year Flexibility of £1,000,000 administration costs and £1,000,000 resource programme costs.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the take-up of end year flexibility of £380,000 capital relating to the increase in IT expenditure.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Departmental DEL will be increased by £1,000 from £13,093,000 to £13,094,000. A £1,000 token increase arises from additional demand for legal services provided to other Government Departments.

  There is no increase in the Treasury Solicitors Administration Cost Limit and no claims on the DEL Re serve or End-Year Flexibility have been made.

DEFENCE

  Nimrod MRA4
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  We announced, in February last year, that agreement had been reached with BAE SYSTEMS on the way ahead for the Nimrod MRA4 programme and undertook to report significant developments to the House. We are pleased to announce that, following detailed negotiations, a contract amendment, formally embodying the Agreement, was signed on 23 February 2004.

  Signature of the contract amendment demonstrates the positive relationship between the MOD and the Company and the joint commitment to deliver this important military capability within the terms of our agreement. This contract amendment. however, although important, is not an end in itself. The work over the past year in putting the Agreement into effect has set the programme on a much sounder footing for the future. Risks and challenges remain however, and we are working hard, with the Company, to assure the long-term stability of the programme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Secretary of state for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets DEL will be decreased by £799,000 from £1,531,000 to £732,000 and the administration costs limits will remain unchanged at
  29WS
  £1,398,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  1,000

  682,000

  -

  682,000

  Capital

  -

  50,000

  -

  50,000

  800,000

  Depreciation*

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,300,000

  1,300,000

  Total

  -

  -

  -

  568,000

  799,000

  568,000

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from additional programme costs of £1,201,000 in respect of higher than expected costs of energywatch. There is no change in the administration cost due to a compensating increase in appropriations in aid of £1,200,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from higher than expected receipts from the sale of capital assets.

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary Estimate, the Department of Trade & Industry's DEL will be increased by £280,472,000 from £5,297,355,000 to £5,577,827,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £2,998,000 from £431,695,000 to 0434,693,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  224,012

  1,072,089

  3,870,623

  4,942,712

  (£000)

  Capital (£000)

  56,460

  310,301

  324,814

  635,115

  Depreciation*

  0

  -

  -

  -

  (£000)

  20,841

  93,159

  114,000

  Total (£000)

  280,472

  1,361.549

  4,102,278

  5,463,827

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  RfR1

  i) a transfer of £11,200,000 from the Ministry of Defence in support of dual-use Aero Engine technology programmes;

  ii) a transfer of £67,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of the subscription to UNCLOS;

  iii) a transfer of £385,000 from the Home Office in respect of the Prison Services Pay Review Body;

  iv) a transfer from the Ministry of Defence of £43,000 in respect of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and £16,000 in respect of the Senior Salaries Review Body;

  30WS

  v) a transfer of £58,000 from the Northern Ireland Office in respect of the Prison Services Pay Review Body;

  vi) a transfer of £15,000 from the Cabinet Office in respect of the Senior Salaries Pay Review Body;

  vii) a transfer of £79,000 from the Department for Education and Skills in respect of the School Teachers Pay Review Body;

  viii) a transfer of £49,000 from the Department for Transport in respect of the FP6 Sustainable Surface Transport programme;

  ix) a transfer of £195,000 to the Department for Transport for the Low CVP Permanent Secretariat;

  x) reclassification of £24,000,000 in respect of OFCOM establishment costs from resource to capital expenditure;

  xi) a virement of £9,786,000 from voted Cost of Capital to non-voted Cost of Capital in respect of Companies House and the Patent Office;

  xii) transfer of £1,000,000 to the Department of Health in respect of Genetic Knowledge Parks;

  xiii) utilisation of £12,200,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of Nuclear Support for the former Soviet Union;

  (xiv) utilisation of £3,862,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of the Rover Task Force;

  (xv) utilisation of £19,541,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of Innovation and Space;

  (xvi) utilisation of £12,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of the Modernisation of the Post Office Network;

  (xvii) utilisation of £50,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund in respect of the Evidence Based Policy Fund study of the UK's e-business performance;

  (xviii) an increase of £1,498,000 in the non-voted expenditure of Postwatch and an equivalent increase in voted receipts;

  (xix) a classification change of £17,683,000 from capital to current expenditure in respect of the National Measurement System PFI deal;

  (xx) an increase of £63,893,000 in the non-voted expenditure of the Regional Development Agencies and an equivalent increase in voted receipts;

  (xxi) utilisation of £4,500,000 of the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of non-voted expenditure of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;

  (xxii) utilisation of £15,260,000 of the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Competition Commission.

  31WS
  RfR2

  i) utilisation of £2,930,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council;

  ii) utilisation of £461,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Medical Research Council;

  iii) utilisation of £1,541,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils;

  iv) utilisation of £9,456,000 for resource and £239,000 for capital grants from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Natural Environment Research Council;

  v) utilisation of £22,569,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council;

  (vi) a transfer of £200,000 from the Department for Education and Skills in respect of Women's Resource Centres;

  vii) utilisation of £24,012,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for the Higher Education Innovation Fund.

  Office of Deputy Prime Minister Estimate

  i) utilisation of £67,427,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for European Regional Development Fund expenditure borne of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Estimate;

  ii) utilisation of £22,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department of Work and Pension's End-Year Flexibility entitlement under the PES pool arrangement for European Development Fund expenditure borne on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Estimate.

  Also within the change to resource DEL, the changes to administration costs limit are:

  RfR1

  i) a transfer of £32,000 from the Home Office in respect of the Prison Services Pay Review body;

  ii) a transfer of £17,000 from the Department of Constitutional Affairs in respect of the Senior Salaries Pay Review body;

  iii) a transfer of £105,000 from the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs in respect of the Farm Business Advice Service;

  iv) a transfer of £300,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of UK Trade and Investment E-business;

  v) implementation of an agreed classification change of £824,000 from capital to administration in respect of UK Trade and Investment E-business;

  vi) utilisation of £290,000 of Invest to Save funding in respect of Claims Handling in the Redundancy Payments Service;

  32WS

  vii) implementation of an agreed virement from programme to administration of £1,500,000 in respect of the Liabilities Management Authority.

  RfR2

  i) a transfer of £70,000 to the Department of Health in respect of the Human Genetics Commission.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  RfR1

  i) utilisation of £14,100,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;

  ii) an increase of £21,995,000 in the non-voted capital expenditure of the Regional Development Agencies and an equivalent increase in voted receipts;

  iii) reclassification of £24,000,000 in respect of OFCOM establishment costs from resource to capital expenditure;

  iv) utilisation of £20,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for research establishment capital in respect of the National Measurement System and the Teddington PFI deal;

  v) implementation of a classification change of £824,000 from capital to current expenditure in respect of E-business;

  vi) a transfer of £816,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of E-business;

  vii) implementation of an agreed virement of £17,683,000 from capital to resource in respect of the National Measurement System Private Finance Initiative deal, and a classification change of £17,683,000 to reflect the on-balance sheet impact of the National Physical Laboratory virement.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Northern Ireland Court Service and National Archives: Public Records Office and Historical Manuscripts Commission Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £213,545,000 from £3,129,794,000 to £3,343,339,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £96,333,000 from £832,843,000 to £929,176,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  166,106,000

  1,128,447,000

  2,112,305,000

  3,240,752,000

  Capital

  49,737,000

  167,539,000

  11,107,000

  178,646,000

  Depreciation*

  -2,298,000

  -74,592,000

  -1,467,000

  -76,059,000

  Total

  213,545,000

  1,221,394,000

  2,121,945,000

  3,343,339,000

  33WS
  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the Department of Constitutional Affairs DEL arises from:

  Request for Resources 1

  A transfer of £2,000 resources to the Home Office in relation to costs for Contribution to Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO); a transfer of £24,000 resources to the Home Office in relation to Strategic Grant Funding of Mediation UK; a transfer of £7,460,000 admin costs to the Home Office in relation to Criminal Justice Information Technology (CJIT) transfers; a transfer of £500,000 resources from the Home Office in relation to Criminal Justice Service Confidence Unit (CJSCU) funding for local Boards; a transfer of £60,000 resources front the Home Office in relation to Victims & Witnesses Survey; a transfer of £63,000 administration costs from Home Office in relation to staff costs for prison adjudicators; a transfer of £775,000 administration costs from the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the State Pension Credit Act 2002; a transfer of £425,000 administration costs from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to Machinery of Government changes for devolution; a transfer of £7,000 administration costs from the HM Customs in relation to Funding for Civil Penalties & for Sections 17/18 FA 2003 Missing Traders Intra-Community (MTIC); a transfer of £17,000 administration costs to the Department of Trade & Industry being contribution to the Apportionment of the fees for Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) members; an increase of £24,000 administration costs in relation to receipts from the Office for National Statistics; a transfer of £543,000 administration costs to the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to costs for Effective Trial Management Programme (ETMP) Officers; a transfer of £40,000 administration costs to the Crown Prosecution service in relation to Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) Funding Suffolk; a transfer of £12,300,000 resources to the Northern Ireland Court Service in relation to funding the Legal Services Commission in Northern Ireland; a transfer of £87,000,000 administration costs from HM Treasury in relation to the Libra Reserve claim; a transfer of £43,300,000 administration costs, £60,700,000 resource costs from HM Treasury in relation to the Single Asylum Fund; an increase of £2,667,000 resources in relation to Machinery of Government; a reclassification of £5,572,000 from admin resource to programme resource in relation to CUT transfers (Crown); a reclassification of £115,000 from admin resource to programme resource in relation to an
  Invest to Save (ISB) Award; a reclassification of £23,598,000 resources from admin resource to capital DEL;

  Request for Resources 3

  £21,000 in relation to timing adjustments for the Wales Office.
  The following transfers do not form part of the Department of Constitutional Affairs DEL, but impact on the separate DEL in relation to the spending of the National Assembly for Wales:

  The take up of end year flexibility of £180,000,000 for the National Assembly for Wales;
  34WS
  Net transfers from Other Government Departments to the National Assembly for Wales of £2,311,000 as follows:

  £200,000 from the Department of Works and Pensions for the Adult Learning Inspectorate; £43,000 from the Home Office for Wales Business Crime Reduction; £50,000 from the Northern Ireland Office for Out of Area Treatments; £20,000 from the Department of Health for a Prison Health Co-ordinator; £349,000 from the Home Office for Prison Service Health Care; £250,000 from the Home Office for Through-care and Aftercare; £34,000 from the Home Office for Golden Jubilee Awards; £1,158,000 from the Department of Works and Pensions for Pension Credit Passports; £250,000 from the Forestry Commission, which is the final settlement associated with the transfer of responsibility for forestry to the Assembly; £43,000 to the Scotland Office for Out of Area Treatments.

  The change in the resource element of the Northern Ireland Court Service DEL arises from:

  a Public Expenditure Survey (PES) transfer from the Department for Constitutional Affairs of £12,300,000 in respect of the funding of publicly funded legal services in Northern Ireland and the virement of £185,000 from capital to meet a corresponding increase in "other current" expenditure.

  The change of £2,063,000 in the resource element of the National Archives DEL arises from the funding of electronic service delivery developments, which relate to the Government's 2005 target.

  The change in the capital element of the Department of Constitutional Affairs DEL arises from:

  Request for Resources 1

  a transfer of £22,324,000 capital from the Home Office in relation to CUT transfers; a transfer of £4,000,000 capital from HM Treasury in relation to the Single Asylum Fund; a reclassification of £23,598,000 from admin resources to capital DEL.

  The change in the capital element of the Northern Ireland Court Service DEL arises from:

  the virement of £185,000 from capital to "other current" to meet a corresponding increase in "other current" expenditure.

  The increase in non-voted expenditure arises from the resource consumption requirements of the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission, a Non Departmental Public Body, which was established on 1 November 2003.

  Mental Incapacity Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  The Government has today published its response to the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill report which was published on 17 November 2003 (HL189–1 and HC 1083–1). Copies of the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses (Command Paper 6121).

  The Government would like to thank the Committee for publishing such a comprehensive report in a short period of time, and in obtaining such a wide range of evidence on the Bill. We are pleased that the Committee

  35WS
  agrees this new statutory framework is needed and that it endorses the principles and general direction of the draft Bill.

  The Committee suggested that the Bill. being about how to maximise mental capacity, should be renamed the Mental Capacity Bill and we agree with this recommendation.

  The Bill will reform the law in order to improve and clarify the decision making process for those aged 16 and over who are unable to make decisions for themselves. It will also offer, to people who have capacity, the choice to decide how they are cared for in the future by introducing new ways to plan ahead for a time when they might lose capacity.

  Over 2 million adults in England and Wales are currently affected by a lack of capacity. Many more care for someone who may need help with decision making. With increasing ageing most of us will face the risk of losing mental capacity at some point in our lives. The Bill therefore has the potential to help a high proportion of the population.

  The Department of Constitutional Affairs is working closely with the Department of Health on a revised Bill. We plan to introduce the revised Bill later in this Parliamentary session. We will also have a draft outline of the codes of practice for Parliament to see at Committee stage.

TREASURY

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate the Government Actuary's Department DEL will be increased by £642,000 from £983,000 to £1,625,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £838,000 from £2,145,000 to £2,983,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  £642,000

  £1,625,000

  -

  £1,625,000

  Capital

  0

  £1,538,000

  —

  £1,538,000

  Depreciation*

  £196,000

  -£180,000

  -

  -£180,000

  Total

  £838,000

  £2,983,000

  -

  £2,983,000

  *Depreciation which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets and would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) an increase of £477,000 to reflect the benefit it has received on a reduced rent currently in the first full five years of tenancy by spreading the value of the rent reduction over the 20 years of the lease,

  (ii) a claim on the DEL reserve of £165,000 to cover a sub-letting void for the property Finlaison House,

  (iii) a reduction in expenditure and associated receipts to reflect changes to GAD's 2003–04 recruitment plans.

  There is no change to the capital element of the DEL.

  Inland Revenue
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Inland Revenue net administration costs limit will be increased by £4,638,000 from £3,034,649,000 to £3,039,287,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  £000's

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  4,638

  2,684,502

  340,440

  3,024,942

  Capital

  -4,638

  202,743

  -

  202,743

  Depreciation*

  -

  -158,564

  -

  -158,564

  Total

  -

  2,693,681

  340,440

  3,069,121

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource and capital element of the DEL arises from the transfer of £4,638,000 from capital to resource.

  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, National Savings and Investments DEL will be increased by £10,000,000 from £170,154,000 to £180,154,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £9,500,000 from £172,068,000 to £181,568,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  9,500

  172,068

  181,568

  Capital

  0

  1,300

  1,300

  Depreciation*

  0

  -2,714

  -2,714

  Total

  9,500

  170,654

  180,154

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from end year flexibility being drawn down to support expenditure on major project commitments. Such projects include the implementation of the new savings product and continued research on customer needs. Other projects include compliance with the Banking Code/Customer Code, Electronic Data Records Management, and others starting this financial year, which will carry forward the modernisation process of National Savings and Investments.

  There is no change in the capital element of the DEL.

  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, HM Treasury DEL will be increased by £9,067,000 from £209,836,000 to £218,903,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £6,800,000 from £139,588,000 to
  37WS
  £146,388,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  9,067,000

  187,799,000

  31,104,000

  218,903,000

  Capital

  0

  7,668,000

  0

  7,668,000

  Depreciation*

  0

  -9,055,000

  0

  -9,055,000

  Total

  9,067,000

  186,412,000

  31,104,000

  217,516,000

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  an increase in total Treasury administrative costs of £6,800,000 resulting from:

  a partial draw down of eyf of £6,050,000 for the central Treasury;

  a draw down of £250,000 from the Invest to Save Budget (ISB) to administer the ISB;

  a partial draw down of eyf of £500,000 for the Debt Management Office (DMO);

  an increase in AinA of £2,500,000 from secondments and the Lambert review of business-university collaboration, with matching spend;

  an increase in AinA of £2,200,000 from receipts for fees and charges made by the Public Works Loan Board and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, with matching spend;

  a draw down of £131,000 programme from the Evidence Based Policy Fund to finance three projects on—team based incentives (£64,000), research into benefit savings at the local authority level (£45,000), productivity and public sector performance (£22,000);

  an increase in programme AinA of £450,000 from increased revenue for the Office of Paymaster General (OPG), with matching expenditure;

  an increase in DMO programme AinA of £350,000 for receipts from recovery of the auction costs of the National Loans Fund, with matching spend;

  a partial draw down of programme eyf of £2,136,000 for the Office of Government Commerce (OGC);

  a decrease in OGC programme AinA of £1,101,000, with matching reduction in expenditure.

  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the HM Customs and Excise DEL will be increased by £7,046,000, from £1,291,195,000 to £1,298,241,000 and the administration costs limits will be decreased by 38WS
  £2,235,000, from £1,132,722,000 to £1,130,487,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  7,461,000

  1,215,820,000

  -

  1,215,820,000

  Capital

  -415,000

  81,421,000

  1,000,000

  82,421,000

  Depreciation*

  6,852,000

  -46,128,000

  -

  -46,128,000

  Total

  13,898,000

  1,251,113,000

  1,000,000

  1,252,113,000

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  administration costs changes resulting from a claim on the reserve of £5,000,000 to allow for the extension of the VAT strategy programme; a transfer of £805,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; virement of £6,430,000 from administration costs to programme expenditure; and
  programme expenditure changes in respect of a transfer of £1,570,000 from the Home Office to cover additional costs of anti-terrorism work; a transfer of £1,003,000 from the Home Office from the Recovered Assets Incentivisation Fund to cover the costs of a new litigation team; a transfer of £840,000 from the Home Office from the Recovered Assets Incentivisation Fund to cover the costs of new operational asset recovery teams; a transfer of £140,000 to the Home Office in respect of two special projects and Electro Mechanical services; a transfer of £7,000 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs to meet additional penalty costs.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  capital expenditure changes in respect of a transfer of £401,000 from the Home Office to cover additional costs of anti-terrorism work; and a transfer of £816,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  As a result of the specified resource DEL changes mentioned in the above paragraph, the administration costs limit has decreased by £2,235,000 from £1,132,722,000 to £1,130,487,000.

  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Office for National Statistics DEL will be increased by £1,845,000 from £145,514,000 to £147,359,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £2,295,000 from £139,823,000 to £142,118,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £'000s

  Change

  Voted

  New DEL Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  1,845

  142,026

  -

  142,026

  Capital

  0

  19,170

  -

  19,170

  Depreciation*

  -

  -13,837

  -

  -13,837

  Total

  1,845

  147,359

  -

  147,359

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the draw down of £2,750,000 administration costs end year flexibility as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5884). This is partially offset

  39WS
  by a transfer of £455,000 in total to other government departments in relation to work to develop the Neighbourhood Statistics programme. The transfers comprise £381,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, £24,000 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs and £50,000 to the Home Office. The change also takes account of Treasury's revised budgeting and
  40WS
  accounting treatment for income from competitively, or commercially, let research contracts funded from the EU Budget. The effect is to reduce the "Other Current" Budget, which forms part of Resource DEL, by £450,000 to £550,000. The Administration costs limit will be increased by £2,295,000 from £139,823,000 to £142,118,000.

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

  EU Enlargement: Welfare Payments
  Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What welfare payments will be available for persons entering the United Kingdom from the 10 new European Union countries after 1 May; and how these provisions compare with those offered by other European Union countries.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we will amend the relevant legislation so that nationals from the A8 states who are in the UK but who are not in work will generally not have access to income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, state pension credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit. On the second part of the Question, member states' schemes are different from each other—provisions for EU nationals, newly arrived from another member state, will depend on the nature of that state's scheme.
  Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is strong support on this side of the House for a system which welcomes people here who intend to work and to become good citizens while, at the same time, deterring those who seek to gain welfare benefits only? Is the noble Baroness sure that the system which has been announced will do that? How will the second category of incomers be recognised at the airport, for instance? How will they be checked on and how will they be sent back if they are not doing the right thing? Surely they can disappear. Are there not already unknown thousands of illegal immigrants whom the Government cannot locate, check or return?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness's opening statement. The whole thrust of the Government's policy is to make a distinction between those who are in work—benefits follow the work—and those who are not so that we are not attracting those who seek to come here merely for benefits. The noble Baroness and I agree on that. On her second point, someone who is now working illegally, often undercutting wages and operating in dangerous health and safety conditions, will now be able to register, come on to the open market, pay his taxes and national insurance, and contribute more fully to the economy.
  108
  The noble Baroness's third point was about people turning up. That is not the issue: people have a right to come here as visitors, tourists, and so on. If such people with no attachment to the labour market apply for benefit, they will not be so entitled.
  Baroness Barker: My Lords, in the absence of a statement from the DWP, will the Minister say whether yesterday's Statement applies to tax credits, including child tax credits? Will she confirm that there will be no appeals process and give us the time-scale for the implementation of these proposals?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, tax credits are a worker-related benefit. They are currently available to French and German people working here, UK citizens and other people coming in under the A8 scheme. On appeals, the key decision is the right to reside. Obviously, benefit decisions are appealable in the usual way, but the Home Secretary said yesterday,
  "We will not need an appeals system under the rules".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/04; col. 29.]
  Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, as the new regulations apply to the 10 new applicant members of the European Union, and two of those countries are members of the Commonwealth, will citizens of Cyprus and Malta have their present rights of access and employment in the United Kingdom reduced as a result of joining the European Union?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have made a decision that Cyprus and Malta would be excluded from this derogation on three grounds. First, they are very small—I think the population of Malta is about 400,000. Secondly, their level of prosperity is broadly similar to our own, only a little below it; and, thirdly, as the noble Lord has acknowledged, we have historic connections to those countries.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness a question yesterday to which I failed to get a reply. We were told that a person unable to support himself will lose his right of residence and will have to return home. What legal power will the Government have to remove such a person?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we would normally expect to deport a person only if, for example, he were a threat to national security, engaged in anti-social behaviour, and so on. As I indicated earlier, such people would not have a right to benefit if they were not in work and, if they had no right to benefit, why would they remain? Therefore, there is no need to get into the heavy end of deportation.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I ask that as a perfectly serious question, my Lords. People working in the black economy will now, as I indicated to the noble Baroness, be able to come into the mainstream economy and work. If, however, they have no means of self-support and they

  109
  are not, as a result, eligible for benefits, then why would they be here unless they were doing something such as thieving, in which case we would be within our rights to remove them on the grounds of anti-social behaviour.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his Statement in another place yesterday, the Home Secretary said:
  "For two years, possibly longer, we will require accession nationals to be able to support themselves".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/04; col. 24]
  I am grateful to the Minister for putting flesh on the bones of that remark. Why, then, did the subsequent press release say that this state of affairs would persist for only one year? Who is right?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not know to which press release the noble Lord is referring, but people who come here to jobs confirmed by the permit system that they will be using will have, after 12 months' continuous employment, the right to income-related benefits. Perhaps the noble Lord is referring to that information in the press release. However, those who have no attachment to the labour market during the two-year transitional period—which I understand we have the right to extend for a further five years—would not have the right to any benefits at all.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify a matter that puzzles me? I thought that the main point of joining the European Union was the free movement of labour. In that case, where does the concept of work permits come from if the European market is to be efficient? Surely, labour in the European Union should simply move to where it is most productive.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is entirely right. Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made the point very tellingly. We have something like 500,000 vacancies in this country, which she said were particularly in agriculture and the hospitality trades. I checked the figures and there are indeed something like 160,000 vacancies in the areas that she mentioned, so she is absolutely right. We want and need that labour. It will enrich our economy and society, and those labourers will be entitled to corresponding work-related benefits. We are not seeking to attract to this country people who have no intention of working and who come here primarily because our benefits system appears to be more attractive than the regime experienced at home.

  Primates in Scientific Research
  2.45 p.m.
  Baroness Barker Baroness Barker asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What plans they have to support the continuation of research using primates in the United Kingdom.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government are determined that Cambridge University's decision will not damage the ability of the UK to remain a world leader in medical research into diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and into strokes. We are exploring ways to ensure that the university can continue its important work in neuroscience. The Government support the need for biomedical research involving animals in line with the stringent conditions laid down in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We are also firmly committed to the protection of those scientists and research staff undertaking this vital work.
  Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that the main reason for the decision was the estimate by Cambridgeshire police of the cost of laboratory security, what steps will the Government take to enable universities that carry out a great deal of this research to manage risks such as those posed by animal rights terrorists? How will the Government ensure that the necessary medical research into immunology, which requires work to be done on primates, will be continued in this country?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly the decision about the particular situation in Cambridge was for Cambridge University to make. However, I have already had a meeting with the MRC and the Wellcome Trust to examine alternative ways to expand and develop the world-class neuroscience research taking place at Cambridge. We are also looking at how we can ensure that the facilities for this expanding area of research are available on a national basis. I have met the Director General of the Research Councils, the head of the MRC, Colin Blakemore, and Mark Walport of the Wellcome Trust to initiate work in this area.
  Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, on the question of primate rights, has my noble friend had a chance to examine the work of Sue Savage Rumbeau and Duane Rumbeau in Atlanta. Georgia, which shows that primates, and apes in particular, are capable of intelligent communication with the use of voice synthesisers? If that is the case, does it not have implications for this whole policy area?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know about that research. As far as using animals or non-human primates for this work is concerned, I direct the noble Lord to the report by the Select Committee of this House that considered this very question and came up with three conclusions:
  "1. The view of the Select Committee is that it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals, but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering … 2. There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge … 3. Toxicological testing in animals is at present essential for medical practice and the protection of consumers and the environment, as it often provides information that is not currently available from any other source".

  111
  Having said that, I will certainly look at the research although, from my rather limited knowledge of this area, what is being suggested is rather unlikely to be the situation.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, given that my Select Committee report to which the Minister referred also suggested the establishment of a national centre for the pursuit and development of the 3Rs with a view to reducing the amount of animal experimentation, what progress has been made towards the creation of such a centre since we last debated the matter in October?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are very supportive of that idea and I hope within a few days to make an announcement of our plans.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, could the Minister tell the House tell us whether there are any statistics on, or whether any information has been collated about, the number of people who oppose experimentation on animals for medical research—and, indeed, of that number, how many are prepared to take the medicine and receive the medical procedures that result from that testing?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it should always be pointed out that the number of people involved in the harassment and violence is in fact rather small. The great majority of people in this country are very supportive of work in this area, when they know about the stringent regulations of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Whether those people who resort to that violence and harassment take medicines, I do not know; it is quite likely that they do so, regardless of the fact that major medical advances in the area require work to be done with animals.
  Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am aware of the work being done at the Yerkes primate centre in Atlanta, Georgia. Would the Minister agree that it is precisely because of the development of the primate brain that work on such animals, with the appropriate precautions, is essential for the improvement of the treatment of diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and many more? In that circumstance, will he ensure, as seems to be implied by his Answer, that such work is protected in the United Kingdom?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, it is quite clear that such work is necessary, and necessary for the very reasons that the noble Lord mentioned. It is an essential part of studying diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's that primates are used. We in this country are world-class leaders in neuroscience, and I am absolutely determined that we shall continue to be world-class leaders in that field. Therefore, we shall take all the action that we can to support that work.

  Fire Deaths
  2.51 p.m.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many deaths due to fire occurred in 2003; how many of these were in private residences and how many were in other buildings; and, of the latter, how many buildings were fitted with a sprinkler system.
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the latest figures available for the United Kingdom are for the calendar year 2002, when in incidents attended by the fire and rescue service there were total deaths of 578, of which 443 were in dwellings and 25 in other buildings. There was a total of 64,635 fires in dwellings. A water sprinkler system was present in 22 of those fires. There were 40,537 fires in other buildings, and a water sprinkler system was present in 691 of those fires.
  For the avoidance of doubt, so that I am not accused of misleading the House, earlier today very provisional figures were published for the financial year 2002–03, but I thought it best to use the figures that we had already prepared for this Answer.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the Answer that I was given when I raised the matter of sprinklers in relation to schools on 7 January has been acknowledged as wrong by the Lancashire Fire Brigade, which plays a leading role in the National Fire Sprinkler Network? That brigade wrote to the Minister at that time on that question. We were told that sprinklers would not have saved a particular school, whereas the sprinkler people say that it definitely would.
  Does the Minister agree that, whatever numbers have died, there would have been fewer deaths if sprinklers had been available? Would they not be particularly important in buildings where people are so vulnerable that they are incapable of getting themselves out, such as in the Scottish incident? I hope that the Minister will not tell me that that is a devolved matter, as it is the principle that I am talking about. A number of people have died very recently in 'those circumstances.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall not hide behind the point that it is a devolved matter, because the figures that I gave were United Kingdom figures and this is a UK issue. Our thoughts are with the families of the victims of Rose Park. However, I cannot say any more about that matter because there is an ongoing inquiry into it.
  In April 2001, a research project was funded and organised by the predecessor department to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the Building Research Establishment to consider fully the effectiveness of sprinklers in residential buildings across the piece. It is quite clear that in many situations sprinklers would be

  113
  useful, particularly when people are vulnerable, whether in homes for children, the elderly or disabled people, and higher-risk houses such as houses in multiple occupation and very tall buildings—including, obviously, high-rise flat developments.
  The building regulations are being reviewed and, probably next year, a provisional consideration will be put forward. In 2006, an approval will be made of the document. Those regulations are reviewed on a regular basis. Those issues must be taken into account, as will the new system of the abandonment of fire certificates in favour of a risk-based system relative to the particular premises, which will be much more useful in those circumstances than the present arrangements.
  Lord Harrison: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is now very powerful evidence that sprinklers in schools are cost-effective, especially if installed at the time of refurbishment or refenestration? Would he also acknowledge that the problem of schools with considerable roof voids can be tackled effectively with the installation of sprinklers?
  Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that is self-evident. The issue will be part and parcel of the review of the building regulations that will take place. The research that has been funded has already been published on the ODPM website and will shortly be in the Library. The research occupies a large volume—I think it is 700 pages—but people can get a CD and look at it. A lot of work is being done on the issue, which will inform the new building regulations.
  Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I have long been very concerned about fire doors. Many people dislike them; many frail people cannot shut or open them properly, and therefore leave them open, which negates their value. Have the Government or the Health and Safety Executive, for example, investigated alternative fire prevention methods, or will they do so? That is a matter of some urgency, given the comments that the noble Baroness and the Minister have made about recent events.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised an interesting point, because the issue is how to prevent fires in the first place. Lots of steps can be taken. I should have thought that that was a matter for the building regulations, although one problem with such regulations is that they usually apply only to new premises, so we must consider the stock that we already have. However, under the new system, when there is a risk-based assessment for a particular building, it will be open to the fire service—in the example given by the noble Baroness, for example—to insist on self-closing doors being fitted, so that there is no issue about keeping the doors open or the doors being too heavy for the elderly and vulnerable people to open. That negates the issue of a fire certificate, which was a piece of paper that gave people comfort but did not necessarily mean that they were safe.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that there is enough regulation concerning
  114
  fire prevention in student accommodation, both in halls of residence and in smaller houses in multiple occupation? I ask that because I believe that there are exemptions to the housing regulations in relation to student accommodation.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said earlier, that kind of premises would probably be a house in multiple occupation. People are vulnerable in such houses for lots of reasons, and we know of many fires that have happened in those circumstances. That is an issue that this House will debate, as the other place is debating, in the Housing Bill that is passing through it.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, would the Minister consider repeating the valuable publicity campaign, drawing the attention of newcomers in the domestic field to the fact that throwing water on a fat fire turns it into an inferno? That is little known, and the knowledge could save many lives.
  Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, the department will obviously consider that suggestion, and it is an ongoing campaign. It is generally speaking the case that fire is dangerous and kills, but in many cases it is the smoke that is actually the cause of death. The smoke is highly dangerous—to victims and firefighters.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what the evidence is of decreased mortality or lesser danger in houses with smoke alarms in them? It is much easier to introduce a smoke alarm than to introduce a sprinkler system, particularly in a private house.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot. All the figures that I have given come only from fires attended by the fire and rescue service. For example, if there are loads of sprinklers that are effective and put a fire out, the fire service does not get called and the fire is not included in the figures. The figures are assembled only for fires, whether malicious or accidental, attended by the fire and rescue service. They are updated constantly, which is why even the figures that I have given for 2002 are marginally provisional. Every single death certificate and inquest result is checked back to ascertain the actual cause of death. There is a problem in that one cannot always be precise about the figures from every fire; so only the fires attended by the fire and rescue service are included.

  Prison Population
  2.59 p.m.
  Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What are the latest available figures for the prison population.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the prison population as of Friday, 20 February was 74,594. Of that total the number of sentenced prisoners was 61,365, and the number of remand prisoners 13,224.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Despite the number of initiatives taken by

  115
  the Government the prison population remains unacceptably high. We now head the league table in western Europe and are overtaking Portugal in this particular process. Does the Minister agree that 60 per cent of those who leave prison reoffend within two years and that we now imprison twice as many women as we did when Labour came to power? Does he also agree that we need less rhetoric about how prison works and that we should make more use of non-custodial alternatives?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Lord that it would be much better for sentences to be served in the community. However, it is for the courts to determine sentencing and where someone should be sent. We have to bear that very important consideration in mind. If a crime is sufficiently serious and it is right to send people to prison, then of course they must be sent to prison. That is what the public expect; they expect to be protected. The Government have taken many initiatives to expand other alternatives to prison. The noble Lord has been among those who have praised us for doing exactly that.
  Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I commend the Minister on the extra effort that the Prison Service is putting into dealing with some of the causes of reoffending by people within a couple of years of their release from prison. However, given that more crime is alcohol related than drug related, can he explain why there is no specialist, ring-fenced, accredited alcohol treatment programme in prisons in England and Wales?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are accredited programmes for dealing with alcohol and drug abuse and those programmes have been very successful. I think that the Government should be congratulated on the level of investment they have put into the health service within the prison estate, and on their initiatives to try to encourage people on release to be free of drug and alcohol abuse—factors which obviously have an impact on the rate of re-offending.
  Lord Laming: My Lords, although sentencing is a responsibility of the courts, the courts nevertheless need to be reassured that the probation and aftercare service is being developed to make non-custodial sentences and aftercare attractive and effective propositions for courts. Do the Government have a robust strategy to develop the probation service?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have set up the National Offender Management Service, which brings together the probation service and Prison Service considerations to which the noble Lord referred, so that we have a coherent, cohesive and all-through service. The Government have also taken the important step of setting up the Sentencing Guidelines Council so that advice and guidance are available to the judiciary in the process of sentencing. We think that that will help ensure a better geographical spread
  116
  within sentencing strategy and ensure that, where there is a conviction, the sentence is most appropriate to the crime.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the Minister may give the impression that these prison figures are acceptable. Does he agree that current trends threaten to increase them even further? At what higher level, therefore, would he regard such figures as unacceptable?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not for me to make a judgment on what is or is not acceptable. It is the Government's job to provide and ensure that there is adequate provision for those who are quite properly sentenced by the courts and sent to prison. It is also for the Government, as I said earlier, to ensure that an adequate range of sentences is available to the courts so that they can deal most appropriately with the lesser-order criminal activity and offences. That is exactly what we have done.
  The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there are only 600 places left in our prisons? Will he explain to the House what are the Government's plans when that limit has been reached?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I understand it, as of today the prison population is about 510 below the total usable operational capacity of the prison estate. A number of changes are being implemented at a number of establishments to make available more places for prisoners. These adjustments will mean a rapid increase in usable operational capacity, by about a further 350 additional places. In the longer term we want to reform the correctional services—an objective in which we have been aided by the advice and support of Patrick Carter. We are trying to provide a range of more effective options for sentencers. There is always proper planning for contingency measures and an examination of other opportunities for safely increasing the capacity of the prison estate.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister accept that Schedule 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, inserted by the Home Secretary as his reaction to being told that he could play no further part in the sentencing of murderers, results in sentences for all serious offences increasing by at least 50 per cent? If he does accept that, what estimate do the Government give in relation to what the figures will be as a result?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that we accept the noble and learned Lord's assertion. I therefore do not think that I could make a useful prediction based on that assertion.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that one objective of penal policy must be effective rehabilitation? Does he not therefore agree that one of the grave consequences of the overcrowding is that it is very difficult to do all the work that the Prison Service would like to do in the cause of rehabilitation? Does he not further agree that the pressure of numbers in

  117
  prison, coupled with the fact that many people in prison are mentally sick and should not be in prison at all, is leading to an unacceptable level of deaths in custody?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that one should begin by saying that any death in custody is unacceptable. No one wants to see suicides in custody. The Government, and particularly the Prison Service, take the matter extremely seriously. Staff are trained to deal and cope with exactly those sorts of problems. A risk assessment programme is in place where it is thought that a prisoner might self-harm.
  The noble Lord is right that there are stresses and strains within the Prison Service; no one would want to gloss over that fact. However, the Government are investing much more in education within the prison estate. By the end of January 2004, the prison system, including public and contracted prisons, delivered 34,792 basic skills awards against an original projection of just 30,000 for that year. I think that that emphasises the fact that we are expanding educational activity in prisons, which is very much in line with the expanded budget for education in the Prison Service.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, do the Government have an explanation for why we have a much higher prison population per capita than any comparable western European country? Is it that we are more wicked, or the system more vindictive, or what?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know whether we are more wicked or not. I like to think that, by and large, we live in a liberal, peaceable community. However, when people offend they must be dealt with and they must face the full consequences of the law. I think that we all accept that fact.
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, referring to the Minister's reply to the right reverend Prelate, does he not agree that the definition of "usable operational capacity" is the maximum safe overcrowded—I repeat the word "overcrowded"—capacity of the prison estate? In view of that, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect that sentencing policy, both currently and over the next 10 years, is expected to have upon the prison population in England and Wales? How has any such assessment affected the Government's building programme?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have made very careful assessment of the likely increase in the prison population. However, it is notoriously difficult to be precise in these matters. Some estimates last year suggested that we would have a rather larger prison population than we currently have, but that has not turned out to be the case. Following development of the building programme, by 2006 there will be operational capacity of 78,700 prison places. Statistics are notoriously easy to misinterpret but one good and, I thought, rather cheering statistic on which I alighted in my briefing indicates that the number of young people in prison is now I per cent less than it was this time last year,
  118
  and that for juveniles aged 15 to 17 the figure is some 5 per cent less than the comparable figure for last year. That indicates to me that the Youth Justice Board is doing very important work and provides greater optimism for the future.
  Baroness Stern: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the number of women in prison has increased by 67 per cent since 1997. Of the 4,500 women locked up, more than half report a background of domestic violence and more than a third have been sexually abused. Does the Minister consider that putting those women in prison for the minor crimes that they have committed serves justice and reduces crime?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is hard to make a sweeping assertion that all of the women to whom the noble Baroness referred—it is obviously extremely unfortunate that they are in prison—are in prison for minor offences. I have no doubt that they will have been properly convicted by the courts for offences that merit a period of time in custody. While those women are in prison of course it is right that, following an assessment, correctional programmes are put in place which deal with the very many problems to which the noble Baroness referred. During my visits to female establishments within the Prison Service I was most impressed by the quality of the work that was carried out in particular to deal with matters such as self-harm, abuse, drug abuse, and so on. It is such work that we need to invest in to ensure that people do not reoffend and can usefully lead a valuable life outside prison.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures are double what they were in the 1980s when I served as prison Minister and that we regarded that as disgraceful? What sense of urgency is there in overcoming the problem of reoffending? How do the Prison Service and the probation service establish that no prisoner leaves prison without a means of support and shelter so that he is not driven immediately into crime again?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I have said on many occasions, it is for the courts to determine whether it is right for someone to go to prison. Of course, in sentencing they will act on the information that is before them to determine whether a sentence is appropriate. While prisoners are in prison it is right to establish—this is what we try to do—an appropriate programme of education so that prisoners can usefully lead a life outside prison that will enable them to keep free of crime and becoming involved in new crime. We are not complacent about the issue of recidivism. It is part of our determination to ensure that rates of re-offending come down.
  Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, as regards the increased investment that this Government have made in the treatment of prisoners with alcohol and drug-related

  119
  problems, can my noble friend assure us that there is a proper tracking system in place to ensure that if re-offending takes place a linkage is made with any treatment that has been given previously so that we can then assess whether the treatment is working effectively or not?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very pertinent question. For that very reason the Government decided to embark on a more coherent strategy linking the Prison Service and the probation service so that when offenders are released from prison they have the opportunity to receive counselling, advice, guidance and referral to the services which try to get to the root of their alcohol or drug abuse problem and thereby reduce the level of reoffending. That is one of the areas in which we have invested heavily over the past few years.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many women prisoners have a high incidence of churning about and movement from one prison to another, therefore increasing the social damage incurred by their imprisonment in separating them from their families? Have the Government looked into the possibility of trying to return the large number of female drug runners or mules who are in prison in this country—they come mostly from the Caribbean islands—to the countries from which they originate to finish their prison sentence there because that particular section of the prison population has increased very rapidly in recent years?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness puts her finger on a very pertinent problem. My understanding is that there has to be a prisoner transfer agreement in place between this country and the country from which the so-called drug "mule" has come. Therefore, certain issues need to be examined in that regard. This is something that we keep very carefully under review in terms of policy and it is a matter that we are obviously considering at all times.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—this is a short question—of what happens to those prisoners who are seriously mentally disturbed but cannot be sectioned because they are untreatable and are sent from one prison to another? What happens to them? Is he aware of the problem?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of the problem. I have visited a number of health centres within the prison estate. I am well aware of the difficulty to which the noble Lord refers. The Prison Service tries to develop an appropriate programme for each individual. That is obviously given very high consideration when dealing with the health, particularly the mental health, of each individual prisoner. However, it is not an easy
  120
  problem to deal with, particularly as at various points of a prisoner's sentence he or she has to be moved from one establishment to another.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many girls under 17 are in prison and how many of them are pregnant or have babies?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships' House as that is not in my key statistics list. However, I am more than happy to try to find out those figures, write to the noble Baroness and share them with your Lordships' House.
  Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, is not making more use of community service awards one way of reducing the prison population? Can the Minister give us an assurance that magistrates in England can confer community service awards on people who reside under different judicial systems such as the one that applies in Scotland?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall have to think about that question. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I shall probably have to write to him precisely on how that might work.

  Constitutional Reform Bill [H.L.]
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for replacing the office of Lord Chancellor and to abolish that office; to establish a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords; to make provision about the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the judicial functions of the president of the Council; to make other provision about the judiciary, their appointment and discipline; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

  Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
  3.18 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

  Clauses 1 to 16,

  Schedule 1,

  Clause 17,

  Schedule 2,

  121

  Clauses 18 to 22,

  Schedule 3,

  Clauses 23 to 26,

  Schedules 4 and 5,

  Clauses 27 to 31.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  3.19 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on the British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
  "Agreement with the United States Government on the return of five of the nine UK detainees was reached on Thursday last, 19 February. Although the House was in recess, I judged that it was only fair to the families of all nine detainees that they should be informed immediately. We therefore made every effort to contact the families and their parliamentary representatives and I made a public announcement late on Thursday afternoon. I could not report to the House yesterday as I had to attend the General Affairs Council in Brussels.
  "The attacks of 11 September 2001 were the most appalling terrorist atrocity the world has ever seen. They killed more than 3,000 people, including 67 British citizens. In response to those attacks, a coalition of countries came together to launch a military campaign against Al'Qaeda and its Taliban supporters to remove them from their strongholds in Afghanistan.
  "In these operations thousands of individuals believed to be Al'Qaeda or Taliban fighters, or their supporters, were detained by coalition forces. The vast majority of these individuals were released. But those who were deemed to pose a substantial risk of returning to the conflict—to date, around 800—were sent by the United States to its naval base in Guantanamo Bay to be detained and to be questioned about their knowledge of Al'Qaeda activities. As a result, valuable information has been gained which has helped to protect the international community from further Al'Qaeda and related terrorist attacks.
  "The Government have been in frequent and regular contact with the United States authorities concerning the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. From the outset, the Government have sought to ensure their welfare and have actively encouraged the US Government to resolve the position of the British detainees. British officials have visited Guantanamo Bay six times. We have kept their families and Parliament informed of the detainees' circumstances and of developments.
  "In July 2003, two of the British detainees were designated by the United States authorities as eligible to stand trial by United States military
  122
  commissions established to prosecute the detainees. The Government made it clear straight away that we had concerns about the military commission process. Consequently my right honourable friend the Prime Minister asked my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to discuss with the United States authorities how the detainees, if prosecuted, could be assured of fair trials which met international standards.
  "The Attorney-General therefore held a number of discussions with the United States authorities about the future of the detainees. In parallel, the Prime Minister has talked to President Bush. I have discussed this matter on many occasions with US Secretary of State Colin Powell; and extensive discussions have been held between British and United States government lawyers and officials.
  "These discussions have involved many complex issues of law and security, which both governments have had to consider carefully. Although the discussions have made significant progress, the view of the Attorney-General was that the military commissions, as presently constituted, would not provide the process which we would afford British nationals.
  "Our discussions with the United States authorities are continuing. In the mean time, as I announced last Thursday, we agreed that five of the British detainees will return to the United Kingdom. They are Rhuhel Ahmed, Tareq Dergoul, Jamal al-Harith, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul.
  "These men will be flown home to the United Kingdom in the next few weeks. The House will understand that it would not be right to disclose the operational details at this stage. The police have, however, established links with the families so that they can be informed of developments.
  "The police have confirmed that once the detainees are back in the United Kingdom, where there are grounds under the provisions of the legislation, the five men may be arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity. Any subsequent action will be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further on their particular cases.
  "But I would like to emphasise two points here. First, the police have said that they are investigating all the detainees thoroughly and individually, in the normal way, including the circumstances which led to the men's detention. Every necessary step, including prosecution if appropriate, will be taken to protect national security.
  "Secondly, the detainees will be treated in the same way as anyone else suspected of committing a criminal offence, in accordance with UK law. The process has built-in safeguards and is subject to independent scrutiny to ensure that all individuals are treated fairly and properly. It includes access to lawyers.

