Sitting of 15 July 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Income Tax
    Mr. David Amess: What representations he has received regarding future levels of income tax. [184070]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government have received a number of representations on the level of income tax, and we have committed ourselves not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax within the lifetime of this Parliament.
    May I draw the House's attention to an announcement in a written statement that I made earlier this morning? The Government will legislate to ensure that payments by the Thalidomide Trust to people affected by the drug thalidomide will in future be exempt from income tax. That change will be worth about £1 million a year—up to £3,000 for each beneficiary of the trust. I know that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the announcement.
    Mr. Amess: It is wonderful news that the Minister has accepted the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and is helping thalidomide victims rather than wasting taxpayers' money looking for weapons of mass destruction.
    Does the Minister accept that since 1997 there have been 66 tax rises and that each householder is paying an extra £5,000 a year? As she is getting advice from the Chancellor, is he authorising her to tell the House that those tax rises by stealth will continue?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman spoiled the welcome given to the change for the beneficiaries of the Thalidomide Trust. For the past 30 years, as he well knows, Governments of all political persuasions have struggled to settle that matter and it should be welcome that a restructuring of the trust will ensure that income tax is not paid on benefits from it.
    The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. If he looks at the facts, he will see that the Government have cut income tax and introduced the 10p rate and that, on
    1526
    average, households are £850 a year better off in real terms, that families with children are, on average, £1,350 a year better off in real terms and that pensioners are better off in real terms. By October 2004 about 18.3 million households will have gained as a result of the personal tax and benefit reforms that the Government have undertaken.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. When considering further tax provisions, will she give an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not move from his programme for providing education, health, local government, transport, defence and all the other services on which people rely?
    Dawn Primarolo: Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will have noticed both from the 2004 Budget statement and from the spending review announcement made earlier this week that the Government's finances are sound and that the forecast is for spending more on public services over the next period—on police, child care, more nurses and teachers—and for investment in housing, transport and our security. Those are all things that the Government are committed to, but the Conservatives will cut them.
    Mr. David Ruffley: The right hon. Lady will know that in 1997 2.1 million people paid top-rate tax. As a result of the Chancellor's tax policies, last year 3.27 million people paid top-rate tax. Will she give us her estimate of the number of people who will pay top-rate tax in the current tax year?
    Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows from his constituency experience, unemployment is down—[Interruption.] Just a moment. Unemployment in his constituency is down by 83 per cent. During the period 1997–98 to 2002–03, average earnings went up by 25 per cent. while prices went up by only 12 per cent. Employment has increased by nearly 1.8 million since the spring of 1997. The number of people in work is at a record level, and that is clearly reflected in the tax system; more people are working and earning more money and therefore contributing to public services.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: It is clear that the Paymaster General has not yet heard of the word "threshold".
    On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the right hon. Lady's welcome announcement in response to the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) about tax relief for thalidomide victims.
    Derek Scott, a former adviser to the Prime Minister, has told us that he would not be surprised if there were tax rises under a third-term Labour Government. Will the Paymaster General give the House an assurance that if the Labour Government are re-elected and if the Chancellor is either the next Chancellor or Prime Minister, there will be no increase in either income tax or national insurance?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am perfectly happy to share with all Members our pleasure that the proposals with regard to the Thalidomide Trust have now been sorted out, but

    1527
    the right hon. Gentleman really should not keep trying to claim as his original idea every good thing that the Government do. As he well knows, the Government's spending commitments are properly financed over the spending round and in the statements made in the Budget 2004. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the Government are committed in the lifetime of this Parliament not to raise either the basic or the higher rate of tax. Indeed, we have been reducing the tax burden, particularly on those who are the lowest paid.

    HIPC Initiative
    Julia Drown: Whether it is his policy to support a write-off of the UK's share of the multilateral debts owed by heavily indebted poor countries. [184071]
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What his policy is on writing off the UK's share of the multilateral debts owed by heavily indebted poor countries. [184073]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The UK believes that more must be done to ensure debt sustainability in the world's poorest countries. We are proposing that the international community review further debt relief for the poorest countries, including making better use of IMF gold using a revaluation or off-market transactions, so that, to match bilateral debt relief, which we provide at up to 100 per cent., we can begin to consider how we provide multilateral debt relief of up to 100 per cent. as well.