  123
  "We shall continue our discussions with the United States authorities on the situation of the other four British detainees. They are Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg, Richard Belmar and Martin Mubanga.
  "There are a range of security and other issues which we and the Americans are considering in respect of these four men. As a result of our talks, US legal proceedings against Mr Abbasi and Mr Begg were suspended in July and the US said that the men would not be subject to the death penalty. This remains the case.
  "Our overall position remains that the detainees should either be tried in accordance with international standards, or they should be returned to the United Kingdom. We shall continue to work to resolve their position. I will of course keep the House informed.
  "The Government remain determined to work with our allies around the world to defeat the scourge of global terrorism. Terrorists seek to deny the most basic of human rights—to life, to security, and the right to go about our daily business free from threat and harm. We will continue resolutely to defend these rights through a robust and determined approach to combating terrorism and its networks of support wherever it is to be found".
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  3.27 p.m.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and I should make it clear that on these Benches we are glad that some progress is at last being made in sorting out the complex issues behind both these detainees and the others at Guantanamo Bay.
  We appreciate—as others have not always done—that from the earliest days in the Guantanamo situation the world has been confronted with a unique situation in human history and international affairs, where the individuals concerned were apparently deliberately participating in the stateless pursuit of terrorism. with the aim of killing, injuring and maiming non-combatants; and had placed themselves far outside the international law of war and outside recognised categories of behaviour or offence. So it was understandable that at the outset their status was bound to be ambiguous and that gap had to be filled by the concept of unlawful combatants.
  But that time has passed and the situation must now he cleared up. Today's Statement raises a raft of important questions. First, the Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, has told the media that none of the five named by the Minister and who will be released by the US authorities,
  "represents a security threat to the British people".
  Well, aside from that being a somewhat premature and improper judgment, many people want to know how the Home Secretary knows that—before investigations have been completed by the police and before questioning has taken place. Is it not absolutely vital in the interests of national security that each case should be rigorously examined and fully assessed to see whether there is
  124
  sufficient evidence to justify proceedings? It is essential that the circumstances and causes of the original detention must be established.
  It is, of course, for the prosecuting authorities to decide the nature of any charges, but has anyone considered whether charges for treason would be appropriate if those concerned can be shown to have taken up arms against British forces and the British Crown? I know that this morning the Foreign Secretary dismissed that as "a hare'', but was he right to do so, given the uniqueness of the circumstances? Should we not keep our minds open on that aspect? What will happen to the five individuals when they arrive here? Will they be held in custody when they touch down or will they be allowed home while being investigated prior to possible arrest? Can the noble Baroness tell us something about that?
  As to the other detainees—the four left behind—first, what is the difference between the five transferred here and the four retained at Guantanamo Bay? Do those four constitute a threat to our national security when, according to the Home Secretary, the other five do not? Will they go on to face the proposed military tribunals, which two of them were already beginning to face before the process was previously stood down? Are we satisfied that those procedures meet the international standards in which we believe? I do not consider that earlier we were so satisfied. Therefore, are discussions continuing about their fate and the way in which they are to be handled?
  The Foreign Secretary said this morning that the new threats that the world faces were not only unique but were not anticipated. That is quite wrong. From the dawn of the information age, it was obvious that global protest and terror would be given new organisational impetus, and many of us said so at the time. If one adds suicide readiness to the lethal brew, we have the present completely predictable combination of threats to our open and highly vulnerable societies which we have never before experienced. In a sense, the feared rendezvous between new miniaturised and hideous weapons and methods of slaughter and the agents of terrorism has already arrived. Everyone is now in the front line and exposed to terror initiatives and the terror resources of often small cells or individuals, who can reap the most horrifying damage on our normal and everyday lives.
  Of course, we want this country to be—it has to be—the champion of the rule of law, but that law must arm us to be able to address the new threats and the new terror and to protect our citizens and not handicap us from doing so. There must be a balance between established notions of law and doing our utmost to ensure people's security. That is the balance that we want to see maintained both here and, ultimately, in the treatment of all the other detainees remaining at Guantanamo Bay.
  3.33 p.m.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this robust Statement—and we interpret it as a robust Statement. We welcome, in

  125
  particular, the confirmation that the Attorney-General's view is that the military commission, as presently constituted, would not provide a process that we would find acceptable for British nationals. We also welcome the clarification that investigations on the returnees will be conducted "in the normal way" with detainees treated,
  "in the same way as anyone else suspected of committing a criminal offence",
  under UK law. Those are extremely important points.
  I understand that, on Friday, Trevor Kavanagh—an extremely well connected political journalist working for the Sun—said on Jeremy Vine's programme on Radio 2 that he had been told by senior Cabinet and security sources that the five were to have security surveillance for the rest of their lives once they returned from London. I do not know whether the Minister has any information on that report.
  We recognise the effort that the Government have made to represent the British case to the American authorities. One has to say that if the situation had been reversed and the British authorities had been holding American nationals in a similar way, we can imagine the outcry that would have come from Washington.
  I regard the behaviour of the Bush Administration in relation to Guantanamo Bay over the past two years as, in the strictest sense, un-American. I speak as someone who used to study and teach American politics in American universities, and I used to teach the United States constitution as the epitome of the rule of law. What we have seen from the Bush Administration over the past three years has been a falling away from the principle of the rule of law, both within the United States and internationally. We have seen the Geneva conventions ignored; we have seen, as the Statement said, the behaviour of the United States falling well below international standards; and we have seen the unacceptable legal void of Guantanamo Bay.
  Will the Minister confirm that prisoners are not being held at Bagram and Diego Garcia? There have been repeated reports in the US press that some prisoners have been held at Diego Garcia. Again, I should welcome the Minister's confirmation that that is, and remains, without foundation.
  We recognise that we have seen patient and quiet diplomacy by British officials and Ministers at the highest level. We should like an assurance from the Government that, if necessary—that is, if patient diplomacy is not enough—they will resort to public protest if that is the only way to ensure that British citizens receive appropriate treatment after two years or more in American custody.
  Lastly, I repeat and strengthen the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We heard about five detainees being returned. Two are being subjected to trial under certain guarantees, but we still do not know what will happen to Richard Belmar and Martin Mubanga. Can we be told what will happen to the eighth and ninth suspects?
  3.37 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community.
  The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked a number of questions. I hope that I made it clear in the Statement that I cannot go into the detail of the operational issues relating to the return of those who have now been identified to be returned to the UK. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that each case will be looked at on an individual basis. It will be considered rigorously and properly to ensure that all that should be done is done.
  I note the noble Lord's comments concerning the statements made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. But, of course, the Home Secretary was correct because, following the investigations, either these individuals will be arrested and dealt with if they form a threat or, if the evidence does not justify such an act, they will not. Therefore, in those circumstances, our protection of national security will be maintained.
  Before questioning by the police, the individuals will be examined to see whether they are medically fit to be interviewed. They also have a right to access to a defence lawyer. They can be questioned for an initial period of 48 hours, after which a court must approve further detention. Detention is, of course, a matter for the police. The men were interviewed in Guantanamo Bay by the security services on matters relevant to national security and not for prosecution purposes. Therefore, the decision will and must be left to the police authorities acting on any appropriate and proper advice given to them by the Crown Prosecution Service.
  In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.
  I can give an assurance from which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, may derive comfort. We have not changed our approach about the necessity to comply with international standards in relation to these men and we shall not do so. It is of some comfort that the acuity and persuasiveness of what we have managed to do has enabled five detainees to be properly returned. The noble Lord rightly said that legal proceedings were commenced in relation to two others, which were put into abeyance pending our discussions. Our discussions have not concluded. We are assured that nothing will be done until those matters have been concluded.
  3.41 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I congratulate the Government, the Attorney-General, and the noble Baroness in particular, on the continuing efforts that

  127
  have been made, over a very long period of time, to ensure that this totally unacceptable situation, in breach of the rule of law, is now beginning to be corrected. I am glad that she confirmed that further investigation, and as I understand it considerations of prosecution, will follow our usual independent system for all our citizens. Has that been made quite clear to the American authorities? Lastly, as regards the last four, what steps will the Government take—I am sure that some steps are being taken already—to try to get legal access to those who remain behind?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his congratulations. In particular, I warmly welcome the congratulations made in relation to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General among the others who have worked so hard and assiduously on this issue.
  We have made clear our position about the process that will be adopted by us in relation to the return of these men. It has been made absolutely clear to our American colleagues that the process of our law will operate in relation to them in exactly the same way as it would operate in relation to any other British citizen. That matter is clear between us. We have continuously taken advantage of our ability to have consular visits to the British men detained in Guantanamo Bay. I can assure my noble friend that we believe that we have seen our detainees more frequently than any other nation.
  Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I did ask about legal access.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the issues in relation to the trial, maintenance and how those matters will be dealt with continue to be matters of discussions of the most robust nature between us and our American colleagues.
  Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I have two very short questions for the noble Baroness. Under the current law, how long can the five be detained without being charged? Secondly, has she any information as to when the United States Supreme Court might reach a decision on the legality of the detention at Guantanamo Bay?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can tell the noble and learned Lord that a terrorist suspect can be held under the Terrorism Act for a period of 14 days. The suspect must then be charged or released. The suspect must be released at any time beforehand as soon as the investigating officers become aware that the grounds for detention no longer apply. I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that all those debates in relation to the Terrorism Act in which he participated so energetically will bear fruit in relation to these detainees.
  128
  The noble Lord also asked about the Supreme Court. I am not able to give him an answer. If I am able to, I shall, but that is within the ambit of the American authorities. I am not aware of whether they have a timetable.
  Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, while I acknowledge and welcome the strong statement that has been forthcoming from the Attorney-General, in particular about standards of trial required to meet international acceptability, does the Minister acknowledge that opinion within the United States is by no means fully supportive of the administration and that federal district courts have found Guantanamo detentions to be unconstitutional? Are the Government prepared to make it plain that quiet diplomacy is the method that they prefer, but that if unconstitutional actions are pursued against American or other citizens, we should regard it as an unfriendly act, and not one that we would be prepared to conceal within quiet diplomacy?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am aware that there is a very wide debate in the United States on this issue. I am also aware that that is a matter of hot debate and contention in the United States. I can confirm that I have that understanding.
  As to the quiet diplomacy, we believe that the robust diplomacy that we have exercised has borne fruit. Of course, we shall continue to pursue it and we hope that we shall have similar success in due course.
  I should just say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that a note has arrived from the Box which indicates that the Supreme Court is due to rule at the end of June.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, I, like others, have the most profound respect for the work that my noble friend and her colleagues have been doing in this context. Like others, I have particular respect for the work done by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, not least in the way that he has publicly sustained the need, to which my noble friend referred, to see the protection of the rule of law as part of the stand against terrorism and the need not to concede to terrorists the victory of having undermined our commitment to the rule of law. Would she therefore accept that as close allies and friends of the United States, while putting our commitment to our own citizens at the top of our anxiety, we have a responsibility to argue that what is wrong is Guantanamo Bay? There are a lot of people remaining in Guantanamo Bay who are not British citizens. The principles that we are arguing apply for our citizens apply every bit as much for them. We look to the United States, as our close friend and ally, to redress what is wrong with the whole arrangement.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will know that even among the very best of friends there can be differences of view that have to be respected and understood. I remind my noble friend that the United States of America suffered a grievous

  129
  blow and sometimes when one is badly wounded it takes a little time to grow confident. The role of friends is to be resolute in standing by their side in times of difficulties but also to point out where the differences lie. That is the role that Her Majesty's Government have played and shall continue to play for the foreseeable future.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister stated that the prisoners were to be returned here within a few weeks. Is there a reason for the delay?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is not any reason for delay. However, for operational reasons it would be inappropriate for me to be more specific as to when.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister and the Government for their efforts on behalf of individuals who are soon to return to this country. My first question follows that raised by my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Maclennan on the view of the Attorney-General in relation to the due process of law in the United States. What would be the Government's position if the US Government do not provide a due process acceptable to the British Government? Do they have a plan B?
  My second question relates to the statement made by the Minister that the five men may be arrested. The due process of law in this country entitles them to legal advice and lawyers at the time of arrest. These people have gone through severe trauma and have been subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure over a long period of time. I am not here to determine their guilt or innocence; that is for a court of law to decide. However, surely, access to lawyers must be provided to those people the moment they arrive in this country so that they are properly informed as to what is likely to happen to them.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is why I said as clearly as I could that they would have to be medically fit and have access to lawyers when they arrived. I hope I made clear that I agree with the noble Lord that access to legal advice is a right which they are entitled to be offered and to exercise if they so choose. I reassure noble Lords that that is understood. Nothing will be done in relation to these detainees which differs from that which we would all expect to be done to any other British citizen.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, assuming that the prisoners are returned to this country within a reasonable period of time, can the Minister tell the House what their status will be when they arrive here? Will they arrive back as prisoners or suspects or be placed under arrest? I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they will be brought back and will remain what they are now; that is, British citizens. When they arrive, the police will
  130
  have to determine whether to investigate and whether to prosecute. It is the same position that any one of us would be in if we were in a similar situation.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the extent to which they have constantly referred to the need to observe the due process of law. Is there not a slight risk of hypocrisy entering this approach in view of the ouster provisions in Clause 10 or 11 of the asylum Bill, which prevent any application for due process in regard to decisions under that Bill? Even the suggestion that there has been a lack of jurisdiction is not to be permitted to be dealt with by the courts. A ring of steel has sought to be inserted in regard to that Bill so that the courts cannot in any way interfere with the decision made under its provisions. Is there not just a hint of hypocrisy entering into this subject if the Government continue to support those provisions?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we would say, "no". I understand the temptation the noble and learned Lord has to conflate the two debates, one on asylum and the other on what should happen as regards prosecuting or investigating an offence which refers to a British citizen. When the Bill reaches this House no doubt we shall have the delight of debating those provisions at length.
  Lord Sandberg: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the Americans appear to be so uncomfortable with their own judicial ability to try people in the way that they would normally be tried? I can understand the terrifying attacks that were made on them hut, with the very well organised and historical links of the American judicial system I still do not understand why they feel they have to go outside it in this case.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot speak for the Americans and it would be improper for me to do so. All I can say is that I have made plain what is the British position.

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  3.56 p.m.
  Report received.
  Clause 2 [Regional Spatial Strategy]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
  "(1A) The RSS shall include a statement of community involvement."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the start I shall apologise for my voice. I hope that it will last as I have quite a lot of speaking to do today.
  As noble Lords will recall from Committee, the amendment would require that the Government put on the face of the Bill a measure to ensure that regional spatial strategies include statements of community involvement. We had a worthwhile discussion on the

  131
  amendment on the first day in Committee but it was somewhat overshadowed by the vote immediately preceding it.
  What was particularly interesting was how much we all agreed. We agreed on the principle of the aim of the amendment to ensure the involvement and consultation of communities in the process of revising regional spatial strategies. We also broadly agreed on the practicalities, although we did not discuss that in much depth. Thus, the only point of difference that remained was the question of how much detail would be on the face of the Bill. That is the particular point that I want to pursue today.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, stated that the Government would guarantee community involvement in the RSS process by detailing the requirements of consultation in regulations; that is, secondary legislation. Our attention was also drawn to the draft planning policy statement on regional planning, PPS11, which sets out what a regional consultation should look like.
  However, as helpful as the Minister's replies were—we were grateful to receive a detailed list of all the relevant bodies that the regional planning body must consult—the fact is the Minister could not justify the Government's reluctance to put this measure on the face of the Bill. Specifically, he was not able to justify the Government's position on two related questions. Those were and remain, first, why are the Government putting in Clause 18 a statutory requirement for local planning authorities to prepare statements of community involvement and yet are legislating for such a requirement for regional planning bodies only via secondary legislation? Secondly, why do the Government resist such a small number of words which would demonstrate their commitment to democracy at all levels of governance, especially when they have embraced the aim of the amendment?
  I regret to say that the Minister's responses to those questions were less illuminating than is customary for him. For that reason I am trying to be as clear as possible in asking those questions again. I do not dispute that most of the details of how to secure community involvement in the RSS process are best left to guidance and regulations. Nor do I dispute that the regional spatial strategy will be quite different from the local development plan and therefore will require different processes in its preparation, including the process of securing community and stakeholder participation. But accepting these two points in no way lets the Government off the hook.
  Despite the fact that we have made some strong progress in terms of the Bill's provisions regarding accountability, I believe that we should still be seeking to give the proposed changes much more robust democratic credentials. The proposed system needs to be less top-down and more bottom-up.
  This short amendment will go a long way towards achieving that aim. It would help emphasise and guarantee the continued centrality of democratic engagement to the planning system in this country. The message to regional planning bodies would be
  132
  clear: regional planning may be less local than structure plans or local plans, but as a process it is no less obliged to secure meaningful involvement.
  As I previously said, according to research conducted by the Local Government Association, 95 per cent of planning authorities said it would not be easy to secure meaningful community involvement in regional planning. Thus, given the obvious concerns of the community of professional planners about how community involvement will be achieved, it is vital that the Government send the signal that securing community participation is an essential part of the regional planning process.
  The amendment is nine words long. Thus, we can hardly be accused of overburdening the Bill with unnecessary detail. I think we all agree that securing meaningful participation will represent a positive aim for the new system to try to achieve. If we value this as highly as I think we do, and as I think we should, a statement of community involvement must be included in the RSS and this must be legislated for on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  4. p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, our Amendment No. 31 is in this group. We very much support the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. We have chosen, however, to try and express the issue in Clause 6 and at somewhat greater length than has the noble Lord—although I recognise that that is not always a matter for congratulation in this House.
  Our amendment proposes that not only must the regional planning body prepare a statement of community involvement, but before it does so it should also consult people whom it thinks have an interest in matters relating to the development and use of land within its region, and it states:
  "The statement of community involvement is a statement. of the authority's policy as to the involvement in the exercise of the body's functions under",
  the relevant sections of the Bill. The Minister is likely to tell us—because he will be consistent—that the amendment is unnecessary; that it is covered in regulations; and that we should not put more provisions on the face of the Bill. In Committee, he said that such an amendment would not add value. I accept that it might not add value to the Government's policy and aims, but I believe that it would add value to the legislation.
  If the Bill when enacted lasts for as long as have previous major pieces of legislation regarding town and country planning, this Government are unlikely to be the Government for the whole of its tenure.
  The draft regulations require the regional planning body to consult such of the "general consultation bodies" as it considers appropriate and, indeed, require a statement on consultation. The "general consultation bodies"—and they are bodies and not individuals—are voluntary bodies, which represent racial, ethnic and national groups in the region, different religious groups, the interests of disabled

  133
  persons and business interests. I suspect that that is not a catchall. I wondered first about amenity groups, but I daresay they come within voluntary bodies.
  What about, for instance, education? The Minister may say that that is not a spatial matter—at any rate not at regional level. But I wonder whether that is actually so, especially when one thinks about higher and tertiary levels and skills training, and, as I have said, the provision relates to bodies and not individuals. There seems to be no place in this thinking for individuals to contribute.
  We are keen that the new planning arrangements and their outcome are, to use the jargon, "owned" by the communities, which they should be designed to serve. The communities, of course, are made up of individuals who may express themselves sometimes through bodies but at times as individuals.
  The Government may know that they will always require a statement in such an approach, but do not trust the local authorities to provide a statement of community involvement without including it in primary legislation. So, do they trust all future governments?
  I know that it is not easy to collect and collate views at regional level, but planning requires a lot of public trust; and the more remote it is the less is the trust. I have referred to the draft regulations, but I think that the annex to the consultation paper is splendid in this regard on community involvement. It states that "community" means,
  "all those who have an interest in and a contribution to make … individuals as well as local authorities and bodies representing various interest groups. [It means] more than the provision of information and the invitation to respond … It should mean the opportunity to participate in shaping the RSS revision".
  It continues:
  "The benefits of this include giving the community an element of ownership"—
  I did not realise when I previously used the term that it was actually in the consultation document—
  "thereby increasing the chances of successful implementation".
  The paper says that community involvement,
  "should be project managed in the same way as the rest of the RSS revision process, to which it is integral".
  It talks about identifying the anticipated resource cost, the responsibilities for managing the process, and so on.
  Today we had the announcement of the consultation on the new PPS1 —Planning Policy Statement 1. The news release from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister states:
  "PPS1 also makes clear community involvement in the planning system is crucial".
  I am sure it does. I admit to not yet having read the draft that has been released. It continues:
  "Effective community involvement requires processes for informing peoples about policies and proposals in good time; enabling communities to put forward their own ideas and participate in developing proposals and options; consultation on formal proposals; and feedback".
  134
  That expresses the issue beautifully, so let us have it in the Bill.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends will take very seriously the issues being put forward. For me there is an issue of joined-up political thinking. Currently, we are spending a good deal of time in this House considering how we can re-engage a wider proportion of the electorate in the political system—making the voting processes more accessible; and trying to get a higher participation in those processes.
  It is difficult to think of many issues that affect more people more significantly than planning issues in terms of the whole character of the area where they live. I believe that what is sometimes referred to as the alienation of the public about the political process is, in fact, a feeling that, in the end, it is not worth trying to do anything because, inevitably, the powers that be will prevail. Considering all that the Government are doing in other spheres, I cannot conceive that they do not believe deeply that it is very important for people to feel empowered and able to be significant in the evolution of policy. To relegate how that is to happen in this context to regulations seems to me to miss an opportunity. To have on the face of the Bill the fact that community engagement and involvement can be an important part of a democratic society would have provided a stronger position.
  I accept the Government's commitment in that direction and their intention. I do not accuse them in any way of bad faith. Therefore, if there is a vote on this amendment, I shall not vote against the Government. However, I feel sad that an opportunity to include, in very specific terms, a statement on the face of the Bill that reasserts the importance of the community in this crucial matter is being missed.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I fully accept the reason for returning to this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, politely said that in Committee the subject came up just after a vote—the first defeat of the Government this year. I have here all the arguments that I rehearsed in Committee, which clearly did not impact in any way on the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or my noble friend Lord Judd, so I shall not use any of those. I shall turn to the last page of my brief.
  It goes without saying that we are absolutely committed to proper community involvement and consultation in regional plan making. We remain to be convinced about adding to the Bill in the way that the amendments propose, but in view of the depth and substance of the debate today, I shall take these amendments away and seriously consider whether we can find a way of meeting the desire. My noble friend said that trust is a key point and that the powers that be always get what they want. I shall take the matter away and return at Third Reading with something that will satisfy the House.

  135
  There has to be a test: whether the powers will provide additional safeguards, generate more community involvement, and restore or improve the trust of people. We believe that we have in place means to do that in a secure way—we have been sincere throughout. In view of today's debate and the fact that I have no arguments other than those that I used in Committee, it would be superfluous to use them again because they did not make an impact. I do not think this will cost us a great deal but it could have a major impact. Therefore, we shall take the matter away, give it serious consideration and hope to satisfy the House at Third Reading.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his support. As I said, there appears to be much agreement on this matter, and very few words to add to the Bill, but they would give much reassurance to many people in what is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a new planning system that one imagines will last a long while. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will return with something quickly as we shall want to consider our strategy for the future. I accept what he has said today, but I hope that we do not have to wait until Third Reading. Perhaps he could let us know the Government's thinking before we get to Third Reading. If he can give me that assurance, I will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am conscious that in the past few days I have flooded noble Lords and colleagues with paperwork, trying to answer the points that they made previously. Part of the motive was to avoid long speeches at Report stage, and part of it was to give information and explanation of issues that were raised in Committee and to give advance warning of what the Government propose to do with amendments as far in advance as possible. Naturally, that applies to what I have just said regarding the community involvement in relation to the two amendments in this group.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 10, leave out "must set out" and insert "shall have regard to"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on this amendment we revisit the Government's justification for the policies that the regional spatial strategy will contain. As before, this amendment would change the nature and content of the regional spatial strategy. The RSS would have regard to the Secretary of State's policies rather than simply setting them out. We believe that the amendment is necessary because if the Government are determined to establish regional planning in the form of regional spatial strategies, they must allow RSSs to be fully owned by regional planning bodies.
  As I have said previously, it is not unreasonable to interpret Clause 2 as conceiving a regional spatial strategy as nothing more than a planning document which sets out the Secretary of State's policy agenda for a particular region. The amendment is aimed at freeing up the regional planning bodies via regional spatial strategies from being simply the mouthpiece of Whitehall policy. The amendment addresses the concern expressed by many interested parties that unless there are changes to the way that regional spatial strategies are established in legislation, there will be no space for local accountability as planning policy is implemented on the ground.
  Of course, we recognise the importance of the Government's role in giving strategic leadership to the planning system. We do not understand why the RSS must set out the Secretary of State's policies in relation to the development and use of land within a region. Why can it not set out its own policies while having regard to the framework of national policy? Is it not obvious that if one is to set up regional planning bodies, they should be accountable for their own policies rather than for the Secretary of State's policies?
  It is vital that we bolster the capacity of regional planning bodies to respond to local conditions. At the moment this legislation simply fails to recognise the enormous differences and variations between and within regions in current land use and development and future needs. As it stands, Clause 2(2) would lead to the accelerated fossilisation of regional spatial strategies because they would constantly have to keep up with the rate at which new demands emanate from Whitehall in order to satisfy the requirement to set out the Secretary of State's policies.
  If the Government are serious about devolving power to the regions and about devolution, how can they square that with a policy that makes regional planning bodies, even after the establishment of elected regional assemblies, simply the agents of Whitehall and Westminster? Not only is democratic accountability being sucked out of the system by transferring, powers upwards, away from counties, but it also leaks out at the regional level. As I said, regional planning bodies may find themselves accountable for policies that they do not support and over which they can exercise no control.
  In the brave new world of devolution and elected regional assemblies, one cannot simply transfer the old accountabilities on to the new regional structure. The regional spatial strategy should not be a vehicle for simply setting out government policy; it should be a strategic vision that meets the planning needs of local communities. Their elected representatives should agree it. Of course regional spatial strategies will still have to have regard, as I said before, to the Government's priorities, which is accepted. The amendment maintains that important dimension.
  The amendment ensures that regional spatial strategies are permitted the necessary flexibility to respond to conditions in their areas. It would go a small way towards restoring a better balance between local accountability and central control. By establishing

  137
  regional planning bodies' ownership of the regional spatial strategy and removing a key mechanism by which the Secretary of State can exert total central control over regional planning, the amendment reasserts the principle of democratic accountability as being fundamental to an effective planning system. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. I looked back to see what the Minister said on this issue in Committee, and I must say that it was a little difficult to relate his remarks—which were to a group of amendments—to this point. I confess that I have struggled with this subsection and whether by altering it we would in any way affect the potential vacuum to which the Minister drew our attention at the last stage, if the regional planning guidance did not morph straight into the regional spatial strategy. I do not think that that is so, but it is significant that the provision is in Clause 2, which is essentially the clause that sets us off down the road of regional spatial strategies and will remain in there. This is the Secretary of State top-down from the top of the Bill.
  Our concern is to get the right balance of observance of national policies, so there is an issue of the extent to which they can be debated, given the form that they take. We must get the balance right between national policies and local and regional interests. I include localities and local areas because they must be in conformity with the regional spatial strategy. The interests run all the way up and down society.
  This is the Secretary of State top-down from the top of the Bill. We made that point time and time again, probably to the point of tedium, at the last stage. The fact that we will not make it on every amendment this time does not mean to say that the issue has gone away. We support the amendment.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not sure that I followed what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said. There seemed to be an assumption in what he said about devolution that this was the Secretary of State always getting his own way. I will make this absolutely clear—under our present governance arrangements, the Secretary of State has regional planning policies. He is accountable for them both now and under the changed system. However, if there were elected regional assemblies cutting out this function, the Secretary of State would not need any regional spatial policies. The issue of devolution means that you remove completely the Secretary of State's role—it would be for the regional planning body. This assumption that it is the Secretary of State all the while, even with devolution, is simply not true. If there has been a misunderstanding about that, I apologise. I obviously did not explain it clearly in Committee, but that is the reality. This is not an issue of the Secretary of State running riot.
  138
  Furthermore, when the regional planning bodies prepare revisions of the regional planning guidance now and of spatial strategies in the future, under the present arrangement—without an elected regional assembly—because they know better than Whitehall, if they wish to depart and divert from national policy and make the case for that in the examination in public, they are free to do so. Obviously, Ministers who then reach a view on the final form of the policies must take into account the case made in the panel report. It would not be possible, even if the examination in public came down in favour of the regional planning board deviating from national planning policy, for the Minister to then say, "No, I have got my own policy". That would be an unreasonable, irrational approach by the Minister, which would be subject to my learned friends in judicial review.
  There is an underlying assumption in this amendment and in both the speeches that we have just heard that this is the Secretary of State laying down the rules and laying down the laws, whether or not there is devolution. That is simply not the case.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, why does the Secretary of State then have the power to override the inspector's report in Clause 9(6), where the Secretary of State if he thinks fit can strike out any provisions in the RSS that the inspector has agreed on the submission of the RPB?
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, but as I have just said—we are talking about two different sets of circumstances here. If it is the case that there are devolved elected regional assemblies, the Secretary of State will not have any regional planning policies anyway. There will not be anything at the centre for the Secretary of State to have. The way in which the Bill is drafted covers both those sets of circumstances. Whether there are elected regional assemblies is a matter for the people to choose, initially in the three regions that we have all talked about, later this year. The fact is that he would not have a role to play, because he would not need any regional spatial policies in the first place, because they would be in the ownership of an elected regional assembly.
  I make that absolutely clear, in case there is any doubt about this at all. We do not think that this is a straitjacket approach, which is the view that has been raised about the negation of democracy. That simply is not the case. The planning bodies still have the freedom to set it out, and I am not looking at a particular part of the Bill, but the Secretary of State cannot act on a whim or a hunch. He must act rationally. If he does not, he is subject to challenge in the courts. He cannot simply dismiss reports or dismiss evidence. I have given an example. If the panel report came out in favour of a departure from the national plan that the regional planning body had made, it would be difficult in those circumstances, unless they were most exceptional, for Minister to override. Their decision would have to be made in the light of the panel report. It is not a question of them simply dismissing this. Therefore, we do not think that this amendment is necessary.

  139
  I have a couple of paragraphs that would be worth putting on the record, for the avoidance of any doubt later on, and for those who follow our proceedings. It will only be a short one. I have made the point that the two arguments in the two speeches are based on a false premise. Our fundamental approach is that the regions need planning policies that are specific to the circumstances in each region. The provisions in Clause 2(2)—which is what this amendment seeks to change—specify that regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's spatial strategies. This has been described as a straitjacket and a negation of democracy. It has also been argued that it is inconsistent with the provisions in the Bill that provide for the first regional spatial strategy for each region to be such regional planning guidance as the Secretary of State prescribes. There is another debate about that later on, so I will not go into detail.
  We must be clear about the relationship between the Secretary of State's national planning policies and the regional spatial strategies. Clause 6 requires regional planning bodies to have regard to national policies in preparing a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy. That relationship is also true of the regional planning guidance. We want the regional planning bodies to articulate in the regional spatial strategy the spatial vision of what the region will look like at the end of the period of the strategy. That vision will be unique to that region and will not replicate other regions or be a subset of the national picture. The regional planning bodies will have the freedom to set out the policies that will work in their region to turn the vision into reality. The national planning policies are there to provide a framework, not a straitjacket. As I have said, in the case of devolution, where there is an elected regional assembly, if it is playing that role and that is its intention, the Secretary of State would not need any regional spatial strategies anyway. Game, set and match. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As always, he is beguiling in his answers and tries to confuse the issue. He was crafty in his reply.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we do not want to keep repeating throughout Report stage that the Bill is top-down, instead of bottom-up, and that the ODPM seems to be the only planner in the country. I was grateful for the Minister's answer. There were two scenarios: one with an elected regional assembly and one without. The Minister spoke about both, and it was interesting to hear what he said about the situation if there were an elected regional assembly. Going by what he said, he should not mind at all if the words in the Bill were changed from "must set out" to "shall have regard to". He gave an answer that I could have given, so we must test the feeling of the House on the issue.
  4.30 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 165; Not-Contents, 123.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Ashcroft, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Astor, V.

  Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Jopling, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Barker, B.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Laird, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Luke, L.

  Byford, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  McAlpine of West Green, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

  Cox, B.

  Maclennan of Rogart, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  McNally, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Dearing, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Denham, L.

  Michie of Gallanach, B.

  Dholakia, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Dundee, E.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Falkland, V.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Fowler, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Freeman, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Northover, B.

  Geraint, L.

  O' Cathain, B.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Glentoran, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Patten, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Peel, E.

  Greaves, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Hanham, B.

  Plumb, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Rawlings, B.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Henley, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Reay, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Renton, L.

  Howarth of Breckland, B.

  Rogan, L.

  Howe, E.

  Rober, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  141

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Sandberg, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Trumpington, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Ullswater, V.

  Selbome, E.

  Vinson, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Waddington, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Walker of Worcester, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Swinfen, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Taverne, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Thatcher, B.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Alli, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Hayman, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jones, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Judd, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Levy, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Carter, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Chan, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Chandos, V.

  Marsh, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Mitchell, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Monson, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Morgan of Huyton, B.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Orme, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

  Parekh, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Paul, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Elder, L.

  Peston, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Fitt, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Simon, V.

  Gale, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Golding, B.

  Stallard, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Gould of Pottemewton, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  142

  Strabolgi, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Strange, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Triesman, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Winston, L.

  Varley, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  4.40 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
  "(2A) The RSS will set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of how the regional spatial strategy will fit and interrelate with other strategies in the region. Although our amendment makes reference only to the strategy of the regional development agency, because of the importance we attach to the relationship between spatial planning and economic planning, we are certainly not precluding ourselves from supporting the idea that the regional spatial strategy should provide the spatial framework for other regional strategies.
  The draft PPS11 states:
  "It is essential that the regional spatial strategy both shapes and is shaped by other regional strategies".
  As a bland statement of how regional strategies would relate to one another in an ideal world, this would be clear and uncontroversial. However, given that this is not the case—I think here particularly of the examples put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, when we discussed this previously—we are concerned that the Government's policy is based on little more than wishful thinking. To that extent, we are arguing for a more robust approach to this issue by the Government. By extension, we do not believe that regulations would adequately demonstrate the Government's commitment to regional spatial strategies being truly spatial frameworks.
  In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, indicated that I supported the idea of a hierarchy of regional strategies, with the regional spatial strategy being pre-eminent. That was an understandable interpretation of my arguments, but my intention with this amendment is less concerned with establishing hierarchies than it is with bringing a bit of realism to the Government's thinking on this issue.
  Let me be clear. This is not about regional planning bodies controlling what regional development agencies can do. It is simply a question of recognising the potential for conflict between the two and ensuring that the regional spatial strategy is exactly that—regional, spatial and strategic—which it will not be if it does not set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region.
  As it stands, the Bill is silent on how all these various regional strategies will relate to each other. That seems to me to be a recipe for confusion. Furthermore, regional strategies are not automatically supportive of and

  143
  consistent with one another—a point, as I have said, well illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in Committee.
  If we are to have RSSs, it is important that the different regional strategies are integrated and co-ordinated and that provision is made for this in the Bill. If it is left to guidance, the mechanism by which we can deliver joined-up policies at the regional level will remain unclear and will not be subject to proper debate in Parliament.
  The drawing-up of planning responsibilities from counties to regional planning bodies in this Bill reinforces the importance of having one overarching spatial framework at the regional level. I do not believe in the utopian vision that all the regional strategies are somehow reflecting and correlating with one another. I think that there will be more conflict than the Government believe there will be, and it is only right that the professionals on the ground know where they stand when it arises. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support this amendment, as we did in Committee. My noble friend Lady Maddock, who spoke then, referred to the draft PPS11 which states,
  "It is essential that the regional spatial strategy both shapes and is shaped by other regional strategies".
  The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said—and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield has referred to this—that we were seeking to put the regional spatial strategy at the top of a hierarchy. That is not so. What we are seeking to do is to set a spatial framework for other strategies which are not in themselves spatial, or not primarily spatial. He said that the regional spatial strategy—going through all this is rather like trying to say "she sells seashells"!—takes forward the regional housing strategy; that the regional transport strategy is part and parcel of the regional spatial strategy; and that, if there is an inconsistency, there will be an opportunity to iron it out. He said,
  "The documents are published; they are there for consultation. In a sense, the other regional strategies get pulled into the spatial strategy and that is the overriding driver for it".—[Official Report, 20/1/04; col. 998.]
  That, my Lords, makes the case.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the argument is a very major but a very simple one. Basically, the whole planning system is intended to see that the country and the countryside are not wrecked. Ultimately, it is the spatial strategy which must take that very long-term view. It is absolutely right that other developments do fit in with it. That is why I strongly support this amendment.
  There are plenty of examples of where there have been desirable regional goals which actually would be very harmful in the long-term interests of the country, but I will not take the time of the House listing them. I hope that, by accepting this amendment, we will be enshrining the long-term future of the countryside.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, could I take up with the Minister a question which I raised by means of a
  144
  Written Question on 12 February? That is, the mismatch between the policy of the Home Office on burial law in the 21st century—which suggests that an assessment should be made of community needs every 10 years—and the draft PPS11, which provides that the regional spatial strategy should develop a strategy for the region of at least 15 years.
  In her reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said,
  "For planning purposes, the provision of land for burial is currently considered to be a local, rather than regional, land use issue".
  She also said that the consultation paper which has now been issued by the Government,
  "seeks views on whether the provision of burial grounds should be linked to the local core strategy development plan, outlined in planning policy statement 12: local development frameworks. Such plans should cover a period of at least 10 years".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. WA 174.]
  The provision of land for burial is already a serious problem in many areas of the country, and may become more so in the future when many of the minority communities in this country want to stick to burial rather than to move towards cremation. Therefore, demographers should be able to predict what is the regional requirement for burial grounds over a period of 15 years, and that should then feed into the local development plan.
  That is a case where a regional framework is needed and where the Government's consultation paper on burial law and policy in the 21st century has got it wrong. It is not meshing correctly with the current proposals for legislation in the planning field.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have to admit that I have not come briefed on burial law, but I am pleased to note that there is a consultation paper. Therefore, this is a matter on which Ministers have not made a final decision.
  On the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about protecting the countryside, the regional spatial strategy is that under which the plan-led system protects the countryside. Anyone would think that everything had been hunky-dory up to now. I can remember looking at some figures when I was at MAFF: in a six-year period in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a quarter of the hedgerows disappeared. That changed the face of the countryside. People may say that everything has been okay up to now, the countryside has been protected and the Bill is wrecking things, but that is far from being the case.
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords—
  Lord Rooker: Is there an interest to declare, my Lords?
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, surely the Minister realises that the hedgerows disappeared because a grant was offered by MAFF for their removal.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am simply saying that the idea that everything has been hunky-dory up to now

  145
  and the countryside has been protected is nonsense, as that one point shows. I deprecate that, anyway. I was talking about the late 1980s and early 1990s, by the way, when the despoliation of the countryside was obviously financed by the previous government, although I do not want to go into that. I am simply making the point that the countryside has not been protected up to now.
  I digress because, by and large, as we said in Committee, we are very supportive of the amendment. The principle expressed in it has our strong support. However, as with one or two other areas, at this point, we do not think the Bill is the right place for an imprecisely defined statement. Whether it could be refined, I do not know—I am not making any commitment.
  We think it absolutely right that the regional spatial strategy should set the spatial framework for the regional economic strategy, but this is part of a two-way process. The spatial strategy needs to be shaped by the regional economic strategy as well as shaping it. We think that the way in which the amendment is drafted implies a hierarchical relationship, with the regional spatial strategy at the top. We do not think that is the right way forward. Perhaps we are misunderstanding the purpose, but our view is that the way in which the amendment is drafted would create a hierarchical relationship.
  The regions need a joined-up approach; the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy both serve a different role and function, but the one helps create the other. The relationship between the regional planning body and the regional development agency should properly be one between equals. That would not be the case if we accepted the narrow wording of the amendment. It can be a relationship in which there are different points of view reflecting the different purposes of the strategies, but that does not mean that they will necessarily contradict one another.
  It is essential is that these bodies—and, indeed, the other bodies that have to work together drawing up key regional strategies—work together to develop a shared understanding of the issues, objectives and opportunities in a particular region. It will be different in each region, as we emphasised in draft planning policy statement 11 on regional planning. This is already happening: in Yorkshire and the Humber, for example, joint stakeholder consultations events were organised by the regional planning body and the regional development agency during the recent review of both strategies.
  From a practical point of view, people on the front line are making a reality of things. We do not think we need such a provision in the Bill, as it would give a hierarchical view. The amendment is simply not needed, certainly not in its current form. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I shall reflect on his comments about the hedgerows. It is a classic example of what we are
  146
  concerned about in the Bill. The Secretary of State at the time had so much power that he could remove the hedgerows. If we gave any Secretary of State as much power in this planning legislation, bizarre things might happen in the future. The Minister has given a classic example of why we are trying to change the Bill. He has made our arguments about the Secretary of State for us, and we will remind him of that throughout the remainder of the Bill's proceedings.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, you can trust this Government.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Rooker: I will give an example, my Lords. First, that happened not under this Government but under the previous one. Secondly, there are 30,000 more hectares in the green belt today than we inherited from the previous government in 1997. We need no lessons in that respect—we have a good record.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will accept that the Secretary of State at that time thought he was doing the right thing, but future generations have reflected on that. There should have been more debate about it at the time, which is what we want to ensure in this Bill. We want to make certain that no one can do anything without a good debate, considering the various points of view before arriving at any planning policies.
  I do not want to create any hierarchies—that is not the purpose of the amendment. In my own region, the potential development of Stansted airport is a tremendous economic factor in the eastern region, but it must be tied in with the planning and spatial strategies.
  The Minister seems to agree that bodies must work together to make the various strategies happen. I hope that he will reflect on this before Third Reading, as we need clarity before finalising the Bill, and that we can have a further debate on it then. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
  "(3A) The RSS must include sub-regional plans for all parts of the region in accordance with geographical boundaries defined by the RPB.
  (3B) The sub-regional plans referred to in subsection (3A) shall be prepared by the authorities falling within section 5(1) if their area or any part of their area is in the defined sub-region."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to a major set of amendments that are concerned with ensuring that counties and other strategic planning authorities have a stronger role to play in the planning process.
  Although I welcomed the Government's concessions in Committee on the role of county councils and other authorities, fundamentally I do not believe they have gone far enough. I think I am supported in that belief by many of your Lordships, by most interested outside organisations and by planners.
  Amendment No. 9 would put on the face of the Bill a statutory role for strategic planning authorities in the formulation of sub-regional strategies for their area. It is slightly different from Amendment No. 4, and certainly more extensive.
  Throughout our deliberations, our approach has been to attempt to make the best of a bad job. We do not believe that the proposals brought before the House in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill will improve the planning system.
  One of the main areas of concern identified in earlier stages of debate, in this House and the other place, has been the wide gap between regional spatial strategies and local development. There is a yawning void created by removing structure plans from the process. It will create a serious problem for effective sub-regional planning and the co-ordination of transport, housing and infrastructure at the sub-regional scale.
  The Government have attempted to paper over the crack by proposing that regional spatial strategies should include policies for sub-regions, but it is doubtful whether these will be sufficiently detailed to provide more than broad guidance about development strategy at the sub-regional scale. Furthermore, because they would be produced as an integral part of the regional spatial strategy, there will be a lack of flexibility about when the sub-regional policies can be updated. The fact that there will not be comprehensive coverage will leave some areas without a clear sub-regional strategy to guide development and infrastructure investment. In my own county, we have the Thames Gateway, with clear strategies—we have the developing M11 corridor, with possibly more houses to be built up the A12 than anywhere else. Clearly there will be no sub-regional strategy for these areas, and it is a recipe for chaos.
  The draft PPS11, on which the Government have been consulting, stresses that planning issues are not necessarily contained within county boundaries. The point becomes doubly evident at the district scale. There are many examples—I think particularly of some in my own country of Essex, such as Harlow, where the expansion of a largely urban district, with tightly constrained boundaries, can take place only in adjoining districts. These will not necessarily be included within the main sub-regions identified at RSS level. How will authorities plan the development of such areas in a joined-up way without some form of sub-regional planning?
  Clauses 28 and 29 provide for adjoining local authorities to produce joint local development documents and for joint committees to be established to assist that process. However, I am sceptical about how many districts will voluntarily join together to produce local development documents on a joint basis. The provisions in this Bill for joint local development documents will not plug the gap in sub-regional planning. Simply put, the proposals do not grasp the full range of sub-regional planning nor the way it is delivered on the ground.
  We have already had much debate about the way in which this Bill marginalises county councils from the planning process, despite the fact that they are
  148
  responsible for the majority of local services in two-tier areas, some of which are crucial to the delivery of sustainable patterns of development—highways and transportation being the most prominent. However, the Government recognised that, and we welcome amending the old Clause 4, which is now Clause 5, to give county councils a statutory role to advise the regional planning body on the preparation of RSS, although we still believe that the Government underestimate the importance of the role of county councils in strategic planning. I am sure that we will return to this issue later today.
  I now return to the point of Amendment No. 4. The Government's amendments in Committee did not adequately address the crucial role of county councils in sub-regional planning. The purpose of this amendment is to plug the gap at sub-regional level by providing for the preparation of sub-regional plans, led by the strategic planning authorities as part of the RSS. It should not be interpreted as an attempt to reintroduce structure plans by the back door. That is not the intention. Nor would it undermine the pre-eminence of the regional spatial strategy. The procedure can be flexible and efficient and will not add another tier to the process. It would give a clear and appropriate strategic planning role to county councils and other strategic planning authorities at sub-regional level. Ultimately, from my own experience, I am absolutely positive that the amendment would help the Government's own objectives for sustainable communities—no joke.
  Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would further strengthen the strategic planning authority role. It is important to reiterate that there will be no intervening fully democratic level of planning in this country between the district level and the Secretary of State unless we have elected regional assemblies all over England. That looks extremely unlikely to happen—I hope that it does not—at least in the short term. We have an enormous structural gap in the planning system between districts and regions. Ministers must recognise that this will not tend to lead to effective planning. Perhaps they think that they will be able to continue to rely on the strategic authorities for sub-regional planning support. That is not the case. Although there is a statutory role for sub-regional planning, the reality is that many authorities will shed staff that they can no longer afford in order to fulfil the Government's requirements. That would be a disaster.
  The Minister gave us his assurance that county councils would not lose any money whatsoever, but they are losing their role in writing county structure plans, in sub-regional planning and associated responsibilities. Surely, there will be a gradual downgrading, even if it is not yet envisaged. That would be a disaster, because capacity in the planning system does not currently lie in the regional chambers or Government Offices. The strategic expertise, technical know-how and wealth of experience in strategic planning is based not surprisingly, at strategic authority level. To disperse and get rid of that pool of expertise—which, as it currently stands, the Bill would surely do—would be a terrible