    Ms Drown: I welcome the Chancellor's response and his commitment to help the poorest countries in the world, which is shown by his already having committed this country to almost doubling overseas aid and, on Monday, by being the first Chancellor to set a date by which he hopes that this country will spend the internationally agreed target of 0.7 per cent. of our income on international aid. Will he comment on what that might mean for the poorest people of the world and contrast that with what might happen if the Opposition, who plan to cut overseas aid by £800 million, were in charge?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot ask that one.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all those points. First, the additional money that we are providing in overseas development aid, which I was able to announce on Monday, will increase the percentage of GDP that is spent on overseas aid from 0.26 per cent. in 1997—it had been reduced over the previous 20 years—to 0.47 per cent. in 2007–08, with our objective of moving towards 0.7 per cent. by 2013. We have made decisions in this spending round to provide the necessary money and debt relief, so that we can achieve that figure by 2007–08. I wish that there was an all-party consensus on providing that level of development aid.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), I welcome the announcement made on Monday about the increase in overseas aid. I have already been contacted by a lot of my
    1528
    constituents and organisations in my area who have been calling for that increase, and I am sure that my colleagues have had a similar response. Does my right hon. Friend consider that it might now be appropriate for the many organisations that have been campaigning on this issue to direct more efforts both nationally and perhaps internationally, to get the richest countries in the world to back the proposals for the international finance facility, which could have a very important role to play in the write-off of debt owed by the poorest countries?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) for their interest and the work that they have done in their constituencies. It is important to recognise that, even if we are able to increase our bilateral aid very substantially, the whole world community will need to provide far more development aid in the next 10 years if we are to have a chance of meeting our millennium development goals. That is why, last Friday, I was very happy to be able to present our proposals in Rome to a group of the Churches, backed up by representatives of countries from all over the world. We are winning support for the international finance facility. It would be unfortunate, however, if the Conservative party, which supported the international finance facility, were to continue with the policy that it has now adopted to cut overseas development aid. I hope that the Conservatives will cease that policy and start to move towards a sensible policy, so that we can promote action together in the international community.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Chancellor would accept that it is important that we should seek to bring good governance and responsibility to the heavily indebted poor countries, but I am sure that he would also agree that it is absolutely crazy that the financial aid that should be given to those poor countries is spent only on repaying the debt that they already owe. Will he accept therefore that there is, in fact, widespread support in all parts of the House, including the Conservative and Unionist party, for debt to be taken away from those countries, so that the money that they are given can bring about improvements in education, health and other matters?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the enlightened view that is coming from at least part of the Conservative Back Benches on the matter. It is important to realise that we must move forward with debt relief if we are to give the countries in which he is interested the chance of development over the next few years. As we have a 100 per cent. write-off of bilateral aid, it is possible to cut the debt bill of those countries. However, while only 50 per cent. of multilateral aid is being written off, they have substantial debts to pay. The results can be seen in countries such as Uganda, which has moved to class sizes of 50 compared with 100. In other African countries, 1 million children got primary education in one day as a result of debt relief, which released resources for education. However, it was unfortunate that the Conservative party issued a document after Monday's spending statement saying:
    "Are you going to cut aid to developing countries? This is another example of big Government."
    It must think again.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: When a Government spokesman describes conditions in Kenya as a "gigantic looting spree", points out that corruption under the new Government may be worth $188 million and says that if Kenya's governance was less corrupt it could afford to pay its own development budget rather than going to donors cap in hand, does that form part of the Government's strategy to ensure that poor people in this country are not paying for rich people in developing countries?
    Mr. Brown: We heard an enlightened view from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) earlier and now we have heard a completely retrograde view. We have taken action with other countries to ensure that there is transparency and to tackle corruption. There is no stronger advocate of tackling corruption than the Prime Minister, and work is being done by the Commission for Africa.
    It is absolutely ludicrous to give people the impression that Africa's problems can be solved by cutting international aid to the continent. When the Conservatives started in office, $33 per head was spent on aid to sub-Saharan Africa, but the figure was $20 per head by the time that they finished—the aid halved. Some 70 million children in Africa have no schools to go to. The AIDS epidemic is affecting 24 million people. Infant mortality rates are such that 30,000 children die each day. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about the idea that those problems could be solved without international development aid.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: The whole House will congratulate the Chancellor on his commitment to eliminate global poverty. Twenty-seven HIPC countries currently qualify for assistance, which leaves 15 other countries, the people of which are suffering from abject poverty and a lack of education and clean water. Will the international community get together to consider what can be done? I understand the problems due to civil wars in some of the countries, and that some are ruled by military juntas, but their populations have no influence on that, so it is important to give them some hope. Will the international community do something together to alleviate their problems?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in the matter. I announced on Monday that the International Development Secretary had agreed that £150 million of aid would be set aside for the needs of Sudan. There is abject poverty, and conditions in many places are worse than those in 1985, when Live Aid started. However, we also said that we could not provide the money until there was peace and the issues of conflict had been dealt with. Of course, there must be transparency and money must be able to flow to the poorest people, but the need for the money is obvious. On Sunday, the shadow International Development Secretary said that he also wanted to make a commitment to 0.7 per cent., but said:
    "It is for Oliver Letwin, the shadow Chancellor, to make a judgment."