  149
  waste of one of the most valuable resources in our planning system, and would hinder the Government in their objectives in delivering sustainable communities.
  I hope that the Minister will recognise that the success of sub-regional planning will be vital to achieving many of the demanding targets that the Government have set within their overarching sustainable communities policy framework. A statutory sub-regional dimension needs to be written into the Bill's provisions. As I said earlier, we doubt that the provisions for joint committees in Clauses 29 and 30 go far enough in this regard.
  The strategic planning function of county councils is a precious resource. We cannot support legislation that treats the bulk of planning expertise in this country as an afterthought to local government reorganisation. The amendments ensure several problems with the legislation are addressed. They will strengthen the effective delivery of sub-regional planning, help preserve some measure of accountability within the proposed new system in the event that Clause 1 is eventually removed from the Bill, and offer more opportunities for public involvement. They will make the system more bottom up and less top down, will mean that counties will be less handicapped in integrating their transport, waste and minerals plans and will ensure that the capacity and expertise of the existing system are not lost. I beg to move.
  5 p m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again, we are pleased to be able to support this amendment. We tabled an amendment at the last stage that drew attention to the importance of work at a sub-regional level. Our amendment was perhaps a little less prescriptive than this one and therefore a good deal less forceful. The criticisms of that amendment were that we—the criticisms were voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, but meant to refer to all of us—could not afford to see a proliferation of plans under the guise of sub-regional strategies that are poorly integrated and serve only to create confusion and uncertainty, which I understand. The various amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, meet that criticism, both providing for sub-regional plans to be put into place and providing for how they get there. That is an important part of the programme.
  I do not think that it is necessary to weary the House by repeating arguments for the importance of a sub-regional as well as a regional approach. Common sense and noble Lords' experience in their own areas make it immediately clear that a gap or lacuna between the regional and district levels does not work well in practice. We support the amendments.
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I support the group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. In Committee we probed the Government's intention to make the present RPGs into a statutory format as regional spatial strategies. If the RSS is to be mandatory as far as local authorities are concerned, it is essential that the current tiers of local government should contribute to the formulation of sub-regional planning and that this co-operation
  150
  should be stipulated in the Bill. It is not good enough for the RPB to make arrangements for county councils and other nominated authorities to enable them to discharge the appropriate functions outlined in Clause 5.
  Amendment No. 9 changes the balance somewhat and makes the preparation of the RSS more inclusive for county councils and local authorities at the formulation of sub-regional plans. In the same way, it is important for the bodies mentioned in Amendment No. 10 also to have a role to play in the review and monitoring of the implementation of the RSS.
  If the regional spatial strategy is to reflect local areas correctly—the Minister has already identified that it is important that the local area is properly considered—it is vital that county councils and the other authorities nominated in Amendment No. 9 are included at an early stage of the preparation of the strategy. Therefore, the making of sub-regional plans is an integral part of the process. They will be a subset of plans for the region, but important for all that. Therefore, I support the amendments.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am a bit surprised by the tone of the speeches on this issue. I believe that I am as well briefed as I can be, but I have seen nothing from the County Councils Network, for example, to say that it was dissatisfied with the major changes that the Government proposed to the Bill at Committee stage, which have now been included. As far as I know, the Local Government Association stands by its statements welcoming wholeheartedly the changes that took place. Nobody has referred to any specific note, letter, submission or representation, and I am not aware of anything from the county councils. I do not know whether this is a private enterprise operation on behalf of the bigwigs from local government who see their role under threat—although as I have repeatedly made clear, it is not under threat—or whether there has been full consultation with the rest of local government. I do not know, as nothing has been said in the three speeches that we have just heard, whether this measure is required and desired by the county councils in addition to the measure that the Government placed in the Bill at Committee stage. I am not at all clear why the amendment has been proposed.
  I should also say, before I begin my response, that the Government are not responsible for the grouping of the amendments, and there is no way in which Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 could ever be considered consequential on Amendment No. 4. I am grateful for the wider debate, and all that, but there is no doubt about it: the new clauses in Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and Amendment No. 4 deal with totally different things.
  I shall give the Government's response, but I should be very grateful if in the future we could be told if an issue has arisen from the County Councils Network, as it would obviously help us. Frankly, we would like to know about it, as we have been trying to listen to people. This has been an issue since the Bill was published and since the Green Paper; I fully accept

  151
  that. It is of key importance, and we believed that in the amendments that are now part of Clause 5 we had gone some considerable way to satisfying people—and had in fact satisfied them—on the issues that have been raised.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she did not want to put everything on the record. Indeed, we might as well just say, "Let's get to the vote", as it probably does not make a blind bit of difference what I am about to say. However, because I believe that the Government have a good case, I am determined to put the full note on the record, just for those outside this place. I feel a bit aggrieved about this proposal being introduced when there were no complaints following Committee stage.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would like me to answer that point now. As a member of the County Councils Network, I have been made aware of all the negotiations that went on for several months. As I have said repeatedly, we welcome what the Government have introduced into the Bill, but it was not what the County Councils Network wanted in the beginning—it wanted much more. I am aware of the negotiations that went on, and what the County Councils Network and the LGA started off with was far more than what is proposed in this amendment. The amendment, which I shall explain again later, is totally supported by every county and every strategic planning authority that I know. It is where we wanted the negotiations to end rather than where they have ended. I repeat: we welcome the Government's amendment, but it is not exactly what we wanted.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that I sincerely respect the role of the noble Lord in the county councils, as he is the leader of a major county council. However, he put a caveat on what he said, when he remarked that the amendment was supported by everyone he knew. In due course, I should like to know how far that goes. Is this the final frontier? Is this it, or do those outside want more? They may say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, "Well, you tried, but you didn't go far enough as far as we're concerned".
  As I have said, the Government have not received any representations in this regard, although the negotiations went on not just for months but for the best part of a year and a half. However, I shall plod on with my brief, irrespective of the consequences.
  Amendment No. 4 would require the regional spatial strategy to include sub-regional plans for all parts of the region and for these to be prepared by such county councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities any part of whose area is covered by the sub-region. Anyone would think that sub-regional strategies did not already take place. The classic example is the south Midlands/Milton Keynes area. That has a sub-regional strategy, covering as it does several district councils, two and a half county councils and touching as it does on the boundaries of three regions. A sub-regional strategy is taking place, so
  152
  there is no problem in that regard and no problem about it taking place after the Bill becomes an Act. There is not an issue over sub-regional plans.
  Regional spatial strategies will contain a new emphasis on sub-regions. As draft planning policy statement 11 makes clear, where sub-regional strategies are being drawn up, we would expect those authorities with strategic planning expertise in the area to take the lead on, or participate in, that work. However, we expect sub-regional strategies, in the sense of parts of the region having a distinct set of policies, to be the exception not the rule. Surely, that is a fair point. The whole point is to have sub-regional strategies where they are actually needed. The south Midlands/Milton Keynes example is a good one, and I have no doubt that others could be given. The Thames Gateway is another obvious example of where there is a sub-regional strategy, as again it covers three regions and two county councils, plus the GLA. Where they are needed, they can take place now and will be able to take place when the Bill is passed, but not all over the country—that is simply not needed.
  We do not want to see a proliferation of plans, under the guise of sub-regional strategies. The noble Lord said that he did not want the structure plans back, but that is the underlying theme in proposing the amendment and making the kind of speeches that we have just heard. They imply that county councils want to continue their role, so there should be three levels of plan-making. That is what we are seeking to avoid. A two-tier planning system will be much easier to understand, and the ownership of the plans will be absolutely clear and unambiguous. That is very important. Otherwise, when we are faced with a strategic policy deficit, then sub-regional strategies will be prepared to deal with the specific growth or regeneration needs of an area. The three-tier system, which is what is being proposed in the amendment—let us make no bones about that—constrained as it has been by administrative boundaries, has sometimes failed to tackle sub-regional issues that are now for the first time beginning to be looked at in the revision of regional plans. The three-city area of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby in the east Midlands is just one example.
  Amendment No. 9 is a new clause that would place a duty on county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils and national park authorities to advise not only regional planning bodies but also the Secretary of State and local planning authorities about strategic planning matters. The amendment would place a duty on those authorities to formulate sub-regional planning policy and provide for them to work jointly with other authorities or the regional planning body to do so. I hope that I have covered the sub-regional issue under Amendment No. 4. I would only add that we expect local authorities to work together under arrangements with the regional planning body to formulate sub-regional strategies for their area when they are needed. That includes the county councils. There is nothing in the Bill that restricts that happening. It can happen now and it will be able to happen under the Bill when it is passed.

  153
  We see no added value in county councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities or national park authorities advising the Secretary of State on strategic planning matters as well as the regional planning body. Those authorities will make their voices heard anyway, through the regional spatial strategy revision process, and influence its outcome. It does not make sense for them to advise the Secretary of State independently of this. It would only result in more red tape, more paperwork, more cost and more bureaucracy. That is what is being proposed in the amendments—let us be quite honest and open about that.
  The unitary, metropolitan district councils and national park authorities will be local planning authorities under the Bill and would be required to advise themselves under the amendment, while the role of the county councils in advising local planning authorities is already clearly defined in draft planning policy statement 12 and the regulations. There is also the option of the county council becoming a member of a joint committee to take on the role of preparing a local development document.
  Amendment No. 10—the other new clause—would require the regional planning body to take advice from county councils, unitary authorities, the metropolitan district councils and the national park authorities on the preparation, review and monitoring of the implementation of the regional spatial strategy in relation to each region. The reappearance of this amendment is very surprising. The fact that it still refers to authorities in Clause 4(2) and not Clause 5(3) indicates that it has probably slipped through the net. It is a leftover from Committee stage. It seeks to fight old battles which the Government have in many ways accepted by our amendments in Committee. The amendment mirrors almost precisely what the amended Clause 5 already provides for. So we simply do not think it is necessary. Noble Lords have decided that the Government's concessions do not go far enough. However, as I said at the beginning, by no stretch of the imagination are Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 directly consequential on Amendment No. 4.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I think that everyone now accepts that we will have reasonable spatial strategies with planning policy being done at regional level. As the leader of Essex County Council, I am very much involved in the issue on a daily basis and, like the Minister, I want the system to work. If we are going to have an eastern regional policy, I want it to work.
  I do not like to give examples from my own county. However, as I said in my initial remarks, Essex has both the A 12 corridor and heavy congestion in Chelmsford. We are trying to establish a park and ride system in Chelmsford which involves several district councils and the development of the A12. It is not a matter for the regional spatial strategy but will involve several districts and Essex County Council. We are trying to ensure that the Bill provides the capacity to create sub-regional planning policies and the strategies
  154
  to deliver. The county council has just completed the biggest single PFI road project, on the A130 from Southend to Chelmsford. That is of no interest at all to Norfolk, Peterborough, Suffolk and Cambridge. The new system will have to provide the capacity to deliver such developments.
  I am sad that the Minister thinks we are trying to handicap such a capacity. We are trying to improve the situation by enabling the new regional system to deliver such developments. We accept that that is going to happen, and we are trying to make it work. Earlier, I quoted the example of Harlow, which, if it is to expand, will have to expand into other districts. That case might involve a UDC because it concerns the M11 corridor. I could cite other parts of Essex, such as Haven Gateway, from where the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, originates, which is one of the most deprived areas in our county. I have a lot of time for that area. We need a strategy for it, but it is not covered by a government initiative.
  If we are going to improve our communities, the new legislation will have to provide the capacity to deliver it. These regions are very big and will not be interested in the matters I have mentioned—projects such as park and ride schemes covering several districts and roads joining one town to another. I am trying to be helpful and to make the system work. I see the whole system failing because a two-tier system—from the top of the region to the district—will not work. There needs to be capacity in the middle to deliver the Government's objectives. I am trying to help them do that in the Thames Gateway, the M11 corridor, and at Stansted airport. I am trying to make the new system work. I think that this provision must be on the face of the Bill. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
  5.23 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 160; Not-Contents, 108.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Ashcroft, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Astor, V.

  Cox, B.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Attlee, E.

  Crathorne, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Barker, B.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Denham, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Elton, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Buscombe, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Byford, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Fowler, L.

  155

  Freeman, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  O' Cathain, B.

  Glentoran, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Goodhart, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Greenway, L.

  Patten, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

  Hayhoe, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Henley, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Higgins, L.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Reay, L.

  Howarth of Breckland, B.

  Redesdale, L.

  Howe, E.

  Rees, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Rogan, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Roper, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Inge, L.

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Jopling, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Kingsland, L.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Selborne, E.

  Laird, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Lamont of Lerwick L,

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Luke, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Strange, B.

  McAlpine of West Green, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Thatcher, B.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Tope, L.

  MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  McNally, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Trumpington, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Vinson, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Michie of Gallanach, B.

  Walker of Worcester, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Walmsley, B.

  Montrose, D.

  Weatherill, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Naseby, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Newby, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Alli, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Carter, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  156

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Crawley, B.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Dearing, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Elder, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Orme, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Parekh, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Peston, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gale, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Golding, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Rea, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Sheldon, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Simon, V.

  Harrison, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Triesman, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Varley, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Jones, L.

  Winston, L.

  Judd, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.33 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 1, line 16, at end insert "unless the conflict concerns a matter of fact in which case the fact shall prevail"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5, grouped with Amendment No. 65, relates to the same point with regard to the regional spatial strategy and the local development document. This new point occurred to me on re-reading the Bill after the last stage. In both relevant clauses there is a provision that,
  "if to any extent a policy set out in the RSS"—
  or the local development document—
  "conflicts with any other statement or information in the RSS the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy".
  I have no quarrel with the general proposition. However, if the statement—or "information" to use the word in the subsection—is a matter of fact, then the fact should prevail rather than policy if policy is based on an incorrect fact. That is the thrust of Amendments Nos. 5 and 65. If the conflict concerns a matter of fact, the fact shall prevail. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness, I come to the conclusion almost

  157
  that it is an amendment in search of a problem. I am not sure I understand the aims of the noble Baroness. I should be interested to hear some examples. I cannot see how a policy will conflict with a fact as they are two different beasts.
  The relevant provisions—Clauses 2(4) and 17(5)—make clear that statements of policy in the regional spatial strategy or local development documents have precedence over background material. We probably all agree with that as a principle. The reference in the Bill is to avoid wrangling about the precedence of different paragraphs.
  The amendments seem to imply that policies will be drawn up in complete contradiction to "facts" contained in the regional spatial strategy or the local development document. I cannot see how that would happen. Policies have to be based on evidence. That is one criterion for soundness. A policy divorced from the facts would not survive the examination.
  The draft regulations on local and regional planning both draw a distinction between the policy and the reasoned justification for it. This is intended to make clear the policy matters which would provide the framework for development control decisions; and to make sure that the local development document has some explanation of and justification for the policy.
  The draft guidance says that the reasoned justification is kept to the minimum necessary to provide the context. In a situation where there was some issue with a fact, it would be given weight as a material consideration. We cannot, of course, fetter the Secretary of State's discretion by saying that this will always be the case but it seems likely that the fact would outweigh the policy. I suggest that it would be irrational for a policy to prevail if it were based upon a proven inaccuracy and would be open, therefore, to challenge.
  For those reasons, I do not think that the amendment works or is necessary. Having heard my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect further and agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall read the Minister's remarks. However, he seems to be saying that the Secretary of State should not be fettered even if he got it wrong. All I seek is to ensure that there is no elephant trap in this part of the Bill. If the Government do not consider the amendment necessary, I shall not pursue the matter. However, I was apparently opaque in my introduction. The "information" which might be in conflict with a policy would be based on fact. It could contain—no one is perfect, not even the people in the ODPM who have written the RPG—something which purports to be true but is not.
  In his reply the Minister said that the matter could be sorted out—that is obviously comforting—and that it could be dealt with at an examination in public. However, the long and the short of it is that I am trying to help. I am not trying to undermine what the Government are trying to do here. If they are content that there is no problem, I do not want to push the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of Amendment No. 6 is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make the existing regional planning guidance, or parts of it, part of the regional spatial strategy and so part of the development plan without going through the procedures outlined in Part 1 of the Bill. The removal of Clause 2(6) is consequential.
  We had an extensive discussion about this issue in Committee and since then some or most of us may have seen the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, detailing the way in which RPG will be transmogrified into RSS. However, we believe that if the regional planning body is to become responsible for ensuring the regional spatial strategy is issued, implemented, monitored and eventually revised, it must have considerable input in the preparation of the initial RSS. The Bill before us should reflect that principle.
  The issue is more than symbolic. At the heart of it, and as the Bill stands, we have the Government saying that in order to prevent a vacuum in regional planning arising in the transitional period, the Secretary of State will convert so much of the regional planning guidance into the regional spatial strategy. We do not wish to underestimate the importance of that argument. It is important for local plans and communities to have a strategic context within which they operate. However, we do not believe that the Government have sufficiently justified the distinction that is drawn in the Bill between the Secretary of State deciding what will be in the initial regional spatial strategy and the rigorous procedures to be followed by the regional planning body when revising the RSS. We believe that the consultation process for RPG is inadequate.
  I should like to move on to the related amendments. The Bill contains a procedure for the preparation of revisions to the regional spatial strategy. Clauses 6 to 12 assume that there is a regional spatial strategy and that the responsibility of a regional planning body is to prepare a draft revision. However, a procedure for adopting a regional spatial strategy is also necessary for two reasons—one is practical, the other is one of principle. The practical reason is that the Bill does not put in place a regional spatial strategy by some other means. Under Clause 2(1) there is to be a regional spatial strategy. However, there is merely a power to make regional planning guidance the regional spatial strategy for a region in Clause 2(5). Even if that power remains, it will not necessarily be exercised. Furthermore, the existing regional planning guidance may be inappropriate as a regional spatial strategy. A regional spatial strategy is, after all, different. The Government intend it to be part of the development plan. They intend more weight to be attached to it and they intend local development plan documents to be in general conformity with it. The draft planning policy statement 11 on regional planning says that these documents are intended to be more specific. Therefore, there needs to be a procedure to create a regional spatial strategy from scratch.
  The point of principle is that regions should be involved in preparing the regional spatial strategy. There is a clear procedure for revisions: regional planning bodies prepare draft revisions, a sustainability appraisal takes place, an examination in public can and usually would be held, the Secretary of State has to consider the report of the panel and can make changes to the draft revision, giving reasons if he does so.
  If the procedures are necessary for revisions, they will be even more necessary for the preparation of a regional spatial strategy. The absence of proper open, democratic and fair procedures for the preparation of regional spatial strategies cannot be justified by administrative convenience.
  Amendment No. 19 assumes that Clause 2(5)—allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe that part of existing regional planning guidance is the regional spatial strategy—remains, but caters for the possibility that it is not exercised. Amendment No. 20 would apply if Clause 2(5) were removed from the Bill. Without these amendments there is a lacuna right at the beginning of the Bill, which represents a serious democratic and procedural deficit.
  I now turn to Amendment No. 42. This amendment seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to apply part of regional planning guidance as a revision of the RSS. Surely if regional spatial strategies come into force, regional planning guidance will no longer apply. If that is the case, why does the Bill make provision for such a retrograde power?
  Although, as my previous amendments have shown, we oppose the process, we can follow the logic as regards the provisions in Clause 2 with regard to the adoption of parts of regional planning guidance as the regional spatial strategy for a region.
  Clause 10(8) allows for the Secretary of State to provide for a completed process of regional planning guidance that corresponds to one that needs to be done for a regional spatial strategy to have effect as a revision of the RSS. It does not make sense that the two processes arc occurring in parallel. Either we have regional planning guidance or we have regional spatial strategies. With this subsection and those that I have just dealt with in Clause 2, we have the situation where the Secretary of State decides what is in the first RSS and also what can be a revision to it. That is a top down. nationalised planning system, as we have said before.
  What is the status of the regional planning guidance once the regional spatial strategy is in place? Unless the Government are planning on updating regional planning guidance even after we have regional spatial strategies I should have thought that this would be an unwise and backward looking step.
  I am also concerned that this provision allows the Secretary of State to bypass the procedures in place that hold regional planning bodies accountable, including examinations in public. That is particularly worrying. We have said a lot already about the democratic deficit, so I shall not detain the House on this point. However, I wanted to register my concern.
  Nevertheless, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, reassured noble Lords that subsections (7) and (8) are meant to apply only during the early transition period when RSSs come into force. Could this not be made clear on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, helpfully suggested? I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 21, which is included in the group of amendments that we are discussing, stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Maddock. As we know, regional planning guidance morphs, or, as the noble Lord said, transmogrifies into the regional spatial strategy. However, I am not sure that that is quite accurate as what changes to start with is the title and not the substance.
  I go off at a slight tangent to say that the noble Lord referred to a letter from the Minister. I have copies of two or three letters but I do not think that I have one of that particular letter. I may be missing something in terms of explanation from the Government but I shall check with the Minister's office tomorrow that I have everything that has been sent out.
  Under the Bill the duty of the regional planning body is to revise what started life as the Secretary of State's regional planning guidance. Therefore, it seems to me that it will always be at heart the Secretary of State's guidance or strategy. The amendment suggests a way of giving ownership—to use the term again—of the first major piece of work, the regional spatial strategy, to the regional planning body. I have provided that rather than requiring it to undertake a revision, it should replace what it inherits and put in place a regional spatial strategy which, as I say, would be its own. The drafting is a little inelegant. I have words in parenthesis by way of definition simply to avoid a great many amendments that would otherwise be required to other parts of the Bill if I were to be totally consistent. The Minister will gather from that that I do not intend to press the measure today. However, it is a point at least worth putting on the record.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to see Amendment No. 6, but it goes to the heart of our purpose. The consequences of this group of amendments would be extremely wasteful. Those people outside the House, working in the field. would be extremely annoyed if the amendments were passed. They are designed to ensure that the first regional spatial strategies are prepared by the regional planning board rather than converted from the regional planning guidance; and to rule out any work on revisions to regional planning guidance being carried forward under the new system. We do not see a case for that change either in principle or practice.
  It is worth repeating that every regional planning guidance that is to become a regional spatial strategy has been prepared in draft by the regional planning body. There has been extensive consultation and examination in public on each. When the Secretary of State has proposed to make changes to the regional

  161
  planning body's draft he has consulted on those changes. That regional planning guidance is eminently qualified to become the first regional spatial strategy. We have made clear that regional planning guidance that has not been through an examination in public will not become a regional spatial strategy—that is RPGs 3 for London, 3a for strategic views in London, 3b and 9b for the River Thames and 9a for the Thames Gateway.
  Scrapping those documents that have already been prepared would not benefit our regions or communities. Perhaps that is part of a plot. It would take at least two years to prepare a regional spatial strategy from scratch. During that interval there would be no regional policies. There would be no framework in which planning could take place, with massive uncertainty and the risk of conflict between one area and the next.
  I fully accept that the first regional spatial strategies will be of differing ages and we expect them all to be revised over the next few years. A duty to prepare revisions, rather than starting with a blank sheet, will not mean that regional planning bodies have less freedom to come up with policies for their regions. I hope I made that clear in my comments on previous amendments. A revision could be radical, taking in every aspect of the strategy, or it could be more limited—for example to reflect a change in national policy on a specific issue.
  As I said in Committee, in every region outside London work is continuing to revise all or part of the RPG. In some regions such as the south-west that work is at an early stage. In others, the revision is nearly complete. For example in the west Midlands, the Secretary of State's proposed changes to the draft revision of the RPG have been published. The final document is due to be published in the summer.
  Amendment No. 42 would mean that all the time and resources put in by the regional planning bodies, those who had participated in consultation and the examination in public would all have been wasted. That is what would happen if the amendments were accepted. I thought that in Committee—and we are talking about a transitional process—this was accepted as a way forward. It probably took a while for the penny to drop, as I was questioned by colleagues in the House, but I though that that was our plan; namely, to move from one system to another by converting the existing guidance into the regional spatial strategies.
  There has been concern that people might not recognise that the mechanism can be used only for the transition—this is the beginning and is a one-off. The point is that the Bill is structured so that, from commencement, the regional planning body and the Secretary of State will have duties relating to the regional spatial strategy. In effect, the Bill abolishes regional planning guidance—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and I hope that it answers one of his questions.
  It follows that it is the steps in relation to the preparation of regional planning guidance that have been taken before the commencement that could be
  162
  treated as steps in connection with preparing regional spatial strategy. We fully expect the Secretary of State to use the power to prescribe that most regional planning guidance will become regional spatial strategy. The Bill effects that from commencement of the part which establishes regional spatial strategies. Once the regional planning guidance no longer exists there will be no further opportunity for work to be done on it and, therefore, no opportunity for it to count as a step in the preparation and publication of the revision of the regional spatial strategy.
  I sincerely hope that that was a practical and reasonable explanation of the consequences of the amendments and why we would be mortified if they were put into the Bill. Imagine the waste of effort—I would not like to be the Minister or the Shadow Minister who had to go around the country explaining why people had just wasted a couple of years of their time. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would follow the footsteps of his new party leader who was in the west Midlands the other day—a key area for the next general election. He just wants to tear up everything that they have proposed, just at the end of the process into which they have put all their work and effort. All the people who contributed in public evidence are virtually being told, "Well, nothing you did or said has counted". That would leave the region without any regional strategy for two years, because the process would have to start all over again. That cannot be a practical proposition and I do not believe that noble Lords will push the matter; indeed, the noble Baroness said that she would not do so in any event.
  I shall repeat my earlier comments that, while the grouping is not for the Government, Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and Amendment No. 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are not consequential on Amendment No. 6. I hope that all the amendments will be withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I had not understood that the amendments needed to be consequential to be grouped. As he said, mine was not consequential. Could the Minister clarify his comments? At the beginning of his reply he talked about the work on the regional planning guidance having been done in conjunction with the regional planning bodies. As they do not yet exist, will he confirm that he means the regional chambers, which are now in most cases called regional assemblies? We need to know precisely what he is referring to.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, no—I hope I am right. As far as I know, the chambers are the regional planning bodies. The conversion was such that the chambers now carry out the function of regional planning bodies. They will have had a role in the work that has been taking place to date. I accept that those who have existed for a long time—a couple of years—may have pre-dated part of

  163
  that, but the bodies have been involved ever since. As I understand it, the regional chambers or assemblies became the regional planning bodies in April last year.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. We do not wish to create a vacuum. We are concerned about the regional planning guidance being merely transferred into the regional spatial strategy. While there have been examinations in public and much work has been done in some areas—and I accept the point about the west Midlands being further ahead than other areas—we are still concerned that there is not the same rigid scrutiny in developing the first RSS, which will then be revised. That is our point. The Government are changing the regional planning guidance into the regional spatial strategy, which only then can be revised. We would have liked more input, scrutiny and work done on the original RSS.
  Noone wishes to create vacuums. However, this is an area that will need continued examination before the passage of the Bill is completed, to make certain that in the first RSSs there is sufficient scrutiny and involvement in their creation. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment today.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [RPB: general functions]:
  6 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 2, line 19, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would remove the duty on regional planning bodies to prepare an annual report for the Secretary of State on the implementation of the regional spatial strategy. In an earlier reply, the Minister talked about bureaucracy, paper and many other things, and that is the point of this amendment.
  We do not believe that the amendment would somehow sabotage the important process of reviewing and monitoring the implementation of the regional spatial strategy. We accept that a regional planning body should be monitoring and that it should, if necessary, be in a position to report on how a regional spatial strategy is being implemented. Subsections (2) and (3) of this clause more than satisfactorily make provision for that.
  As the Bill stands, Part 1 applies only where elected regional assemblies are established. I recall that, in the context of another debate, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that in such a scenario the RSS would not set out the Secretary of State's policies but the policies of the region. That has been repeated today. Presumably the same logic applies to any reporting structure. Therefore, RPBs should, in effect, report to their constituents rather than to the Secretary of State.
  Leaving that matter aside, our main objection to subsections (4) and (5) is that they would entail an unnecessary and expensive burden on a regional planning body. The annual report will be one more
  164
  bureaucratic box-ticking exercise and one more distraction from overseeing the implementation of the RSS.
  Reporting requirements may seem to be a fairly standard item in new legislation but very often the importance attached to them distorts priorities and undermines their achievement. Limited resources and manpower must be diverted to keep up with the insatiable demands of government.
  As I have already mentioned, subsections (2) and (3) more than sufficiently cater for the statutory duties of a regional planning body. Furthermore, the regional planning body should have the autonomy to decide when and how it reports to central government. The Secretary of State has so many reserve powers that I am sure that would not inconvenience him too much. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I think I have a good answer to this one. The requirements in the Bill and the regulations do not pose a new burden and therefore everything that we have just heard does not apply. Every regional planning body has submitted an annual monitoring report or statement for 2002–03, either in draft or final form, covering almost the same ground as they would be required to cover in future under the Bill and the draft regulations.
  Therefore, the requirements in the Bill and the regulations are not a new burden. We are enshrining good practice—for example, by specifying that the regional planning body must report on problems and possible solutions as well as providing data. The better annual monitoring reports—I do not want to single out any boards—already do that. In addition, we want a common timetable so that timescales can be properly compared. The regions themselves, as well as other people with an interest in this matter, would want that. I repeat: this is not a new burden; we are trying to enshrine good practice in the Bill.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says, although I should have liked him to deal with the point that I raised concerning the duty being one of informing the constituents of a region rather than the Secretary of State about what the regional planning body was doing. As the Minister said, there is no new burden, but I should still have liked the line of communication to be downwards to the people of a region rather than always being upwards to the Secretary of State. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 26, leave out "must" and insert "may"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to moderate the Bill's language. As it stands, this subsection places a duty on regional planning bodies to give advice to other bodies if they believe that will aid the fulfilment of the regional spatial strategy.
  In Committee, we touched upon this matter briefly and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that he was happy at all times to look at the language of our legislation. Therefore, we return to this subsection now because the language matters. By definition, the word "must" is prescriptive and we should like the Government to be less prescriptive regarding what the regional planning body does. On the other hand, the word "may" gives the regional planning body choices.
  The word "must" seems to put the onus on the regional planning body to second-guess who would want or need advice. That would lead to the planning body constantly having to identify any new organisations to which to give advice. That would add considerably to their workload as there would also have to be some kind of protocol or process to determine what type of advice should be given to what kind of organisation. Should the advice be unsolicited? Do they have any powers of enforcement if the advice is not taken up?
  Therefore, we suggest that it would be more desirable to permit regional planning bodies to tender advice. That would enable a far better working relationship between all the parties involved. The word "may" fits much better with the rest of the wording and with the substantive context. As a symbol of trying to inject some discretion and autonomy into the Bill, I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 18, which is grouped with Amendment No. 8. The purpose of Amendment No. 18 is to ensure that all district councils are consulted and informed about the activities of the regional planning body. The provision of housing will be a very important element of the regional spatial strategy. The district authorities are the housing authorities, and the directly elected district councillors will draw up local housing strategies.
  Given the importance which I believe we all attach to the provision of more affordable housing—I know that the Government are putting much energy into that—it seems to me absolutely vital that we do not lose this link in the new planning arrangements. I hope that, even if the Minister does not consider this to be the appropriate way in which to put the provision into the Bill, he will accept that it is very important, particularly in relation to housing. This is the one thing which I believe slips through the net in the Government's arrangements here, and I hope that the Minister will understand the point that I am trying to make in my amendment.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Bill and the associated regulations and guidance try to strike a balance between requiring the regional planning body to involve and consult others where that would add value while avoiding the construction of an empty consultation apparatus that benefits no one. Our view is that the two amendments fall either side of that line.
  I believe that I can dispose of Amendment No. 8 by saying that we consider the concern about the word currently in the Bill to be unfounded. The regional
  166
  planning bodies have not said that it will create any difficulties for them. I should have thought that, that being the case, together with the fact that they are operating out there now, it would be better to leave the matter alone.
  Amendment No. 18 would require the regional planning body to keep informed and consult all district councils in two-tier areas in its region. We do not consider that to be sensible. It runs the risk of creating additional bureaucracy, which achieves very little beyond what the existing arrangements provide for. Indeed, it is a more onerous requirement than that placed on county councils at present.
  Through their membership of the regional planning body, many district council representatives will be taking part in the key decisions that are made as the draft regional spatial strategy emerges. The draft regulations in Part 1 of the Bill already make district councils statutory consultees both before and after the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy is published. Therefore, the regional planning bodies will be able to enter into arrangements with district councils under Clause 5(4) of the Bill to undertake work on their behalf.
  The district councils will, through their service delivery responsibilities, be key players in implementing the policies in the regional spatial strategy, particularly, as the noble Baroness said, in relation to housing. The regional planning body will be very wise and will need to maintain a dialogue with district councils if that is to be achieved. That is why we believe that both amendments fall either side of the line that I drew at the beginning and, therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not proceed with them.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thought that the Minister might be able to give a little on this amendment but obviously he cannot do so. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [Assistance from certain local authorities]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
  "( ) The RPB must publish its response to advice given in accordance with subsection (2) and in the case of any advice which it does not accept in full must not proceed before a period of four months from publication has elapsed during which period the RPB and the authority shall discuss the matter."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment builds on the amendment moved by the Government in Committee, which provides a role for county and unitary authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said earlier today that, although those amendments were welcome, they only go so far. They provide for the regional planning body to seek the advice of county and unitary authorities in its region. The term "seek advice" differs from "consult". "Consult" has an element of listening to advice, even if it will be disregarded and discarded. One of the characteristics it should have is feedback to the points that have been made during the

  167
  consultation. So thinking about how the seeking of advice would work, I want to be absolutely certain that the regional planning body would do something with the advice. My amendment proposes that the RPB publishes its response to that advice and, where it does not accept the advice, it does not go ahead until there has been a period—four months may or may not be the right period—so that the regional planning body and the authority in question can discuss the matter on which the regional planning body does not take the advice of the county or the unitary authority. I hope that that is clear. It is intended to add a very important step to the process, to add flesh to the amendment that the Government proposed and your Lordships accepted in Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we support this amendment. We discussed the relevant government amendments in Committee. I shall repeat that they were welcome, but they did not go as far as the LGA would have liked initially. It should, of course, have commented before but the LGA and the County Councils Network forgot the processes that the House of Lords goes through before a Bill is completed. They did not realise that there is a second democratic process and that it would all be debated further. They are aware of that now.
  The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, adds some transparency to the amendment that the Government tabled in Committee. I hope that, in a spirit of taking matters forward, the Government will be able to accept this. It makes some sense with their initial amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the thinking and the spirit behind this amendment. However, I have come to the conclusion that it is overly prescriptive. I feel that if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness were looking at this just from a local government point of view, they would probably think that this is not user-friendly but an onerous, unwieldy and bureaucratic burden.
  The amendment creates a requirement on the regional planning body to publish its response to all the advice it receives from those bodies with a statutory advice-giving function under Clause 5. If it does not accept any of that advice in full then it must not proceed until after four months have elapsed. During this period the regional planning body and the authority must discuss the matter.
  An amendment of this kind has serious practical consequences. In our view, it would drain time and resources and would not add to an effective planning system at regional level. The regional planning body will receive and consider vast volumes of advice from county councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities, national park authorities and so on as it prepares draft revisions of the regional spatial strategy, keeps it under review and monitors its implementation.
  Not all those pieces of advice will be consistent with each another. What one county council thinks should happen in respect, say, of a hierarchy of town centres for
  168
  retail development may be at odds with what the neighbouring county council thinks should happen. Two districts with retail centres that are in need of freshening up might enter into a friendly dispute through the regional planning process. I can think of several cases in my experience where exactly that might happen. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, with his vast experience at county council level in Essex would think it very strange if he agreed with his colleagues in Suffolk or Norfolk. The viewpoints may be valid, but they are going to provide conflicting advice. The role of the regional planning body is to weigh up the differing advice it receives and to make a balanced judgment based on all of it.
  It cannot be sensible for the regional planning body to publish a response to every single piece of advice that it receives. It would be hugely resource-intensive. Advice will often be better considered in the round rather than on a case-by-case basis. If the regional planning body has to hold up the revision of the regional spatial strategy for four months each time that it does not accept in full a piece of advice that it receives, it could take for ever to get agreement or to get to the stage of an examination in public. I do not think that that is in keeping with the aspiration, which I think that we have all shared during the course of the Bill, of ensuring that plans are up to date.
  The regional planning body is in the lead in preparing the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. It must make judgments between competing viewpoints and not try to accommodate every piece of advice that it receives. The regional planning body will be answerable for the content of the draft regional spatial strategy at the examination in public.
  When the regional planning body submits the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to the Secretary of State, it must also submit a statement setting out who it has consulted, how it has consulted them, the main issues raised and how these have been addressed in the draft revision. The decisions that the regional planning body has made, based on the advice that it has received, will be open to scrutiny.
  The regional planning body cannot simply ignore the advice that it receives. Both the regional planning body receiving the advice and the authorities providing that advice are under an overriding duty to act reasonably. If the regional planning body fails to take proper account of the advice given to it by county councils and other councils—district, parish or town—or national parks and so on, it could ultimately be subject to a legal challenge for failing to act reasonably in the circumstances.
  We argue that the accountability and transparency is there. We do not think that this is a helpful additional extra burden. We think that it will slow the process down. The purpose of this legislation, in part, is to ensure that we have a planning system that is transparent, fair, effective and efficient in its operation. We do not think that this amendment guides us in that general direction. I hope that, having heard that and in view of the

  169
  reasonable way in which we expect the planning body to work, the noble Baroness will happily withdraw her amendment this afternoon.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this is one of those occasions when the Minister has really convinced me of the rightness of my argument.
  I am not sure that I have managed to get everything down. He said that the amendment is overly prescriptive and a burden; I could have been much more prescriptive. He said that it would be a drain on time and resources; I shall discuss resources later. He said that it would be a drain on time; is four months so much time in the context of work that is setting the strategy for a region, on which the local development documents will be based and which will affect major planning decisions for the region? It seems to me that four months is not a great deal of time and is certainly not in the disaster area, which seemed to be suggested.
  The regional planning body will receive a lot of advice from the authorities, which will be inconsistent. Surely that supports and, indeed, makes much stronger the case for responding publicly. There is much less need to explain in a transparent fashion why you are not following advice if the advice is consistent, unless you are ignoring all of it. The role of the regional planning bodies is to weigh up and make a balanced judgment, but they should do so in a public fashion. The Minister said that they cannot ignore the advice.
  I appreciate that this is Report stage, so perhaps this needs to be pursued afterwards, but as he spoke it occurred to me to ask how the public and the county and unitary authorities will know how the advice has been considered and weighed against other advice. Will that be by public document, which will go to the regional planning body and is subject to the current local government access to information arrangements? I realise that that is something which perhaps I should know. Given the new freedom of information provisions which will shortly come into force, it may be that the situation will change in any event. All of this needs to be public. It is a matter of public interest.
  The regional planning body will be answerable at the examination in public. It seems to me that what I suggest would help rather than hinder the EIP. I thought that the Minister was going to say that the regional planning body would be answerable to the Secretary of State.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness may be missing the point I made. The regional planning body has to submit its statement to the Secretary of State. It will be clear from that with whom it has consulted and how it has consulted, and the documents will be open to scrutiny. I do not see that that will be a closed process. I am not sure what it is that the noble Baroness seeks that is not already there.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it may be open to scrutiny and examination when it is too late to do
  170
  anything about it, although that did not seem to be the thrust of what the Minister said when he referred to the examination in public.
  Finally, the Minister is concerned that if there were tiny differences, every piece of advice would need to be set out in full. It is quite normal and usually adequate, provided that the job is done fairly thoroughly and conscientiously, for reports in response to consultations to state, "On such and such an issue there have been concerns about the following, which fall into the following categories" and to set out the competing arguments. I do not think that what I suggest goes quite as far as the Minister's response seemed to assume.
  This is an important point and clearly there is a difference between us. For that reason, and because of the access to information point which occurred to me as we were debating this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but it is something to which we may want to return.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11A:
  Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
  "( ) The authority may give the RPB advice as to the exercise of the function on matters not covered under section 5(2) but which relate to the area that is covered by the authority."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that this amendment was tabled late. It was composed early but got lost in the system.
  The amendment takes us back to a point which I raised in Committee, which is to be certain that in giving advice under the Government's new provisions in Clause 5 the authority has the power to do so. The Minister stated:
  "On the vires, my advice from a legal assessment is that it would be perfectly all right and there should not be any problems".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. 1155.]
  I have only just noticed that attached to the notes I had on the last occasion are some unfamiliar pages with a sticker attached stating, "Brief, Lord Rooker". I do not think they cover this point. I doubt that there is anything there that did not appear in Hansard.
  I am pushing the point in the hope that we can get a rather fuller response than, "It's okay, don't bother". The counties and unitaries are required to give the regional planning body advice as to the exercise of the regional planning body's function to the extent that the exercise of its function is capable of affecting the exercise by the authority, county or unitary, of any function that it has; in other words, the exercise of the authority's function.
  I asked in Committee what were the functions in question and whether, indeed, they could be spelt out in a fuller way so that there is no doubt that the counties and unitaries have the power to give advice, which is distinct from the duty under the Bill. I apologise for being rather technical on this point but I said before that we are concerned that there should not

  171
  be elephant traps here. It would be very helpful to have something fuller than the single sentence that we heard last lime round. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall try to give a fuller explanation and perhaps that will comfort her more.
  The amendment would provide a power for county councils to give advice on matters not caught by Clause 5(2) but which relate to the county council's area. The noble Baroness said in Committee that she was concerned about the reference to the functions of county councils in Clause 5(2) or the functions of other authorities in Clause 5(3), and that the worry was that some might see this provision as restricting the advice the authorities could give.
  I shall try again to reassure her. The trigger for the county council or any other authority to have to give advice is that one of its functions is directly or indirectly affected. I think that that is a fairly wide definition. Off the top of my head I cannot think of an example where the authority would have no duty to give advice on a matter that affected its area.
  It is important that we refer to the functions of the authority not its area because the latter would be too restrictive. The exercise of an authority's functions may be affected by proposals in an emerging regional spatial strategy relating to areas beyond the authority boundary. For example, the provision of new housing on one side of the boundary would in all likelihood have implications for schools and transport on the other. We do not want the asking for and the giving of advice to be restricted by narrow geographical provisions in those sorts of circumstances. So, if that example gives a flavour of how we see this issue, I hope that it is helpful.
  Clause 5(2) is a broad provision. Having explained how we see it working, I hope that the noble Baroness will see that there is no need for Amendment No. 11A. We are trying to be helpful; we see the point she makes; and we think that our definition is broad enough to capture the issues and concerns to which she alluded.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall read what he said. In case there is any dispute in the future, it is obviously important to have the matter on the record. I have to say that a provision with even more chapter and verse than this would have been welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bridges Lord Bridges moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
  "(e) an area of outstanding natural beauty conservation board created under section 86 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37) (establishment of conservation boards)"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 12 standing in my name. I feel that I owe the House an apology for the rather tortuous course I have pursued on this matter and should give an explanation on what I have been trying to do.
  As I may have to make some rather severe remarks towards the end of my intervention, I should perhaps explain where I come from in the form of a declaration of interests. I live in the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. On retiring from public service in 1987, I had the good fortune to be made a member of the regional committee of the National Trust for East Anglia, where I spent nine fascinating years. I am now a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. My main activity, and that of my wife, is to be the Suffolk branch of the CPRE, of which she is a vice-president and the planning member for the county. I operate in a very auxiliary role in that connection.
  When I tabled an amendment in Committee, I was principally concerned with the difficulty of getting the conservation boards in the AONBs to act in a coherent way. When these boards were first set up under the CROW Act, it was difficult for the county councils to find the time and money for the meetings and the places to hold them. If that was difficult for us, it was much more difficult for other AONBs where the number of local authorities represented on their conservation boards was numerous. I recently counted these. I found that in three areas of outstanding natural beauty there were no fewer than 12 local authorities. As a matter of interest, they were the Kentish towns, the High Weald and the Cotswolds. That was the purpose of my amendment. I have since discovered that things are working much better.
  However, my amendment was not well expressed; my speech was clearly not well understood; and I noticed when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rose to reply, that the text from which he was reading assumed I was aiming at something much wider; namely, for the magnification of the local planning authority's role in this new planning system. That was not my intention.
  So I drafted a different amendment, which I thought I had tabled by fax to the Public Bill Office on Saturday. It restated the principles on which the legal status of protected landscapes operate: that is, in a national park, the national park authority is responsible and in the AONBs it is the conservation board's duty to advise the new regional authorities being set up how that should operate.
  By some strange method in the transmission a gremlin got into my fax. The result is the amendment on the Marshalled List, which is not particularly relevant to my purpose. My aim is that the protected status of these areas of special landscape interest should be preserved. There have been some rather disquieting developments, to which I shall refer.
  I begin with a general word of caution. The Bill will make far-reaching changes to the planning system, extending into the distant future. The novelty is the new regional planning authority and the huge responsibilities that it will have. Sometimes, the authority may be inclined to give priority to other

  173
  aspects of policy, such as employment or the growth of tourism, and the protection of landscape may seem of lesser importance.
  We have recently had an experience in west Wales which has heightened my concerns. It was intended to build a large tourism centre extending from rural Pembrokeshire into the Pembrokeshire National Park. The matter came before the National Park Authority for it to reach a decision. It decided that it could not approve this permission. It had hoped its decision was final, but this turns out to be a matter of devolved responsibility in Wales. So it was taken to Cardiff and Cardiff voted it through. I am concerned that this problem might be replicated elsewhere.
  My concerns are heightened on reading an official press release from Defra issued in the name of Mr Alun Michael, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The headline is, "'Conservation Is Not Enough'—Minister Sets Out Living Community's Challenge For National Parks". It gives a full text of what the Minister said, including that,
  "conservation of itself is not enough; we want a living countryside",
  and so on.
  It occurred to me that it would be right to look up the text of the existing legislation both for the national parks and for the AONBs. I shall confine myself to the national park test, which is to be found in the Environment Act 1995. Section 62(1) states:
  "In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in … this Act and, if it appears"—
  this is important—
  "that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park".
  The next paragraph reads:
  "For the purposes of this section … 'authority' means—

  (a) any Minister of the Crown,

  (b) any public body,

  (c) any statutory undertaker, or

  (d) any person holding public office".

  So, it would seem that the Minister, Mr Michael, has transgressed as regards the terms of the Act in our statute book.
  I suggest to your Lordships that there is a fundamental problem; namely, how should these specially protected landscapes function in this new scheme? If the Government wish to change the protection that they now enjoy, the sensible thing would be for them to introduce an amendment to the Act which I have just quoted rather than to issue policy planning guidance that appears to transgress it at the edges.
  I regret having to make that criticism of the Government because both noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Bassam, have been extremely kind and helpful to me. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, wrote a very nice letter on the remarks I made at the last stage.
  174
  However, I feel that the issue is of some seriousness and that we should address it head-on. I do not intend to call a Division today as I think that further reflection is required and other noble Lords might be interested in taking part in the debate. But this is a significant matter which we should not overlook.
  Of course, as a former civil servant, it would be possible for me to go so far as to advise the noble Lord how he might reply to this intervention. I think that the first thing a civil servant would say is, "Well, you have raised an entirely hypothetical question. Get lost. It's not real". The example I have quoted suggests to me that this is not a hypothetical question. We have an example and we should make up our minds about the matter. We need to consider the issue further and I shall be very interested to hear what other noble Lords and the Minister have to say. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will see whether I can get further and better particulars to answer for Defra because I am not fully up to speed on that, although I take the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has spoken to his amendment. I shall start by giving him the modern-day Civil Service version in reply to his amendment, which I suspect is probably no different to his day.
  The amendment would add area of outstanding natural beauty conservation boards to the list of authorities in Clause 5(3) of the Bill with a statutory advice-giving role on the review, monitoring and preparation.
  The authorities in Clause 5(3) are singled out to advise the regional planning body because they have expertise of strategic planning and, in the case of county councils and unitary authorities, they are responsible for delivering major services. The area of outstanding natural beauty conservation boards would have neither that experience nor the responsibilities, so it would not make sense to add them to the list.
  I emphasise again—I hope I did in Committee—that the Government attach great importance to ensuring that areas of outstanding natural beauty are protected through the planning system. We also expect area of outstanding natural beauty management bodies to play an important role in the new planning arrangements; for example, as partners in developing a sub-regional strategy for their areas, where that is appropriate. I take on board what the noble Lord has said because in Committee he expressed concern about insufficient collaborative working. Since then he has obviously taken further advice and he has referred to the detailed letter from my noble friend Lord Bassam covering that issue.
  The area of outstanding natural beauty management bodies are, of course, principally comprised of local authority representatives. One must remember that. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides that where area of outstanding natural beauty conservation boards are established, at least 40 per cent of the members must be drawn from local authorities and at least 20 per cent from parish councils. In the Cotswolds and the Chilterns, where conservation boards are currently being established, it is proposed that local

  175
  authority representation, as I believe the noble Lord implied, will he substantially higher than 40 per cent. Local authorities are and will continue to be at the heart of the management of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
  The fact that local authorities are so strongly represented seems to me to be the best safeguard that they will take the work of areas of outstanding natural beauty seriously. If, as has been suggested, that is not always the case, we cannot really provide in planning legislation for a change of attitude.
  It appears that further and better particulars have not arrived. I shall reply to the noble Lord by letter on the points that he has raised. I shall do that as quickly as possible, in case he wants to take advice on this important issue and return to it at Third Reading.
  Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I look forward to receiving his letter. I shall then consider what further action to take. It occurs to me that I might provide him with a rather more graphical explanation of the problem that I foresee. Let us suppose that the north-eastern regional authority decides that it needs to promote tourism to encourage employment and income in the region. It may consider that it would be excellent to have a large tourist centre adjacent to Hadrian's Wall in the Northumberland National Park. I believe that that kind of activity would he wrong, given the terms of existing legislation which protects the national parks. When the Minister replies to me, he may have that example in the back of his mind—an example of the kind of thing, that with the best intentions in the world, might go wrong.
  Landscape protection is terribly important in our country. When I returned from serving abroad it was always such a delight to visit an area of outstanding natural beauty to see how unchanged it was. They are some of the great treasures of our country and we should not destroy them for rather menial, current activities without very good reason. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 3, line 1, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments ties in with a strengthened role for strategic planning authorities. As I have delayed the House for some time on this matter already today, I shall endeavour to be brief. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. They strengthen the statutory duty of county councils, metropolitan, unitary and national park authorities beyond the government amendments to Clause 5. We have talked about those several times today. They actively assist in the regional planning functions of the RPBs. We want to go further than giving those authorities a statutory advisory role. The authorities will have to carry out the
  176
  functions for their areas on behalf of the regional planning bodies. Only that will be sufficient to ensure an effective planning system.
  Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are very straightforward. The first deals with ensuring that where authorities have undertaken functions of regional planning bodies and have incurred expenditure in doing so, they will be reimbursed. We discussed that in Committee and did not receive a very satisfactory answer. The power must be statutory. It is only best practice to make it legally watertight. The Minister said that the authority could tell a regional planning body to go away and return with a better offer if the cost of work was not adequately reimbursed. I believe that that would be too casual. It sends out an unwelcome message that when it comes to paying local authorities for the work that they do on behalf of regional planning bodies, such payment is optional or voluntary.
  Presumably, in the funding arrangements for regional planning bodies, they will receive funding to carry out their functions. It is clear that, where those functions are performed by another authority on their behalf, the funding should be transferred to the relevant authority. Any other approach would be unsustainable. We would like to see the Bill as clear as possible on the principle of payment.
  Amendment No. 16 deletes subsection (6) of Clause 5 and would remove the prohibition on a regional planning body arranging for an authority to carry out the functions in Clause 6(6) on its behalf. Those functions are publishing a draft provision to the regional spatial strategy, preparing the report of the sustainability appraisal of the proposals in the draft provision, publishing any further documents related to the draft revision required by regulations under Clause 6(5)(b) and submitting those documents to the Secretary of State.
  The aim of the amendment is to permit more flexibility in the system. It may be necessary for a regional planning body to delegate all or parts of those functions to local authorities in order to match up the right expertise to the right work. That would simply be pragmatic. It may become a helpful support mechanism in the transition period if regional planning bodies have that option available to them.
  It would still be the regional planning bodies' choice whether it wanted to delegate any part of those functions to other authorities. The RPB would still have ownership. To leave them with no choice demonstrates once again central government interference that actually stifles devolution. I would have thought that all assistance between authorities and regional planning bodies should be encouraged. If we are to have a regional planning system, perhaps regional planning bodies will need as much help as possible. We on this side of the House feel very strongly about pushing the Government a little further on provisions for strategic planning authorities in the new planning system. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, our amendment to delete "may" and insert "shall" is Amendment No. 15.

  177
  That concerns the reimbursement provision mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. As he has reminded the House, the Minister said that if the regional planning bodies' proposals were inadequate to cover the cost, the local authority could tell them to go away and return with a better offer. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House on what basis a local authority could say that. It probably would not say it in quite those terms; there are more formal ways of putting such matters. What legal basis would a local authority have for saying that? After all, authorities have a duty under earlier parts of this clause and I am sure they would not want to avoid exercising that duty. Here we are simply talking about "fair's fair" and if that is so, the balance of legal weight needs to be similar on both sides.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, the amendments are somewhat familiar, as noble Lords have said. They deal with the basis on which the regional planning bodies make the arrangements with local authorities for those authorities to exercise the regional planning bodies' functions. The Bill provides a clear statutory role for authorities with strategic planning expertise in advising regional planning bodies. These amendments cannot then be needed to give counties and others a statutory role in strategic planning.
  We have been clear that if the sort of partnership arrangements that we want to see are to work well, they must be entered into voluntarily. Unwilling partners will not be well placed to carry out effective regional planning. The regional planning body has an important job to do for its region. This is likely to be best done by arranging for others to carry out some functions on its behalf.
  Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would leave the regional planning body unable to carry out its responsibilities and would most likely be fatal to strategic planning at the regional level. The local authority is not obliged to enter into arrangements with the regional planning body. These are voluntary—they can refuse. One assumes that the financial arrangements must be part and parcel of the agreement.
  We heard that a power not a duty to pay sent out an unwelcome message, but this is to overlook the interests in the real world of both the regional planning bodies and the local authorities. If it is not in the local authority's financial interests to enter into an arrangement unless the regional planning body provides some funds, it will say so, and it will not enter into the arrangement. There will be no payment where this is what the regional planning body and the authority agree to as part of agreeing the arrangements. These are adults; they are professionals. They ought to be able to come to voluntary arrangements that include the necessary reimbursement where required.
  We heard that the regional planning body should be able to arrange for an authority to publish a draft revision and submit it to the Secretary of State to give more flexibility, as Amendment No. 16 would provide. Our position on this is clear, and I will repeat it. Prohibition on a regional planning body for arranging
  178
  for an authority to carry out the functions in Clause 5(6) on its behalf is vital to guarantee true regional ownership of this key regional strategy.
  I have made this point since Second Reading. To get clarity of ownership we must reserve certain key functions for the regional planning body. The regional planning body must take final responsibility for the draft revisions to the regional spatial strategy, the report of the sustainability appraisal and any other documents required by regulations. That is the reason that this amendment is not acceptable. It goes to the heart of what we are trying to do here, and undermines it. I do not say that in a pejorative sense, but that would be its effect.
  On Amendment No. 17, I will repeat what I said in Committee. The words, "must be taken to be", rather than, "shall be"—that is the arrangements under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972—are used because a regional planning body is not a local authority. They were used for that reason alone. The wording in Amendment No. 17 would be right only for arrangements between local authorities, and because the regional planning body is not in law a local authority, that would not be the case.
  We find Amendment No. 26 difficult to understand, but we assume that the intention is to refer to subsection 5(3) not subsection 4(2). I made this point on an earlier amendment, where there was clearly a carry-over from Committee stage in the drafting of colleagues' notes. If this is the case, the amendment would place a duty on county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils and national park authorities to assist the regional planning body in preparing a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. We are a bit surprised to see the amendment re-appear.
  In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that the purpose of the amendment was to provide county councils and unitary authorities with a statutory role in the preparation and revision of regional spatial strategies. Clause 5 now does that. That was part of the government arrangements and negotiations with the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network, which clearly have not gone far enough, as indicated in our debate earlier this afternoon. I have no doubt that we will hear more about that in due course. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendments.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in his comments on Amendment No. 15, the Minister referred to the reimbursement subsection (5) in terms of the arrangements that are the subject of subsection (4), immediately above it. There is a difference between us because since subsection (5) was drafted we have added subsections (1) and (2) to the clause. When I was talking about the legal basis on which an authority could say, "Get lost until you make me a reasonable offer", I was referring to that part of the clause. The Minister may have been referring only to what was there originally when this part of the Bill was drafted.

  179
  It is worth making that point now, because it may at least be worth considering whether it needs to be tweaked.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will take further advice on that, and if need be I will write to the noble Baroness.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we have been over some of this ground before, but I want to go back to it again. We have now changed the Bill considerably since its original inception, and we hope that it will stay somewhat changed when it becomes ultimate planning policy. No one is disputing the ownership of the RSS. The policies will belong to the regional planning board. We need total clarity about payment as we complete the stages of the Bill.
  Obviously, the regional planning body will need other bodies to help it in its work. The Minister has accepted that. It will need other local authorities in the region—the regions are all very big—unless it is going to have vast empires of staff. There are not enough planners in the country to do that. Therefore, there will need to be collaborative systems of drawing up the regional planning strategies. There will need to be clarity about payment, not just taking the best offer that comes along, which was rather jokingly talked about in the early stages. We will listen, and we will read what the Minister says. Perhaps he would like to clarify the situation before Third Reading. We will read what has been said in Hansard. No doubt we will come back to these issues at the Bill's next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 14 to 20 not moved.]
  Clause 6 [RSS: revision]:
  [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 3, line 17, at end insert "which shall be not more than three years after the commencement of Part 1"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. Grouped with the amendment are Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
  Amendment No. 22 requires the regional planning body to get on with revising the RSS to make it its own, not more than three years after the commencement of Part 1. Amendment No. 23, which we also debated in Committee, proposes a five-year period. I am not sure whether that means every five years, although that seems to be the basis on which the Minister responded to the amendment the last time around. I am not clear that that is what is intended.
  This is another way of seeking to tackle the issue of who owns the regional spatial strategy and to move smartly towards it being the work of the regional planning body. However, I take the point made earlier this afternoon that the regional planning guidance was by no means divorced from the regional planning
  180
  bodies, as they exist at the moment. As I understand it, despite what the Minister said, they are not "Regional Planning Bodies" under the terms of the Bill; they are regional assemblies that have had that job given to them. They are not regional planning bodies as designated by the Bill; the Bill has not been enacted, so they cannot be.
  We identified the three-year period because the Minister said on the previous occasion and repeated today that it would take at least two years for a revision. I am not seeking to knock out the regional planning guidance, but I am saying that we should get on with the successor work within a time frame that the Minister seems to think reasonable.
  The second of our amendments would delete Clause 6(2). I cannot for the life of me understand why the regional planning body has to give notice to the Secretary of State that it intends to prepare a draft revision. That seems to be prescription of the highest order. We have been exhorted so many times to think about what things would be like in reality, and it seems unreal to think that the regional planning body might operate in such privacy that it would tell nobody—certainly not the Secretary of State—that it was dealing with a draft revision. We want to get the situation on an even keel with the other things that we have been talking about. I do not see why the Bill needs to be so prescriptive here, so I thought that I would indulge in a whinge about the Secretary of State's overweening and unnecessary role in some cases, of which this is an example. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 today. There were substantial answers on the previous occasion. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, today, and we can reflect on the issues before the final stage.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall also try to keep it brief. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 fish in essentially the same pool. No doubt, the noble Lord will listen to what I have to say about them. The amendments tackle the same issue.
  We want to move as quickly as possible to put in place regional plans that are genuinely spatial and provide an effective statutory framework for delivery through local plans and ensure that they are kept up to date and timely. The issue is whether it is necessary or helpful to legislate for that. In my view, it is not essential to put that into the Bill. We already have in place a system that means that regional planning guidance now and regional spatial strategies in the future are regularly revised as needed by regional planning bodies. We do not need to prescribe a fixed timetable in legislation.
  In aid of that view, I cite something that my noble friend Lord Rooker referred to earlier, when talking about revision. The west Midlands has the oldest current regional planning guidance. Believe it or not, it dates back only to 1998. As, I think, my noble friend

  181
  Lord Rooker suggested, a revision is in process and will be issued shortly. In every region, full or partial revisions are already under way or are being planned. We simply do not have a problem with out-of-date regional plans being allowed to gather dust that might make such an amendment necessary.
  Requiring a revision of the regional spatial strategy—I assume that the amendment refers to a comprehensive revision—at least every five years is too prescriptive and would be unhelpful. The regional spatial strategy looks at least 15 years ahead and addresses a wide range of issues and policy areas. A comprehensive revision is therefore a major exercise in terms of time, money, expertise and other resources. It is a major commitment. We would expect a comprehensive revision to take nearly two years from the process kicking off to the end of the examination in public. We do not want, by prescribing a fixed five-year revision cycle, to compel the regional planning body to spend what we might say is half its time revising the whole regional spatial strategy. A fixed review cycle would reduce flexibility and potentially create unnecessary work.
  Amendment No. 24 would remove the requirement on the regional planning body to give notice to the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. The noble Baroness was honest enough to say that it was a whinge, and I reckon that I recognise a whinge when I see it. Fair dos to the noble Baroness: I understand where she is coming from. It is not an over-onerous requirement. The regional planning body and the Government Office will, in any case, discuss when revisions need to be prepared and the sort of topics that they should cover. Although the final revision of the regional spatial strategy remains the Secretary of State's document, it is right in principle that he should be notified when the regional planning body intends to prepare a revision. My guess is that that would help in the planning of workloads, and so on, and enable the Government Office and the Secretary of State to understand where the process is at a given time, which is probably useful. I can understand the whinge, but it is not an over-burdensome issue, and we should not detain ourselves with it at this level.
  I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy to leave things as they are. I think that I have covered the points that were raised, and I hope that my responses will find favour.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, what I said on Amendment No. 24 was a whinge, but it was a question as well. I suspect that, were the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in opposition, he might think that this was a good point to ask Members of the House to take a little exercise, just to make the point. I shall not do so. The Minister made the best of a bad job, but those two lines should not be in the Bill. They are nonsense.
  182
  I hope that the Minister will understand that, with Amendment No. 22, I was not proposing that there should be a triennial revision. The confusion about the quinquennial revision arose from one of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, which was not spoken to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I must put the noble Baroness's mind at rest: I understood that. Those proposing both amendments wanted to establish some idea of the regularity of the revision process.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wanted to understand not so much the regularity but the move towards the new activity. I hear what the Minister says, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 not moved.]
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
  "( ) transport strategy or proposed transport strategy for the region;
  ( ) housing strategy or proposed housing strategy for the region;
  ( ) economic strategy or proposed economic strategy for the region;
  ( ) all other regional strategies;"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that, in any revision of the regional spatial strategy, all relevant strategies drawn up by local authorities in the region were taken into account. I do not like the phrase—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, used it this afternoon—but it is about "joined-up government". It is about recognising the importance of the bottom-up approach; many of us have criticised the Bill because we think that it is too top-down.
  There are four areas of strategy listed here—transport, housing, economic and other regional strategies—but many of the three areas of transport, housing and economic strategy are key to sustainability in this process. We have had long debates about sustainability and there will undoubtedly be more debates at this stage. However, if we are serious about sustainability—and we are discussing defining it in the Bill and how difficult it is—it is important to expand in the Bill where we can, to ensure that we are looking at it carefully.
  Shortly before I came down to the Chamber, I opened a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which enclosed the consultation paper on planning policy statement 1. In that letter he emphasises the importance of sustainable development. In the document he also emphasises the need in planning policies to pursue proactively the four aims of sustainable development; namely, economic development, social inclusion, environmental protection and a prudent use of natural resources in an integrated way. The various strategies we have listed here will certainly assist in making sure that that happens. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no difference between us on the need for the regional planning body to have regard to these strategies when preparing a revision of the regional spatial strategy. That is subject to two qualifications. The first is that there is no intention to have separate regional transport strategies. These are an integral part of regional planning guidance at present. Draft planning policy statement 11 makes it clear that, in the future, the regional transport strategy should be an integral part of the regional spatial strategy.
  The second qualification is to the proposed obligation to have regard to all other regional strategies. In fact, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I have just rewritten her own amendment. If the first three paragraphs, together with the word "other- in the final paragraph, were to be deleted and it read, "all regional strategies", it would mean exactly the same thing as listing the three and then saying, "all other regional strategies".
  There is a test of relevance when one includes all the regional strategies. I am not an expert on this, but apparently there are regional strategies concerned with emergency planning, contingent on natural disaster or act of war. They are not really relevant to the area we are dealing with at the moment, so that would not work.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in Committee that draft planning policy statement 11 makes it clear that the regional spatial strategy should be consistent and supportive of the other relevant regional strategies, including in particular the regional economic, housing, and cultural strategies. Draft planning policy statement 11 explains that the reason why the draft regulations refer only to the regional economic strategy, rather than the cultural or housing strategies, is because the economic strategy is the only one of these strategies to have a statutory basis.
  I make it absolutely clear that we agree that regard should be had to these other types of regional strategies where they are relevant. The policy is quite clear on this, as set out in planning policy statement 11. However, we see no need to refer to these strategies in the Bill, and we could not do so anyway because of the non-statutory basis of many of them. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I beg to differ with him on natural disasters. Having had discussions, particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, on what we mean by sustainability, I know that he is of the view, as are others, that sustainable communities are also communities where people are protected from natural disaster and are safe communities. Safety is also about protection from natural disasters such as flooding. I do not therefore totally agree with him on that point.
  184
  He said that the strategies we were talking about, apart from the economic strategy, were not statutory. I thought that the drawing up of strategy by the regional housing board was a statutory function. Maybe I am wrong about that.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot answer this off the top of my head, but the way in which we have put the funds for the housing corporation and the housing investment programmes for local authorities into the regional pot has not involved legislation through this place. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no statutory instrument. It has been set up, but it is not statutory in the normal sense of that word.
  While I am on my feet, I want to say something about natural disasters. By definition, natural disasters occur and one has to try to avoid them. My point was that there is, however, a regional strategy concerned with emergency planning.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. He clearly does not agree with our line. I am concerned that we try, wherever possible in the Bill, to include matters which make very clear what we mean by sustainability. That was part of the purpose of this amendment. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
  "( ) The draft revision shall include the purposes of the RSS as revised."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendment No. 30.
  Amendment No. 29 provides for the draft revision to include the purposes of the regional spatial strategy. We had some debate in Committee on the scope of the RSS. In that context, I picked up the reference in Clause 4(3)(b). That provision states that the regional planning body must consider whether the implementation of the regional spatial strategy is achieving the purposes of the regional spatial strategy.
  I may be told, of course, that it is not necessary to say this because the regional spatial strategy will set out its objectives, but it does not actually say so in Clause 6. It needs to say so, in order that the regional planning body can monitor what it is doing, and so that others can monitor what it is doing and hold it to account.
  Amendment No. 30 proposes that policies should be included in the regional spatial strategy in respect of the format as set out in the amendment. There has been a good deal of resistance to being explicit about these matters, but we are losing the current structure plans and unitary development plans, which have requirements attached to them, imposed through Schedule 4 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The schedule contains explicit requirements for structure, unitary, and indeed local plans, to include policies in respect of the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the

  185
  land, the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic. I am concerned to ensure that this is not lost.
  In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a point about not having room for more on the face of the Bill. He said that everything else would remain as it is in the principal Act; that is, the 1990 Act. That Act was amended by the 1991 Act. I hope I have shown that we would lose something that is in the 1990 Act unless it is specifically retained.
  I have added a paragraph in Amendment No. 30 regarding,
  "the conservation of natural resources"
  because it seemed the logical thing to do. Thinking has moved on since what became the 1990 Act was going through the process of creation. Many would say that conserving natural resources is now something that one would, if your Lordships will forgive the pun, quite naturally include with the other matters in the schedule to the 1991 Act. I beg to move.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to add our support for those amendments.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, the amendments are consistent with the Government's policy on what a regional spatial strategy should contain, although Amendment No. 30 is not broad enough in scope. I have said before that there is an issue about what we should prescribe in the Bill in terms of the content of the regional spatial strategy rather than in policy guidance and, if necessary, in regulations.
  Paragraph 1.5 of the draft planning policy statement 11 makes it clear that the regional spatial strategy should set out a concise spatial strategy for achieving the desired vision for the region, and there should be a clear link between policy objectives, priorities, targets and indicators. This must include being quite clear what the policy purposes of the regional spatial strategy are.
  When we debated an amendment similar to Amendment No. 30 tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I said that we would need a much more comprehensive definition of the content of a regional spatial strategy and we must not have such a selective definition that singles out only some of the principles of sustainable development and unnecessarily restricts the scope of the regional spatial strategy. I referred in Committee to the much more comprehensive definition of what the draft planning policy statement says the regional spatial strategy should cover.
  A similar issue arose in the past in relation to the content of development plans set out in the principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The definition there is similar to what is covered by Amendment No. 30.
  Since the 1990 Act, we have had to make it clear in planning policy guidance notes that other equally important policy topics needed to be covered. An example is the list of topics for inclusion in structure
  186
  plans and Part 1 of the unitary development plans, set out on page 19 of planning policy guidance 12, which relates to development plans.
  We think it would be a mistake to fossilise on the face of the Bill references to what matters the regional spatial strategy should contain, since these may change in the future. We really believe that such matters of content are best left for policy and guidance and, if necessary, regulation so the House can be involved and we can take advantage of experience and respond more flexibly to future needs. The real bone of contention is putting too much detail on the face of the Bill in the principal legislation, because it curtails us later in reacting to events.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister has responded to Amendment No. 29. That may be because of the movement going on around me.
  I appreciate that the list of items which I have taken from the 1991 Act is additional to what is in the 1990 Act. It says that the UDP shall consist of a written statement formulating the authority's general policies in respect of the development and other use of land in their area, including measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic. These items were substituted for the latter part.
  The question that arises is whether the Government think that there has been any problem with what the Minister characterised as the rather restricted list of contents. We are concerned, as he acknowledged, to see the same sort of matters covered. I suppose the question is whether the existing legislation on UDPs and structure plans is thought to be defective.
  As I said, I am not sure whether the first amendment in the group has had an answer, but I will read Hansard and see whether it amounts to an answer. The Minister says he did—I do not disbelieve him, I just did not recognise it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 3, line 35, leave out "the subject matter of" and insert "subjects which shall (without limitation) be included in"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 repeats an amendment tabled in Committee to enable the regional planning body to add to what the Secretary of State prescribed should be included in the regional spatial strategy.
  The Minister replied that the provisions are a safeguard and that the Secretary of State probably would not have to prescribe. The amendment would not affect that either way. He said he would expect the revision to be agreed through negotiations between the regional planning body and the Government Office and that even if the Secretary of State were to prescribe the subject matter, that did not mean he would prescribe the content of the revision.
  Finally, the Minister said that Clause 6(1)(a) provides that the RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS
  "when it appears to it necessary or expedient to do so"

  187
  The Minister said that the regional planning body can have what it wants if it thinks it is expedient. It is the "what" that I am bothered about. The four criteria referred to are the extent of the revision proposed by the draft.
  The debate went on for quite a long time. I am still not convinced that the clause is as wide as I would like. I am sorry to ask the Minister to go back to the debate; he may feel that it would be adequate to refer back, but if he has some new points, I would be glad to hear them. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness was not reassured by what I said in Committee. I will make it really clear and unambiguous, without using much of my brief.
  I assure the noble Baroness that if the regional planning body wants to, it has complete freedom to prepare a draft revision that goes wider than any subjects prescribed in regulations under this clause. There is a reason for that: any regulations in no way detract from the duty in Clause 6(1)(a), which provides that the regional planning body must prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy,
  "when it appears to it necessary or expedient to do so".
  That is wide and catch-all. Therefore, none of the other regulations can detract from that duty. I hope that that spells everything out.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Clause 6 (1)(a) states that the RPB must prepare a draft revision "when" it appears necessary. Is the Minister saying that because the clause does not state what must be dealt with, that the "what" is an open matter? That is what my question boils down to.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, the "when" means when it appears necessary. Do not forget that when the regional planning body thinks it necessary, and it appears that it is necessary or expedient to prepare that revision, the RPB will do so—it must do it when it appears necessary. Because the matter is subject to examination in public, the RPB can make minor revisions or major revisions, as I made clear when we discussed the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. It can tear everything up and start again. However, in the mean time, we have regional policies because of the transition from the old to the new scheme. The RPB can make minor adjustments if it thinks that they are necessary.
  All such matters are subject to public examination, so they cannot be tinkered with in any rational way by the Secretary State—which is what underlines most of the amendments put before the House. Nobody seems to trust my right honourable friend to do the right thing, yet he has made wonderful, brilliant planning decisions since he has had the responsibility to do so.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister trusts his right honourable friend's successors in the fourth or fifth government to follow this one.
  188
  That is the problem. We have made it clear throughout the debate that the Minister's integrity is not impugned and neither is that of his right honourable friend, but future governments remain to be tested. That lies at the heart of so much of what we are saying about the Secretary of State's role and why we are so concerned to spell out the "what". The subject matter is not restricted to what the Secretary of State says in the regulations it must contain—it is merely the starting point and the RPB can add its own assessment.
  The Minister has reassured me. I am reassured about what he and his colleagues in the Government intend. However, none of us is able to give a reassurance about how future governments will carry on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.33 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2004
  7.33 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal rose to move, 'That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
  The noble Baroness said: In moving these draft regulations, I will also speak to the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2004.
  There are two statutory instruments to be considered. The first is the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 which are made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 126 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 126 enables the Secretary of State, by the making of regulations, to require that an immigration application be accompanied by physical data of an external characteristic or to enable an authorised person to require an entrant to provide information of this sort. One set of regulations has already been made under this power—the Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) Regulations 2003. The 2003 regulations required the provision of a record of fingerprints by entry clearance applicants in Colombo.
  The second statutory instrument is the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2004, which is made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3A of the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by Section 1 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Section 3A (3) enables the Secretary of State by order to prescribe the circumstances in which an entry clearance is to have effect as leave to enter the United Kingdom
  The purpose of these statutory instruments is to expand the current fingerprinting power in the 2003 regulations to encompass new categories of

  189
  immigration application. The new provision will require those applying for entry clearance in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Tanzania and Uganda to provide fingerprint data. Holders of 1951 convention travel documents issued outside the UK will also be required to provide fingerprints on making an application for leave to enter the UK. We are amending the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order so that this application has to be made on arrival in the UK. This ensures that any 1951 convention document holders who refuse to provide their fingerprints can be refused leave to enter.
  Fingerprinting in Colombo will continue. The initial six-month pilot has been concluded and the results were reported to the House in the letter from my right honourable friend Beverley Hughes of 5 February to the chair of the Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. The results of the pilot are encouraging and the Government remain convinced that greater use of biometric technology will support efforts to prevent document and identity fraud. It will enable those who have an entitlement to enter the UK to do so without hindrance while preventing those who seek to circumvent our controls from doing so.
  There will be no change to the procedural safeguards already provided as part of the existing fingerprint requirement. Applicants who are under 16 years of age will have their fingerprints taken only in the presence of a responsible adult who is over 18 years of age and not employed by the Government. Those safeguards also apply to the new categories of applicant who will be subject to the fingerprint requirement. Fingerprints collected in Colombo and east Africa will be added to the immigration and asylum fingerprint system database. That will allow for the identification of any visa applicant who subsequently makes either an asylum or immigration application in a different identity. That will, in turn, help establish the nationality of those who no longer have a basis on which to remain in the UK, and so assist with securing their removal.
  In common with other data collected in respect of immigration and asylum applications, fingerprints will be shared with the police and other law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the prevention or investigation of crime. All such exchanges will be carried out in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. That means that data may only be disclosed when it is necessary for one of the specified purposes set out in the data protection legislation, such as the exercise of statutory, departmental or police functions, and that the disclosure must be conducted in accordance with the data protection principles. An additional safeguard is that, under the regulations, any fingerprints stored on the database are required to be destroyed no more than 10 years from the day on which they were provided.
  Any entry clearance application that is not accompanied by the necessary fingerprint data may be treated as invalid. There may be exceptions, including applicants who, because of physical disability or
  190
  injury, cannot provide fingerprints. The system will be operated in a reasonable way to limit the impact on applicants.
  We also propose to fingerprint holders of all 1951 convention travel documents issued outside the UK at the time those people make an application for leave to enter this country. There is some evidence to suggest that, in addition to more conventional document fraud, individuals who have been granted refugee status elsewhere are making asylum applications after arriving in the UK. They do this by travelling to the UK on a convention travel document issued by another country which they destroy on arrival in the UK and subsequently claim asylum. Fingerprinting such people on arrival will allow us to identify the basis on which they entered the UK if they subsequently claim asylum. Again, the safeguards in relation to age and use and storage of fingerprints will apply.
  The Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 is being amended because, at present, an entry clearance will act as leave to enter. Without this amendment any convention travel document holder with an entry clearance would enjoy a right of entry to the UK. To require such a person to provide fingerprints at the entry clearance stage would require the installation of fingerprinting equipment at every entry clearance post world-wide, as we do not want the fingerprint requirement imposed on convention travel document holders to be limited to those applying in certain countries. To do that would involve vastly disproportionate expense. The order needs to be amended to make clear that the holder of a convention travel document must apply for leave to enter on arrival in the UK even when he or she is in possession of a valid entry clearance. If a convention document holder refuses to provide fingerprint data when seeking entry to the UK, that application for leave can be refused and the individual can, if appropriate, be removed.
  We are working with the authorities in relevant east African countries to effect a smooth introduction to the fingerprinting operation. The support and cooperation received is much appreciated by this Government. The UNHCR is also being consulted about these proposals.
  As I have said, we believe that the use of biometric technology in the immigration field is an important development that will provide greater certainty over people's identity than has been possible in the past. We are not alone in that view. We are working with our EU partners on proposals for the inclusion of biometric identifiers in visas and residence permits, and noble Lords will be aware that the US authorities are already making greater use of fingerprint data. Those measures will of course provide benefits for us and our controls, but they also provide reassurance to legitimate travellers. By reducing the scope for identity fraud, we reduce the risk that legitimate travellers will have their identity stolen or, because of similar details, will be mistaken for someone else. It is for those reasons we believe that it is essential that we make appropriate use of biometrics. I commend the regulations and the order to the House.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive explanation of the two orders. The physical data order extends the entry requirement for both visa and non-visa nationals, which they must obtain for clearance before travelling to the UK. Apart from the saving in time by processing such applications before arrival in the distant country, it also saves the complications that could arise in certain circumstances in which entry would otherwise be refused at the port of entry. That is a policy that we certainly support, and it is clearly a matter of some satisfaction that the pilot scheme in Sri Lanka has worked well. We accordingly support the move to extend the policy to the other countries in east Africa.
  We also welcome the tightening of the requirements in respect of the documents relating to documents issued pursuant to the UN convention on refugees by requiring the production of fingerprints to the Immigration Service. We welcome the effect that that will have on applications under another identity or where national security is involved. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the safeguards that are in place to ensure that that is not abused.
  The other, related order tightens up the loophole in the previous order and provides that an entry clearance shall no longer have effect as to leave to entry when that entry clearance is endorsed on a refugee travel document. We are pleased to note that that is not retrospective and applies only to those refugee documents endorsed after 27 February 2004. We on these Benches support the two orders.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are also much obliged to the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the orders. We are in favour in general terms of the better use of physical data in preventing illegal immigration and are aware of the useful work that is already being done on that subject. In Sub-Committee F we had the opportunity to visit Oakington, where we were told that some people who had been refused asylum came round the second time and were being detected by the fingerprint system. To that extent, we are already making good use of biometric data and there is no reason in principle why that should not be extended. However, we need to be assured that the present proposals are both proportionate and compatible with data protection considerations. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks on those matters.
  We do not have the letter referring to proportionality that the Minister said was sent by her colleague in another place to the committee. I asked in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library, and I can tell the Minister that it was not on POLIS. Therefore, I have come into the Chamber without full knowledge of the report made by the Minister in another place, although I have had the opportunity of studying what she said before the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  192
  The Minister in another place explained that the purpose was to extend the use of biometric controls to the countries mentioned today. She also gave some information about the results from the letter; she said that 14,000 fingerprints had been taken in Colombo and that the result was that seven people were positively identified and two of them received prison sentences. In reply to a question from Mr Boswell, she said that if one considered the decline in applications from Colombo and compared it with the equivalents from India and Pakistan, there was a more than proportionate reduction. Therefore, fingerprinting had been effective, not only in catching people who committed offences but in deterring unjustified applications from Colombo. I would very much like to have seen the coloured graphs that the right honourable Lady mentioned in her speech to the Standing Committee; I hope that copies of them can he placed in your Lordships' Library.
  The Minister in another place also made the point that sharing the data had to be consistent in all respects with the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the common law of confidence. I should like to ask the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, what consultation she has had with the Information Commissioner on the matter. It is not only what the Government say about the use that is to be made of the data that matters, but what the statutory body set up for the protection of individuals under the Data Protection Act has to say. Personally, I should like there to be a certificate in the legislation, when major extensions are being contemplated in the use of biometric data, saying that the Government have consulted the Information Commissioner and that he has raised no objections to the proposals.
  The noble Baroness referred indirectly to the European Union draft directive on the use of biometrics on all passengers arriving at ports of entry into the EU. The report from Sub-Committee F on the proposal, which was published on 12 February, found that an adequate case had not been made out for that proposal, which was of course much more far-reaching than what is in front of us now, because of the considerable burden it would place on carriers and the disproportionate cost in comparison with the results hoped to be achieved. It is unfortunate that we have had no opportunity of debating that report, as we are faced with a creeping extension—although it may be perfectly justified—of the use of physical data without the opportunity to consider the order in the context of the more far-reaching proposals that will be coming down the track. However, that may simply be an accident of our timetable, which could not have been avoided.
  Both the UK and the European Union have taken their cue on these matters from the US, where all visitors from non-visa waiver countries must already provide biometric data on arrival. I understand that that is to be extended to everybody who enters the United States, even those who possess standing visas, from October this year. Perhaps we do not have any discretion in this matter, when airlines will be compelled to accept US regulations. There will be very

  193
  practical reasons for Europe to adopt the same rules. However, we should at least know what it is going to cost, what new obligations are being loaded on to carriers and whether the Government and the Information Commissioner are fully satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to ensure that our data protection legislation is being observed.
  I should like to say a word on the imposition of the new requirements on the holders of convention travel documents. I understand what the noble Baroness said about not requiring everyone to obtain fingerprints before they set off, as that would entail an enormous extension of the fingerprinting system to every country from which a CTD holder might arrive. Presumably, however, when CTD holders from the main countries in east Africa—and from Kenya if it is added to the list, as was discussed in the Standing Committee in another place—apply at those posts for an entry certificate, they will automatically be fingerprinted before they set off and will not have to be fingerprinted again on arrival. I also assume that when CTD holders apply for an entry certificate in other countries that are not in east Africa or in Sri Lanka they will be told specifically that they will be asked to give a fingerprint on arrival in the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Baroness can give those assurances. I welcome this order and these regulations.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the warmth of their welcome for the order and regulations, for the utility which they will provide in determining the bona fides of the identity of those seeking to rely on them, and for their generosity and understanding of why they have become necessary. Having said thank you very warmly, I hope, to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for his unreserved support, I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
  The Information Commissioner has not specifically been consulted. However, as the noble Lord will know, the Data Protection Act provides very clear safeguards. We have taken those safeguards very seriously indeed. We are not aware of any issues raised by the commissioner in relation to Sri Lanka but we shall certainly make inquiries about them. As for the issues raised about the CTD holders, the noble Lord's description was correct. The fingerprints should be taken once. We are proposing the amendment so that those who have not had their fingerprints taken can have them taken when they arrive.
  The noble Lord also asked whether east African CTD holders will be required to provide fingerprints on arrival. The answer is: no; they will have their fingerprints captured when they apply for a visa overseas prior to arrival. So people will have their fingerprints taken either prior to arrival or on arrival. I thank the noble Lord for his appreciation of the utility of the scheme we have put together. We think
  194
  that it neatly fits the requirement for a measure which is necessary and proportionate. Of course I note the noble Lord's comments on the regrettability of not having a debate. As always, that is not within our hands; it is a matter for the usual channels.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2004
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Independent Police Complaints Commission (Investigatory Powers) Order 2004
  7.54 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this draft order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It will bring into effect the procedures for authorising and using directed and intrusive surveillance and for the conduct and use of covert human intelligence sources.
  Where there is an allegation of criminal conduct by a person serving with the police, there is a real need for an independent alternative to an investigation by the police. Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 envisages that the IPCC will itself conduct investigations only in the most serious cases. The IPCC investigators will need to operate in the same way as the police and will need the same capabilities and the same powers in order, for example, to interfere with property, to engage in surveillance or to use human intelligence sources. The order will give the IPCC the necessary powers to conduct investigations independently from the police into allegations of serious criminal conduct by any person serving with the police.
  The modifications made by this order are about setting appropriate levels within the IPCC in regard to authorisation to use specific powers for specific purposes; ensuring that the IPCC is subject to equivalent controls as apply to the police; and handling of complaints against the IPCC in exercising its powers under the order.
  The provisions in the Police Act 1997 and RIPA were drafted to ensure sufficient certainty in the mechanisms for safeguarding against the misuse of the powers contained in them. Such safeguards are required to comply with the duty under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Existing mechanisms provided by the Police Act 1997 and RIPA are compatible with the convention

  195
  rights. This order slots the IPCC into the existing mechanism. There has been consultation on the order with the independent Police Complaints Commission, the IPCC, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. I should like to reassure the House that these provisions will be used with the most stringent compliance with the rules and will address the most serious cases. I commend the order to the House.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I again thank the Minister for her helpful explanation. This is a very significant order as it sets in train the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is of the most vital importance that this body is seen to be the monitor of police behaviour in exercising the very considerable powers they now possess particularly under the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It is so important in maintaining the public's confidence in the integrity and good behaviour of the police.
  The order includes some very satisfactory requirements for authorisation by senior officers and officials of the commission. We very much welcome the express provision in the order relating to the requirement of the IPCC to assist the tribunal with documentation and information, thus providing a further monitoring body for the proper exercise of police powers.
  In these days of the ever-present threat of terrorism in the United Kingdom it is important that the ever-delicate balance between respect for the rights of the individual and the security of the realm is correctly struck. I would very much welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government are satisfied that the order meets that criterion. I welcome the order.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that it is essential to maintain public confidence in the police and that this order goes to the heart of that matter in giving the IPCC identical powers to conduct investigations into complaints of criminal conduct by police officers as there would be if that conduct were committed by a member of the public.
  I should like to add only one comment to those of the noble Viscount. Although the noble Baroness has given us the assurance that these powers will be used extremely sparingly—I certainly hope that that will be the case—I should like to know what kind of parliamentary oversight there will be of the use made of the powers. Will a report be made by the Independent Police Complaints Commission on the particular exercise of these powers; or, when the powers are exercised, will it be part of a general report—such as an annual report—that they make?
  196
  I should like to be assured that this extensive power will be monitored properly and that the way in which it is used is known to the public, so that the assurance sought and obtained by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in respect of the order is extended to the actual exercise of the power; and it is not simply a theoretical notion that those powers might be used in extreme cases.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again I thank both noble Lords for their helpful remarks in support of the order.
  In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgman, I am happy to say that we are so satisfied. The IPCC will prepare annual reports which will include the occasions that the powers are used. I hope that that satisfies the concern expressed, quite properly, by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I commend the order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.33 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.33 p.m.]