    How can the Conservative patty claim to support international development aid if it would cut it by hundreds of millions of pounds? How can it claim to support the third world when it would cut aid massively?

    Public Borrowing
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about his proposals to change the level of public borrowing. [184072]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The 2004 Budget set out the detailed Government forecast for the public finances up until 2008–09. These showed that the Government are on track with our borrowing figures to meet both our strict fiscal rules over the economic cycle.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the Chancellor accept the rather subtly worded warning from the Governor of the Bank of England that the Chancellor's current levels of spending and borrowing are in danger of causing the economy to overheat?
    Mr. Brown: The Governor said that the automatic stabilisers had worked during a period of a world downturn, so when tax revenues were lower and social security needs were higher, borrowing was higher. That is, after all, what has happened in every country around the world. The only difference is that our levels of borrowing are lower than those in most other countries. The Governor of the Bank of England said that he supports the fiscal discipline that we have shown over the past seven years.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: My constituents are delighted that we are enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth on record and the longest sustained investment in public services for a generation. In the light of that fantastic economic success, how do debt levels under this Government compare with those under the last Conservative Government?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has been powerful in her advocacy of both international aid to be raised and the scientific community to be given the money that is necessary to invest in this country's future. I cannot think of anything on which there is greater consensus than the issues of investment in science, infrastructure and transport. Only one group is outside the consensus—the modern Conservative party.
    As for debt levels, the Conservative party talks as if there were some golden years a few years ago, but borrowing went up to the equivalent of £80 billion and debt was at 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. We have reduced that to 34 per cent. of GDP, one of the lowest rates in the industrialised world.
    Ann Winterton: Will the Treasury make up the difference that will result from the loss of European Union structural funding to the United Kingdom regions post-2006? If so, will that add to borrowing requirements?
    Mr. Brown: We are committed to no loss for the regions as a result of any changes, although they have not yet been decided in the structural funds. It is interesting, however, to hear a Conservative Member advocate more public spending by the Government.

    1531
    How does the hon. Lady square that policy with that of the shadow Chancellor, who wishes to cut spending on trade and industry and regional development, while also cutting spending on defence, law and order and international development? Perhaps the shadow Chancellor can tell us how he will add up his figures?
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public borrowing, within the fiscal rules, is essential to sustain a programme of investment that is needed to overcome the gross neglect of public investment during 18 years of Conservative government?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Treasury Committee, for that question. The neglect of investment under the Conservative Government was such that there had to be, and still has to be, a major programme of investment in health, education and transport. Members of the Conservative party know perfectly well from their constituencies about the need for new investment. Entering a general election with a pledge card of "Cut defence, cut law and order and policing, cut international development, cut science and transport spending, and put all the money from the NHS into private health care" is not a winning formula for the Conservative party.
    Mr. Howard Flight: With no slack in the economy and the structural deficit that the Chancellor has created, by how much does he plan to raise taxes after the general election, beyond the 8 per cent. rise already planned?
    Mr. Brown: Our public spending programmes are properly funded. In fact, because of our economic success, the choice that we had in the Budget was whether to cut taxes or to put money into public services. We decided—rightly, in my view—to put the money into the public services that desperately need it. The shadow Chief Secretary talks about the difficulties that the economy faces. Will he confirm that his view is still the one that he expressed just a year and a half ago when he said that we were facing an economic crisis, analogous to the 1930s?
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has placed great emphasis on the need for public investment in the future of our country, to make up for the damage caused by the Tories. Given that we now have an historically low, and internationally low, level of public borrowing, is there not scope for my right hon. Friend to relax his constraints on public borrowing for investment purposes and for him to replace some private investment with public investment, to the benefit of the Treasury?
    Mr. Brown: No, we are going to keep to our fiscal rules. I believe that the country will support a Government who not only set fiscal rules that make sense of what should happen in an economy over the cycle but meet those fiscal rules. Of course we will get the balance right between private and public investment. Net public investment was 0.8 per cent. of gross
    1532
    domestic product when we came into power and it is now above 2 per cent. of GDP, so we are investing more in the future. I am really surprised that the shadow Chancellor, who has now put forward all his proposals on public expenditure, cannot even come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about them.