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
  The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 33, I must inform your Lordships that if it is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 34 for reasons of pre-emption.
  Clause 7 [RSS: Secretary of State's functions]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 4, line 9, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
  "(3) Before publishing the revision of the RSS, the Secretary of State shall cause an examination in public to be held of such matters affecting the consideration of the proposals as he considers ought to be examined, unless the draft revision is minor and inconsequential."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 33 and not to Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 which will not be moved tonight.
  As I have just said, in this grouping I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 33. The Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion whether to hold an examination in public into revisions of an RSS. The discretion is put in fairly general terms. He could decline to hold an examination in public in a wide variety of circumstances.
  The examination is a very important part of the process. It enables local authorities and interest groups to argue the merits of a draft RSS before an independent person and to seek recommendations that changes be made. It should only be in respect of minor uncontentious changes—effectively tidying up—that an examination will be unnecessary. This seems in

  197
  practice to be the Secretary of State's view. The consultation draft Planning Policy Statement 11 states that in paragraph 230:
  "There is a strong presumption that an examination in public will be held and it is only in the exceptional circumstances of a minor revision and subject to the criteria set out in [old] Clause 6(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Secretary of State may decide that an examination is unnecessary".
  Our amendment better reflects the Secretary of State's intention than subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7 as drafted. The Bill could be used to deny examinations in public on significant and contentious issues. Our amendment would safeguard the safeguard, as it were. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall speak only to Amendment No. 33. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 33 would amend Clause 7 to require an examination in public to be held unless the draft revision is minor and inconsequential and would delete subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7. The amendment seeks to achieve almost precisely the same thing as the two subsections that it would delete—that an examination in public will be held except where the changes proposed to the regional spatial strategy are so minor and routine that the effort and expense involved would not be justified.
  We believe though that the current wording of the Bill is better than that proposed in the amendment. The extent of previous consultation and the level of interest shown in a draft, though we would expect those to be in line with the importance of the revision, could be important factors in their own right. A revision might be minor but still contentious. In those circumstances there should be an examination in public.
  The Bill as drafted would allow for that, so one has to be careful. I do not believe that there is anything between us on the principle of this issue, but we want to allow for circumstances such as when a revision might be minor, but could still be contentious for certain sections or groups. Therefore, one would justifiably hold an examination in public. On that basis, unless the noble Lord has any further point, I hope he will not pursue the amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that there is not really any difference between us. We just want to make certain that where there could be a minor but contentious issue, there should be an examination in public. I am pleased to note his comments, which will appear in Hansard. It is important that it is on the record, because there needs to be the right examination in public in the right circumstances at the right time. Clarity is important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
  Clause 8 [RSS: examination in public]:
  [Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]
  Clause 9 [RSS: future procedure]:
  [Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (7).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to withdraw a draft revision of the RSS on the basis that it is not his document to withdraw.
  I was minded not to return to this issue because the Minister gave us a helpful response in Committee. However, on reflection, three important questions remain, which I ask the Minister to clarify. The first goes right to the heart of the Bill. Who owns the regional spatial strategy? Clause 1 makes it clear that the policy is the strategy of the Secretary of State. The provision implies that the document itself belongs to the Secretary of State. That cannot be the case. Regional spatial strategies are developed and prepared by regional planning bodies. The strategy must be owned by the RPB, not the Secretary of State.
  The second question is whether, if subsection (7) is to be used to stop the RSS revision process grinding on when a change has occurred that was so fundamental—such as a radical new economic or waste strategy—it would be better and more pragmatic to go back to one or two stages. That is the hypothetical situation that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, used by way of illustration. If that happened, would it not be better and less prescriptive for the regional planning body to step in and withdraw the draft revision of the RSS so that it could incorporate the new developments? I believe that, in some ways, this is an extension of my first question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify those points in a moment.
  My third question is: will the Secretary of State be able to exercise his powers under subsection (7) only after the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy has been presented to him or will he be able to intervene at an earlier stage when it is still the case that the RPB could withdraw the draft revision under Clause 6(7)?
  If the latter interpretation prevails, I wish to reiterate our serious reservations about the centralising tendency—the overwhelming top-down approach—of the whole RSS revision process. The planning system should work from the bottom up. It is that quality that has made it so successful in the past.
  If there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State withdrawing the draft revision of the RSS when that would properly be the decision of the RPB, I believe that we may need to consider this issue again before the Bill completes its passage. However, I would like to have the Minister's answers to these questions now. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, so would I. Amendment No. 40 would remove the Secretary of State's power to withdraw a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy at any time before he publishes the final version. That would prevent the revision process being rewound if that is the best option. Even if everyone

  199
  could see that the current draft revision should not be pursued, that would have to happen in any case. Therefore, a real problem arises there.
  Clause 9(7) is a pragmatic provision to prevent the revision process grinding on when, for reasons such as those that I have just mentioned, it needs to go back a stage or, indeed, several stages. Clause 6(7) similarly allows the regional planning body to withdraw a draft revision at any stage before it submits it to the Secretary of State for the same reasons.
  Therefore, with regard to the first question concerning who owns the regional spatial strategy, the answer is the regional planning body because, as we said in our debates before the dinner break, the RPB is the initiator. It is true that, ultimately, the Secretary of State gives the imprimatur promulgation but, of course, that is only after the examination has taken place in public.
  Clause 9(7) states:
  "But the Secretary of State may withdraw a draft revision … at any time before he publishes the revision".
  However, the point is that he will only be able to do that after it has been given to him by the regional planning body. He will not have seen it before it is submitted to him and therefore it would be unreasonable to withdraw it. Thus, he could take that action only when the draft revision had been given to him by the regional planning body, when, presumably, it would have gone through all its processes. According to the answer that I have just given, he could not step back in the process while it was going on and stop something that he had not seen or had submitted to him. The Secretary of State cannot direct a withdrawal before the draft regional spatial strategy is submitted to him.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which goes back to my own example. The Government have announced that they want another runway and a big extension at Stansted airport in Essex. Therefore, if we were in the new world of regional spatial policies and other planning policies, obviously there would have to be a revision which the Government would have initiated because they had announced that they wanted a runway. Surely the Secretary of State would have to ask for a revision of the planning policies because another Minister—in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport—had suggested a runway. That does not really cover the issue. The Minister is saying that the policy would come from the region but, if the Government had initiated such a major change, surely they would then have to ask for a revision of the strategy.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. That is on the assumption that there is a procedure under way. There may not be. There may be a regional spatial strategy. There is no revision, there is no review going on. In other words, there is no process. Obviously, looking at the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 9, which is headed "RSS: further procedure", that would arise only in those circumstances.
  200
  However, I am not so sure because the airport must come under major infrastructure projects. I am not using this as a defensive answer, although it is the reasonable one because it is a big example. In terms of proposals, a new motorway, airport or, dare I say it, a nuclear power station would probably be classed as a major project to be dealt with under the procedures set out much later the Bill. I am not sure whether simply proposing, in the case that the noble Lord gives, an expansion of an existing airport—there is already an airport there in the example that he used—would be covered by that. I do not know at the moment. It is certainly a major infrastructure project; that I can clearly understand. Whether that would amount to having to redraw the whole of the regional spatial strategy, I cannot say off the top of my head. It is something that I shall get advice on beforehand. I understand the concern.
  In fact, I am a bit surprised that the proposals for Stansted have not figured more in our deliberations. It is due to the incredible professionalism of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in not pushing his own local backyard issues from the Dispatch Box. That is a tribute.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. We shall read his answers very carefully and he has indicated that he will look at the matter again before we discuss these issues again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 [Secretary of State: additional powers]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 5, line 31, at end insert—
  "( ) Before taking any step under subsection (1), (3) or (5) the Secretary of State shall consult the RPB and shall seek the advice of each authority in the region which is an authority falling within section 5(3)."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 provides that before the Secretary of State directs an RPB to prepare a draft revision or prepares it, if the RPB fails to comply with various matters, including that direction, or revokes an RSS or part of it he,
  "shall consult the RPB and shall seek the advice of each authority in the region",
  which is essentially a county or unitary district, as already identified in the earlier clause as amended.
  So, if the Secretary of State decides that he wants five runways at Stansted and wants to change the RSS to provide for it, he has to come and talk to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I think that the Minister underestimates the forcefulness of his refusal to get dragged into any current issues when Stansted was last mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, probably feels that he has come to the end of the runway on that one.
  When we were debating Clause 10 in Committee, the Minister stressed that these overarching powers were only reserve powers and that the Government would

  201
  not expect that the Secretary of State would ever need to give a direction to a regional planning body to prepare a draft revision. He said twice that,
  "revisions … are not something that will be governed by central diktat".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. 1172.]
  He also said that this was a sensible safeguard, that a reserve power was the best way of dealing with it and that he would use the powers of direction only in exceptional circumstances.
  As I said earlier, unwillingly acknowledging—I was about to say accepting, but acknowledging is closer to the mark—that the role of the Secretary of State was written for him by the Government in all this, I am seeking to insert a degree of consultation and communication with both the regional planning body that the Secretary of State will have judged not to be doing the job and with relevant authorities before he takes the step.
  We may hear that the Secretary of State would do that without being told to do so by the legislation. I simply make the point I made on an earlier amendment; that is, that if the Minister can get out of his mind the image of his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister as being the current Secretary of State and think of the worst possible example, that is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is almost a case of déjà vu. I shall make clear for the record that we would not expect the Secretary of State ever to have to direct a regional planning body to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy or to prepare one himself. As I have said before, these provisions are in the Bill simply as a safeguard. What happens now and will continue to happen in the future is that the regional planning body will discuss with the government office when a revision is needed and the kind of topics it should cover and take the revision forward on that basis. That goes back to our discussion on an earlier amendment: why should they tell anyone that they are going to do it? First there will be an examination in public. Someone has to organise the planning inspectorate. They have to be aware of providing staff and resources to do that, so there is good reason to discuss it with the government office.
  Similarly, the power to revoke all or part of the regional spatial strategy is a procedural safeguard. There might be occasions when part of the regional spatial strategy had become seriously out of date before a new revision could be completed and it would be helpful in the interests of clarity if it was revoked. Any revocation is something that would be done in discussion with the regional planning body and as a matter of good practice the Government would always give reasons for the action taken.
  To impose a requirement to seek advice and consult before exercising powers that are included in the Bill as a safeguard, frankly is unreasonable. Nor do we see any case for this in principle. The powers are there as a safeguard. If they ever have to be used it would be in the most exceptional circumstances and reasons would
  202
  be given. I do not think that one can ask for more than that. I shall stop singing my right honourable friend's praises in case he gets the wrong idea.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if the powers are there as a procedural safeguard, why do we not put in a procedural safeguard that the Secretary of State will do what the Minister says he will do? It is another case where the parliamentary draftsmen might put their drafting where the Minister's mouth is. I recognise that we are not going to make progress on this and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
  Clause 12 [Supplementary]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 6, line 34, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I spoke to this amendment in Committee the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, hinted that I was a conspiracy theorist, so it is important that I clarify my reasons for coming back to this issue of who is the relevant Secretary of State for the purposes of regional spatial strategies. I reassure your Lordships that with this amendment I am genuinely questioning this legislation's adaptability in relation to future governance arrangements rather than pursuing a conspiracy theory.
  I understand that the way Clause 12(4) defines the Secretary of State by function is unusual in a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, did partly answer my query in Committee. The Minister explained that the purpose of defining the Secretary of State in this way was to ensure that Clause 2(2) cannot be interpreted as requiring policies prepared by any other Secretary of State to be included in the regional spatial strategy if those policies relate to the development and use of land in the region. So, for example, the regional spatial strategy will not contain the policies of Secretaries of State for Education or Health, because even though they relate to land use, they are not primarily concerned with it. I think that that is right and I have no argument with that aspect of Clause 12(4).
  However, I remain concerned about why there is no mention of regions in the definition of "Secretary of State" in Clause 12(4). In subsection (4) the Secretary of State is defined as the Secretary of State who has for the time being,
  "general responsibility for policy in relation to the development and use of land".
  At the moment that Secretary of State happens also to have responsibility for the regions.
  We know that Prime Ministers and all governments rearrange ministerial responsibilities. So, if that situation were to change, would the Secretary of State who is in charge of general policy on planning always necessarily be the right Minister to lead on regional spatial strategies, as opposed to the Secretary of State responsible for the regions? There is my own situation with the Conservative shadow team. We now have a Minister responsible for the regions.
  Part 1 of the Bill deals solely with the regional spatial strategies. In other words, it deals with land use, planning, houses, infrastructure and so on for particular regions. It does not deal with general planning policy—those provisions come later in the Bill—for example, on compulsory purchase or major infrastructure projects or simplified planning zones. I would have thought that was a very good argument for putting regional spatial strategies firmly in the orbit of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in charge of the regions.
  I would simply be interested to know from the Minister why the Government have chosen not to do that. If the explanation is simply that in the current circumstances it makes no difference, thus we need not worry about it, I ask why the regions are not added to the existing definition of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord has a problem with the notion of adaptability. He says that at the moment it happens to be a happy coincidence that regions and planning are in the same place. That might not be the case in the future. I think that the answer is that we have to deal with what is in front of us. It is impossible to envisage every change of circumstances.
  Currently we have that happy coincidence and it is important. In any event, I think that one could safely argue that a Secretary of State with overall responsibility for planning would always play a leading role in regional matters. So, I certainly understand what the noble Lord is saying and the point he is getting at. He has explained it rather better this evening than he did the last time we went around this course. I am not making any allegations here. It would be wrong of me to do so. I do not think that the noble Lord sees conspiracies everywhere; he is not that kind of person. I was being slightly facetious.
  Our view is that whoever has general responsibility for the planning system—not the geographical units of those plans—must be finally accountable for the policies in a regional spatial strategy, particularly where there is no regional assembly. That is after all the key point of a system which is reliant on regional spatial planning.
  So I understand the point, but I think that at the moment we are content with the structure we have set up. It falls to the Secretary of State with that responsibility to ensure that all others who have a bearing on regional planning in different ways are aware of their overall role in pulling things together, co-ordinating them and ensuring that the regions function well and in a coherent way. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He obviously realised the point that I was trying to make. Perhaps I did not make it well the first time round. We are concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said several times, not just with the current situation. The previous planning legislation lasted for many years, although it may have been tinkered with. Once planning legislation has been set in
  204
  place it is not changed lightly because that is a complicated process. It could well be that, as in the shadow Conservative team, the jobs are separated. I have noted what the Minister has said. The Government may like to reconsider the matter before Third Reading to see whether there should be slightly more clarity about any future circumstance. However, today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 45:
  Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
  "COMMENCEMENT OF PART 2
  Part 2 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a guide to its provisions designed for the general public."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 45 inserts a new clause, which states that:
  "Part 2 shall not come into force until the Secretary of Slate has published a guide to its provisions designed for the general public".
  At the previous stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lady Hamwee introduced a debate on understanding and plain English. I know that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had a great deal of sympathy with her point. He gave some assurances that, with officials in his department, he would discuss how we could get into the public domain a guide to the changes in the planning system that ordinary people—those who do not necessarily live with the matter day to day—could understand. Some of us have lived with the matter on a day-to-day basis for quite some time and it has become a little clearer. This is a new system and it is important that people understand it. If the community is to be properly involved in the consultation, people need to be able to understand it.
  This amendment may not be the appropriate way in which to deal with the matter, but I hope that it will give the Minister a chance to tell us what action he has taken since we last discussed the issue. He said that he would take this hack to his department as he believed that it was important that we had a plain English guide to the new system and to the new hierarchy in planning legislation. I hope that he will be able to report favourably on those discussions and that something will be forthcoming, even if not in the form of the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have a simple and positive answer for the noble Baroness. We absolutely agree that there is a need for guidance for what I shall call the person in the street. In the past I would have said "the man in the street", but now we talk about persons. I am very happy to give an assurance that we shall work to produce a guide, not just for Part 2, but for the whole reform system for the person in the street in time for commencement. I cannot be clearer than that. I think it would be overkill to legislate for it in this way. I hope that my statement will be accepted.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, when my noble friend and I were talking

  205
  about this amendment, I had no serious expectation that it would appear on the face of the Bill. As it is important, perhaps I can check what the Minister has said. He says, "We shall work towards that". Is that an assurance that the Government will publish before commencement? I am not trying to trip him up; I want to be clear about the assurance.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand the qualification. I am happy to give an assurance that we shall work to produce a guide, not just for Part 2, but for the reform system as a whole in time for commencement. We shall work to produce a guide for the whole Bill in time for commencement.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, my noble friend is whispering to me, "Does that mean that it will actually happen?" We will have to take the Minister at face value and hope that what he says will become reality. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 7, line 34, leave out from second "development" to end of line 35.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we are back to county issues again. We are seeking to maintain the strategic dimension of the county planning function as it relates to undertaking a survey. I received a helpful letter from the Minister setting out exactly what a "county matter" means in the context of Clause 14. I thank the Minister for that letter, which was also sent to other noble Lords and the Library of the House.
  The letter makes it clear that Clause 14(1) and (2) provide a survey function for county councils to underpin their responsibilities for mineral and waste planning only. The county councils' other responsibilities, such as highways and transportation, are not conceived as relevant to this clause. The letter goes on to say that when the county councils advise and are consulted on regional spatial strategies—this is slightly imprecise, surely the Minister means when county councils are consulted on the revision of regional spatial strategies, but I let that pass—and when they are consulted on local development documents, these are the processes through which the county councils properly influence plan-making and have their wide range of responsibilities taken into account in so far as they affect development and the planning of development in their area.
  Clause 19(2)(g) provides for local planning authorities to have regard to county councils' community strategies in two-tier areas. I was pleased to see this part of the letter from the Minister that in the Government's view community strategies are particularly important. I know from my experience that a tremendous amount of work is going into councils' community strategies. They are totally relevant to everything that happens in a county area and partnerships with districts and voluntary
  206
  bodies, and there is a tremendous amount of work going into these community strategies. They are very relevant indeed.
  This is a comprehensive response, and we appreciate that these various processes are in place. However, the central question remains why the Government are curtailing the county councils' survey function so greatly. Why do they insist on pursuing policies that consistently undermine their own objectives for local government? This is not the way to achieve joined-up services. County councils have a general duty to seek to promote the economic, environmental and social well being of their communities, by drawing up community strategies that are focused not narrowly on particular functions, but are designed to be outward-looking.
  We are attempting to use our place in the community to exercise leadership for all our citizens. Reducing this survey function does not help us, our partners or districts to achieve cross-cutting objectives or better service delivery. District councils might welcome monitoring support from county councils. This provision also threatens to undermine the retention of planning resources in the local government system. It is a bad idea, and I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we keep coming back to the issue of county councils. I hope that I can be positive in my explanation. Certainly, I will use the material that I have, so that it is helpful for Third Reading if need be. I hope that we can put this one to rest in the end.
  Clause 14 provides for local authorities with minerals and waste planning responsibilities—which are county councils in two-tier areas—to keep under review matters that are likely to affect mineral and waste development, or the planning of that development. These are referred to as the "county matters". Amendment No. 46 removes the reference to county matters, and the effect would be to require the county council to review planning matters and undertake survey work for areas of all district councils within the county boundary.
  We recognise that some small districts might be stretched to undertake full survey work. We have discussed the role of the counties, and I reiterate that they will play an important role with survey work being one of those aspects where county councils can contribute.
  Clause 14(3) provides for the Secretary of State to require by regulations or direct a county council to keep under review the wider matters relating to land use planning and development referred to in Clause 13(2). The draft regulations propose that the matters to be kept under review are those set out in Clause 13(2)(a) and (c) to (e) and that the results should be made available to local planning authorities.
  It would be inappropriate to specify in the Bill that all counties must review all matters in respect of all the areas of district councils in the county. That would be ridiculous, given the context of the Bill. It would remove ownership of the process from the district, even though the work is essential for preparing local

  207
  development documents. It would also take no account of the different circumstances or capacities of district councils; indeed, it would treat them all the same.
  Our approach can be adapted to particular circumstances. The issues that a county would need to keep under review may change over time, as the new planning system evolves. The beauty of the regulations is that they provide the flexibility to adapt to that. I hope that, in the light of those comments, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment, but I must put on the record again a sentence that I used before, as it may help those who assist with the drafting of opposition amendments: by removing the reference to county matters, Amendment No. 46 would require the county council to review planning matters and undertake survey work for areas of all district councils within the boundary. There would be a requirement to review for all district councils within the boundary. That cannot be what the noble Lord intended with his amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, that is how we operate in Essex. With our county community partnership, we are involved with each district partnership. In fact, we pay for a lot of the work that the districts do. We have local service agreements under which we work with district councils. We share responsibility. They take some services from us, and we work in partnership to develop legal services and purchasing services.
  Some of the discussions that we have had suggest that people do not realise how the two-tier system works. There is a partnership between the district councils and the county council, and it has changed a lot in the past couple of years. The development of the well-being clause and the development of the community strategies have changed the whole process, even the comprehensive performance assessment process. This week, every district in Essex is having a CPA. The Audit Commission asks me how we work with each district council, as part of the CPA process. Things have changed so much.
  I think that, when the Government were drawing up their regional planning policies, they did not realise how their earlier local government Bills would operate. What we are doing now relates to the local government Bill before last. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was not responsible for it; he was not doing that job then. We are operating in the spirit that the Government wanted, and it has changed the relationship between districts and counties remarkably: it has improved it. We are involved in the process with every district council in Essex, and I suggest that we continue with what is happening in a sensible way in the best interests of the community in the county. The problem with much of the Bill is that local government has moved on in the two or three years since people started talking about planning policies.
  I am not content with what the Minister said. We will have to come back to the matter with some vigour at Third Reading. We need to set out clearly what is happening, and we do not want to undo the good that
  208
  is being done, in the process of developing community strategies in local government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 47:
  After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
  "LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
  (1) The local planning authority must prepare a plan for their area to be known as a local development plan.
  (2) The plan must set out—

  (a) the authority's objectives in relation to the development and use of land in their area;

  (b) their general policies for the implementation of those objectives.

  (3) The plan may also set out specific policies in relation to any part of the area of the authority.
  (4) Regulations under this section may prescribe the form and content of the plan.
  (5) In preparing a local development plan, the authority must have regard to—

  (a) current national policies;

  (b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;

  (c) the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;

  (d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;

  (e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;

  (f) the community strategy prepared by the authority;

  (g) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

  (h) the resources likely to be available for implementing the plan;

  (i) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.

  (6) The authority must also—

  (a) carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the plan;

  (b) prepare a report of the findings of the appraisal.

  (7) The community strategy is the strategy prepared by an authority under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (strategies for promoting well-being).
  (8) A plan is a local development plan only in so far as it—

  (a) is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local development plan;

  (b) is approved by the Secretary of State."

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister thought that I was going to be quiet all day. I have had a lovely day—just think of the time that I spent listening carefully. It is my turn now.
  We moved a large number of amendments in Committee to try to clarify the bewildering number of documents that would come before councils and authorities in bringing together the planning development scheme. Those amendments did not find much favour with the Government, so I shall try to adopt a different tactic.
  We have a fair number of amendments here again, but their aim is to replace the cumbersome and confusing system of local development schemes, frameworks, documents, and development plan documents. with a

  209
  single, simple, local development plan for each local authority. It replaces the proposed English system with a simpler Welsh system, proposed in Part 6 of this Bill, making necessary adjustments to reflect the different forms of spatial planning in the two countries.
  The Government have said that they want to achieve simplicity in planning and to "de-layer" the planning system. The Bill as it stands risks replacing the removal of structure plans with a whole range of previously unheard of documents, schemes, frameworks and plans.
  Announcing the publication of the Bill on 4 December 2002, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described the changes as including new roles for both business and the community. He said,
  "The lack of clarity in the system makes the outcome of decision-making unclear and it hurts business. Planning needs to reconnect with people. It is seen as remote and difficult to understand. It is seen as a system set out for the convenience of planners, not consumers".
  I am sure that the noble Lord finds those words ringing in his mind, as he recollects them.
  The Government propose that the local development framework shall be set out in a local development plan scheme comprising local development documents, some of which are development plan documents; namely, the core strategy, area action plans and a proposals map. Other documents will be local development documents but not the development plan documents, namely supplementary planning documents. A statement of community involvement will be treated as a development plan document—sometimes.
  These documents will require sustainability appraisal and may need strategic environmental assessment. The development plan will be the development plan documents plus the regional spatial strategy or spatial development strategy. Noble Lords are still with me on all this, I hope! Or, to put it in the Government's own acronyms in a document entitled Creating Local Development Frameworks, the LDF shall be set out in an LDS, comprising LDDs, some of which are DPDs, namely the CS, AAPs and a proposals map. Other documents will be LDDs but not DPDs, namely SPDs, and the SCI, although the SCI will be treated as a DPD—sometimes. These documents will require SA and may need SEA. The DP will be the DPDs plus the RSS or SDS.
  There must be a better way of dealing with this serious aspect of planning and planning control.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, are they affected by STV?
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, that could be included as well!
  The proposals are not only difficult to understand but are not set up for the convenience of planners or the comprehensibility of anybody trying to deal with the planning system.
  This proposal for a new set of documents to replace the widely understood concept of a local plan does not come from practitioners in the field. This simplifying
  210
  amendment is supported by the Town and Country Planning Association, which includes over 100 local planning authorities within its membership, and Friends of the Earth, which represents some of the many users of the planning system.
  These amendments closely follow proposals by the Town and Country Planning Association, with some tweaking by us, and removal of the binding nature of inspectors' reports. The proposals for this complex local development framework scheme have been widely criticised by developers, who find them extremely hard to understand.
  In Wales, where the Minister responsible for this subject in the Welsh Assembly is a professional planner, they have been too wise to contemplate such a proposal. The amendments, which are based entirely on the system proposed for Wales, would bring the benefits to England of the system that the Principality will enjoy.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in Committee that,
  "the provisions of Part 6 have been developed through close cooperation between the United Kingdom Government"—
  that sounds good—
  "and the Assembly with the goal of achieving planning reform in a way that reflects the Assembly's aspirations as to how the planning system should operate in Wales. I am sure the noble Lord knows that as Part 6 stands, it enjoys enthusiastic, all-party support in Wales".—[Official Report, 5/2/04; col. 890.]
  Regrettably, Part 2 of the Bill does not command all-party support—I am sure the Minister understands that now. There is no enthusiasm for it in England. The response of local councils and planning professionals to the proposals is generally one of complete dismay at its complexity. An unamended and complex system of the kind proposed by the Government will militate against community involvement.
  These amendments, though many, seek to bring clarity where there is confusion and approachability where there are acronyms. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is not bad in six minutes. I am tempted to play the noble Baroness at her own game and read out some of the 50-odd amendments, which are written in gobbledegook.
  In Committee, I had a single sheet of A4 paper with a little diagram explaining how each document fed into the other—some were statutory, some were not. I am quite happy to make it available if we can find it.
  The noble Baroness can have a bit of fun with all her initials. Fancy sitting there all day, waiting for that point. She comes along, with a proposal from the Conservative Party, to impose on England what has been chosen by the elected Welsh Assembly, for Wales. Why does it fit for Wales? The first reason is unitary local government. I have seen no proposal for unitary English government from the Conservative Party. The noble Baroness did not imply that that was part and parcel of it. In other words, the system works in Wales because the governance arrangements and the local government structure are different there, and the devolved Welsh Assembly chose to use it.

  211
  I do not know who the Minister is in charge of planning, but the noble Baroness seems to set great store by the fact that that person is a professional planner. Ministers who are experts are dangerous people. That is not an attack on that Minister. Ministers do not need to be experts—that is quite dodgy.
  The Welsh Assembly chose this system for Wales to fit its local government structure. We do not have the same structure in England, and it certainly would not work here.
  I made a lengthy speech in Committee, and if I shared the notes with the noble Baroness, which I am not about to do, we would be here for the rest of the night. I described the new system, explaining it in words that could be easily understood, instead of all those acronyms she used. Using acronyms is very confusing to people outside. So far, during the Bill's proceedings, I have never once, on Second Reading or in Committee, fallen into the trap of using acronyms. The Civil Service loves acronyms—there are catalogues of them—but they do not explain things in the way that people need to understand them.
  I do not want to go over this in great detail, because I would be repeating what I said about how each document is structured, how each document is formulated, how one document leads to another, how it is a portfolio system of a set of documents which makes them incredibly flexible, and how some of them will be subject to examination in public while others will not because they are subsidiary or daughter documents. I thought that I had explained that perfectly satisfactorily. Quite clearly, the map that I was using at the time is not available. What we need on Report with this type of operation is a screen at the end of the Chamber so that we can explain things more easily than is possible by reading out lists of acronyms.
  We operate a plan-led system. We must have comprehensive up-to-date plans and we believe that the new system will enable that. The noble Lady may want to defend the present system, but I remind her that, 14 years after the system was put in place, 29 local planning authorities have yet to adopt an area-wide development plan for their districts. That is an absolute disgrace. Exacerbated by the time it takes to put plans in place, with a complicated process of multiple deposits, examinations and modification stages, the present system has still not stopped thousands of objections being considered at examination. For example, I am told that there were 20,000 objectors to the unitary development plan in Leeds.
  We have set out a clear system for local planning that contains straightforward elements that link in a clear way. Each of those documents to which the noble Lady referred—in a way that nobody would understand—are clearly linked. One leads to another. The amendments would set out an alternative approach. We do not think that that approach would work because it is based on an entirely different system—unitary development plans across Wales and a different role for the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly has decided that it wants
  212
  to go down a different route to our approach in England. I remind colleagues in this House that that is what devolution is all about.
  I believe that we are introducing a system to deal with some of the problems, which I could set out in answering all of these amendments—most if not all of which we dealt with in Committee. The system will be faster and more flexible, and more responsive to plan making in England. It will allow much more effective community involvement than we have today. The idea that because the system is faster means that it is less fair is not true. There will be more involvement and more opportunity for involvement. We are not imposing an English system on Wales and the Welsh system should not be imposed on England—it could not be, because our local government structure is entirely different. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. Otherwise, I shall read them all out for the record.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister seems to has lost his usual cool. Somewhere along the line I must be striking a note which is causing him irritation. The irritation can only be because I am getting at his new system of development and planning control. The only reason that I am standing here getting at that system is because there are people out there beyond the Doors of this Parliament, who are completely perplexed by what is proposed and totally against it.
  We do not dream up these things without having some evidence that people are concerned. There is plenty of evidence that those involved in the planning world are concerned about this plethora of planning documents. The Minister may say that they interweave with each other. However, I can knit and drop a stitch, but I cannot knit a jersey. No matter how many loops there are leading things one into another, somewhere along the line there will be a tumble and the system will not work. The system is complex and difficult. It may not be as difficult and complex as it sounds, but it sounds manic. That is what is generally considered.
  As I said in Committee, we know that the UDP system was not absolutely brilliant. It had its flaws, one of which was the time-scale. The Minister told me that 29 area wide plans have not been done and I have no reason to doubt that, but why have the authorities been allowed to get away with that? My local authority would not have been allowed to get away with not producing a UDP and getting it on the stocks in a timely fashion; the elected members would not have allowed that. It says something about the people involved in those areas that that has been allowed to happen. However, the system is simple. The Welsh, whether or not they have a different unitary government, have a simpler system. The UDP system has worked within the rationale of the Government and the local government of the present day, and we believe that it is perfectly possible to translate it back, although the Government are hell-bent on everything being regional.

  213
  I said what I said about acronyms slightly tongue in cheek—it is always desperately worrying when one has to explain a joke. However, since the Minister has risen to the bait a little, I hope that the issue has been raised. The Minister is right in saying that he has never used an acronym in discussing this matter, but he is going to be alone. Acronyms will come into being whatever happens, and they will all be received with the usual incomprehension by people reading papers and trying to draw conclusions about what it is all about.
  The Government have set up a system to fail, as it has far too many tracks down it. The idea that it will engage the public and give them a real feeling of being involved is probably quite wide of the mark. I know that the Minister does not like all my amendments, and I dread the thought that he may go through them all one by one. What a threat at this time of night!
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I want to take this matter seriously. I could have gone through the amendments, but I realised that that was not the intention behind them. I realise that the noble Baroness was having some fun at what she thought was my expense. However, I want to make her an offer. Since only the Front Benches are present, why do not my four noble colleagues accept the invitation to come into the ODPM and listen to the civil servants who put the legislation together explain how all the documents fit together? They will do so using modern English, and show how the thing will gel before Third Reading.
  If there is confusion, and the Front Benches accept the offer that I have made to take them through it, they will see why the confusion outside is totally unnecessary and unfounded. There is always confusion with a Bill going through Parliament; it has been in this House and the other House a long time and has changed substantially because of all the changes that we have made. I know that I am taking too long—I am only intervening. However, I wanted to make that offer. Noble Lords do not have to accept it now, but I strongly advise them to do so—otherwise, maybe at Third Reading if we return to the matter, I shall have some fun at the expense of the noble Baroness. My offer is meant genuinely, because I take what she says as genuine. It is a question of linking the documents with the new terminology and explaining the matter easily over a cup of tea, in less than an hour. The noble Baroness will come away thinking, "Ah, I have something here after all".
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making the offer of tea—it was coffee last time, was it not? This is precisely why we felt that it was important to table the amendment that my noble friend Lady Maddock moved about the "Rough Guide" to the legislation, as it were. The Minister says that this offer is just between him and the Front Benches—and Hansard and everyone who needs it—but it should not be necessary to have a one-to-one explanation. We would
  214
  be very pleased to help to find some way in which to get the "Rough Guide" into language that is more intelligible.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to intervene as well. I would welcome the cup of tea, but—
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is correct. It is very kind of the Minister to invite us to tea, and I should like to think about that offer rather than simply turn it down. However, it might be helpful on the basis of looking at a draft of the guide that the noble Baroness has put into her amendment. I believe that we can do something about this matter. It is perfectly possible to go on having a humorous discussion across the Benches, but I believe that matter to be really serious. If there is a draft of the guide or another way of dealing with this, perhaps we should think about it before Third Reading—in case we decide to come back to it with perhaps fewer amendments, and so that I do not run the risk of the Minister spending the whole of Third Reading reading them back to me. I am grateful for his reply. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 48 to 56 not moved.]
  Clause 15 [Local development scheme]:
  [Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
  Clause 16 [Minerals and waste development scheme]:
  [Amendments Nos. 59 to 62 not moved.]
  Clause 17 [Local development documents]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 9, line 27, at end insert—
  "( ) the local planning authority's core planning strategy which shall include—

  (i) a statement of the development and use which the local planning authority wish to encourage during any period specified in the strategy;

  (ii) a statement of the environmental, social and economic objectives which are relevant to the attainment of the development and use mentioned in sub-paragraph (i); and

  (iii) the authority's general policies in respect of the matters in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii);"

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment brings us to Clause 17 and deals with matters that should be included in the local planning authority's core planning strategy. Happily, in this part of the Bill acronyms are not used as much they are in the first part. I have felt so acutely conscious of using acronyms, even when quoting bits of the Bill, that I have felt uncomfortable about it. In most cases, I think that the acronyms I quoted were a matter of parliamentary counsel's drafting and not of my speech. As I said, however, we do not have to deal with acronyms here.
  We tabled an amendment in Committee which, although much shorter, had the same thrust. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that providing for a strategic planning statement was unnecessary because guidance and regulations would provide. This amendment uses

  215
  the wording of the draft regulations, but with the substitution of one small word in paragraph (ii). The noble Lord said that making the amendment we had proposed would not add anything and that the,
  "issue can be more and better finessed in the regulations".—[Official Report, 27/1/04; col. 101.]
  As we have draft regulations which will not be amendable, I thought that this might be the opportunity to understand whether the Government think they have the right approach in the regulations, or whether the words I have used in this amendment need, to use the noble Lords word, to be "finessed". I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I congratulate the noble Baroness on the subtlety of her amendment. However, our view really has not changed since the earlier stage of the Bill. The amendment seeks to outline what the core should include. That would mean that a core strategy with specific contents would be required of all local planning authorities until such time as Parliament agreed otherwise. Our view remains the same. It is neither necessary nor sensible for the core strategy to be on the face of the Bill. We have argued this before, but I shall make the point again. Regulations will require every local planning authority to have a core strategy and will set out what it should include, at Regulation 14(1).
  Our view is that primary legislation is too rigid and difficult to change. We certainly do not have many opportunities for planning Bills to make perhaps necessary changes. We think that it is better to set out the broad framework describing local development documents in the legislation and then to leave it to regulations and policy statements to flesh out the detail of what those are and what they contain. We believe that that gives the planning system the robustness and flexibility it requires. It also provides local planning authorities with flexibility in creating local development documents as regulations can be updated in the light of good practice. I know that the noble Baroness is very keen to ensure that local good practice is used, and that is certainly our intent in ensuring that regulations are up to date in their import and impact.
  We have already received quite a lot of responses to the draft regulations. The question is raised in the noble Baroness's mind as to whether they are absolutely correct. Does the noble Baroness think that her wording—it uses the formulation currently contained in the regulations—is right? How would she change it to ensure that it kept abreast of developments and the way in which the planning framework is inclined to change over time? That is the difficulty which the noble Baroness creates for us and for herself in her approach to this part of the legislation.
  Having heard my reply, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I find it difficult to envisage such a change in circumstances that the words used in the amendment—I filched them from Government—will become out of date. They are not intended to be exclusive. Having moved the amendment,
  216
  I realised that I had not referred in words to the response to consultation. The Minister has not answered my question. I am happy to answer his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
  "( ) These should include the policies in respect of—

  (a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;

  (b) the conservation of natural resources;

  (c) the improvement of the physical environment;

  (d) the management of traffic."

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 64 is a partner amendment to Amendment No. 30 which I moved earlier. I move this amendment to ascertain whether the Government have anything further to put on the record with regard to this part of the Bill. The amendment applies to the local development document rather than the regional spatial strategy. It picks up the same part of the 1991 Act which refers to local plans. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I recall Amendment No. 30. I can give almost the same reply. In the context of the local planning authority these are important considerations. No one gainsays that. But they are not the only ones. I made that point earlier. We do not think it right to single out particular policy considerations on the face of the Bill as it would cut across the integrated and holistic approach of the new system.
  Local planning authorities must consider those issues—the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land; the conservation of natural resources; the improvement of the physical environment; and certainly the management of traffic—alongside a much wider range of matters as is already set out in planning policy statement 12, together with further policy requirements as set out in Annex A on page 37.
  A further safeguard is the requirement for a sound evidence base and the requirements for sustainability assessment and strategic environmental assessment, again as set out in the paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.3. l of planning policy statement 12.
  Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies which influence the nature of places and how they develop. Global and national policies may change over time and, therefore, we should not prescribe for these in legislation, as many will emerge as a matter of good practice.
  That goes a little further than what I intended to say. In other words, these are very important considerations but they are not the only ones. For that reason, it would be wrong to put them on the face of the Bill.
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
  Clause 18 [Statement of community involvement]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 10, line 20, at end insert "and use of land"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend Clause 18, which deals with the statement of community involvement. It seeks to extend the persons who are the subject or the object—I am not sure which—of the activity under Clause 18(2). That subsection provides that:
  "The statement of community involvement is a statement of the authority's policy as to the involvement in the exercise of the authority's functions … of persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to development in their area".
  My amendment seeks to add the words "and use of land".
  The Minister very helpfully sent out a compendium letter, if I may describe it as that, which picked up a number of points made in Committee. One of those concerned the definition of "development" and the definition of "use". He pointed out the differences between those and said that planning permission is required for the carrying out of a development as defined. References in the Bill to development alone refer to development and control matters. References in the Bill to the development and use of land refer not only to development in the development control sense but also to the ongoing use of land where there is not necessarily any change or activity envisaged in respect of it.
  I tabled the amendment before receiving the letter. Nevertheless, I was very grateful to receive the letter as it seems to me to spell out exactly what I was concerned about in tabling the amendment—that is, that the statement of community involvement should be wide enough to include those who are interested in the ongoing use of land where there is not necessarily any change or activity envisaged. It must be right to ask whether the Government believe that things are right now. Do they want change or no change? If Clause 18(2) is confined only to those who have an interest in matters relating to development control, that seems to me to be too narrow. I was glad to have the relevant definition. It was helpful to be given that and the distinctions between the terms. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would be ridiculous for me to read out my notes bearing in mind that the noble Baroness tabled the amendment before she received the letter, as she said. The letter is quite lengthy.
  We want the Bill to be clear that both tiers of plans should include policies for ongoing use as well as development. We do not think that there are any grounds for concern that the wording of the Bill will in any way exclude parties with an interest in conservation or those opposing development for that matter.
  218
  As the letter was received after the amendment was tabled, I am happy in the time available between now and Third Reading to do a triple check on the use of the words in this part of the Bill.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am very grateful for that. I do not think that it would involve any loss of face at all on the part of the Government, particularly as they have three-quarters raised the matter, to make it wholly clear on the face of the Bill that the involvement is as extensive as we all believe that it should be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 10, line 21, at end insert "including councillors"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment adds the role of local councillors to the matters addressed by statements of community involvement. That might seem odd, as it is the authority's policy on the statement of community involvement which is being put forward. Since the introduction of executive arrangements in councils, decision making is concentrated mainly in the hands of a small number of executive members. Other councillors may well be on the authority's planning committee, but the majority of councillors will have no decision-making powers beyond the small number of matters reserved for full council meetings.
  The representational role of those back-bench councillors becomes more important as a result and one of the areas in which the public most expects representation is on planning matters. The role of ward councillors is not always clear at the moment and it certainly needs to be enhanced. The amendment would ensure that the role of councillors in community involvement in planning decisions is set out and, consequently, will improve the representations that they will make. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, this issue was raised in Committee and we set out our firm commitment to community involvement. I have repeated that throughout the process. Today we have published our policy paper on the objectives for community involvement in planning, copies of which have been made available to the Front Benches and placed in the Library of the House. I hope I am not going to be contradicted on that. It is good bedtime reading. It is an important statement of the vision and I hope will be a useful description of many of the things we are doing to promote community involvement—not just in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 68 requires local planning authorities to consult councillors. They have a vital role in leading the process of community involvement. That is part of their role as democratically elected representatives They are spokespersons for their areas and their role should be clear. I encourage councillors to take the fullest part in promoting and facilitating the process and the community involvement paper makes that clear. But what is the point of the amendment? The councillors are members of the local authority. They will,

  219
  in effect, be responsible for their own statements of community involvement. The amendment seems to imply that councillors will be divorced from the process. If that is happening there are real problems in the local authority concerned.
  I have never been a councillor, but you need to know the difference between governance and management. The councillor's job is not to manage the authority, but to govern it. The manager's job is not to govern it—that is the councillor's job. The councillors need to know where the dividing line is. There are real problems in authorities if we have reached the position where councillors who own the decisions of the authority do not feel part of it. They will all have different roles, including scrutiny, planning and so on, but they are all members of that authority.
  If the amendment is meant to refer to councillors in other authorities—which could be the case—that is covered by the arrangements that the local planning authority must make to consult other local planning authorities on its local development document. So we cannot see a problem for the amendment to tackle. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is aware of any serious problems, I will be grateful if she will let the department have her notes about them.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—I am dredging my memory—I was going to ask if that meant that the issue would be a key decision that would have to be reported as part of the forward plan. I am thinking of practising councillors; but it cannot be a key decision in this context as it does not lend itself to that. It would be helpful for us to understand, in the context of the mechanisms now in place—with reference to the relevant local government Act—the basis upon which the matter should be referred to all councillors.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there were several reasons for raising this matter. One was that, on the whole, I believe that councils are becoming more and more divorced from governance. I do not say "management"; I do not really know why the Minister raised the issue of governance and management because that is not germane to the amendment. However, under the last licensing Bill, councillors were excluded from making representations. Members are excluded from making any decisions that have anything to do with any planning anywhere within their wards or areas. That cannot be right because there must be policy areas where they are absolutely enabled to take part.
  I believe that the two examples I have quoted make all the more relevant the reason for wanting to see councillors referred to on the face of the Bill as part of the group who are to be consulted formally or included in the discussions. A wider audience would be discussing the statement of community involvement and, by rights, they should have a role in that. That was the purpose of the amendment. I do not believe that it required too much jubilation. I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 10, line 21, at end insert—
  "(2A) An enterprise zone authority, urban development corporation, housing action trust or the urban regeneration agency shall prepare a statement of community involvement with respect to any functions falling within subsection (2) which it has power to exercise."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment requires enterprise zone authorities, urban development corporations, housing action trusts and English Partnerships to prepare statements of community involvement where they exercise development control powers. We touched on this matter in Committee but did not really get anywhere with it. All those bodies can be empowered to determine planning applications.
  Local planning authorities will be obliged to prepare statements explaining how they will involve persons interested in development in their area in preparing local development plans and in making development control decisions. While urban development corporations and similar bodies will not be responsible for development plans, they may have powers to grant or refuse planning permission.
  Local authorities, which are democratically accountable, are required to produce statements of community involvement. That is on top of their existing statutory responsibilities to consult on and publicise planning applications and to make decisions in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Ministers clearly consider that this additional statement is required.
  The Minister's reply—that of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, no less—to this amendment in Committee was unfortunately unconvincing, again. He said that those bodies are subject to the obligation to,
  "determine the application in accordance with the development plan drawn up by the relevant local authority unless there were other material considerations".
  That is true, and so are local authorities. He said that these bodies are subject to,
  "requirements for publicity, the notification of planning applications and enabling representations to be made Ion these bodies]".—[Official Report, 27/1/04; cols. 119–120.]
  That is true, and so are local authorities. The Minister said that those bodies must involve the community in decision-making. That is also true, and so must local authorities.
  The Government have just produced a document, Community Involvement in Planning: the Government's Objectives. Its front page says:
  "Planning shapes the places where people live and work. So it is right that people should be enabled and empowered to take an active part in the process. Strengthening community involvement is a key part of the Government's planning reforms".
  But nowhere in its 24 pages does the document mention enterprise zone authorities, urban development corporations, housing action trusts or English Partnerships. Community involvement is not only about local authorities and planning; it must be about these other bodies and planning decisions. We do not

  221
  see how a statutory statement, subject to independent examination, is required for local councils but is not necessary for other bodies exercising the same powers.
  In Committee, the Minister made a complaint that the amendment did not work technically. Those advising our side on these matters do not agree. Clause 18 will apply the obligations of independent examination and powers of withdrawal and adoption to these other bodies' statements of community involvement. Contrary to the suggestion in Committee, an urban development corporation's statement of community involvement will not be a local development document, as under Clause 17 that is only the local planning authority statement of community involvement. A tidying-up amendment may be needed to the interpretation section, Clause 37, to extend the definition of "local planning authority" for the purposes of independent examination, withdrawal and adoption, that is, Clauses 20, 22 and 23, to these bodies. That could be tabled for Third Reading. If Ministers have other consequential technical amendments, they can bring them forward later.
  The Government envisage that we shall see a revived role for urban development corporations and English Partnership in planning major growth areas in this country. Those schemes will require effective public involvement to attain credibility. The need for statements of community involvement apply with as much, if not greater, force to those bodies as to local councils. I beg to move.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, the normal procedures relating to development control will apply to the urban development corporations and to English Partnerships, the statutory bodies. So in terms of development control, that is planning applications for a particular site or development, the normal procedures of consultation apply.
  I have always made it absolutely clear that in setting up delivery vehicles for the growth areas and for some of the housing renewal pathfinder areas—at the moment there are no delivery vehicles of a statutory nature, but there may be—it is not our intention to shortcut the consultation process. It is a different kind of management tool. They have a defined life. From memory, I think that we said 10 years for the two that we are consulting about in Milton Keynes and south Midlands at the present time. There are two in London so far but there will not be very many. They are a tool for getting action, but not for snuffing out people's opportunity to put their objections in and to have their five penn'orth. So far as development controls are concerned, the normal procedures would apply. I am more than happy to revisit this issue for Third Reading.
  It is important and completely different from what we have discussed in the rest of the day. Coming to it at this late hour I do not intend to delay the House but there are just a few points I shall put on the record.
  We discussed this issue in Committee. I described in some detail the consultations that urban development corporations and others would need to undertake,
  222
  which mean that it is unnecessary to apply the statement of community involvement processes to them. I was faced with an acronym and I refused to use it. It was not spelled out for me.
  The amendment would require the enterprise zone authority, urban development corporation, housing action trust or the urban regeneration agency to prepare the statement of community involvement where it has the power to exercise any function. These functions are preparing the local development documents. The bodies in question can be given powers to determine planning applications. They have to determine the application in accordance with the development plan drawn up by the relevant local authority, unless the material considerations indicate otherwise. So the framework within which the delivery vehicle operates would have been subject to the involvement processes that we have already discussed.
  The statement of community involvement is an integral part of the process for preparing the local development documents and we think that it would be problematic to import it wholesale into the structures and ways of working of other bodies. The delivery vehicles are not all the same; they are fit for purpose for the area. In the Milton Keynes and south Midlands area one is an ordinary, standard urban development corporation—that is the west Northampton one. The one for Milton Keynes is an English Partnerships-led statutory authority. It is slightly different. It is not English Partnerships but they are using different powers of the law that already apply. We think it would be problematic to import this into different structures and ways of working. But they are still required to go through the consultation process.
  The nature of the beast, the body, when we put these agencies together is to ensure that the local authorities are represented; that they are not being snuffed out; that there will be places on the board and independent involvement. When the chair and chief executive are appointed, it would be wise indeed to ensure that they take the body of public opinion along with them as they perform their role as part of the big picture for the growth area, which it is a Minister's duty to put forward and explain.
  We would expect the local development documents to take due account of the urban development corporation's proposals for an area and would expect close consultation between the local planning authority and the urban development corporation. The statement of community involvement processes will apply.
  I have one final point: as a generalisation, the urban development corporations which are being set up are borrowing planning powers where the planning powers are coming over to them, only for the strategic sites in a locality. They are not taking all the planning powers of all the local authority area. It will apply only to the strategic development sites. Until planning permission is given—there may be developments under way—the planning would then revert back because it is a borrowing of the powers.

  223
  Unlike former UDCs, or many of them, which have taken wholesale all the planning powers including modification to domestic dwellings, this will be for the strategic development sites for generating growth. This is a slightly different animal. I am happy to give this matter more thought so that on Third Reading we can give further clarification if necessary. It may be that we can put together a letter at an early stage between now and then to explain in greater detail why—there will be good reason—for example, they are not referred to in the document we have published today.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as always I am grateful to the Minister. I am always grateful, too, for sight of the documents. I am still waiting for the last one which we discussed a couple of weeks ago and for which I adjourned the House. Fortunately, I obtained a copy from the Library; it never turned up from the Minister's office. No doubt I shall still be waiting for this document also. Never mind. It is only a last point.
  I thank the Minister for taking this matter seriously. It seems to me that where there is a plethora or diversity of organisations that are dealing with strategic and urban development and which have planning powers, it is not impossible to ensure that there is a statement of community involvement. In many cases they work on a very wide front, dealing with employment, housing, and infrastructure. There
  224
  are large areas involved and there would be merit in them being able to say that they have a statement of community involvement which has been tested, even if it is a fast-track testing. I always believe there is merit in my amendments. I leave that with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 not moved.]
  Clause 19 [Preparation of local development documents]:
  [Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
  Clause 20 [Independent examination]:
  [Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Consolidation Bills
  A message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered the committee appointed by them to meet with the Lords committee on Monday, 1 March at half-past four o'clock, as proposed by this House.
  House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Energy Bill [H.L.]
  (Ninth Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before we commence business, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, wishes to speak.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Simply for clarification, I had given notice to the Minister's office that I would ask him today whether there had been any progress in its investigations regarding the pressure that we felt had been put on some suppliers in giving us advice. I have had a very satisfactory answer from the Minister, which is that the Committee will get the full answer next Monday. I have not had any response, but I am quite content, as I am sure the Committee will be, to leave the matter until next Monday.
  I wish to raise another point, which the Minister may feel he is not in a position to answer today, in which case he can do so on Monday, if he so wishes. During the eighth Committee sitting, on 12 February, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, made a statement—that is fine. However, we were concerned that on the following Saturday a newspaper reported Sir John Mogg, the chairman of Ofgem, as saying that he heard those statements with regret, and that they were very misguided. We thought that that was quite a strong word to use about something that the Government were doing. Do the Government have any comments on that, or would they prefer to comment later, when they have looked into the matter themselves?
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: No doubt Ministers will respond to my noble friend's first point, but I wish to comment on the second one. I have had a good deal to do with regulators over the years and was the Minister who published the White Paper that led to the creation of Oftel, the first of the new-style regulators. I cannot remember an occasion since then when there has been quite such an open, blatant disagreement between a regulator and a department of state. My noble friend said that Ofgem used fairly strong language, which it is. Sir John Mogg said:
  "To amend the Energy Bill in this way is unnecessary and misguided".
  He went on to explain why.
  GC 56
  No doubt we will come to the matter when we debate the amendment, which I understand is to be moved on Report, to fulfil the undertaking given to the Grand Committee on 12 February about new subsidies for the transmission of offshore electricity. I do not know whether Ministers wish to comment on a row that has been very public and, I should have thought, very damaging to them.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): The row may have been very public, but until I came into the Room I was not aware of it. Clearly, I need to consult my officials and those in the DTI to see quite what Sir John felt was out of order. We have indicated which amendments we propose to bring back, which I cannot think Sir John would have found unhelpful, but we shall see what he was talking about. I certainly do not think that we are in the midst of a major row between Ministers and the chair of Ofgem. I shall leave the matter until Monday, as the noble Baroness suggests, and come back with a full account to the Committee.
  Clause 106 [Power to modify licence conditions]:
  [Amendments Nos. 115 and 115A not moved.]
  Clause 106 agreed to.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 116:
  After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
  "PRE-PAYMENT METERS
  The Authority shall, within 6 months after the passing of this Act, review the rules about the use of pre-payment meters in order, among other matters, to determine whether it would be desirable to allow suppliers to offer concessionary energy packages to the users of such pre-payment meters."
  The noble Lord said: With the amendment, we are discussing Amendment No. 132C. Perhaps I should say at the outset that my remarks will be primarily addressed to Amendment No. 132C, as we believe that it would more properly reflect the desires of those who wish to see changes in relation to pre-payment meters than Amendment No. 116. I hope that that will meet with the approval of the Committee.
  Amendment No. 132C proposes to amend the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989 to allow the current restriction on the use of pre-payment meters to be relaxed or even removed where that would be in the consumer's interest and more consistent with the Government's overall social and environmental objectives for the energy sector. At the moment, it is not open to a supplier to extend to those who have pre-payment meters any of the special deals or arrangements that can be made in favour of normal gas and electricity consumers.
  The ability of energy suppliers to provide a wider range of service through modern pre-payment meters is hindered by current statutory restrictions which prevent arrangements that would be beneficial to customers from being introduced. That stems from the Utilities Act 2000, which amended both gas and electricity legislation so that each industry is now permitted to use a pre-payment meter only to recover its own supply charges.
  At the time, that was welcomed by the consumer bodies but now, nearly four years later, it is widely recognised as too sweeping to work effectively in customers' interests. In particular, it prevents the provision of combined energy service and supply packages to those customers who have pre-payment meters. Surely it is within the experience of noble Lords throughout the Committee that, on the whole, pre-payment meters are used by those of limited resources, sometimes at their own choice and sometimes because that is felt to be the best way to ensure that the customer will actually pay for the gas or electricity that he uses.
  There are two main reasons for looking for a change. Research has shown that a great many electricity pre-payment meter users are not in debt and not in fuel poverty but choose that method of payment for their convenience and for ease of budgeting. One can understand that. For people whose lives are mainly based round the use of cash, a pre-payment meter is one way of making sure that they will not go into debt for the supply of gas or electricity. Therefore, people who like to budget in cash are especially likely to benefit from energy packages.
  The second reason is that, although fuel-poor consumers may in general be expected to qualify for free energy-efficiency improvement under the Warm Front or priority EEC schemes, either some such customers on pre-payment meters may fall outside the qualifying criteria or the energy package may not fall within the scheme. Again, it may well be in the customer's interest to allow payment for such services through the meter.
  The current restrictions could therefore distort consumer choice and prevent the energy services market reaching its full potential. I would regard that as a missed opportunity, particularly given the forthcoming pilot agreed by the energy services working group, led by the Minister's department, to suspend the 28-day rule in relation to combined energy services offered under domestic supply contracts.
  There may well be other broadenings of the use of pre-payment meters that would be in the consumer's interest. For example, when customers with pre-payment debt move to new premises they often ask the industry to put the existing debt on the new meter. In such cases the industry is currently required to refuse the request and to seek payment by other means. I can well understand that this may be confusing and inconvenient for the customer. Consideration should therefore be given to whether, when a customer requests the transfer of a debt, this should be allowed.
  I started from the proposition that it is wrong in principle that innovation should be forbidden by law, without any possibility of exception, where that would be in the consumer's interest. A more positive framework would be consistent with the Government's social and environmental objectives for the energy sector. To repeal the restrictions outright is one solution. However, Amendment No. 132C adopts a more politically acceptable approach—that is, a
  GC 58
  simple regulation-making power for Ofgem, with the Secretary of State's consent, to relax or remove the constraint, with the detail to be settled after consultation. This could be achieved by adding the words in the amendment to the end of paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 7 to the Electricity Act. That is one way of doing it.
  I have been given to understand that Ministers may be sympathetic to an amendment along these lines. I say straightaway that the amendment is not drafted in a form which the Minister could accept today. However, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister who is to respond could give an indication of whether such a relaxation of the restrictions currently imposed on those who have pre-payment could be lifted. I beg to move.
  Lord Ezra: I support the amendment so clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It seems wrong that those on pre-payment meters should be prevented by law, as matters now stand, from benefiting from the various energy packages which, in other legislation, have been stimulated by government in order to achieve government objectives. Bearing in mind the wide range of people who use pre-payment meters for various reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out, this should be put right and the noble Lord has tabled an amendment for so doing. It may or may not have the correct wording, but I fully endorse the principle behind it.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My name is also on the amendment. It is totally unnecessary for me to add anything to the clarity with which my noble friend Lord Jenkin moved the amendment and the extra words added by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
  Lord Whitty: As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, he will withdraw Amendment No. 116 in favour of Amendment No. 132C, which gives the power to propose, consult and in due course regulate on an extension of the range of debt that can be collected from a pre-payment meter. At the moment there is a little flexibility in that any proposed regulations will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
  Clearly there are a number of inflexibilities in the present system which the amendment may well address, and there is no particularly good reason for maintaining the block on it. The noble Lord is right to say that we have considerable sympathy with what he is trying to achieve. Whether this is the best way in which to achieve it I will leave to the Committee to explore between now and subsequent stages. However, it is the Government's intention to bring forward an amendment to deliver what all noble Lords who have spoken are seeking to achieve with Amendment No. 132C.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: We have started off on an extremely co-operative note; I hope that it will be maintained for the rest of today. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said. We look

  GC 59
  forward to seeing the amendment that the Government will bring forward on Report. In the mean time, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 116A:
  After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
  "LICENCE MODIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE RENEWABLES OBLIGATION
  After section 15A (licence modifications relating to new electricity trading arrangements) of the 1989 Act insert—
  "15B LICENCE MODIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE RENEWABLES OBLIGATION
  (1) The Secretary of State may, in accordance with this section, modify the conditions of licences of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(d) of section 6 for the purpose of introducing or implementing arrangements for the prevention of certain breaches of the renewables obligation by the licence holders.
  (2) Before making modifications under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the holder of any licence being modified and such other persons as he deems appropriate.
  (3) Any consultation undertaken by the Secretary of State before the commencement of this section shall be effective, for the purposes of subsection (1), as if undertaken after that commencement.
  (4) Where the standard conditions of licences are modified under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall make the same modifications of the standard conditions for the purposes of their incorporation in licences of that type granted after that time.
  (5) The Secretary of State shall publish any modifications—

  (a) in writing to all holders or applicants for licences who may be affected by such modifications, and

  (b) by publishing the modifications in at least two national daily newspapers and any appropriate trade journal or journals.

  (6) The power of the Secretary of State under this section may not be exercised after the end of the period of two years beginning with the passing of the Energy Act 2004.""
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 116A would enable arrangements to be established that will prevent certain kinds of breach of the renewables obligation by suppliers of electricity. The precise form of the arrangements to be established is to be determined in accordance with the power provided for by the amendment. Under this provision, the Secretary of State is given the power to amend the standard licence conditions of suppliers who have the obligation to supply a proportion of renewable energy and whose compliance with the obligation is evidenced either by the production to the authority of renewables obligation certificates, known as ROCs, or by a payment into the buy-out fund.
  The intent behind the amendment is to give the Secretary of State power to introduce a licence condition obliging suppliers to be signatories to a renewables obligations code. It is intended that the code would, in accordance with the terms of the licence condition, be designated by the Secretary of State. The code would contain conditions as to its amendment which are in similar terms to the conditions for the amendment of the balancing and settlement code: that is, specified parties may propose amendments provided those amendments satisfy or can be claimed
  GC 60
  to satisfy the amendment criteria contained in the licence and the code; the proposal is examined in accordance with the same criteria and by means of a pre-determined procedure and, following a final review by the governing panel, a recommendation to amend or not to amend is made to the authority; and the authority approves or rejects the panel's proposal on the basis of the same criteria used by the proposer and the panel.
  Currently, the Secretary of State has no specific powers to make the proposed licence amendments. Therefore, a power is required to be introduced if a licence amendment for the specified purposes is to be made. The power given by the amendment is similar to the power granted to the Secretary of State to enable NETA provisions to be brought into effect. The scope of any licence obligation or code that may be developed under the amendment should be limited only to whatever is strictly necessary to enable the authority to carry out its administrative duties with the greatest efficiency. It should not be used to introduce policy issues, nor should it be within the power of the authority to introduce licence conditions that may directly or indirectly affect competition between suppliers.
  In modifying suppliers' licences in this manner, the Secretary of State would be acting within the scope of his functions and the stated objectives of the Government as regards renewable sources under Clause 32, which permits the Secretary of State to impose renewables obligation on suppliers.
  My commentary on the amendments is as follows. The amendment has been drafted as an amendment to the Electricity Act 1989, as amended by the Utilities Act 2000, in order to avoid the need to make further consequential amendments. Subsection (1) in Amendment No. 116A introduces the power to make an amendment to licence conditions to achieve the intended aim. Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State to consult as he deems fit. Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to consult before the amendment comes into effect with the aim of achieving the intended aim as soon as practically possible. Subsection (4) provides that new licences shall contain the amended licence condition. Subsection (5) provides for the publication of the amended licence conditions.
  Members of the Committee will notice that the method of publication is the same as that for which I have been asking in the case of other licence variation provisions and not that for which the Government have been asking, which is,
  "in any manner the Secretary of State considers appropriate'.
  Subsection (6) allows the amendment to be made at any time up to a final date of two years after the Energy Act 2004 comes into force.
  I hope that the Government will accept this as a constructive amendment designed to facilitate and improve the regulatory licensing regime. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We appreciate the constructive approach taken by the noble Baroness

  GC 61
  and the Opposition to this area. She will recognise that, in response to that constructive approach, we said that we would take on board several of the points made during our last Committee sitting about the renewables obligation and securing the buy-out fund, and that we would bring forward amendments on Report to incorporate the fresh position. However, we do not believe that Amendment No. 116A helps the situation. I shall now identify the reasons why.
  As the noble Baroness said, the amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the renewables obligation by means of modifying the licence conditions. As Members of the Committee will be aware, at present any changes require the affirmative resolution of both Houses. Given the importance of the renewables obligation, the Government cannot accept the reduction of parliamentary scrutiny that this would involve.
  In addition, the amendment does not make it clear which breaches of the renewables obligation are intended to be covered by licence modifications and which would still require legislation. It is clearly essential that any changes impacting significantly on the obligation—thus materially affecting the prospects of achieving the Government's aim of increasing the contribution of renewables—should receive proper parliamentary scrutiny.
  The Committee will be aware that the renewables obligation is a complex instrument with a number of interacting provisions. What appears at face value to be a minor or technical change may have far-reaching consequences. We need to assess those consequences before taking precipitate action, and the present system enables us to undertake that full and proper assessment.
  I understand the desire on the part of the Committee and, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in pressing her amendment, for a more flexible mechanism to make changes. However, we do not believe that that is the right way to achieve it. We are all aware that the shortfall in the renewables obligation as a result of the failure of TXU (UK) Ltd required changes to be made to the obligation in respect of late payments, and those changes are being progressed quickly.
  I am not sure that use of the licence conditions route would save much time in the circumstances. The Committee will recognise that action has been taken since last October and changes in that regard are almost complete. I cannot see, therefore, how effective action could have been achieved any faster against the background of noting how important it is for a full assessment—through Parliament in its proper role of scrutiny—of the implications for the renewables obligation.
  I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we take very seriously issues concerning the renewables obligation. We have already undertaken to move some way towards meeting certain of the issues defined by the Opposition, but we do not think that the amendment is acceptable. On that basis, while
  GC 62
  indicating our support for the proposals set out in the earlier amendments, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  The Duke of Montrose: Will the Minister clarify one point? He said that the present renewables trading arrangements would require a positive message from both Houses of Parliament, but Clause 106 states that if the Secretary of State considers it necessary or expedient to change something, he may do so. That wording appears similar to that of the amendment. Is the Secretary of State allowed to modify licence conditions in such a manner as he considers appropriate—as provided in subsection (5)—on his own say-so, or does that also require the positive procedure?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: As I said, the amendment envisages significant changes to what we all recognise is a complex and sensitive mechanism. We are talking about a market which involves substantial interests and to which substantial resources are devoted. In our view, that will require both a proper basis for consideration and adequate parliamentary scrutiny. That is the case as the Bill stands. The amendment would detract from that.
  I assure the noble Duke that changes to the renewables obligation require affirmative resolutions of both Houses. Other than by introducing new primary legislation, we cannot be more assertive about parliamentary scrutiny than that.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the Minister give other examples of market-sensitive matters involving a lot of money for commercial organisations which are decided by order laid before Parliament, albeit by affirmative resolution?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I have no comparable reference before me. But the noble Baronesses will recognise that because of the significance of this market—there was the one regrettable failure with regard to TXU (UK) Limited—it has all along been envisaged that changes that affect it and have such a dramatic impact on significant interests should require that level of parliamentary scrutiny by affirmative order. That is what we envisage. I recognise the importance of flexibility; that is why, as I said, we made some positive responses to opposition amendments during our previous sitting. I am concerned that, in such a significant incident, we would need to protect proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is why I reject the amendment and defend the Bill's provisions.
  Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may follow on from what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. In Committee, we have been trying to clarify the use of words such as "substantial", "significant", "proper" and "appropriate", and at what time and level decisions are made. My noble friend makes a good point.
  I accept that the matter falls under the affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure, which is a blessing, and that the amendment may not be the right

  GC 63
  one in the right place. I further accept what the Minister said about accepting some of our arguments during the previous sitting, for which we are grateful. However, I take my noble friend's point. I have raised the issue during the passage of many Bills.
  The Minister partially answered my noble friend's question but many of us would much rather things were written into a Bill than into an order. Even if an order is introduced under the affirmative procedure, all we can do is talk about it; ultimately, the Government of the day get their way. So it is a flag-flying exercise. If, however, the provision is in the Bill, it must be adhered to. Perhaps the Minister will enlarge a little in response to both of our queries.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the noble Baroness's contribution but I emphasise that the present arrangements in an area that we all recognise to be of great importance and sensitivity enable us to address a substantial difficulty within a matter of months. We all recognise that the failure last year with the default of TXU on I October was a substantial difficulty affecting the market. Under the present arrangements, we will have completed all the necessary changes by 1 April, a time of only six months.
  As to the issue of licence conditions raised by the amendment, we do not envisage being able to effect change vastly quicker than that. Under the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, sensitivity with regard to the market would still be a major inhibiting factor on prompt action. Evaluation of the impact would still be necessary. It might appear that all that is necessary is a limited technical change, but we would need to work through all the implications for the market.
  I understand the basis of the noble Baroness's argument to increase the element of flexibility. That is to be desired if we can effect it. We are meeting the representations made under previous amendments but we do not think that this amendment will advance that objective.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate and the Minister for his remarks. It may well be that the amendment is not correct; I would not suggest for one moment that any amendment that we table will provide a 100 per cent solution. The problem is that no one seems to have a solution.
  The Minister was helpful before by saying that he would take the amendments away, but I do not know with what he will return. I well remember that when we debated an amendment I suggested that securitisation was the way but that mutualisation was a possibility because others wanted it that way. The fact is that there is a black hole that we must in some way seek to fill. I am happy that the Government are taking away the other amendments to consider. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 107 [Alteration of transmission activities requiring licence]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 116B:
  Page 87, line 30, after "place" insert "(the function of doing so being the "system operator function" for the purposes of this Act)"
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 116C, 116D and 116E. Inasmuch as we have no Divisions, every amendment before the Committee is, in essence, a probing amendment. This group of amendments is even more probing, if I can describe it in that way. This is a probing probing amendment.
  Let me first put on record that the amendments were tabled in consequence of representations made to me and my colleagues by Scottish Power. They can be explained in few words. Amendments Nos. 116B and 116C are paving amendments for Amendment No. 116D. The two amendments simply seek to insert the technical words, "system operator function" and "system provider function" into paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) respectively. They are intended to define the difference between the transmission owner and the systems operator.
  As I have said, the purpose of the two definitions is to pave the way for the main amendment, to Clause 108. In essence, it would prohibit the same body from being both the system provider and the system operator. The logic of the amendment is to ensure that not too much commercial power and control over the separate components of the combined generating and distribution systems fall into one set of hands. It is argued that there should be sufficient legal separation of the functions of system operator and transmission operator to ensure that the system operator cannot discriminate against other transmission owners in favour of their own transmission business.
  Having put that as succinctly as I can, I must tell your Lordships that I have also had representations from Transco vigorously putting the opposite point of view, speaking strongly against the amendment and the concept of the strict separation of functions.
  Perhaps I may summarise the argument against my Amendment No. 116B as fairly as I can. It is that the question of separation of transmission owner and system operator was extensively considered during the consultation process over the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA). This consultation process was conducted over a period of two years, first by Ofgem and the DTI and then by the Trade and Industry Select Committee in the course of its pre-legislative scrutiny. I said at the outset of my remarks that the amendment I have tabled is supported by Scottish Power.
  However, I am informed that while the separation of transmission owner and system operator functions is acceptable in Scotland, entirely different considerations apply to England and Wales. I understand that during the consultation and scrutiny, the separation of transmission owner and system operation functions was rejected. This is because in

  GC 65
  England and Wales, transmission and system operation are wholly separated from generation and supply. Transco has strongly represented to me, and no doubt to the Government too, that separation in England and Wales would result in a substantial loss of efficiency and increased cost to consumers. I have to admit that this is far too technical a matter for me to be able to judge the relative merits one against the other. Clearly, they have been examined at great length by experts. That is why at the beginning of my remarks I described this as a probing amendment—even a probing amendment to a probing amendment—and we look forward to hearing the Government's views on the subject.
  For lay people such as us, this is a technical Bill. We have experts in the Room—the noble Lords, Lord Tombs, Lord Ezra and Lord Jenkin—and we on this side and the Ministers try to do our best to explore all the different issues. However, because security of supply and so forth are so important and necessary, it is right that when we are being lobbied by two different views and are unsure we should put them fairly and ask the Government to give us what they consider to be the answer. Obviously, when it comes to the Report stage, noble Lords will make up their minds when they have heard all the arguments. I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have some difficulty because I do not know whether to support my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon or whether to support her alter ego, my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. She put the case most charmingly, but it is clear that there is a distinct division of view between some of the operators and owners in this field. It is also clear that Scottish Power feels that it will be discriminated against by National Grid Transco if the separation system is extended to Scotland.
  It would not surprise me in the least if this is an issue that has been under intensive discussion between the department and the relevant officials in Ofgem. They have a laudable ambition to ensure that all the arrangements are as transparent as possible. The public, particularly those concerned with the operation of the system, can then see how costs are allocated, how charges are made and how the different participants in the market are treated.
  I also believe that Ofgem would want to ensure that this was as fair and even a market as possible. With the degree of intervention that may well be necessary in the complex electricity system that we have, it is most difficult to ensure that transparency. Where there is, as here, the merger of two different systems—the extension of NETA to include Scotland, under what in the Bill is called "BETTA", which will include the entire mainland of the United Kingdom—that will be difficult. I would have thought that when we debate the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, on transitional relief, there will be a strong case for that so as to enable the changeover to take place as smoothly as possible.
  GC 66
  I am told by NGT that the fears that Scottish Power may find itself the subject of adverse discrimination are considerably exaggerated. There may be a case to be met, but it is not simply by insisting that there should be a separation of the two systems so that what is sometimes called the SO/TO system—that is an integrated system that has been running in England and Wales—should not apply to Scotland.
  I, too, shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to this. I feel equally divided, although if I have to express a view it is to come down in favour of a system that will ensure the greatest uniformity and transparency across the country as a whole. If, as the Minister has indicated, in order to achieve that there needs to be special provision to recognise, for instance, the transmission costs in Scotland, that should be done as openly and clearly as possible. At a later stage in Committee, we will come to an amendment tabled by the Government on that subject.
  I hope that the principle for which Ofgem stands on this will be borne firmly in mind before decisions are taken. I believe that it is an effective regulator and that it has done extremely well over the years. It has made enemies along the way, but that is the nature of effective regulation. That is how I see the position and not seek some concealed way of ensuring a favourable position for Scottish Power and perhaps other Scottish generators in ways that would not achieve market transparency. That is my view and I have a feeling that it is the view of my noble friend Lady Miller, mark two. Like her, I do not feel myself sufficiently qualified to make a firm decision one way or the other. An interesting argument has arisen and we look forward to hearing how the Government come down in response to the representations made to them.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Tombs: During our discussions last week, I said that we should recognise that there are real differences in Scotland from England and Wales. They are differences of geography, history and organisation. Those lie at the root of the argument. National Grid Transco is a separate outfit and not at all connected with the generators in England and Wales. It has enjoyed a single transmission operator and owner organisation. The Scottish boards are commercially independent and are jealous, or suspicious, of the notion that their system will be controlled by someone who has a competing, in a sense, system. It does not compete geographically but in terms of arguments on tariffs and similar issues.
  There is a real need for the Scottish concerns to be recognised and provided for. That can be done either by the creation of a separate Great Britain operator or by the incorporation of some duty on National Grid Transco to preserve, or have regard to, or to treat equally the concerns of the Scottish boards. That problem will not go away. It is not a take over or a merger, it is a trading arrangement between commercially independent organisations. We have to have regard to the fact that one part of that

  GC 67
  organisation wants to feel that it will have equal independence of treatment from the person designated to be the system operator.
  The later amendment, to which this leads the way, goes one way towards achieving that and I would regard that as satisfactory. It would disappoint National Grid Transco, but so does the proposed system disappoint the Scottish hoards. My judgment from having worked in both organisations is that the commercial imperatives should prevail. Either there should be a provision of this sort or a duty laid on National Grid Transco.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As these discussions continue, I hope that the Government will pay close attention to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. His lifelong experience of the system all over the United Kingdom gives his wisdom a depth beyond that of other noble Lords, even those who have been Ministers. He knows the system from the inside.
  On the wall of the Moses Room is a picture of Moses bringing down the Tablets of Stone. I rather wish that the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, was sitting underneath that picture, as well as our Deputy Chairman. I feel that he is able to illustrate these problems. We hear the arguments from both sides and those of us who live north of the Border are anxious that our generating companies should not operate on a playing field that is other than level.
  I heard what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said about the need for transparency and I understand that. In all things, it is right to try to achieve as much transparency as possible. I cannot say whether I support my noble friend Lady Miller because she has not given us anything to support—she has presented two arguments.
  Lord Whitty: I feel slightly redundant. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have made cases for the defence and the prosecution and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, has been cast in the role of Moses. However, I shall try to give the Government's view on these matters.
  Amendment No. 116D would oblige National Grid Transco to create two separate group companies. That would be its effect, although it would not necessarily require a divestment of ownership. However, the starting point for the design of BETTA was, with substantial consultation, to do the minimum needed to be done to create the GB-wide competitive market for wholesale electricity.
  There are a number of ways in which we could create a uniform structure. There is this way or, alternatively, Ofgem and the DTI could have proposed legislation which forced all transmission licensees to sell their transmission assets to the Great Britain Systems Operator, so that we create the same situation in Scotland as for in England and Wales. I suspect that had we proposed that there would have been the same reception as Moses received when he came down with the Ten Commandments. No way of altering the system to create exact congruence will be popular.
  GC 68
  However, this is not the most important problem in the sense that Ofgem and the DTI concluded that to force the private companies to sell part of their business was a disproportionate solution and that this issue is not the most important in relation to transparency and distinction between different roles. The most important issue is to operate a system independent of generation and supply. That is why the GBSO role is to be created. We concluded that it was not necessary for transmission licensees to sell their transmission assets to the systems operator, whoever that role was assigned to.
  It was not an objective of BETTA to separate out the systems operating function from the systems providers, which is the logic behind the amendment. It was only to separate out certain transmission functions from those with generation and supply interests. The conclusion of all the discussions on this is that the DTI and Ofgem are of the view that certain synergies can be gained from having the same person undertake systems operator and systems provider functions. Of course, the National Grid in England has combined the two roles for 10 years and in general it has delivered considerable cost savings from being able to trade off the cost of taking an action on the operator side of its business with the cost of taking an action on the transmission owner or systems provider side of its business.
  There is no particularly good reason for ending that synergy. It would be much harder to properly incentivise a company that simply operated the networks but owned no assets. We therefore need to be careful about putting at risk arrangements which have successfully delivered improvements in efficiency.
  Just as we do not think that it is necessary to force the Scottish transmission licensees to sell their assets under BETTA, we do not think that it is proportionate to force National Grid, as the amendment suggests, to divide its transmission assets into separate companies. Of course, both the systems operator and the systems provider are regulated. They are monopoly operations and are therefore subject to heavy regulatory oversight, including provisions on transparency sought by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Both Ofgem and the DTI believe that the systems operator can be prevented from discriminating in favour of its own transmission assets effectively through the conditions of the licence.
  They propose that the condition in the licence would be not to discriminate between providers or in favour of their own comparable provider activities where it undertakes them. The transmission licence conditions to apply under BETTA would cover such a requirement. It would be better to locate them in the licence provisions rather than in the statute. The licence condition will set the legal and contractual context for the application of all relevant non-discrimination obligations and will form the basis on which the regulator would intervene to enforce such a condition.
  We recognise the problem, but we believe that it is better to operate through licence provisions rather than in statute. Perhaps it is worth adding that in

  GC 69
  addition to this, given the nature of the monopoly position, competition laws apply in this context to any discriminatory conduct or arrangements, which provide an additional safeguard. I therefore recognise the problem of non-congruence between England and Wales, and Scotland. Nevertheless, I think that it is not appropriate to try to create a congruence that is not really justified in terms of efficiency or transparency.
  Lord Tombs: I find that response quite encouraging, at least in intent. However, since the Bill proposes the creation of a Great Britain system operator, I cannot see why it should not prescribe this non-discrimination requirement, to which it seems to me that the Minister has subscribed, or to which at least Ofgem has subscribed with his blessing.
  Lord Whitty: I am prepared to consider that, but that is not quite the same as what is set out in the amendment. It proposes a requirement to split the company, which I will quite strongly resist. A non-discrimination provision, without commitment, I would be prepared to look at if Members of the Committee give me leave to do so.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: First, I thank the Minister for his comments. I also thank every Member of the Committee who spoke in this debate. Perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. There was certainly a suggestion that some kind of compromise could be worked out and brought back.
  The amendment made two proposals. It provided an opportunity for a first-class debate of the whole issue. It also offered a little light relief on the other side: the Minister nearly did not have to respond at all. He thought that I had responded to myself. The difference in approach between my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who thought that I was promoting the second part of the argument, and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, who thought that I was promoting the first part of the argument, was interesting. My poor noble friend Lady Carnegy said that she could not say one way or the other because she was not quite sure what I was promoting. That was difficult.
  The truth is that this is a very serious matter. We were lobbied quite strongly by Scottish Power and we have great sympathy with what it had to say. However, while my noble friend Lady Carnegy may not agree, the reason we did not think it fair simply to leave it on the table was not because we thought that we should do the Government's job for them, but that we could see important and interesting elements in the second part of the debate. This is such a difficult and technical area that we need to explore it in detail. We have achieved that end in so far as we must now look carefully at the Minister's words to see whether we can accommodate what he thinks might be acceptable to deal with the problem. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 116C not moved.]
  Clause 107 agreed to.
  Clause 108 [Transmission licences]:
  [Amendments Nos. 116D and 116E not moved.]
  Clause 108 agreed to.
  Clause 109 [New standard conditions for transmission licences]:
  [Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
  Clause 109 agreed to.
  Clause 110 agreed to.
  Schedule 17 [Conversion of existing transmission licences: licensing scheme]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 117A:
  Page 206, line 31, at end insert—
  "(6A) The Secretary of State shall, by an order made under this paragraph, make provision for transitional relief."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 117A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117B, 118, 118A, 118B and 118C. I apologise to the Minister—I address the noble Lord, Lord Davies—for the somewhat disparate amendments in this group. They are not all quite the same, although they touch on similar things. However, I have tried to put them in order so that the noble Lord can respond to them without having to shuffle his papers as he did on the last occasion. At that time I spoke to my amendments out of order, which was not quite right. I understand that other noble Lords have added their names to various amendments in the group and I am quite sure that their remarks will complement my own brief explanations.
  National Grid Transco owns and operates the high voltage transmission network in England and Wales; that is, the National Grid. It sets and recovers charges for connection to and use of its grid system in accordance with the charging statements derived from charging methodologies that it is required to maintain under its transmission licence. Under the terms of the licence, National Grid Transco is obliged to keep its charging methodologies under constant review and to make changes if it believes that such alterations will better meet the relevant objectives specified in the licence. Essentially, these require that NGT's overall charges reflect the costs it incurs and that they facilitate effective competition in the generation and supply of electricity.
  In February 2002, NGT commenced such a review. This culminated in proposals subsequently approved by Ofgem which will fundamentally alter the way NGT calculates its charges for, connection to and use of its transmission system. In particular, the revised methodologies have moved some elements of the charges which used to be recovered by way of connection charges into the use of system charges. The new charging arrangements take effect in England and Wales from April of this year.
  In December 2002, the Government confirmed that NGT would be appointed the GB system operator once the required BETTA legislation—that is, this Bill—has gained Royal Assent. One of the responsibilities of the GB system operator will be to set GB transmission charges and to maintain the GB

  GC 71
  charging methodologies and associated charging statements from which the GB system charges will be derived.
  National Grid Transco has therefore initiated work with a view to developing GB charging arrangements. They will be based on new arrangements that will be implemented in England and Wales in April 2004. Initial analysis suggests that, as a consequence, there will be a significant impact on the charges faced by the generators who are located in Scotland. In particular, Scottish generators will be exposed to a significant and disproportionate burden of GB use of system charges, possibly picking up over 60 per cent of the total of such charges whereas Scottish generation accounts for only around 12 per cent of GB generation. Similarly, customers in the south of England will be disproportionately affected.
  Such acute steps are neither appropriate nor desirable and should be avoided. Instead arrangements should be put in place that provide some form of transitional relief, such as phasing, from the initial impact of the new charges resulting from the roll-out of the GB market. That would not be new; precedent exists—for example, when NGC, as it then was, last introduced fundamental changes to its charges in 1993, the full effect was phased in over a number of years.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.31 to 4.41 p.m.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Given that NGT charges are derived from the charging methodologies provided for in its transmission licence, it could possibly be argued that Clause 106, particularly paragraph (b) of subsection (2), already provides a power for the Secretary of State to modify transmission charges introduced as a consequence of BETTA. However, the powers in Clause 106 are discretionary, and there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will use the powers to mitigate the adverse effects of the new GB transmission charges.
  What is needed, therefore, is something that requires the Secretary of State to provide interim relief rather than simply to do so at his discretion. This is what the amendment seeks to achieve. However, given that National Grid Transco has only just embarked upon the work necessary to introduce GB charges, the amendment does not seek to specify at this early stage the precise nature or the amount of relief that may be required to mitigate the inevitable adverse effects. Instead, it simply requires the Secretary of State to bring forward an appropriate scheme after consulting widely.
  Amendment No. 117B seems on the face of it a statement of the impossible. The Secretary of State, from whom only the Prime Minister is higher up the scale, has a duty to publish the text of each licence under a new scheme to deal with existing transmission licences—it is open, transparent government. There is nothing wrong with that, one might think, but
  GC 72
  immediately after establishing the duty, the Bill proceeds to add a caveat; namely, that the text that he publishes may not be authoritative. What does that mean? Is it that the licence does not confer the rights to participate in the transmission of electricity; or is it that the text covers up something that relates to the operation of the licence but that is not published? If either of those is the case, how would the text indicate that it is not authoritative? If the text of a licence is not authoritative, what is the point of issuing it, never mind publishing it?
  Amendment No. 118 would delete paragraph 2 of Schedule 17. The paragraph gives the Secretary of State wide—indeed, unlimited—powers to amend a code or agreement affecting transmission licences.
  "if it appears to him to be desirable to do so in consequence of anything for which the scheme makes provision".
  The sole criterion for the power to tear up any agreement or code is that the Secretary of State thinks it desirable. In other words, subject to the very limited power of the courts to intervene, the Secretary of State can do very much what he likes, provided he thinks that it is desirable. That is the sole test. I shall not comment further on that amendment, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin wishes to speak to it also.
  On Amendment No. 118A, can the Minister explain exactly what sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 4 mean? In particular, will he inform us whether the correct interpretation involves the possibility that the Secretary of State may alter retrospectively a scheme relating to changes to existing transmission licences? Will he also specify whether any scheme relating to changes to existing licences might affect moneys payable or receivable by parties to the altered licences? If that is the case, can he assure the House that no one would be required by the Bill to find sums of money relating to past performance?
  Amendment No. 118B is consequential on Amendment No. 117A and would add that holders of generation licences shall be added to the list of those to be consulted about transitional relief, and only transitional relief. Amendment No. 118C is also consequential on Amendment No. 117A and defines "transitional relief" and "use of system charge". I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I tabled Amendment No. 118 because paragraph 2 offended me, for the reasons that my noble friend has given. It seems to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State with, as the noble Baroness put it, very limited power for anybody to question matters or to intervene. So long as the Secretary of State thinks that a provision is desirable, he is entitled to make it.
  This is a very extreme version of a form of legislation that was well summed up in a clerihew of many decades ago that appears in the epitome of lawyers' texts on such matters, Megarry's Miscellany-at-Law. It is a great book, which I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, read. The following observation has always stuck in my mind: the attitude of modern

  GC 73
  governments—and I am sure that it applies to two of the governments of which I was a member—could be summed up in the phrase,
  "If anything shall seem then the Minister may deem;
  A certificate of demption shall provide complete exemption".
  This is a similar situation.
  When, from time to time, some of us protest about this form of legislation—my noble friend Lord Peyton expresses his distaste with considerable eloquence—I hope that, somewhere deep in the recesses of departments, people take note. We do not like it. Somehow one must find a better approach. Perhaps, on this occasion, the provision is so minor and consequential to the making of the scheme to which Schedule 17 relates that we ought to swallow our distaste and accept it. However, like my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon, I find such provisions very distasteful.
  Lord Tombs: The amendments that deal with the provision of transitional relief have been largely discussed earlier. We know the dangers and the reasons involved. I trust that they will be dealt with in due course.
  Amendment No. 118, which stands in my name and that of other noble Lords, would delete words from line 15 of page 207 because they seem to be covered by Clause 1. One should avoid repetition so far as possible. I support the amendments.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: It is our misfortune to have such a complex group of amendments punctuated by a Division, creating problems in ensuring the continuity of our discussion. I will do my very best to respond to all the points made in this short debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting that she move the amendments in such a form as to remove the need for me to reshuffle my notes. I regret to say that she has not achieved that objective. I would be already in a state of confusion if I followed precisely the order that she suggests because, believe it or not, I took a simpler approach to this group of interesting and challenging amendments. I intend to deal with the easiest amendment first, on the grounds that that would establish my credentials with the Committee, and hope to survive on the more difficult ones as we progress.
  I shall refer first to Amendment No. 117B. Sub-paragraph (8) has been included so that if a mistake is found when the text of the licence is published, it can subsequently be rectified and the situation clarified. The amendment would remove that ability. We have included the sub-paragraph to provide clarity and transparency. I hear what the noble Baroness says in support of her amendment. We merely seek to establish as clearly as possible that the text should be treated as authoritative unless, because an error has been identified, a change must be made which will be specific and clear. I do not think that we could have expressed the situation more clearly, against a
  GC 74
  background in which we must guard against the possibility of error, requiring us to make a different statement.
  Lord Tombs: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have difficulty with the wording of sub-paragraph (8), which states:
  "Any text shall be treated as authoritative unless the contrary is shown".
  The Minister referred to "inaccuracy", which is not the same thing. According to the provision, when a text is published, it is authoritative unless it can be shown that it is not. One may be able to show that a text is inaccurate, but I do not know how one can show that it is not authoritative.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The sub-paragraph relates to the text at the point at which a licence is published. We are saying that that is the authoritative position. However, if it were necessary to rectify a licence, we would need to clarify the position. We merely state in the Bill that we are committed to being explicit in that regard. I hear what the noble Lord says: the concept of "authoritative" has considerable weight attached. The intention is that the position is authoritative, provided that a change is not necessary and a position made to the contrary. The purpose of the provision is to make the situation as open and transparent as possible.
  Lord Tombs: I am still puzzled by the last few words of the provision. If it is to remain, the sub-paragraph needs modification. I do not know how one can show that something is not authoritative. One can show that it is incorrect or badly judged, for example, but not that it is not authoritative, if the statute says that it is.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I once witnessed a competition in which the prize was a cut-glass vase for the person who could best expound on the obvious. Sub-paragraph (8) says that anything will be treated as authoritative unless it is not. In explaining it, the Minister said something clearly; when he looks at Hansard, he might find a way to reword sub-paragraph (8). However, I do not think that the noble Lord should win the cut-glass vase; it would not be a very good advertisement for the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I have no intention of entering that competition. If I inadvertently blundered into it, and at present I am highly placed, I shall try to withdraw myself from the competition as rapidly as possible.
  In explaining the position to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, I was trying to identify that we seek to be clear and transparent, and that therefore the provision shall be authoritative. However, we are aware that on occasion change might be necessary. Making the statement in these terms guarantees that we must be clear, transparent, open and honest when such a change takes place, because we are committed in the

  GC 75
  legislation to that principle. That is all that I seek to reflect in respect of the word "authoritative" in this provision.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am terribly sorry to disturb the Minister again on this simple point; I am grateful to him for giving way. He may recall that a long time ago, before the Committee was suspended for a Division, I said that on the face of it, the statement is impossible. The more the poor noble Lord tries to tell us that it is possible, the more he convinces us all that it is not. It is merely necessary to change one word. One cannot possibly state that the text shall be,
  "treated as authoritative unless the contrary is shown".
  If the contrary can be shown, then it is not authoritative, full stop. That is the normal interpretation of the word. There is no point in discussing the matter further, but I wanted to ease the Minister's way. Sub-paragraph (8) contains a statement of the impossible, and sometimes when one is faced with the impossible, one must accept that something must be done about it.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear what the noble Baroness and the other Members of the Committee have said—I thought that this was the easiest part of the debate. As I disappear beneath the waves, I wish to point out that this is a clear attempt on the part of the Government to be open and clear about the position: issues should be described in authoritative terms. However, we are aware that, having described them in those authoritative terms, that is the issue that will govern the procedure. Some change to a licence may be necessary. We are merely indicating that we will be open, clear, honest and precise when we need to effect that change. If noble Lords are saying, "Well, you do not sound very authoritative now", we will reflect on that. If there is one thing that Ministers crave, it is the semblance of authority. I express enormous gratitude to the Committee for having tested me on this amendment.
  On Amendment No. 118, we understand the concern that the noble Baroness expressed about the extent of the power granted to the Secretary of State to alter agreements with users of the transmission system. We do not believe that the provision should cause any concern. Its use is limited to a narrow purpose; that is to say, when a change is needed to an agreement or codes as a consequence of changes to a transmission licence for the purposes of BETTA. If the provision were not present, that could damage the smooth implementation of BETTA. Without it, the only other way to modify agreements would be through the "power to modify licence conditions". Some participants are unlicensed, and the agreement of the unlicensed parties to the changes to the agreement would need to be provided.
  In particular, this provision relates to the framework agreements for the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC) and the Connection and Use of System Code (CUSC). Those code framework agreements refer to an authorised area of England and
  GC 76
  Wales. Upon the introduction of BETTA the authorised area will no longer exist. These framework agreements therefore require amendment.
  Without the provision in Schedule 17 we cannot be confident that we would be able to achieve the amendments needed within the timetable, as it would require the agreement of all parties to the framework agreement—including those who are unlicensed—and that would need to be complete at the time that the licensing system was applied. That is currently scheduled for soon after Royal Assent, so it would be a risky proposition for the smooth implementation of BETTA.
  In general, both the Secretary of State and Ofgem intend to use the power to modify licence conditions to achieve amendments to codes necessary for BETTA. However, we do not have all the detailed steps that will need to be completed to enable a smooth transition to BETTA at present. Those are being worked out as a matter of priority but, as such, it is conceivable that in some circumstances the power to modify licence conditions will not be the appropriate way to achieve a modification to a code where that needs to be complete by the time that the licensing system comes into effect; namely, the start of BETTA.
  I recognise that the argument is complicated, but it meets what the noble Baroness indicated in moving the amendment were the difficulties surrounding the issue. It is because of those difficulties that I am obliged to present a complex argument in defence of the position.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: I have been following the Minister's words fairly carefully. He said that steps were being worked out. Are things still not settled? Does that not add to the reason why my noble friend's amendment might be very applicable?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness is right; not all details with regard to BETTA have been completely worked through. It is a tight timetable to meet the objectives by Royal Assent. What has occurred is that the DTI and Ofgem have worked to ensure that documents describing the details of the BETTA project are in the public domain while the Bill is being discussed. So far, 35 such documents have been published.
  All the main planks of the BETTA project framework have been established and, for the most part, only details remain. However, a few issues of significance remain. The DTI and Ofgem expect to resolve those in the coming weeks. The detailed implementation arrangements will be resolved only during the final phase of BETTA. It is for that reason that the Bill seeks enabling powers rather than detailed provisions. I recognise the justifiable anxiety of the Opposition and the accuracy with which they identify the fact that some details have not been worked through, which is why we need powers in such terms.