    Government Staffing Levels
    Angela Watkinson: If he will make a statement on the staffing levels of central Government Departments. [184074]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The 2004 spending review has set out wide-ranging changes to central Government Departments. This means a gross reduction of 84,150 posts by April 2008; 13,550 posts are to be redeployed to front-line areas.
    Angela Watkinson: In his statement on Monday, the Chancellor announced a gross reduction of 84,150 civil service posts to release resources from administration to be invested in the front line. However, the devil was in the detail, and we learned that 13,000 of those posts would not be cut but transferred to front-line services. Will the Minister explain what those 13,000 reallocations to front-line roles are?
    Mr. Boateng: There is no secret about this. I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the situation. We announced in the Budget our intention to redeploy to the front line. What does it mean? It means that in the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, where some 10,000 people are to be redeployed to the front line, additional help will be available to get people into work. It means looking at the people involved in back-office functions and seeing how they can be either retrained or redeployed to provide front-line services. That has made a difference already, as the new deal has demonstrated. That is why this Government have been able to create 2 million new jobs since 1997, and why it would be such a disaster if the Conservatives ever had their way and scrapped the new deal, cutting the valuable work of the Department for Work and Pensions.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that, while Labour Members support cuts to make a more efficient civil service, the Department for Education and Skills, which is quite small, has been given heavy new responsibilities under "Every Child Matters" and the Children Bill at the same time as the cuts have been announced across the board. Will there be room for negotiation so that the Department for Education and Skills can deliver the expanding educational role in which the Government are investing?
    Mr. Boateng: The figures produced by the Department for Education and Skills take into account the work that it has taken on board as a result of the children's Green Paper. They also take into account the efficiencies that the Department believes it will be able to

    1533
    find in order to increase the support available to the front line, whether in relation to schools, the Learning and Skills Council or the work of further education colleges. In all those areas, the Department is at the forefront of recognising that we really can unlock efficiencies and resources, apply them to the front line, and continue the improvement in results in schools and FE colleges, all of which would be put in grave peril if the Conservatives were ever to implement their cuts in that Department's budget.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: How much money will the Government save by cutting 84,000 public servants? A rough estimate of the saving is £3 billion to £4 billion, which is only a fraction of the £20 billion that must be saved under Gershon. Is Digby Jones right to assert that the Government need to cut some 300,000 jobs in the public sector in order to meet their efficiency targets?
    Mr. Boateng: Digby Jones welcomed the Government's proposals because he recognised that the savings involve not only a reduction in posts, but procurement and the better use of IT. The savings include cash and other resources, which will be redeployed to the front line, and Digby Jones recognised that that added benefit is part of the proposal introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to remove 1,000 jobs and increase the resources available to the regional development agencies. That is good news for the DTI and for business, which is why Digby Jones welcomed it.
    Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the Government's intention to decentralise a considerable number of central Government jobs to the regions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the previous Government had done that 25 years ago, the current regional disparities would not exist? Although my constituents are extremely fortunate to enjoy virtually full employment, other parts of Greater Manchester and south-east Lancashire would welcome decentralised jobs from London. Will my right hon. Friend carefully examine Greater Manchester's claim on some of those jobs?
    Mr. Boateng: Individual Departments will determine how they relocate their functions and the jobs that come with them. My hon. Friend knows that the Lyons review utilised a formula that identified Manchester in the upper quartile of places to which Departments are likely to plan to relocate, which is good news for Manchester. When Conservative Members had stewardship of the economy, they singularly failed to take advantage of the benefits of relocation, as they singularly failed to implement efficiencies, which we are introducing. The civil service is smaller now than it was in all but one of the years in which Conservative Members had stewardship of the economy.
    Mr. Mark Field: In implementing the staffing level reviews, will the Chief Secretary urgently meet the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? I understand that British Trade International is likely to be subject to considerable cuts, which will undermine
    1534
    our export drive, especially in key regions such as the Caribbean and Latin America, where we have long-standing links.
    Mr. Boateng: On the contrary, British Trade International is likely to benefit from the efficiency savings identified by my right hon. Friends and from extra money provided in the course of the spending review. That will better equip it for the challenge of securing inward investment, which benefits every nation and every region of our country. The hon. Gentleman should warmly welcome the efficiency savings, which are good news for the Department of Trade and Industry and for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    Lawrie Quinn: I welcome the transfer of more than 20,000 jobs to the regions following the Lyons review. Is there further scope to explore the possibility of moving even more civil service jobs to the regions to maximise efficiency and ensure that the whole country is involved in delivering a service to the nation?