  GC 77
  However, I hope that it will be recognised that the area is very complex and that work is ongoing. That is why we are not able to accept Amendment No. 118.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I may have misheard the Minister, but I got the impression that, when he drew the distinction between licence holders and other parties who were not licence holders, he used a phrase along the lines of "proceeding by agreement". If the Government's intention in making changes to the codes and licences to which the schedule refers is to proceed by agreement—there is provision for consultation, but that is not the same thing—many of our anxieties would withdraw. However, if I misheard that, it would be quite appropriate to ask the Minister to make it clear that the Government might have to overrule some of the parties not prepared to agree.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: It will be recognised that we hope to achieve agreement of the parties concerned for BETTA, in all aspects of it. The noble Lord will recognise that the broad structural framework has been achieved against a background of extensive consultation and agreement, but there are one or two outstanding points. There are also matters of detail on which the amendment would make it extremely difficult for us to achieve the objective of establishing BETTA within the time frame that we have. Of course we recognise that we cannot implement BETTA without the main structural positions being agreed with the parties, and that is the basis on which we are working.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I would like to come back on one point. There are so many in the group that, if I waited until the end and we had gone through various other matters, it would be terribly confusing for us as well as for the Minister. As he knows, I always try to help him when at all possible.
  I see that the Secretary of State obviously needs some power to vary agreements and codes. However, my noble friend tabled an amendment to remove paragraph 2, which is headed:
  "Consequential amendment of related codes and agreements".
  The amendments are not merely consequential—let us say that straight out. We are talking about a major power that drastically affects the commercial interests of the licensee. That is a very serious matter.
  Paragraph 2 states:
  "The Secretary of State may include in a scheme under paragraph 1 provision amending a code or agreement relevant to the conditions of an existing transmission licence if it appears to him desirable to do so in consequence of anything for which the scheme makes provision".
  I emphasise,
  "if it appears to him desirable to do so".
  We do not agree; we think that that wording is far too wide and allows the Secretary of State to do anything on a very important matter.
  If the Minister is now saying that there will be some kind of agreement, we will not press the relevant amendment. We could not do so in any case, as this is
  GC 78
  Grand Committee. However, it is important that we know in detail what the Minister means by the words about which my noble friend asked him. As it stands, the provision is not appropriate to be left in, and nor is it consequential. We are slipping into giving the Secretary of State quite wide powers. We do not think that whether he believes that it is "desirable to do so" is the appropriate way to move forward, particularly when the Minister is talking about transparency. How transparent is the provision if it is merely based on what the Secretary of State thinks desirable at the time?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I have to give a fairly general answer to the noble Baroness, who is obviously not entirely satisfied with my answer thus far. I am seeking to establish that the licensing scheme is the means by which existing transmission licences are changed to licences to participate in transmission. It is also used to incorporate new standard conditions for transmission. Amendment of a code or agreement under paragraph 2 is limited by the nature of the licensing scheme. The Secretary of State may exercise the power only if that is helpful to the scheme. I hope that I am allaying the noble Baroness's anxiety. The power is not an eccentric one for the Secretary of State, but is restricted very much to being helpful to the licensing scheme and is within that framework.
  I recognise that "desirable" is a softer test than that used to change licence conditions in Clauses 106 and 109, which require the change to be "necessary or expedient". We had aspects of that debate a little earlier. However, the power is to be used to amend agreements that have been entered into by non-licence holders such as traders. It is intended to be wide enough to ensure that such persons are not able to delay the BETTA timetable. I put it to Members of the Committee that that is a reasonable position for the Government to take with regard to a tight timetable. The power is restricted to a very limited area.
  On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing the amendment, although I recognise that I have not thus far addressed several other amendments. I agree with her that it has been necessary for the clarity of our proceedings to get the issues clear on amendments about which there are some difficulties.
  On Amendment No. 118A, I reiterate the case that I made a little earlier. It is not impossible that errors could be made in the transmission licensing scheme. Therefore, a power to modify the scheme including retrospective modification is necessary. An error in the term of a licence would be capable of amendment only if a power were provided to amend the scheme itself. For example, one cannot amend the term of the licence by exercising the power to modify licence conditions.
  I recognise that the subject is difficult. One example of when the provision might be used is where we use the licensing system to amend the term of an existing licence to set out where that licensee can operate. For example, let us say that an error was made in the scheme and NGC was licensed to operate in England only, whereas currently it operates in England and

  GC 79
  Wales. We would wish for NGC to continue to undertake its activities in England and Wales, and a modification to correct the error in the licensing scheme would need to be capable of having retrospective effect. I recognise what has been said on that subject. We would need a retrospective effect to ensure that NGC was not found to have committed a criminal offence while it continued to undertake its activities in England and Wales.
  I want to stress how seriously the Government take retrospective modifications. I recognise the proper anxiety about them.
  Lord Tombs: Can I make an observation that might help the Minister? Amendment No. 118 is extremely modest. It does not challenge the point to which the Minister is replying. It simply seeks to delete words in paragraph 2 that are already included in paragraph 1.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, as the subject has been raised, I was seeking to allay anxieties about aspects of retrospective consideration in the schedule. Concern has been expressed, so I seek to identify how narrow the definition is, but how essential it is in the circumstances in which we are placed.
  We have had debates that cover Amendments Nos. 117A, 11813 and 1180 on previous occasions in Committee—certainly one occasion is very vivid in my mind, given the contributions of a number of noble Lords—as we have talked about the costs incurred by Scottish generators following the introduction of BETTA. The GB system operator has been charged with developing a GB charging methodology that is cost-reflective and non-discriminatory. That means that generators whose connection to the system imposes the greatest cost will pay the highest charges.
  As generators in Scotland and the north of England are located furthest from centres of demand, they will face the highest charges. However, as we discussed previously, the Government intend to take measures to mitigate the impact on renewables. At the same time, it should be recognised that Scottish generators will no longer have to pay any inter-connector charges or a separate charge for access to the England and Wales market. It would not be fair for Scottish generators to receive the benefits of BETTA on day one, but, as the Opposition argue for, to receive transitional relief from the costs of BETTA. As I emphasised in the previous debate on the issue—I was not greeted with overwhelming enthusiasm from the Opposition—our analysis of the costs and benefits ended up in a fairly neutral position so far as Scottish generators were concerned.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Gray of Contin: I hate to spoil the Minister's speech, but I shall write to him within the next day or two to point out that the information that he gave in reply to the amendment that I moved a week last
  GC 80
  Thursday, to which he again referred just now, is not as accurate as he might believe it to be. However, I shall not spoil the rest of the evening for him.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord is in no danger at all of spoiling my speech; he might well have spoiled my evening, but that is a different matter altogether. When he makes his representation, we shall examine it with the greatest care, and I hope that we shall be able to reply to him effectively. In any case, I would not be too sanguine about the possibility of the issue not arising again on later stages of the Bill. I am sure that we shall return to it.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Minister gets my noble friend's letter, will he bear in mind that to make a change that creates a level playing field is one thing, but to then allow a change to be made to create a newly uneven playing field is another? They do not necessarily cancel each other out. My noble friend will doubtless write more clearly about that, but perhaps he will refer to what I have said. He will find that there is some nonsense going on.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear what the noble Baroness says. She is talking to a former sportsman, and I have never liked the analogy of the level playing field. It does not matter whether most playing fields on which sports are played are level, because everyone changes round at half time. I merely indicate that Scottish generators have an equal score with their competitors in England and Wales. I hear that the noble Lord is challenging the figures that I cited to him and which I predict that we shall examine later. At present, so far as the Government are concerned, the score is level, so it is not for the Government to worry about the playing field.
  Lord Tombs: I thank the Minister for giving way yet again. The interruptions to his flow do not show; nevertheless, I apologise. I want to make two points. One is rather specific and relates to his reply on the transmission costs. I keep saying that the geography is different, and that in Scotland a much sparser and simpler transmission system has developed. In many ways it is simpler because the Scottish boards historically did things differently from those in England and Wales. There is a physical case for different charges in Scotland. Quite apart from that is the question, if we do not have transition, of the impact on the trading arrangements. It would be extremely difficult and, I think, unacceptable to the Scottish boards.
  On a much broader point, when I was responsible for the Scottish system some years ago, I was very conscious as an Englishman of London as a centre for decisions, which tended to throw Scotland to one side. I was a member of a so-called nuclear power advisory board, which consisted of five people and met regularly in London. When I asked if we could have one meeting in five in Scotland, I got the reply, "But Scotland is so far away". I pointed out as solemnly as I could that the distance from Glasgow to London was the same as that from London to Glasgow, but that did not have any effect and we still met in London.

  GC 81
  It is a fact that National Grid Transco, the DTI and Ofgem are all located in London. Glasgow seems a long way away, and we are talking about something smaller than the main system. The Minister must be very much aware of that and guard against it, because it will provoke unfairness, rapid decisions made local to other pressure points, and a sense of unfairness that may find its way through political channels and other routes.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We cannot change sides to either side of the border at half time.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: One cannot so far as the border is concerned, but one can with regard to the playing field on which one is operating. The proposal is that BETTA will operate on the basis that there is no discrimination between the generators. I understand the arguments made on the transitional position; I merely indicate that we do not think that the case has been made out, in terms of unfairness and so on.
  The implications of the amendments are clear enough: they would discriminate against generators in England and Wales, which would have to pay increased charges as a result of the transitional relief granted to Scottish generators. That is a straightforward distortion of competition. I understand the motive behind it, but let us not make any bones about the fact that we seek to create a fair, open and transparent market. The amendments would certainly distort that. On that fairly important point of principle, I hope that the amendment might be withdrawn.
  Given the protracted nature of my reply—not all of it of my own wont, as the Committee will recognise—I hope that I have responded to most of the points and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank all Members of the Committee who have contributed in various ways to the whole group of amendments. I started off by apologising to the Minister, as it seemed a disparate group, although Scotland was the binding element of the amendments. Other than that, some of the issues were quite different.
  I also thank the Minister for giving way on so many occasions and dealing with the group so charmingly, if I may say so. Once again, he has drawn the short straw. He did so during another sitting, and it was most unfortunate for him. I tried to help this time by tabling the amendments in the order that I did, only to discover that he thought that he would deal with them from the easiest to the most difficult. He found that the one with which he started was perhaps the most difficult of all. I feel for him; he had an excellent stab at a hard point.
  I hope that the Minister will take Amendment No. 117B away and that his officials will try to find some different words; it does not look as though we are turning the world upside down. The Minister did not answer the second part of what I said on Amendment No. 118A. I asked whether, if any scheme made
  GC 82
  changes retrospectively, he could assure us that no one would be required by this legislation to find sums of money relating to past performance. On Amendment No. 118, he said that the discretion was very narrow within the licence. However, we are still concerned about it, and the Minister could come back with a different form of wording to make it clear that the amount of discretion was very tightly controlled. That might meet our difficulties.
  With regard to the main body of amendments—Amendment No. 117A and the consequential amendments—we must agree to disagree. We were trying to search out from the Government what they felt about the issue. We are talking about complicated measures. We did not intend to make an uneven playing field, although there was a suggestion of that. We were trying to provide for phasing in during the transitional period, as has been done previously. The example that I gave of when it had been done before was not a precedent, so our proposal is not something against anyone's policy. We suggest a gentle phasing in to make the beginning somewhat easier. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.24 to 5.35 p.m.]
  [Amendments Nos. 117B to 118C not moved.]
  Schedule 17 agreed to.
  Clause 111 [Grant of transmission licences]:
  Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 118D:
  Page 89, line 40, leave out subsection (5).
  The noble Lord said: After the excitement of the previous group, we return to our more wearisome progress through the Bill. This is a small amendment to leave out subsection (5); grouped with it is Amendment No. 118E, which would leave out lines 42 and 43. On Amendment No. 118D, I was encouraged by one remark of the Minister about how the Government hope to proceed by agreement. If that is a sign of how we shall proceed for the remainder of the Bill, we will all heave a sigh of relief.
  This is a probing amendment designed to elicit the Government's motivation: why is the restriction considered necessary? Is there not a grave danger that if the Secretary of State may exercise the power only on a single occasion for a single licence there may be unfair advantage for a single company or person? Such advantage could turn out to be seriously unfair. The Minister has been good at giving examples to illustrate what the Government will do under the Bill. Perhaps he could now give us an example of the nature of the argument that could result in his directing GEMA to grant a transmission licence. It is undoubtedly implied in the wording of the Bill that if he did not so direct, GEMA itself would not necessarily grant the licence.
  Amendment No. 118E is also probing. Is the Bill's wording constructed to mean that the Secretary of State may direct GEMA to refuse an application and then direct it to accept another one? Or is the intention to stop the Secretary of State from directing acceptance and then changing his mind and instructing

  GC 83
  that the application be refused after all? Or is the intention to restrict the Secretary of State to a single overruling of GEMA, whether that be to accept or reject a specific application?
  Can the Minister give us another example of a set of circumstances in which he would want or need to issue an instruction to aid implementation of the new trading and transmission arrangements? On whose advice would he overrule GEMA? I beg to move.
  Lord Triesman: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I promise him that I shall not add to the excitement following the previous group. I am not sure whether the amendment and this part of the Bill are simply complex or so significantly obscure that excitement is almost impossible. In trying to deal with the nature of the argument, as he put it, I shall try to set out the purpose of the clause, to enable everyone to understand what it is intended to achieve. It may well be that, not so much examples, but what is already happening, will illustrate the points that have been so appropriately raised with us.
  The purpose of the clause is to enable the Secretary of State to appoint the GB system operator by requiring the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (GEMA) to award a licence or to refuse any one application. Perhaps I should add in parentheses that, at present, under the Utilities Act, Ofgem has that power and it will be transferred to GEMA; it is not a power of the Secretary of State. Under Amendment No. 114, it might have been thought that the Secretary of State still had that power, but I want to be clear that it is GEMA that holds it.
  That power will need to be exercised only if a GB system operator is not one of the existing transmission licensees. That is because in such a case, the licence will be modified to switch on the conditions applicable to the system operator. That will be done through the licensing scheme. If that power is commenced, it should not be capable of being exercised more than once, as the intention is that there should be only one system operator for Great Britain.
  However, the power is unlikely to be used—this is where my explanation may be more useful than the provision of examples. In August 2002, invitations were sent out for applications from parties interested in being the system operator for Great Britain, and the process closed in September 2002. One application was received from the National Grid Company plc. Rather than giving examples, let me state that that is the company that made the application.
  Amendment No. 118E would remove from the Bill a subsection the purpose of which is to enable the Secretary of State to appoint a GB system operator. In doing that, it is important to ensure that the authority—Ofgem/GEMA—turns down all but the chosen application. We cannot conceive of the Secretary of State overruling GEMA. The Secretary of State is making the transmission licence award because it is considered that such an important appointment should be considered and made by the Government direct; in no other circumstances would it be contemplated that that should happen.
  GC 84
  It is therefore necessary to include the power in the subsections to ensure that the authority refuses all but the successful application to achieve that single application status. However, that power needs to be available only prior to the appointment by the Secretary of State of a system operator for Great Britain. Once the system operator is appointed, there is no need to refuse anyone else.
  It may be asked why the power is necessary when I have already said that NGC, an existing transmission licensee, is to be the only Great Britain system operator. The Bill cannot at this stage constrain the Secretary of State's choice as to who is the appropriate candidate. The Secretary of State has issued a statement saying that she is minded to appoint NGC as the single GB system operator under BETTA. However, it is not possible to make that designation until the legislation is in force; we are at a step before that.
  The amendment would allow the Secretary of State at any time to request that the authority turn down an application for a transmission licence. I hope that I have demonstrated that that would be neither necessary nor appropriate for BETTA in the circumstances. I understand the exploratory nature of the amendment, which was intended to elicit that information, and hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
  Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the Minister for that full explanation of both amendments. We will study carefully what he said but, in the mean time, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 118E not moved.]
  Clause 111 agreed to.
  Clause 112 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
  Clause 113 agreed to.
  Schedule 18 [Property arrangements schemes]:
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 119A:
  Page 208, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
  The noble Lord said: Again, these are essentially short-term measures. Schedule 18 itself is essentially short-term, in that there is only a three-month window in which to apply for a property arrangement scheme. However, the start of that window is not specified, in that the clause that refers to the schedule—Clause 113—comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. It is at least theoretically possible that there may be a great deal of time available to ponder, design and produce all manner of property arrangement schemes.
  The schedule makes clear that an element of compulsion may be involved. In those circumstances, I am concerned to know what property rights or liabilities would be liable to be transferred—especially those which would not otherwise be capable of being transferred. Does the use of the word "transfer" mean

  GC 85
  that money, as in buying and selling or compensation, will not be involved? Will the Minister give examples of possible property arrangement schemes, highlighting the circumstances in which they might be appropriate and including an instance of transfer that would not otherwise be possible?
  Amendment No. 119B would, after "shall", insert, "within three calendar months". Under the provisions of the schedule, the application for a property arrangement must be made in a given period of three months. There are 21 days' grace between the making of the scheme and its implementation. Seven days are allowed for applying for review of a GEMA decision, and there is a further seven days in which someone who has applied for review may apply for an interim arrangement.
  It seems unreasonable that no limit is set on the time GEMA takes to determine an application. How long would GEMA normally be allowed? Do the Government expect any sort of a backlog to arise because of the three-month window for making applications? Would GEMA recruit extra temporary staff to deal with any such backlog? If so, which departments or organisations would be approached for help?
  I hope the Minister will be able to reply to these amendments as fully as he replied to the first set I put to him. We shall wait and see. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I am not sure that I can give detailed replies with the same level of erudition as my noble friend Lord Triesman. In essence, the issue is straightforward. I understand why anxieties are raised; we are talking about transfer of property and, as the noble Lord said, there could be an element of compulsion involved without the agreement of a third party. I emphasise that that would be used as a last resort and that there is provision for compensation, but the provision is vital. If it were removed, that could be detrimental to the introduction of BETTA.
  To answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, about what kind of property we are talking about, for the most part, we are almost certainly discussing property such as leases, licences of intellectual property, contractual rights and so forth, rather than cash. Nevertheless, that is property and the provision could involve compulsory purchase of property.
  Obviously, in the first instance, we would hope that all parties concerned—the transmission asset owners, the transmission system operator and so on—would be able to agree on how the new system will operate and how the parties will interact and arrange their affairs. But that may not occur. It will be necessary to use the property arrangement scheme only if agreement cannot be reached and if that would result in BETTA failing or being undermined.
  In order for that provision to be used, an application to use the property arrangement scheme would, as the noble Lord said, have to be made within three months of BETTA's introduction. Were the provision not
  GC 86
  there, we would be in danger of allowing the BETTA system not to operate in practice. On the procedures, I understand that GEMA intends to publish the procedures that it intends to follow when the Act is in force.
  On the second amendment and the question of a timetable, it is important that we allow time for all the parties' interests to be fully considered. That requires some flexibility. Some of the matters on which the authority may have to decide may be straightforward—a simple assignment of a single software licence, for example, where the main licence could not otherwise be assigned. But other issues may be much more complicated.
  Whatever the application, it is incumbent on the authority to consider whether the proposal is necessary or expedient for the implementation of BETTA, as well as deciding what arrangements to impose. In that context, it is important that all affected licensees' and third parties' interests must be considered. The authority needs to act as rapidly and as expeditiously as possible, but it will be operating in a system in which its decisions can be challenged under administrative law.
  That cuts both ways. On the one hand, if it fails to take all those issues into consideration, it can be challenged. On the other hand, if it takes too long about it and there is detriment as a result of the delay, it could also be challenged. So it is not easy to define a fixed period or even a normal period in the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, asked me to do.
  We do not expect a backlog. We hope and expect that in almost all instances, the parties will reach agreement without resorting to that last resort provision. The staffing issues will therefore probably not arise. In any case, they will be an administrative matter for GEMA rather than for the Ministry, so I cannot answer that question. We do not anticipate that that will lead to any serious pressure on staffing.
  However, if we removed the provision or imposed a timescale that would prevent the authority from carrying out its duties, that could in certain circumstances lead to delay in BETTA's introduction or compromise the ability to implement BETTA at all. The deletion proposed by the first amendment would clearly lead to that consequence. Were we to place too tight a timescale on the authority, the same problem could arise. We must ensure that the process is pursued, taking into account the interests of all parties concerned. It would be unhelpful to those parties were a tight timescale to be imposed on them in all cases.
  Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend replies, as my name is linked with the amendment, perhaps I could ask a couple of questions. The Minister said clearly that the provision would be enacted only if agreement were not reached. That is the second amendment on which a Minister has said "only if". Would it not make more sense to include those words? At present, as my noble friend clearly spelt out, the provision is open-ended.

  GC 87
  The Minister went on to say that there would be guidelines about the length of time, that the response would be as rapid as possible or that a normal period would be used. Other Members of the Committee may know, but I should be grateful if he would tell me whether there is a recognised normal period. He said that it may be possible to respond in three months. I know that this is a DTI Bill rather than a Defra Bill, but the Minister will be well aware that I am still concerned that, for example, payments due from the foot and mouth outbreak have still not been completed two years later.
  We all want to get the system up and running, but what do the Government anticipate that a normal period may be? Earlier, we were referred to the Utilities Act. We raised similar concerns before it was passed. Is there anything in that Act to help my noble friend by giving him some idea of the sort of period anticipated?
  If there is a major challenge that may go to the courts, that will obviously take some time, but at present, reading the provision to which the amendments refer, it seems open-ended. It could take a considerable time, but no guidelines have been given. In his response, the Minister did not define the period at all; he gave us only a generality. Is there any provision in previous Acts that would help my noble friend and me to be more satisfied about the Bill's wording?
  Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention and I entirely agree with her. I take the points made by the Minister, but I still believe that deadlines are not a bad thing for concentrating the mind. I only suggested three months to see what would be the Government's reaction. If they could argue a case for six months, we would listen.
  The Minister said that they do not expect delays. Surely in legislation we should provide for the unexpected as well as the expected. Delays could have a serious effect. As a safeguard I would like a time limit to be imposed, but I shall listen to the Minister's further remarks on that. In any case, we will certainly consider carefully what he has already said, but we may want to return to the matter on Report.
  Lord Whitty: In response to the point about last resort, the process is triggered not by the regulator but if a transmission licensee applies. In other words, it can effectively be used only if no agreement is reached. So it is not a question of the regulator becoming irritated and deciding on the last resort; someone must decide that they cannot agree with the other parties. In that sense, it does not need to be spelt out that it is a last resort; it is a last resort because negotiations must have broken down before it can operate. That is not at the regulator's discretion.
  I understand what was said about the timescale, but we do not know how complex the issues that arise will be. GEMA may set out an idea about timescales in its procedures, but it would be unwise to lay down a statutory limitation at this point. The assurance that parties to such agreements will have is that if the authorities delay unreasonably they are challengeable
  GC 88
  in law. Equally, they would be challengeable if the opposite were to take place and by hurrying it through they ignored or did not take into account the interests of one of the parties.
  Although I understand why people may want some reassurance, it would be unwise to put that in statute. There may be something in the guidance that the regulators themselves may issue, but at this stage I would resist the building into the Bill of a statutory timetable. There are not many areas where in similar circumstances involving potentially complex negotiations the regulator is under a specific timetable to resolve matters.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Gray of Contin: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We shall give the issue a little more thought. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 119B not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 119C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 119D:
  Page 213, line 6, after "order" insert "subject to the positive resolution procedure"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 119D, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 144A, 146A and 146B. In doing so, I should mention that I propose to table similar amendments to Clauses 24 and 72. Those provisions have already been dealt with by the Committee, so I shall introduce the amendments on Report.
  The Bill contains at least 12 Henry VIII clauses As the Committee will know, that alludes to the popular perception of that king as an executive autocrat. It means a provision that allows an Act of Parliament—not necessarily the one that grants the power—to be modified by statutory instrument. This is a power which, although not invented by the present Government, has been used by them with ever-increasing frequency since they have been in power.
  A Henry VIII clause is normally, and quite rightly, made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, there are some cases, in our view, where the affirmative resolution procedure itself needs to he strengthened by what I may call a "super affirmative procedure". The super affirmative procedure is set out in Amendment No. 146B, the last amendment in the group. Basically it requires more than the usual procedure employed for ordinary affirmative resolutions.
  In those cases, the Secretary of State will have to do more than table the order. Before he does so, under proposed subsection (2) he will have to give Parliament a detailed explanation. There must then be a 60-day consultation period before the order is laid. That is covered by proposed subsections (3), (4) and (5). Under subsection (6), the Secretary of State, in formally laying the draft order before Parliament in

  GC 89
  the ordinary way, will also have to inform Members of both Houses what representations he has received and what amendments he has made as a consequence. Subsection (7) of the proposed new clause provides a definition of the word "enactment".
  There is a precedent, set by the Government themselves, in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, where Sections 4 and 5 make provision for prior consultation before a Henry VIII order is made.
  Despite the fact that there are, as I have said, no fewer than 12 Henry VIII clauses, I have not applied a shotgun approach to them. I have selected only four for a special super affirmative procedure, modified from the more detailed one required by the Regulatory Reform Act.
  I shall now deal with the four remaining amendments in the group in order. Amendment No. 119D affects paragraph 21 of Schedule 18. The schedule does not specify either the positive or negative method of ratifying the order. Presumably that was not an oversight but due to the fact that, as I assume, the Government rely on the general provisions of Clause 156.
  However, we believe that this particular provision in the 18th schedule should in any case require the use of the positive resolution procedure. More than that, we believe that it needs the super affirmative procedure. The reason for this is because of the powers given to the Secretary of State to refer Ofgem's determinations to the Competition Commission. The occasions when this could arise are too serious to be allowed to slip through, probably unnoticed, under the negative procedure.
  Amendment No. 131 A relates to paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 22, which enables the Secretary of State by order to modify any of the time periods specified in the schedule. It therefore has the potential adversely to affect the exercise of persons' appeal rights. This is currently constrained only by the negative resolution procedure.
  Amendment No. 144A relates to Clause 155, which enables the Petroleum Act 1998 to be modified by Order in Council to give effect to international agreements relating to the construction, operation, use, decommissioning or abandonment of a pipeline or offshore installation.
  Amendment No. 146A is to Clause 156(3). The clause relates to powers exercisable by statutory instrument and the amendment is merely consequential to ensure that the exercise of that power is subject to new Section 156A.
  If and when I am able to introduce the similar amendments to Clauses 24 and 72, I shall be drawing the Committee's attention to the effect of those two clauses. Respectively, Clause 24 allows the Secretary of State scope to increase the NDA's borrowing by increasing the limits. Clause 72 permits the Secretary of State to give effect to international agreements which Parliament may never have had the opportunity of discussing in the first place.
  The new Section 156A created by Amendment No. 146B lays down the super affirmative procedure that I believe is essential in the four special and particular cases that I have set out. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: As regards the first amendment. I am in a slightly strange position. Having looked at the issue, I find that the paragraph of the schedule to which the amendment relates was drafted some time ago when this was a stand-alone Bill. It relates to a situation when the relevant clause of the Enterprise Act had not commenced.
  Having considered the matter—partly as a result of having my attention drawn to it by the amendment—it is our view that we do not need to retain the power and that the best way of dealing with it is to delete the sentences completely. So we shall bring forward amendments to do just that and to remove the whole of paragraphs 21 and 22 of Schedule 18.
  I cannot be so accommodating on the rest of the amendments.
  Earl Attlee: Perhaps you should just sit down now.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness is suggesting that in those clauses which give a very specified power to the Secretary of State we should go for a special super affirmative resolution procedure. That is a concept which is alien to many Members of the Committee and I do not see the need for it. The name of Henry VIII has been much maligned in this context. He would have regarded the provisions as being preposterously restraining on him.
  We have to look at the precedents for this. I have quite a long brief here, which I can read out, or I can write to the noble Baroness. There are situations where a special procedure has been operated, more or less in the terms suggested by the noble Baroness, but the provisions to allow that are open-ended provisions to modify legislation in an unspecified way for unspecified reasons. Some of them arose in the Local Government Act—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will remember them—and others arose under Northern Ireland legislation, where powers are given to amend the primary legislation without specifying why. In all such cases, including the ones relating to the earlier clauses, there are specified reasons and means for modifying the clause, most of them relating to the implementation of international agreements.
  I know that there is a running argument in parts of the House about whether Parliament should negotiate treaties. The practice is that we do not negotiate treaties but the effects of treaties come into legislation. This is one way of making sure that treaties come into legislative operation. It has been used before. It is a very specified and particular reason for what is being called a Henry VIII power. It is not a proper Henry VIII power in the sense that it has a wide range of unspecified actions that the Secretary of State is allowed to take.
  Even the marginally more open-ended question of increasing the borrowing limit of the NDA is very specific. I do not therefore believe that in this context

  GC 91
  we require a special procedure. It is no different from many of the other contexts in which we use the affirmative procedure. It would be difficult to justify it in this context when a whole range of affirmative resolution procedures are at least of similar provenance and where no open-ended power is given to the Secretary of State. So in all of these instances I would resist the imposition of a special procedure on these clauses.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: It seems to be one to us and three to the Government. I believe that that is a fair summation of what the Minister said.
  I thank the Minister for accepting the fact that the paragraphs in the schedule needed to be deleted. It looked as though we were setting a precedent with this group of amendments. It did not last very long, but it was better than nothing.
  I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I have had problems with Henry VIII clauses—not only in this Bill but in many Bills—which are creeping more and more into legislation. One must make a stand at some stage and say, "We do not believe that it is right". The Minister referred to another Act which contained such a provision with regard to international agreements, and Clause 72 of this Bill refers to international agreements.
  I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 18 agreed to.
  Clauses 114 and 115 agreed to.
  Schedule 19 agreed to.
  Clauses 116 and 117 agreed to.
  Clause 118 [Standard conditions for electricity interconnectors]:
  [Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 121 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 118 agreed to.
  Clause 119 [Consequential amendments of the 1989 Act]:
  [Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
  Clause 119 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
  Clauses 120 and 121 agreed to.
  Clause 122 [Standard conditions for gas interconnectors]:
  [Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
  Clause 122 agreed to.
  Clauses 123 to 126 agreed to.
  Clause 127 [Objective of an energy administration]:
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 99, line 4, after "system" insert "in compliance with its licence conditions and general duties"
  The noble Lord said: The amendment—and the two that follow at Clauses 128 and 130—relates to the proposed special administration regime for energy licensees. The Department of Trade and industry consulted on this matter last summer, but there are still some loose ends to tie up.
  As we understand the position, there are some inconsistencies in administration arrangements across the different regulated utilities. For example, special administration may be enforced in the water Industry for breaches of licence conditions or general duties, yet for the energy sector the assumption is that administration arrangements will apply only in cases of insolvency. Amendment No. 125 is therefore proposed in the interests of good practice and consistency across the board.
  Amendment No. 126 relates to Clause 128 and seeks to ensure consultation at a timely and appropriate stage through the established industrial relations machinery. For any employee the experience having his or her company placed into administration is, at the very least, extremely worrying. It is well known that the consequences, both in terms of future employment security and pension provision, can be dire. It is therefore only right and fair that there should be proper and meaningful consultation throughout any such process. The amendment does not seek to create any new structures, but simply to ensure that existing arrangements are honoured properly.
  Amendment No. 127 relates to Clause 130 and seeks confirmation that the arrangements for a special administration regime do not, are not intended to, override the statutory duties on employers of protected persons under the Electricity Act 1989.
  Clause 130 appears to lay a duty on the administrator to prioritise the interests of creditors and, subject to them, the interests of members of the company. A clear statement is needed that this statutory duty will not override duties arising under the 1989 Electricity Act.
  That Act empowered the Secretary of State to make regulations that would protect employees then in the industry from detriment in respect of their pension provision. These were enacted as the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990. Similar protection was provided for employees in Scotland under Schedule 15 to the Act and the Electricity (Protected Persons) (Scotland) Pension Regulations 1990.
  The regulations impose a duty on the relevant employer to maintain or provide its protected employees and protected beneficiaries—together called "protected persons"—with pension rights on both an ongoing basis and in three particular circumstances. Those circumstances are as follows: first, in the event of the partial or total winding up of the scheme; secondly, arising from the restructuring, or change of ownership of the participating employers; and, thirdly, where employees transfer from one employer to another within the electricity industry.
  The amendment would also support the objective of maintaining energy network services as this will clearly depend on achieving the fullest co-operation of staff. In such circumstances it will obviously be helpful if staff are not pre-occupied with concerns about their future employment. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: The first amendment seeks to link the objective of energy administration directly to the fulfilment by the company of its licence conditions and its general duties. I understand my noble friend's argument that a company's administration should continue to comply with its licence conditions and we considered whether we should stipulate that in the Bill. However, we concluded that a direct reference to the licence conditions was unnecessary because the energy administrator would, in any event, need to be mindful of the company in administration continuing to comply with all the licence conditions. Otherwise the consequences for members and creditors of the company if it ceased to be licensed could be damaging. We therefore considered that it was not necessary to stipulate that in this context.
  It is also unnecessary to link the objective to the fulfilment of the company's general duties, which are quite wide. The objective already links to maintaining and developing an efficient and economical system. Insofar as this is a general duty of the company, there is no need to refer to it again in the clause.
  The approach as drafted focuses on the policy objective—which must be the main and overriding reason for introducing the special administration—that there should be no interruption to gas or electricity networks. In other words, the lights should not go out. That is the overriding responsibility of the administrator. Insofar as licence conditions can be complied with within that, clearly there is an expectation that the administrator would ensure that they were. It is important that that overriding responsibility should be spelt out; anything else may cause confusion.
  The other two amendments relate to the interests of employees in the case of energy administration. The first deals with a requirement to notify the trade unions of an application. I appreciate that there may well be a general argument for that, which my noble friend Lord Brooke may wish to pursue, but the clause follows the precedent of existing insolvency law and adapts only where necessary for the purposes of energy administration. It would be odd if such a provision were written into this kind of administration if it was not generally provided in other administration circumstances.
  Clearly the employees are subject to the same protection as in any other "ordinary" administration. It will be for the company to ensure that its employees are properly informed. That is the main area of communication with the trade unions.
  Amendment No. 127 would require the energy administrator to exercise his powers in a way which protects the interests of employees, insofar as that is
  GC 94
  consistent with the objective of energy administration. That may be highly desirable but, again, we are following the precedent of existing insolvency law and adapting it only where necessary to meet a particular situation. Again, there is no real justification for treating employees of a protected energy company in energy administration differently from those in ordinary administration.
  Of course, under existing insolvency law, employees can be classed as creditors under paragraph 99 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, which is to be found in Schedule 16 to the Enterprise Act 2002. In that regard, their interests would be protected under energy administration just as would those of other creditors. Under paragraph 74 of that schedule to that Act, an employee who is a creditor of the company may apply to the courts if he believes that the administrator is acting unfairly to harm his interests as an employee creditor of the company.
  My argument against the second and third amendments is that there is no reason for us to depart from the ordinary rules of administration in this respect. The text therefore follows that objective. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to a piece of legislation—I did not hear entirely what he said—and suggested that there is a precedent. Clearly if that is the case I shall look at it and consider whether it gives me any cause to modify that argument.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lea, whose name is attached to the amendment, is not in his place. He has been campaigning for such legislation for trade unions for at least 35 years to my knowledge— it was in his evidence to the Donovan commission in 1966—but has never succeeded. He will not succeed through this back door either.
  Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I thank the Minister for his response. I regret that my noble friend Lord Lea is not in his place to elucidate on the evidence put to the Donovan commission. I certainly do not remember the fine detail of that.
  Taking the last point first, if we have raised a precedent that requires further attention, I should be grateful if my noble friend will take the matter away, discuss it with his officials and consider whether there is any opportunity for some variation of what has been stated to meet the precedent previously established.
  As to my noble friend's other points, naturally we believe that the Government have recognised, so far as they can, that this is a special piece of work that must be undertaken by specially qualified people. That will ensure that the work is carried out and seen through fully by the best qualified and, in many respects, protected staff.
  We have endeavoured in our representations to ensure that employees' terms and conditions are up to the best possible level, particularly in regard to protection of pensions. Indeed, in certain areas, we have tried to achieve minor breakthroughs to ensure that their best interests are protected. I recognise that the generality of applications will similarly apply in this area but I was hoping that we might look for some special changes for involved employees.

  GC 95
  It seems that we have not so far convinced the Minister with our arguments. I shall take away the points he made, reflect on them and consider whether to bring back further arguments at a later stage. Alternatively, we may accept the arguments put to us today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 127 agreed to.
  Clause 128 [Applications for energy administration orders]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 125A:
  Page 100, line 5, at end insert—
  "( ) Before making (or proposing to make) an application in relation to a company under this section, or consenting (or proposing to consent) to such an application by GEMA, the Secretary of State must

  (a) have consulted the directors of that company; and

  (b) be satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that the company would otherwise be able to avoid going into administration or insolvent liquidation within the meaning of section 214 of the 1986 Act."

  The noble Baroness said: An energy administration order is defined by Clause 126 as one made by a court in relation to a protected energy company. It provides that while the order is in force, the affairs, business and property of the company are to be managed by a person appointed by the court. Clause 128 gives power to apply to the court for an energy administration order. It limits the power to apply for an order to the Secretary of State or to GEMA if the Secretary of State authorises it.
  Under the Bill in its present form, there is a danger that an energy administrator might be appointed prematurely. I believe that the test for the exercise of the Secretary of State's power to apply for the appointment of an energy administrator is the same as the court will exercise in deciding whether or not to grant it.
  Administrators cost a great deal of money, adding to a defaulting company's problems and depleting still further the funds available to the creditors. It should be recognised that a company in financial trouble can sometimes be rescued or reorganised without an administrator being appointed. This may involve, for example, a formal arrangement with creditors or an informal arrangement with one or more of them.
  High profile cases in recent months have included British Energy and AES Drax. In the case of TXU Europe there was a six-week period before the appointment of the administrator. During that period, the orderly sale of the K supply business was achieved. Those three examples are from the competitive, as distinct from the monopoly, segments of the energy market.
  However, the appointment of administrators, as distinct from an informal rescue, in any kind of business, including energy administrators, is likely to be a value-destroying step for any company. That is because administrators are bound to act in a somewhat rigid manner. They are not likely to stick out their necks by taking a commercial risk to carry on or
  GC 96
  further the business. Usually, an administrator will be an insolvency practitioner who will have little or no knowledge of the business, even if he has access to outside expert advisers.
  It seems desirable, therefore, that the Secretary of State should be required to consult the directors of the company before, in effect, pulling the plug by taking the drastic step of applying for an energy administration order, or even by taking the commercially damaging step of announcing an intention to do so.
  The amendment also prohibits the Secretary of State from applying to the court for an energy administration order unless he believes that there is no other reasonable prospect that the company would be unable to avoid liquidation. In other words, the amendment prohibits the Secretary of State from acting in haste. It requires the Secretary of State to consult with those who will know at least as much about the affairs of the company as his advisers and the headline writers in the financial press.
  The amendment does not unduly restrict or delay the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers to apply for the appointment of an administrator. Consultation with the directors need not be a lengthy process. It could be carried out in a matter of hours or even in the course of a telephone call. It does not impose on the Secretary of State the responsibility of carefully considering whether it is better for an administrator to be appointed than to allow a rescue to be organised. But having to give consideration to that alternative is no bad thing. It is not a novel idea. It frequently happens in the ordinary world of commerce when a creditor has to decide whether it is better to seek a winding-up order or to appoint an administrator rather than go along with a rescue plan.
  I recognise that there is an added dimension in the case of a failing energy company; that is, the need to ensure that there is a continuity of supply to customers. There is no reason to believe that a very short consultation with the directors would prejudice that. Neither would the requirement that the Secretary of State must take all relevant factors into account before deciding whether to apply for an energy administration order.
  On the contrary: the effect on customers is one of the matters that the Secretary of State would undoubtedly want to take into account. This amendment, far from inhibiting or restricting the Secretary of State's power to act, will enhance it. By following the procedure laid down in the amendment, he will be protecting himself from a challenge in the courts about the way that he has exercised his discretion. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Triesman: Amendment No. 125A would require the Secretary of State both to consult the directors of a protected energy company and to be satisfied that there is "no reasonable prospect" that administration or insolvent liquidation could otherwise be avoided before making an application for an energy administration order. I have tried to fit in my

  GC 97
  mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said about how rapidly that might be operated in extreme circumstances. I must confess that at the moment I find it hard to reconcile the notion that it could be done in hours or on a telephone and still meet what I think is the quite serious test of no reasonable alternative, which might well be difficult. Of course, it could be brief—that is not inconceivable—but it would be difficult.
  I hope that what I have already said illustrates that I completely understand the proposers' concern that the Secretary of State should not use premature powers or act precipitately—possibilities that have been described—and should not seek an energy administration order lightly. That is quite right. By any standards, that would be a very serious matter. The noble Baroness referred to the rights of the creditors and the desire to explore other options. The delays that are sometimes needed in order to consider what the alternatives might be were also mentioned. They are all serious matters.
  I concur that the Secretary of State first should be satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that the company can avoid going into administration or insolvent liquidation by means of a workout or some alternative solution. To do that he would no doubt normally consult the protected energy company and others, such as the regulator and insolvency experts, as appropriate.
  However, it would not be appropriate to place either requirement envisaged by the amendment in the Bill. The purpose of the provisions for energy administration for protected energy companies is to ensure, as the noble Baroness said, that "the lights stay on". In the most extreme circumstances, there should be a provision to ensure that the lights stay on in the very unlikely event that such a company faces insolvency. I do not imagine that that would be an event which would occur with great frequency.
  However, I say to the noble Baroness that were there to be any risk of the lights going out, by any standards, it would be an extremely dire and public event that would cause considerable consternation. For those reasons, it is important to think about the alternatives that we believe are already in the Bill.
  I should add that I take very seriously the noble Baroness's argument that by and large administrators are averse to commercial risks. However, in the extreme circumstances of a real risk of the lights going out, I doubt whether anyone would take any risks on the side of Government because of the serious consequences.
  In exceptional circumstances—clearly they would be very exceptional circumstances—this may require the Secretary of State to act with the greatest possible dispatch. It cannot be right to require him first to consult the directors of the company or fully to satisfy a test that "there is no reasonable prospect" that the company would otherwise be able to avoid administration or insolvent liquidation. As always, the Secretary of State will have to act within the bounds of
  GC 98
  administrative law. In any sense, that is a constraint that must remain. But he should not be further constrained at the point when that rather more remarkable and dramatic circumstance potentially could occur.
  I would also observe that even where there is no consultation prior to the making of an application, there should be sufficient time before the hearing for the Secretary of State to discuss the application with the company. It would be possible for the Secretary of State to withdraw the energy administration application if, following discussions with the company, it appeared that energy administration was unnecessary.
  The Secretary of State has a duty to serve notice of the application on certain interested parties listed in the Bill once the application has been filed at court. Therefore, there will be a short window in which to make representations to the Secretary of State before the hearing and a further opportunity to raise objections at the hearing. Alternatively, if the interested parties concur with the Secretary of State's judgment, it is intended that they will be able to waive this notice period under the energy administration rules.
  I therefore hope to assure Members of the Committee that energy administration will not be sought lightly. The reason that the Secretary of State must have freedom to act quickly would be to keep the lights on. In those circumstances, the amendment is inappropriate. In conclusion of this point, I recognise that the circumstances I am describing probably would occur either not at all or very rarely. But the provision of a safety net of this kind in legislation is none the less, in our view, essential.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord said that he cannot conceive circumstances in which a transmission company might find itself in the difficulties envisaged in the clause. One must remember that this does apply only to transmission companies. However, the same might have been said about British Energy shortly before it had to come before the Secretary of State to say that there would be a number of unpaid bills. The Government had to step in with substantial sums of money with the threat of administration hanging over their head. I heard this morning, in a report to the all-party nuclear group, that British Energy is well on its way to hauling itself out of its difficulties and may be able to repay its Government loan. I regard that as good news.
  On the whole, the British Energy situation was reasonably well handled. But one must recognise why it arose. As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, told us in the debates on the Electricity Act last year, British Energy got into difficulties because it did not have a retail arm that could pay the losses on its generating arm, whereas most other generating companies had a retail arm, with the result—as we know well and the Select Committee in another place complained—that there was no reduction in retail electricity prices to reflect the 40 per cent reduction in wholesale electricity prices. Therefore, in one sense, Ofgem's

  GC 99
  administration of NETA was a direct cause of the collapse of British Energy, which drove prices down to a level at which British Energy could no longer make a profit.
  For most of today, we have been talking about the regulation of transmission companies and the issue of licences, changes, codes, and so on. I am sorry to speak for so long, but I come to my point. In the light of the experience that we saw with NETA, I do not believe that the regulators would not drive the transmission company into a position where it is unable to meet its obligations.
  The Government have recognised that this is a very serious matter by introducing an entire chapter to this part of the Bill to give them the power to do so. I would regard it as quite strange if they said that it is purely hypothetical and will not happen. It happened at British Energy, with considerable embarrassment to the Government, who had to step in. That is all history—but I do not regard a recurrence as inconceivable.
  I hope that the new administration at BETTA will recognise that there is no future in driving prices down—whether generating prices or transmission costs—to the point where companies cannot pay their bills. This is an important chapter. It is important to have appropriate safeguards. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said. I hope that the Government will give some further thought to this so that they do not simply step in and take the actions envisaged under this chapter without there having been a proper opportunity for the directors of a company to explain their case and where they stand.
  Lord Triesman: It is entirely right and fair that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, should refer our attention to British Energy. I understand that potentially such occasions could occur. I think that they would be relatively unusual occasions. A critical point in the noble Lord's submission was that here was an example where, with time and a great deal of discussion, the company has begun to develop ways in which it can successfully survive. I hope that the generality of cases would be ones in which time was available for all kinds of consultation and opportunities to seek expert advice, as a result of which the company could survive.
  In general, the regulator will be required to assure the financial viability of the network companies and it would be something of a surprise to stumble on some of these events without knowing that they might occur. None the less, I accept that it could happen. I do not want to speculate about such circumstances overmuch. I concede that such a scenario is a possibility. However, it is hard to imagine that an emergency might frequently occur where the Secretary of State felt that he had no time at all to consult or to think about any options of the kinds mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
  I should like to pose the question in different terms. Could we guarantee that such a scenario would never in any circumstances occur? The answer is that probably none of us are satisfied that that could never happen. In circumstances where we are not satisfied
  GC 100
  that it could never happen, there needs to be some reserve powers that give sufficient authority to ensure that the lights stay on.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to a point that I made at Second Reading. Under the operations of NETA, the Ofgem regime of the time, Callum McCarthy thought that the was doing a marvellous job in getting prices down by 40 per cent. When it was pointed out to him that he was simply driving one generator after another into administration or bankruptcy, he said, "Well, that's the cost of getting prices down". I hope that Sir John Mogg and his colleagues at Ofgem will not take that high-handed view. When Callum McCarthy went off to run the Financial Services Authority, my comment in the House was, "God help the banks".
  Lord Triesman: I should be very careful not to trespass into the reasons why British Energy or others faced difficulties, but I understand the point made by the noble Lord. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for reiterating that if we ourselves cannot be satisfied that a really urgent circumstance could never occur, it is sensible to make provision for that very rare possibility.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank my noble friend for his timely intervention and for pointing out the situation with regard to British Energy and NETA, which I think that most noble Lords accept are the real reasons why British Energy unfortunately got itself into so much trouble. We only hope that BETTA really is better in that respect. It is interesting that Part 3, Chapter 3, is such a large chapter dealing with the special administration regime for energy licensees, energy administration orders, and so forth. I do not imagine for one moment that it could be quite that rare, otherwise it would be unusual to have such a big portion of the Bill dealing with the matter. I think that that is there as insurance so that people know what to do.
  I am sorry that the Minister does not see a need for my amendment. He was quite complimentary about how it was dealt with and spoken to. However, I shall read carefully what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
  Clause 128 agreed to.
  Clause 129 agreed to.
  Clause 130 [Energy administrators]:
  [Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 127A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 130 agreed to.
  Clause 131 agreed to.
  Schedule 20 [Conduct of energy administration]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 127B:
  Page 220, line I leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
  "(2) In sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph. for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute—
  "(a) a voluntary arrangement approved under Part 1, or
  (b) a compromise or arrangement sanctioned under section 425 of the Companies Act (compromise with creditors and members).""
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 127B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127C to 127G. The amendments correct minor drafting errors in Schedule 20, which provides for Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, to which I referred earlier, to have effect in relation to energy administration, amended to allow for the circumstances of energy administration.
  I assure Members of the Committee that none of the amendments makes any difference to the substance of the schedule. I therefore hope that Members of the Committee would be prepared to accept them. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The schedule seems most amazing. I would not have the slightest idea whether the amendments were an improvement; nor would any lawyer at present. Would it not be possible to republish the schedule, rather than referring to countless amendments? It is very difficult to understand, which seems bad drafting practice.
  Lord Whitty: It is normal drafting practice, but no doubt the noble Baroness is nevertheless correct to say that it is pretty incomprehensible. It would obviously have been better had we reproduced the 1986 schedule as amended by our proposals in the original Explanatory Notes. I regret that we did not do so, but we can provide a version of what is now Schedule B1 before the next reprint of the Explanatory Notes, if that would be helpful, and copy it to the Committee. I shall need to check whether, if the amendments are accepted now, they can be incorporated, so that all the infelicities of drafting can be removed. That might be helpful. However, the individual amendments are minor and it would make more sense to make a complete schedule available before Report.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am concerned not so much for the Members of the Grand Committee, this House or the other place, but the people who must operate the Bill when enacted. The amount that it will cost in legal fees for someone to sit looking up what all the changes amount to will be enormous over the years. There is a strong argument for reproducing the schedule in its final form in the Bill. That is what I was suggesting, but perhaps I am wrong about that.
  Baroness Byford: Perhaps it would help the Government if we said that we would not accept the amendments, so that they could get it right by Report. That would fit well with what my noble friend said.
  Lord Whitty: That would be to confuse ourselves further. There may be infelicities in the drafting now
  GC 102
  but, if we can put them right before the next stage, we could see what the schedule would look like as amended both by the original Bill and the drafting amendments. If we did what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggests, and did not adopt the amendments until then, we would need yet another version of the schedule between Report and Third Reading.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is undoubtedly right that it is difficult to interpret. Without committing my colleagues to not producing equally complicated cross-references between different Acts, if we can do so for this Bill, that will be incorporated in the next reprint of the Explanatory Notes, if that would be helpful to the Committee. Without wanting to be churlish, it would be better to adopt the amendments so that any misdrafting can be corrected before the next stage.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her comments. It is terrible when we receive letters with "Defra" written across the top and know that something else is coming and they say, "These are all simple drafting amendments". However simple they are, we must quickly look through them in case we are told off because they were not quite so simple or involved more than drafting amendments.
  Normally, it is easy for me because I have a lawyer on tap at home and pass it on, saying, "What do you think about this?". I must tell the Committee that he took great exception to looking at this. I was interfering with social events when he wanted to watch various programmes on the television. The document is 10 pages long and refers non-stop to other documents. He pointed out to me that if I really wanted him to give a legal opinion, I would have to pay for it. I did not think that the Government would take that on board.
  It is important that we try to make things simple. This is not the first time that this has happened: we get it all the time. Schedules always refer to this, that and the other provision and one must be a knowledgeable lawyer to cope with what is being said.
  Lord Roper: I am grateful for what the Minister said, but I feel that the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, are worthy of greater consideration. Will the Minister give me an assurance that paragraph 312 of the Explanatory Notes, which refers to Schedule 20 at the moment and is rather brief, will be reprinted in extenso incorporating effectively Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, as amended by this legislation? If that were the case, and if it were possible to do that by Report, it would clarify the issue and be helpful. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me such an assurance.
  Lord Whitty: That is the intention. Clearly, it would probably be produced as an annex and would refer to that paragraph rather than disturbing the literary flow of the Explanatory Notes. That would be our intention, and we could obviously provide it to noble

  GC 103
  Lords in draft in advance of the next stage. The issue before us tonight is whether that incorporates the amendments. It would be clearer if it did.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 127C to 127G:
  Page 220, line 2, leave out "sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph" and insert "that sub-paragraph"
  Page 222, line 28, at end insert—
  "( ) In paragraph 101(3) (joint administrators), after "87 to" insert "91, 98 and"."
  Page 222, line 29, leave out "for sub-paragraph (2)(a)" and insert "in sub-paragraph (2)—

  (a) omit the words from the beginning to "order";

  (b) for paragraph (a)"

  Page 222, line 33, leave out "sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph" and insert "that sub-paragraph"
  Page 225, line 12, leave out "of the company"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 21 agreed to.
  Clauses 132 to 139 agreed to.
  Clause 140 [Modifications of particular or standard conditions]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 128:
  Page 107, line 25, leave out "appropriate" and insert "necessary"
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, one can be fairly brief as it speaks for itself. The question is whether, under Clause 140(1), the Secretary of State should be able to make modifications to the,
  "conditions of a gas or electricity licence held by a particular person",
  simply if he considers it appropriate. I hope that someone will be able to explain that that means by any person holding any licence, and not only the company that may have had to have an administrator appointed. That seems a wholly subjective test. If we substitute "necessary", as I suggest in the amendment, clearly that would be justiciable. If not, one would have to prove bad faith in order to resist having one's licence amended under the clause. That is the effect of "appropriate". With "necessary", it is clearly open to parties to argue whether a particular licence change affecting any person holding a gas or electricity licence was necessary in the light of the energy administration.
  I strongly argue that, because a very wide number of licence holders could be affected—perhaps all the licence holders who supply or draw electricity from the company that has gone into administration—the measure ought to be subject to a fairly clear justiciable test. "Necessary" does that and "appropriate" does not.
  The Government would be wise to accept Amendment No. 129, regardless of whether they agree with Amendment No. 128. To the words in subsection (5):
  "The Secretary of State must publish every modification made by him under this section",
  I would add,
  "and shall include a statement of the reasons why he considers each such modification to be necessary".
  I am sure that he could do that in a letter. If he is to hold this stringent power with considerable consequences for many licence holders, then when he publishes a statement of what he has done in the modification, the statute should require him to set out the reasons why. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Triesman: As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has made clear, Amendment No. 128 would reduce the discretion of the Secretary of State to make modifications to licence conditions. I hope that noble Lords will not mind my saying that the proposed change from "appropriate" to "necessary" revisits some of the issues on discretion. I shall not go through all the arguments that we have rehearsed throughout our debates; I shall deal with the amendment. Rather than allow the Secretary of State to make modifications where "appropriate", it is proposed to allow her to do so only where she considers it "necessary".
  I understand the concern and I have been attentive to the arguments made in its support at other points in our discussion of the Bill. There is concern that the power should not be overused. Although the term,
  "Where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate",
  may sound too loose for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, it is none the less standard legal terminology with a considerable number of precedents. In saying that, I am fully aware that Members of the Opposition have objected to the fact that the number of precedents has been growing. Indeed, that is part of their objection. However, the fact is that that is how legal terminology is now constructed. Furthermore, the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State to make those modifications would be construed in accordance with administrative law. The modifications made would need to be reasonable and for the purposes of this particular provision, not wider.
  It may assist Members of the Committee if I point out that we intend to use this power to make such modifications as are required to secure the recovery of costs of energy administration. That is its purpose. We do not at present envisage any wider exercise of the power. I should add that in consideration of that, we have had no adverse representations from the industry about the provision as stated and with those purposes in mind.
  I hope that I have it right that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about "discussion with any person". That may well be a wide requirement, but plainly the Secretary of State will need to make a judgment about who should be consulted in such circumstances.

  GC 105
  Amendment No. 129 would require the Secretary of State to make a statement outlining the reasons for making a licence modification. In effect it is an appeal for transparency and is one of a number of such appeals that have been made. I understand the point and I take note that it has been urged throughout.
  However, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary because there is an existing duty on the Secretary of State to give reasons for modifications to the conditions of a licence. Section 49A of the Electricity Act 1989 and Section 38A of the Gas Act 1986 require the Secretary of State to publish reasons as soon as reasonably practicable after modifying the conditions of a licence. That will include modifying the standard conditions. So that is an obligation currently in legislation.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to make sure that I understand the noble Lord. While that applies to the standard conditions and licences, would it apply where there is a modification of an individual licence that has been granted to a particular person? Do the earlier clauses apply to them? That is what distinguishes this case from the others.
  Lord Triesman: Section 49A applies to the following decisions of the Secretary of State: the revocation of a licence, modifications of the conditions of a licence, the giving of any direction or consent in pursuance of a condition included in a licence by virtue of other sections of the Act, the determination of a question referred in pursuance of a condition included in a licence by virtue of the section, a determination of a dispute referred to under the various sections of the Act, the making of final orders, the making or confirmation of provisional orders and the revocation of a final or provisional order which has been confirmed. In short, it is comprehensive. I hope that I made it clear in my answer that it is the conditions of the other clauses that require the Secretary of State to publish reasons as soon as reasonably practicable after modifying the conditions of a licence in all those circumstances. I sought merely to add the thought that it also includes modifying the standard conditions themselves. It is genuinely comprehensive. I hope that that answers the question put by the noble Lord.
  The notice would need to be published in a way considered appropriate by the Secretary of State for the purpose of bringing the matter to the attention of persons likely to be interested. Ofgem must also send a copy of the notice to the licence holders to whom the modification relates. Ofgem is subject to the same requirements if it makes a modification to the licence conditions. It cannot escape from the set of criteria that I have just outlined.
  I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for elaborating at length, but I thought that a comprehensive response was the only appropriate way to deal with the serious question put to me by the noble
  GC 106
  Lord. I hope, too, that the noble Lord will feel that I have addressed the principal concerns expressed in the two amendments.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his very comprehensive reply. I turn first to the second amendment. He has answered in full the point that I sought to make. The only point I want to add is that I am full of admiration for the speed with which the piece of paper was put into his hand. He is well served by his officials. If there are now blushes behind the Minister, then so be it.
  On the first issue, the only point I wish to make is that I hope it will not necessarily be taken as a point against an amendment that it has not been suggested by one of the outside interests. This Committee is a place in which Members can apply their own judgment to the legislation before them. Many points have been proposed for amendments that were not suggested by outside interests. I hope that that is not regarded as an argument against an amendment. Perhaps the outside interests have greater faith in the competence of Ministers to regard modifications as appropriate because they will only be the ones that they will not mind. I am not sure that they would be wise entirely to accept that view.
  However, the Minister said that there are plenty of precedents for the use of the word "appropriate" and that he does not like the word "necessary". I shall read carefully his words, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
  Clause 140 agreed to.
  Clause 141 agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 130A:
  After Clause 141, insert the following new clause—
  "EXERCISE OF REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
  Where an energy administrator has been appointed in relation to a protected energy company in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, the Secretary of State and GEMA, in carrying out their respective functions under Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) (gas supply) and Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29) (electricity supply), must have regard to the need to ensure that the energy administrator is able to fulfil his obligations in relation to the business of the company."
  The noble Baroness said: In the case of an ordinary commercial company regulated by the Companies Act, the duties of a receiver or manager are primarily to the secured creditor who has appointed him. It is a duty to recover the debt owing to that creditor, even though that may not suit the wishes or even the best interests of the other creditors or shareholders.
  However, when the Secretary of State appoints an energy administrator, she is doing so in the interests of ensuring continuity of supply and of protecting customers. The aim of the amendment is to require Ofgem, the gas and electricity regulator, to take account of the functions and duties of an energy administrator appointed in relation to a protected company.
  The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there can be no risk that the work and objectives of an energy administration regime could be frustrated by a conflict with an inappropriate regulatory action.
  It is a matter of concern that the regulatory actions of Ofgem during the period of an energy administration will set the framework within which the energy administrator can perform his functions, but may also impact on his freedom of movement in the exercise of his discretion. There is, therefore, the potential for Ofgem, in exercising its statutory functions, to clash with the energy administrator in the exercise of his functions.
  That is not just a hypothetical possibility. This amendment was inspired by a recent event. In the special administration of Railtrack, such a dispute did arise. Without going into unnecessary detail, that case arose in relation to the rail administrator's important power to determine track access charges. The case went as far as the Court of Appeal, with both parties being funded, in effect, by the taxpayer. The litigation revealed that the relevant legislation did not establish a clear predominance of powers between the administrator and the regulator.
  The lesson has clearly not been learnt because the same defect is evident in the treatment of energy administration set out in the present Bill. The issue is a particular problem in the case of energy supply. Although the regulator's duties and those of the administrator may overlap in some cases, they are not the same. In some cases, therefore, that could lead to each of them reaching a different conclusion.
  Energy administration as provided for in the Bill is, in essence, a variation of the normal insolvency regime. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, energy administration must reflect the public interest in the operation of the network. But the regulator has no duty to recognise the functions of the administrator when he exercises his own powers. That is an undesirable situation which this amendment seeks to put right.
  To avoid any unnecessary clashes and misunderstandings, and even the potential for them, as between the administrator and the regulator, the amendment places a duty on the regulator to have regard to the functions and duties of the administrator. Bearing in mind that the administrator will have been appointed at the behest of the regulator, this should not be an onerous burden, rather it should be one which the regulator should be willing to assume without having been told to do so. Indeed, it might be an unreasonable exercise of his powers if he fails to do so.
  The amendment does not create, or even suggest, any ascendancy of the administrator over the regulator, or vice versa. On the contrary, the amendment will help to foster a relationship of mutual co-operation which is more conducive to meeting the purposes of an administration regime quickly, efficiently and in the public interest. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I understand the concerns that the interaction between the regulator and the energy
  GC 108
  administrator should be clear and that the administrator should not be unreasonably frustrated by the operation of the regulator. However, I draw a slightly different conclusion from the recent court case of Winsor v Bloom in relation to Railtrack.
  The decision, and the moratorium on the enforcement of proprietary and legal rights against a company in special administration, also applicable in an energy administration, provide ample clarity as to how the two bodies should interact. The moratorium provisions prevent the instigation of legal proceedings against the company without either the consent of the energy administrator or, alternatively, the leave of the court. That provides the protected company with a "breathing space" in order for it to organise its financial affairs.
  In Winsor v Bloom the court considered the moratorium and its effect on the enforcement of proprietary and legal rights. The decision in that case confirms that a company in energy administration will still be under a duty to comply with all its legal and regulatory requirements. Those duties would be unaffected by the energy administration order. Ofgem will still be able to carry out its regulatory function in respect of the company, including the making of determinations and imposing enforcement orders. However, under the moratorium provisions, Ofgem would need either to secure the consent of the energy administrator or the leave of the court to institute legal proceedings against the company, should it be required to enforce any of its decisions.
  That decision of the Court of Appeal seems to strike a balance different from that proposed in the amendment. Energy administration should not reduce the regulatory obligations of the company in energy administration, nor should it affect the duties of the regulator, except in accordance with the moratorium, the safeguards and the built-in breathing space. The law following Winsor v Bloom seems clear and clarifies the relationship. It would be inappropriate and unhelpful for the Bill to make slightly different provisions, as the amendment would do, in respect of energy administration.
  It should also be borne in mind that Ofgem is under a duty to have regard to the need to secure that the company can finance its own activities. The duty on Ofgem is not altered by the fall that the company is in energy administration.
  In my submission, the courts have now provided ample clarity on the relationship between the regulator and the special administrator, covering the regulator's actions towards the company in administration. They will obviously be constrained by the usual dictates of administrative law, and also by Ofgem's special requirements to have regard to the need to secure that the company can finance its activities.
  I draw a slightly different conclusion: the courts have already given us ample clarification of the relationship, and it would be wrong to put it in different terms on the face of the Bill.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I have forgotten the name of the case he quoted and I would be grateful if he could repeat it.
  Lord Whitty: It is Winsor v Bloom.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister. I shall look at that case. I thought that this was a good amendment, but we live and learn. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 142 and 143 agreed to.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 131:
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "Remit for GEMA to regulate environmental markets
  REMIT FOR GEMA TO REGULATE ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS
  (1) In addition to the regulatory powers conferred on GEMA by the 1989 Act (as amended), GEMA or a body authorised by GEMA, or to whom GEMA shall have the right to delegate any of its functions, shall have power to regulate environmental markets so that such markets are recognised and regulated as markets in their own right, and not only as compliance tools in the regulation of gas and electricity markets.
  (2) The power conferred on GEMA by this section shall include a power to regulate, so far as it lies within the competence of the United Kingdom government, environmental markets which will be developed under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.
  (3) Regulations may be made to define the scope of the power conferred on GEMA by this section, including appropriate enforcement powers."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friends. It would introduce a new clause headed:
  "Remit for GEMA to regulate environmental markets".
  It is interesting to reflect that the UK has taken a lead internationally in developing and establishing environmental markets. The market in renewable obligation certificates has become an effective instrument for enabling people to be certain that they will derive the benefit from their certificates that they had bargained for—and for companies to sell them on and others to buy them. It is a precursor of the European emissions trading scheme, which is another market that has developed in the environmental field.
  The financial services industry in this country can be proud that it was the first to develop that kind of market. Of course there have been other emission trading schemes; for example, 20 years ago in Chicago there was a trading scheme in PM10 particulates. Nevertheless, given the way that the market has developed here, its sophistication and the number of participants, it has certainly established itself.
  If these markets are to work well, they need sound regulation and effective compliance measures. In the UK, despite the lead we have taken, it is not clear who is regulating these markets. My inquiries reveal that this is a matter of some concern to those operating in them. I should say that these are substantial markets.
  GC 110
  By 2010, the cash flows from renewable energy, if it achieves 10 per cent of the market, could be worth £2 billion, one third of the value of the cash flow from all electricity generation. Much of that will be subject to the buying and selling of certificates. Thus I make the case that such a market needs to be regulated and to work efficiently.
  GEMA, the regulator, has no remit to consider how environmental markets work, including for example the renewable energy market and ROCs, and notwithstanding that these affect energy prices and consumers. GEMA is able to take into account only the effect on the environment of the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of energy, and not vice versa.
  One example where Ofgem could make a practical difference to the market is to alter its registry for renewable obligation certificates. Currently, the registry works adequately to provide a compliance mechanism for the obligation and, as such, fulfils Ofgem's present responsibility in the area. But it also means that Ofgem cannot spend resources on anything that would improve the market.
  As the European emissions trading scheme and the Kyoto-related markets develop, which they assuredly will, it is ever more important that these environmental markets are recognised as markets in their own right, not just as compliance tools for the energy industries. This is important because improving the efficiency of the environmental market will lead to reduced costs.
  Perhaps I may cite an example. When the hole in the buy-out fund appeared following TXU going into administration, the next auction of ROCs achieved a significantly lower price than had been the case before. The result was that ROCs became less attractive and, to that extent, impacted adversely on the Government's targets for achieving renewable energy supplies.
  I would argue that it is not enough for GEMA and Ofgem to regulate in the sense of managing the energy industries. They are dealing here with a market in its own right, one that needs to be regulated. In addition to Ofgem's increased regulatory powers in this area, improving environmental markets and having a positive effect on consumers, it will also help the authority to achieve the Government's environmental targets as set out in the White Paper. If an environmental market such as that for ROCs—and there will be others—can be made to work more efficiently, it will become more likely that the goals and targets set by the Government will be met. The costs of meeting any goal will decrease, which means that a given amount of money will go further. It also means that it will become more attractive for players to become involved in the market, increasing its financeability, investment, market activity and liquidity, and reducing costs further.
  The case for the proper regulation of the environmental market is strong and now needs to be firmly addressed by the Government. If GEMA is not to regulate it, then who shall it be? Someone will have to take on the regulatory role. Would it be the

  GC 111
  Financial Services Authority? However, it is not familiar with this area of national policy, whereas GEMA is deeply involved and could perfectly well take on the role.
  The case for GEMA to do it is that it would be a form of joined-up regulation. As it is involved in the energy market, it could be involved in these environmental markets. The case is now being addressed. And, if I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, it was addressed by an outside body which is a substantial operator in the market. It is looking for clearer and firmer regulation so as to make the market better. Efficient markets are more attractive to more players. As more players become involved, all the other advantages will flow.
  There is much to be said for this amendment. I have discussed it at some length with those who are involved and I have been convinced that something of this kind is necessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Whiny: I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as regards the important and positive role that environment markets can play in meeting environmental objectives, and the need to ensure that the markets operate properly and efficiently and are authentic.
  The amendment give GEMA the power to regulate markets and to give environmental credits and certificates—which, as the noble Lord said, means ROCs—the European emissions trading scheme and other trading schemes which may come out of the large combustion plants directive and so forth. There are two issues. First, the amendment would hugely widen Ofgem/GEMA's powers, which are at present based on gas and electricity. The players in these markets cover a wider range of industries and would therefore change the nature of Ofgem/GEMA considerably. Although Ofgem administers a number of environmental programmes and covers an environmental action plan, its main remit is on competition and consumer protection. The participants in trading schemes have a different relationship with consumers and there is a different structure of industry from the gas and electricity industries.
  Once the emissions trading scheme is set up, there will also be other structures to regulate those markets. There are two aspects. First, there is the management of the environmental outcome of the market—setting the targets and authenticating the achievements in environmental terms, which in the UK is the Environment Agency—and the propriety of the market and its functioning, which will be the responsibility of the FSA as with other markets. It is true that while the FSA does not have the experience of these markets, which are just developing, it has huge experience of markets as a whole. It would bring that experience to bear.
  There are a number of aspects which it would not be immediately appropriate for Ofgem to run or would end up with it clashing with other and more appropriate regulators. There is an underlying question, too: that is, what is the basic remit of Ofgem?
  GC 112
  The noble Lord will know that there have been a number of discussions on whether Ofgem should have more explicit environmental objectives than the current legislation gives it.
  There have been many arguments discussing that in the context of the energy White Paper, but the decision was that it should not be broadened into those environmental objectives and that it should be a matter for the government departments and the appropriate environmental regulators. Whether one agrees with that decision or not, that is the legislative position. Therefore, to give Ofgem powers in an area for which it does not have mainstreams in its objectives would seem to me a mismatch of function and role.
  The other point on the amendments is that there is a power for Ofgem to delegate its powers to a new body set up specifically for this purpose. It seems to me that if we are considering setting up a new body, specifically in relation to the renewables obligations market, that should be considered in the round rather than tacked on to Ofgem's responsibilities, which run into a number of conflicts in any case.
  There may be a case for having a different body regulating the totality of the market. The Committee will know that a review of the obligation is scheduled for 2005–06. Any decisions relating to the regulation of that market are perhaps best left for that, rather than establish it as a knock-on to Ofgem/GEMA's responsibilities under the Bill.
  I return to the main point. It would bring the Ofgem/GEMA set-up into an area of industry for which it currently has no wider responsibility. That seems to me to lead to some difficult areas of conflict and lack of clarity. I do not disagree that the Government need to think carefully about the regulation of those markets, particularly as there will be growth in a number of them. However, I do not believe that we should jump to this conclusion and impose the obligation on Ofgem.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I am grateful for what he said about the Government recognising that there is now a need to address the regulation of these markets. He may well be right—I shall need to discuss the matter with those advising me—that GEMA is not the right body. Indeed, in my opening speech, I asked: if not GEMA, who? It might be the Financial Services Authority.
  I hope that the Government will be able to think about the issue between now and the Report stage. I shall certainly consult on it. I am tempted to say that we should bring back another amendment, perhaps appointing a different regulator or imposing a different duty on the Government to provide for the regulation of these markets. As the Minister recognised, the efficient working of these derivative markets, if such they are, is an important instrument in developing the Government's overall energy policy. No one denies that. But if the market is not working properly because there is no effective regulator and because no one has the power to help to increase the liquidity of the market to attract more players so that

  GC 113
  the market becomes more efficient, it is to that extent operating against the Government's own energy policy. Therefore, it seems to me that the Minister's own department has a real role in the matter. I do not believe it is a DTI matter; it is primarily a Defra matter.
  I am grateful to the Minister, wearing his Defra hat, for going as far as he did in recognising the need for regulation. I suspect that we may want to try again, but we will look most carefully at what he said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Triesman: This may be a convenient time to adjourn the Committee until 3.30 p.m. on Monday, 1 March.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): The Committee stands adjourned until Monday, 1 March at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Northern Ireland: Pre-Employment Consultancy Service
  Northern Ireland: Pre-Employment Consultancy Service
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Belfast: Waterways
  Belfast: Waterways
  Northern Ireland: Public House Licences
  Northern Ireland: Public House Licences
  Northern Ireland: Teachers
  Northern Ireland: Teachers
  House of Lords: Government Documents
  House of Lords: Government Documents
  Northern Ireland: Railways
  Northern Ireland: Railways
  House of Lords: Declarations of Interests
  House of Lords: Declarations of Interests
  Asylum Appeals
  Asylum Appeals
  British-Irish Council: Minority Languages
  British-Irish Council: Minority Languages
  Traffic Courts
  Traffic Courts
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Pension Credit
  Pension Credit
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Crystal Palace National Sports Centre
  Crystal Palace National Sports Centre
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Camelids: Tuberculosis
  Camelids: Tuberculosis
  Customs and Excise: Veterinary Personnel
  Customs and Excise: Veterinary Personnel
  Wild Boar
  Wild Boar
  Wild Birds: Border Inspections
  Wild Birds: Border Inspections
  Biofuels
  Biofuels
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Railways
  Railways
  Computer Monitors: Excise Duties
  Computer Monitors: Excise Duties
  Ambulances
  Ambulances
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments

  Security and Intelligence Agencies: Departmental Expenditure Limits
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Security and Intelligence Agencies' DEL will be increased by £27,620,000 from £1,497,446,000 to £1,525,066,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £4,295,000 from £566,324,000 to £570,619,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  13,819,000

  1,119,106.000

  11,750,000

  1,130,856,000

  Capital

  14,402,000

  530,411,000

  5,000,000

  535,411,000

  Depreciation1

  601,000

  141,201.000

  -

  141,201,000

  Total

  27,620,000

  1,508,316,000

  16,750,000

  1,525,066,000

  1Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  1. the take-up of end-of-year flexibility of £9,198,000.

  2. a transfer of £7,016,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to reflect funding for conflict prevention.

  3. a transfer of £85,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to fund planned programme activity.

  4. a transfer of £ 1,050,000 from the Home Office.

  5. a transfer of £120,000 from the Ministry of Defence for the payment of electricity.

  6. a switch of £2,000,000 to capital.

  7. a decrease of £735,000 resource due to an increase of £735,000 in the forecast profit on sale of an asset. This is a non-cash item.

  8. a decrease of £915,000 in other non-cash items due to new forecasts.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  1. the take-up of end-of-year flexibility of £11,531,000.

  2. a switch of £2,000,000 from resource.

  3. a transfer of £861,000 to the Cabinet Office.

  4. an increase of £ 1,732,000 due to the virement of £735,000 from resource (non-cash) to capital (cash) from the profit of a sale of an asset and £997,000 to correct the figures given in the winter supplementary.

  Northern Ireland Office: Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) DEL will be increased by £28,325,000 from £1,180,916,000 to £1,209,241,000. The administration cost limit has been increased by £34,000 from £163,375,000 to £163,409,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  Of which:

  Change

  New DEL

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Resource

  28,325

  1,136,389

  400,441

  735,948

  Capital

  0

  72,852

  30,113

  42,739

  Depreciation1

  10,956

  22,209

  27,467

  49,676

  Total

  17,369

  408,345

  751,220

  1,159,565

  1Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from a change in the budgeting treatment for pension schemes (£25,000,000) and from the net effect of transfers to and from other government departments (£3,325,000). The increase in administration costs (£34,000) is also as a net effect of transfers to and from other government departments.

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Baroness Amos
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland 2002–03 annual report and accounts were deposited in the Library of the House today.

  Planning Policy Statement 1: Draft for Consultation
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am today publishing for consultation a draft of Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1)—Creating Sustainable Communities—the core statement of the Government's key planning policies. I am also publishing a paper on the Government's approach to community involvement in planning.
  WS 13
  PPS1 is the key overarching document which sets out the Government's high level principles for planning.

  Clause 39 (Clause 38, the sustainable development clause, as was) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill requires regional and local plans to be drawn up with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The clause requires that in doing so, planning authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. PPS1 will be a key document underpinning this requirement.

  PPS1 is based on three themes:

  Planning for sustainable communities and sustainable development;

  The new approach to planning we are promoting as part of planning culture change (the spatial planning approach); and

  Community involvement in planning.

  Sustainable development

  Our legislation will make contributing to the achievement of sustainable development the key purpose of the planning system. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should expect planning policies to pursue proactively the four aims of sustainable development—economic development; social inclusion; environmental protection; and prudent use of natural resources—in an integrated way, in line with the Government's overall strategy for sustainable development.

  Spatial Planning

  The new regional and local plans provided for in the Bill are based on the philosophy of spatial planning. Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function.

  PPS1 sets out the spatial planning approach that will be adopted in the new planning system. These planning tools will reflect real geographies and real community issues, and are thus a flexible approach to planning and sustainable development.

  Community involvement

  Effective community involvement is a vital element in delivering sustainable communities. Our aim should be to develop effective community involvement processes which enable a better understanding of the sometimes difficult choices which have to be made in considering development and more ownership of the accompanying decisions.

  We need of course to strike a balance between promoting effective community involvement without allowing the system to be bogged down by endless consultation exercises. I want the reformed system to emphasise community involvement as a way of helping to resolve problems early in the process and secure ownership, so that when plans and proposals are put forward, there are fewer objections.
  WS 14
  The paper makes clear that community involvement should be based on a real understanding of the community's needs, should be fit for purpose, and should be front loaded—i.e. involvement early in the process.

  PPS1 can only set out the key policy principles for community involvement in planning. To put these in context, the community involvement paper sets out our general philosophy on community involvement in planning, and puts this in the broader context of policy.

  Copies of the two documents will be available in the Libraries of the House. They will also be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at (www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/ groups/odpm_planning/documents/sectionhomepage/ odpm_planning_page.hcsp)

  Code of Conduct for Local Government Members
  Lord Rooker
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire has made the following Writ ten Ministerial Statement.

  The Government have today published a consultation paper setting out their proposals for draft regulations under Section 66 of the Local Government Act 2000. These proposals will make provision for local government monitoring officers in England. in cases where ethical standards officers of the Standards Board for England deem it appropriate, to investigate allegations that local authority members have breached their code of conduct. The Government are consulting on this issue over the next three months, and at the same time the Standards Board for England is consulting on draft guidance for monitoring officers on how they can best undertake their duties under the proposed regulations.

  We need to ensure the highest possible ethical standards in local government, but we need a system which is efficient and workable. This approach is a sensible, effective and proportionate way of handling allegations of misconduct at a local level.

  Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to local authorities and will be available in the Libraries of the House, as well as being made available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at www.odpm.gov.uk.

  Housing Bill: Park Homes
  Lord Rooker
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On Friday the Government tabled amendments to the Housing Bill which is currently being considered by the House in Committee. These amendments meet a number of the recommendations of the Park Homes

  WS 15
  Working Party and aim to deal with some of the key concerns about the existing legislation.

  They amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to require a written statement of terms to be given to a prospective occupier 28 days before the agreement to station a park home on a site is entered into. At present written statements may be given up to three months after the agreement has commenced.

  In the event of the owner failing to produce the written statement in advance, any express terms contained in the agreement will not be enforceable at the suit of the owner. This is to encourage the site owner to produce the written statement in advance, and is not likely to hold up the process of a sale.

  The amendments create a power by which the Secretary of State (in Wales the National Assembly for Wales) can add additional terms to be implied into the agreement, and repeal and vary those in the Mobile Homes Act 1983. This power might be used, for example, to give an occupier the right to quiet enjoyment of their home, whereas currently an occupier would have to go to court to have this term implied into their agreement.

  Because existing agreements are of infinite duration, we need to be able to amend the statutory implied terms for existing agreements, where these are clearly inadequate. Provision has therefore been made for the first exercise of the power to have retrospective effect, i.e. to allow amendment of the implied terms operating as part of existing agreements. Future exercises of the power will be non-retrospective. Any order made under the power is subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament, and the clause contains a consultation requirement for the Secretary of State to consult interested parties as to the proposed amendments. Representatives of both site owners and occupiers will therefore be consulted about the terms of any order to be made.

  Site owners will in future have a time limit of 28 days for giving or withholding approval of a prospective purchaser. By the end of this time limit a decision must have been given in writing. If not, the occupier can apply to the court for an order giving approval to that purchaser, which if given would involve the site owner in costs.

  The age of a home is removed as a relevant criterion for ending an agreement. Currently a site owner may terminate an agreement on grounds of "age and condition" of the unit. The amendment will remove the reference to age from the 1983 Act, as the age of a unit is irrelevant. The amendment will enable courts to consider the condition of the unit and to allow time for appropriate repairs (if reasonably practicable).

  The amendments increase the protection of occupiers of park homes against harassment and illegal eviction by amending the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to mirror the wording in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which governs the protection given to occupiers of conventional housing against eviction and harassment. The wording for the existing offence for a site owner doing "acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort" of the occupier which cause him
  WS 16
  to abandon his home has been relaxed to "acts likely to interfere" with such peace or comfort, which is obviously an easier test to satisfy. A new offence has been introduced which does not require specific intent by a site owner or his agent to cause an occupier to abandon his home. This will increase the protection available to occupiers and the chances of successful prosecutions.

  The remaining recommendations of the working party need further work to ensure that when fully implemented they will work effectively in practice. To that end, we have recently commissioned consultants to develop proposals on the implementation of the recommendations in relation to site licensing.

  Mental Incapacity
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  The Government have today published their response to the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill report which was published on 17 November 2003 (HL189–1 and HC 1083–1). Copies of the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses (Command Paper 6121).

  The Government would like to thank the committee for publishing such a comprehensive report in a short period of time, and obtaining such a wide range of evidence on the Bill. We are pleased that the committee agrees this new statutory framework is needed and that it endorses the principles and general direction of the draft Bill.

  The committee suggested that the Bill. being about how to maximise mental capacity, should be renamed the Mental Capacity Bill and we agree with this recommendation.

  The Bill will reform the law in order to improve and clarify the decision-making process for those aged 16 and over who are unable to make decisions for themselves. It will also offer, to people who have capacity, the choice to decide how they are cared for in the future by introducing new ways to plan ahead for a time when they might lose capacity.

  Over 2 million adults in England and Wales are currently affected by a lack of capacity. Many more care for someone who may need help with decision-making. With increasing ageing most of us will face the risk of losing mental capacity at some point in our lives. The Bill therefore has the potential to help a high proportion of the population.

  The Department for Constitutional Affairs is working closely with the Department of Health on a revised Bill. We plan to introduce the revised Bill later in this parliamentary Session. We will also have a draft outline of the codes of practice for Parliament to see at Committee stage.

  Ofgem: Departmental Expenditure Limits
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets DEL will be decreased by £799,000 from £1,531,000 to £732,000 and the administration costs limits will remain unchanged at £1,398,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  1,000

  682,000

  —

  682,000

  Capital

  —

  50,000

  —

  50,000

  800,000

  Depreciation1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,300,000

  1,300,000

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  568,000

  799,000

  568,000

  1Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from additional programme costs of £1,201,000 in respect of higher than expected costs of energywatch. There is no change in the administration cost due to a compensating increase in appropriations in aid of £1,200.000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from higher than expected receipts from the sale of capital assets.

  Department of Trade and Industry: Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Department of Trade and Industry's DEL will be increased by £280,472,000 from £5,297,355,000 to £5,577,827,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £2,998,000 from £431,695,000 to £434,693,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource (£000)

  224,012

  1,072,089

  3,870,623

  4,942,712

  Capital (£000)

  56,460

  310,301

  324,814

  635,115

  Depreciation1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  (£000)

  20,841

  93,159

  114,000

  Total (£000)

  280,472

  1,361,549

  4,102,278

  5,463,827

  WS 18
  1Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  RƒR1

  (i) a transfer of £11,200,000 from the Ministry of Defence in support of dual-use aero engine technology programmes;

  (ii) a transfer of £67,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of the subscription to UNCLOS;

  (iii) a transfer of £385,000 from the Home Office in respect of the Prison Services Pay Review Body;

  (iv) a transfer from the Ministry of Defence of £43,000 in respect of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and £16,000 in respect of the Senior Salaries Review Body;

  (v) a transfer of £58,000 from the Northern Ireland Office in respect of the Prison Services Pay Review Body;

  (vi) a transfer of £15,000 from the Cabinet Office in respect of the Senior Salaries Pay Review Body;

  (vii) a transfer of £79,000 from the Department for Education and Skills in respect of the School Teachers Pay Review Body;

  (viii) a transfer of £49,000 from the Department for Transport in respect of the FP6 Sustainable Surface Transport programme;

  (ix) a transfer of £195,000 to the Department for Transport for the Low CVP Permanent Secretariat;

  (x) reclassification of £24,000,000 in respect of Ofcom establishment costs from resource to capital expenditure;

  (xi) a virement of £9,786,000 from voted cost of capital to non-voted cost of capital in respect of Companies House and the Patent Office;

  (xii) transfer of £1,000,000 to the Department of Health in respect of Genetic Knowledge Parks;

  (xiii) utilisation of £12,200,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement in respect of nuclear support for the former Soviet Union;

  (xiv) utilisation of £3,862,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement in respect of the Rover Task Force;

  (xv) utilisation of £19,541,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement in respect of innovation and space;

  (xvi) utilisation of £12,000,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement in respect of the modernisation of the Post Office network;

  (xvii) utilisation of £50,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund in respect of the Evidence Based Policy Fund study of the UK's e-business performance;

  WS 19

  (xviii) an increase of £1,498,000 in the non-voted expenditure of Postwatch and an equivalent increase in voted receipts;

  (xix) a classification change of £17,683,000 from capital to current expenditure in respect of the National Measurement System PFI deal;

  (xx) an increase of £63,893,000 in the non-voted expenditure of the regional development agencies and an equivalent increase in voted receipts;

  (xxi) utilisation of £4,500,000 of the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement in respect of non-voted expenditure of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;

  (xxii) utilisation of £15,260,000 of the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Competition Commission.

  RƒR2

  (i) utilisation of £2,930,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council;

  (ii) utilisation of £461,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Medical Research Council;

  (iii) utilisation of £1,541,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils;

  (iv) utilisation of £9,456,000 for resource and £239,000 for capital grants from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Natural Environment Research Council;

  (v) utilisation of £22,569,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council;

  (vi) a transfer of £200,000 from the Department for Education and Skills in respect of Women's Resource Centres;

  (vii) utilisation of £24,012,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Higher Education Innovation Fund.

  Office of Deputy Prime Minister Estimate

  (i) utilisation of £67,427,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for European Regional Development Fund expenditure borne of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's estimate;

  (ii) utilisation of £22,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department for Work and Pension's end-year flexibility entitlement under the PES pool arrangement for European Development Fund expenditure borne on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's estimate.

  WS 20
  Also within the change to resource DEL, the changes to administration costs limit are:

  RƒR1

  (i) a transfer of £32,000 from the Home Office in respect of the Prison Services Pay Review body;

  (ii) a transfer of £17,000 from the Department for Constitutional Affairs in respect of the Senior Salaries Pay Review Body;

  (iii) a transfer of £105,000 from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs in respect of the Farm Business Advice Service;

  (iv) a transfer of £300,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of UK Trade and Investment E-business;

  (v) implementation of an agreed classification change of £824,000 from capital to administration in respect of UK Trade and Investment E-business;

  (vi) utilisation of £290,000 of Invest to Save funding in respect of claims handling in the Redundancy Payments Service;

  (vii) implementation of an agreed virement from programme to administration of £1,500,000 in respect of the Liabilities Management Authority.

  RƒR2

  (i) a transfer of£70,000 to the Department of Health in respect of the Human Genetics Commission.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  RƒR1

  (i) utilisation of £14,100,000 of capital from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for non-voted expenditure of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;

  (ii) an increase of £21,995,000 in the non-voted capital expenditure of the Regional Development Agencies and an equivalent increase in voted receipts;

  (iii) reclassification of £24,000,000 in respect of Ofcom establishment costs from resource to capital expenditure;

  (iv) utilisation of £20,000,000 from the unused balance of the department's end-year flexibility entitlement for research establishment capital in respect of the National Measurement System and the Teddington PFI deal;

  (v) implementation of a classification change of £824,000 from capital to current expenditure in respect of e-business;

  (vi) a transfer of £816,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of e-business;

  (vii) implementation of an agreed virement of £17,683,000 from capital to resource in respect of the National Measurement System private finance initiative deal, and a classification change of £17,683,000 to reflect the on-balance sheet impact of the National Physical Laboratory virement.

  Department of Health and Food Standards Agency: Departmental Expenditure Limits
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  Subject to the necessary supplementary estimate, the Department of Health's element of the departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be increased by £262,454,000 from £65,583,213,000 to £65,845,667,000 and the administration cost limit will decrease by £4,042,000 from £297,448,000 to £293,406,000. The overall DEL including the Food Standards Agency will increase by the same amount, £262,454,000, from £65,722,240,000 to £65,984,694,000. The impact on resource and capital are set out in the following table.

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-Voted

  Total

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Department of Health

  Resource DEL

  95.348

  63,334.252

  -310.127

  63,024.125

  Capital DEL

  167.106

  653.611

  2,167.931

  2,821.542

  Total Department of Health DEL

  262.454

  63,987.863

  1,857.804

  65,845.667

  Depreciation1

  0.078

  -352.57

  -44.369

  -396.939

  Total Department of Health spending (after adjustment)

  262.532

  63,635.293

  1,813.435

  65,448.728

  Food Standards Agency

  Resources

  0

  136.368

  0

  136.368

  Capital

  0

  2.659

  0

  2.659

  Total Food Standards Agency DEL

  0

  139.027

  0

  139.027

  Depreciation1

  0

  -2.004

  0

  -2.004

  Total Food Standards Agency spending (after adjustment)

  0

  137.023

  0

  137.023

  1Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since the capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the DEL arises from the take-up of end-year flexibility £260,978,000 (£1,572,000 administration costs) for capital, revenue and administration budgets as set out in Table 6 of the Public Expenditure 2002–03 Provisional Outturn White Paper Cm 5884 published in July 2003. A net transfer from the Home Office of £ 1,980,000 (£50,000 administration costs) mainly for training costs at special hospitals, drugs misuse pilot projects and voluntary sector care projects helping to increase volunteers in intermediate care; from the Department of Trade and Industry £1,070,000 (£70,000 administration costs) for contributions towards the human genetics commission and to support development of genetics knowledge parks to increase understanding into a range of genetic-based issues
  WS 22
  including research; from the Department for Work and Pensions £10,343,000 for the NHS low-income scheme and a contribution to the care direct budget; to the Scotland Executive £88,000 for their share of the reimbursement from manufacturers 3M associated with the ending of a hip replacement programme; a net transfer to the Department for Education and Skills £12,544,000 (£-1,733,000 administration costs) mainly for capital projects, machinery of government changes and NHS diploma students offset by contributions towards teenage pregnancy, children's trusts and communications budgets; a net transfer from the DHSS Northern Ireland £735,000 for out-of-area treatments offset by a contribution to CJD care fund; to the National Assembly for Wales £20,000 (administration costs) for prison healthcare.

  The administration cost limit has reduced by £4,042,000 from £297,448,000 to £293,406,000. In addition to the changes detailed above there is a decrease of £3,981,000 for transfers to programme budgets mainly for capitalisation of software developments.

  Cabinet Office: Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Cabinet Office DEL will be increased by £2,043,000 from £311,289,000 to £313,332,000 and the gross administration costs limits will be increased by £2,644,000 from £223,733,000 to £226,377,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  £'000

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  1,182

  277,297

  0

  277,297

  Capital

  861

  86,189

  0

  86,139

  Depreciation1

  0

  -50,154

  0

  -50,154

  Total

  2,043

  313,332

  0

  313,332

  1Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from additions from the DEL reserve of £3,500,000 for human resources restructuring, draw down of £140,000 end-year flexibility on Invest to Save funding provided to the Centre for Management and Policy Studies and net transfers to other government departments of £2,458,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from transfers from other departments of £861,000.

  Nimrod MRA4
  Baroness Crawley
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  We announced. in February last year that agreement had been reached with Bae Systems on the way ahead for the Nimrod MRA4 programme and undertook to report significant developments to the House. We are pleased to announce that, following detailed negotiations, a contract amendment, formally
  WS 24
  embodying the agreement, was signed on 23 February 2004.

  Signature of the contract amendment demonstrates the positive relationship between the MoD and the company and the joint commitment to deliver this important military capability within the terms of our agreement. This contract amendment, however, although important, is not an end in itself. The work over the past year in putting the agreement into effect has set the programme on a much sounder footing for the future. Risks and challenges remain. however, and we are working hard with the company to assure the long-term stability of the programme.