    Mr. Boateng: Sir Michael Lyons himself saw the review as the beginning of a process in which Departments would look to the regions as likely places to locate functions and jobs. The aim is to create a culture in which London and the south-east are not seen as the automatic beneficiaries of changes and developments in policy.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: What the Chief Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend actually means is that the cuts in central Departments that the Chancellor announced are 71,000, not 84,000. [Laughter.] Well, they are. There is nothing that Ministers can do to deny their own figures, and 71,000, not 84,000, is the number shown for actual cuts in central Government departmental staff. Does not page 8 of the leaked interim Gershon report, which I have in my hand, tell us that the Chancellor is planning to add 360,000 extra public sector workers, and is it not true that on current trends half of those will be back-office staff?
    Mr. Boateng: I do not comment on leaked documents. However, I can refer the right hon. Gentleman to the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made to the House, which identified gross reductions in posts of 84,150 and net reductions in posts of 70,600. That is as plain as pikestaff. It is equally plain that the right hon. Gentleman has committed his party to a two-year freeze in departmental spending. That would mean cuts in transport of £1.8 billion, cuts in local government of £4.8 billion, cuts in the Home Office of £1.6 billion, cuts in defence of £2.6 billion, and cuts in international development of £800 million. That is the reality of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. It is time that he either admitted those figures or got to the Dispatch Box to deny them. Let us wait and see what he does.
    Mr. Letwin: I very well understand that the Chief Secretary does not want to engage in defending the Chancellor's arithmetic, but the Government's own figures show that of the 496,000 extra public sector

    1535
    workers that he and the Chancellor have added in the past seven years, half have been in back offices. Why, then, should we believe that the back-office proportion of the next 360,000 will be any different, particularly given that I heard the Chancellor telling the Select Committee this morning that he did not know the figure? How can the Chief Secretary expect the Treasury to retain credibility if the Chancellor tells us, and the world, that he is reducing back-office staff by tens of thousands, when he is planning, according to his own reports, to increase back-office staff by more than 100,000?
    Mr. Boateng: We have already begun the process of redeployment to the front line. The right hon. Gentleman need only look at the Department for Work and Pensions, where the merger of the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency has already resulted in a reduction of more than 6,000 posts. That is the reality.
    The question that the right hon. Gentleman fails to answer, and the reality that he fails to comprehend, is that we believe that the state has a role. We believe that it is right, in this spending review, to ensure that we create 143,000 more front-line health workers, 33,000 more criminal justice workers and approximately 55,000 more early years and child care workers. We make no apology for that. We want the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to tell us just how many front-line jobs they would cut and how they will make their sums add up, because in the past they have singularly failed to convince either the House or the country in that respect.

    Employment
    Mr John McFall: What representations he has received on his measures in the pre-Budget report to help people into work. [184075]
    Ian Stewart: If he will make a statement on the effect on the economy of present employment levels. [184081]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With unemployment low and the economy growing, the pre-Budget report will report on the new deal for skills and how we can help people to obtain the skills that are necessary to fill the 600,000 vacancies in the economy. That will require us to maintain, not abolish, the new deal.
    Mr. McFall: What progress is being made on the new deal for the over-50s, where unemployment is still comparatively high? Mindful that there are 630,000 job vacancies, what measures is my right hon. Friend taking in the tax and benefits system, which in the past has acted as a disincentive to unemployed people moving into work?
    Mr. Brown: There will be some worry for Conservative Members about unemployment among the over-50s after the next general election, and the new deal for the over-50s will be of great help to them.
    Of the 1.8 million new jobs that we have created since 1997, almost half have gone to people over 50, so it is not the case that people over 50 have not been offered jobs
    1536
    or taken them up It is true, however, that a large number of people over 50 still, for a variety of reasons, do not find that the tax and benefits system has helped them as it might. That is why we introduced the new deal for the over-50s and special incentives through the new deal for the over-50s, and why we will continue to address the issue in order to move towards full employment. I have to tell the House, however, that we could not move as fast or as far to full employment without the assistance of the new deal, so the Conservative party should reconsider its decision to abolish it.
    Ian Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Government's creation of a stable economic climate and their commitment to public expenditure has led to record low unemployment in Eccles, which is 46.6 per cent. lower than it was in 1997? Does he agree that that forms the bedrock for new investment in Eccles where, for example, Salford City Reds rugby league club has plans for a new stadium and associated development which, with the help of measures outlined in the pre-Budget report, will create about 2,000 new jobs? By the way, we have plenty of brownfield sites for public servants.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The progress made in tackling unemployment in his constituency is most welcome. Although the new deal finances many things, it does not yet finance stadiums. but I hope that progress can be made both on sporting facilities and on raising employment levels in his constituency. The fact is that, without the new deal, more people would be unemployed today. Even in the constituency of the shadow Chief Secretary unemployment has been reduced from 2.7 per cent. to just 1 per cent. under a Labour Government, so how can he say that the situation is analogous to what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s?
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is not the Chancellor worried about employment levels in manufacturing industry, because there have been a great many job losses in manufacturing throughout the country over the past seven years? Does he take any responsibility for that, following the introduction of the climate change levy?
    Mr. Brown: I notice that the Conservative party is now promising to abolish the climate change levy and the aggregates levy, so it must have the means to replace that income. As far as we are concerned—[Interruption.] It is revenue neutral only because we reduced national insurance as a result of it. Presumably, if the Conservatives abolished the climate change levy, they would increase national insurance. Is that another commitment by the shadow Chief Secretary and the shadow Chancellor?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that the project that followed the £24 million that he gave us for flattening the Shirebrook pit tips has been completed, and there is a prospect of 2,000 jobs on that business park? That is one reason why coalfield unemployment has gone down. The Markham Bolsover employment zone, which has received the first

    1537
    £15 million of the funds that it needs, will give rise to 5,000 jobs. I urge my right hon. Friend to remember the site, which is located at junction 29A of the M1, and to etch it on his memory. We will need about another £20 million to complete the project. but those 5,000 jobs will be the biggest job development since the industrial revolution and will replace the 3,000 jobs that the Tories got rid of when the pits went.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has fought long and hard to replace the mining jobs that were lost in his constituency with new economic developments such as those that he described. We look forward not just to having full employment in one region but to achieving full employment in all the country's regions and nations. However, to pursue a matter raised in the Chamber today, if we are to continue to do so, we must have fiscal prudence as well. If the shadow Chancellor is now saying that he will replace the climate change levy with an £800 million increase in employees' national insurance to make the tax revenue neutral, the Opposition have, amazingly, announced another tax rise.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Chancellor accept that the shortage of home helps and community care workers must be tackled so that we can deliver proper care in the community? Will he seek to provide incentives through training and the new deal to encourage more unemployed people to offer such a service? Our hospitals will benefit, and we will get patients into their own homes much faster if a proper care in the community service is available.
    Mr. Brown: We are increasing the level of personal social services finance as a result of the spending settlement. That will enable us to help more people to stay in their homes and to move people out of hospital more quickly into either care homes or back into their own homes. It will allow us to expand social services in our country.
    We also wish to expand pre-school care, about which the hon. Gentleman asked, by training more carers. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, if he wishes to approach the Treasury, we will explain all the measures available to encourage the growth of child care and preschool provision for his constituency, including tax relief on the £50 that an employer would pay to an employee to allow them to buy their child care. The rises in social services budgets are possible only because we are prepared to put more money into our public services. I ask the hon. Gentleman to contemplate a situation in which the Conservative party would cut social services expenditure, as well as industry, science, defence and law and order expenditure—that is the fate that the shadow Chancellor would leave us to.

    Millennium Development Goals
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with African Finance Ministers on debt and the millennium development goals. [184076]
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will make a statement on recent progress in attaining the objectives of the millennium development goals. [184083]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): On current proposals, the majority of countries will fail to meet most of the millennium development goals by 2015. That is why the UK has proposed an international finance facility.
    Mr. Chapman: Is not debt incurred in a concessionary way and responsibly managed a good thing in developmental terms? Is not the problem debt that is not well used, not well spent, and badly managed by the Governments responsible? If we are to help African countries to reach their millennium development goals, and to help them in particular to tackle HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, do we not need to ensure that rich countries fulfil the obligations entered into at Monterrey? What pressure is my right hon. Friend putting on other nations in that regard, particularly on the United States, whose developmental assistance at this time is only 0.2 per cent. of GDP?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken an interest in these matters. Tuberculosis kills 2 million people a year, but to be able to protect people against it would cost very little if proper inoculation and vaccination were available. Equally, malaria carries off more than 1 million people a year, yet with expenditure on nets costing a few dollars, we could prevent avoidable deaths. That is why the global health fund and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation are important. That is why it is necessary to honour the Monterrey consensus, whereby the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe would provide an extra $9 billion in aid by 2006, and the US would provide $7 billion.
    Contrary to what my hon. Friend said, the United States is moving ahead to make that money available, although its debt-to-GDP ratio is low. The question is whether we can use those additions in aid to borrow on capital markets and to have an international finance facility, which, with repayment over 30 years, could put up extra funds that would enable us to meet the millennium development targets over 10 years.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for his great focus on the millennium development goals while in office. Given the problems of war in many parts of Africa, to what extent does he collaborate and co-operate with his colleagues in the Foreign Office and in the Department for International Development to focus on getting peace in those areas, to make it much easier for those goals to be attained?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been involved in these matters over many years. Twenty-seven countries now have debt relief, but there would be at least 37 if the 10 countries or more that are engaged in conflict were out of conflict and able to be in a position to claim debt relief. As I said about Sudan, as long as there is not peace, we cannot get resources to the people who need them. If there were peace, and if we could broker a peace deal, in which Britain was involved, £150 million that we have allocated could be spent on helping people who are in grave difficulty in

    1539
    Sudan. We must therefore work closely: the Africa Commission set up by the Prime Minister is considering aid, peacekeeping and economic development, and a combination of measures in those three areas will bring new hope to Africa.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: During his discussions with African Finance Ministers, does the Chancellor ever raise the question of how much aid reaches the people for whom it is intended? Will he now answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about the statement made by one of his colleagues about perceived corruption in Kenya? What does he propose to do about that?
    Mr. Brown: Where there is corruption, it must be dealt with. Funds should not go to regimes in which we cannot guarantee that the money will go where it is intended to go—in most cases, to education and health programmes designed to help the poorest people of the country involved.
    Let me repeat that even if all these things are done, more resources will be needed for both Africa and developing countries. The Conservative party cannot escape its responsibilities to the poorest countries of the world by saying that there is no need for more aid if corruption is dealt with. There will be a need for more aid—and how can the Conservative party support more aid when they are cutting the aid budget?
    Tony Worthington: In his discussions with African Finance Ministers and his colleagues in the World Bank, could the Chancellor make it a condition of the poverty reduction strategy papers and the debate about the millennium development goals that African Parliaments are fully involved in dialogue about those papers? We may talk of country ownership, but that means nothing if the Parliaments themselves have not built up the skills necessary for them to be involved.
    Mr. Brown: It is proposed that the poverty reduction strategies should be not just country-owned, but owned by civil society. My hon. Friend, who has taken a huge interest in these matters and has been an International Development Minister, is trying to build links with African parliamentarians to bring about a strong civil-society presence and pressure for change. That is why his work is so important.
    In the Africa Commission, we want to consult and listen to the Parliaments and the civil societies of African countries. I believe that we will achieve progress in Africa not just by talking to Governments, but by talking to people who were elected but are not members of Governments and to pressure groups and community organisations. There is, however, still the need for us to offer more aid as part of the process.

    Development Aid
    Helen Jackson: What proposals he has to enhance the resources available for aid and development. [184078]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Monday, by 2007–08 UK development aid will rise to nearly £6.5 billion, equal to 0.47 per cent. of gross national income.
    Helen Jackson: We have talked a great deal about the aid budget today. The important thing about the 0.7 per cent. target, which is not particularly magical in itself, is that it has been internationally agreed. Moreover, we know that every £1 million of overseas aid saves lives. I particularly welcome the extra £1.5 billion for HIV/AIDS aid and development, which is symbolic of that saving of lives. In what ways—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Minister has got the drift.
    John Healey: I certainly have, and my hon. Friend is right. We want to go further. If we are to meet the millennium development goals, not least for health, we must double the current aid flows. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has proposed an international finance facility.
    This view has been rightly expressed:
    "If we are to be taken seriously as a party of government which cares about the most vulnerable people on the planet, there has to be a public spending commitment."
    Those are the words of the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. We on the Government Front Bench agree with them, but the shadow Chancellor does not. The shadow Chancellor will cut, not increase, the aid going to the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet. That is the shadow Cabinet; those are spending plans rooted in chaos and confusion.
    Chris Bryant: It is obviously important that our aid budget is increasing, and Members across the House applaud the Government for what they announced earlier this week. Is it not also important, however, to ensure that more money goes to the poorest countries in the world? How are the Government doing in persuading our EU colleagues not just to increase their aid, but to ensure that it goes to the poorest countries?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, the spending review settlement was in part designed to ensure that at least 90 per cent. of Britain's aid over the next three years does indeed go to the poorest countries. He will also know that the task of the Department for International Development is in part to put pressure on the European Union and on other multilateral aid programmes to ensure that such aid is delivered more effectively. The spending review announcements have been widely backed—by charities, the churches, campaigners and Opposition Back Benchers—but they have not been backed by the shadow Chancellor. I do hope that he will reconsider his plan to cut the aid budget by £800 million if the Conservatives regain power.

    Personal Saving
    Mr. Peter Luff: What measures he is taking to increase personal saving. [184080]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): As well as creating an economy with low interest rates, the Government have introduced reforms such as individual savings accounts, the 10p starting rate for tax and the new child trust fund, and we have radically reformed and simplified financial regulation and pensions. Net wealth has risen by more than 50 per cent. since 1997.
    Mr. Luff: Treasury Ministers in general and the Chancellor in particular remind me of the boxer in Simon and Garfunkel's song of the same name: a man who hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Why do the Government disregard the collapse of the savings culture in this country—a collapse that was caused by endless fiddling with tax-free savings schemes, the £5 billion raid on personal pensions and the massive expansion of means-testing?
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts absolutely wrong. Let us look at what has actually happened. The hon. Gentleman knows that reform of advance corporation tax was part of a process of widespread corporate tax reform, in order to promote investment that will benefit savers in the long term. He knows that ISAs have been far more popular than their predecessors, TESSAs and PEPs; indeed, one in three of the population now saves in an ISA product. He knows that we increased the limits from £5,000 and £3,000 when we introduced the scheme to kick-start ISAs; they have been successful.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: A few moments ago, I was Upstairs in Committee agreeing an increase of 7.8 per cent. in the adult minimum wage—it will be introduced in October—on top of the previous year's 7.1 per cent. increase. My question, however, is: what can we do to encourage people on low and modest incomes to save?
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our priority must be to help those on low and moderate incomes. Of course, our first priority was to tackle pensioner poverty, and through the introduction of the pension credit, we have been successful in doing so. Now, we must make it as easy as possible to save, which is why we are committed to wholesale reform of the regulation and taxation of pensions. The introduction of new stakeholder products makes it much easier for people on low and moderate incomes to save.
    Mr. Colin Breed: The Minister mentioned a 50 per cent. rise in national wealth. How much of that is due to inflated property values, rather than pensions, shares and other savings?
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman knows that house prices have risen since 1997. Houses are an important
    1542
    store of value, and it is important that we look at assets as well as savings when considering these issues, but we cannot be complacent about what is happening to savings. Our analysis shows that 3 million people could be seriously undersaving, which is why we have a strategy to help people make informed choices about the future. We are concentrating on new products, on overhauling regulation and taxation, and on enabling informed choice.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the savings industry itself must take some responsibility for ongoing problems in the savings field? She will know that the Treasury Committee has been looking at this issue for the past few months. We have uncovered endless examples of mis-selling, lack of transparency, opaque products, over-complexity and rip-off commission structures. Does she agree that the industry itself can contribute to solving such problems?
    Ruth Kelly: I do, and I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this issue. It is absolutely true that in the past, the savings industry has been characterised by opacity and complexity. It is also right that we as a Government deal with that by shifting consumer protection away from the sales process and more towards the regulation of products, so that people can buy a stakeholder product—perhaps even during their lunch hour—that will suit their savings needs. That will make it much easier for people to make informed choices about their future savings. Such measures accompany the work being done by the Department for Work and Pensions. Over the next few years, millions of people will for the first time receive a combined forecast of their likely pension income. It is only right that we work with industry and with firms to promote employer take-up of schemes, to look at ways of automatically enrolling individuals in pension schemes, and to see how we can make it much easier for people to save.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Despite the Financial Secretary's fanciful claims, the reality is that, over the last seven years, the Chancellor has repeatedly cut tax incentives for savers; indeed, he has now removed tax credits for ISAs, costing savers another £250 million. Given that the savings ratio has already halved since 1997, why are the Government yet again penalising savers, whether they are at work or at lunch?
    Ruth Kelly: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has studied the latest figures on the savings ratio, but perhaps he will understand that the savings ratio varies with the economic cycle. At a time of boom and bust, the savings ratio is artificially inflated as people protect themselves against rising unemployment. I have said that we are not complacent; we are determined to tackle undersaving and to make sure that people can make informed choices about their future. That is why the DWP is introducing its informed choice strategy and why we are radically simplifying the regulation and taxation of pensions.

Librarian's Retirement
12.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make to the House. I have received a letter from the Librarian, indicating her wish to retire at the end of this year. I will arrange for the text of the letter to be printed in the Official Report.
Miss Priscilla Baines has served the House for almost 37 years, the last five of them as our Librarian. During her stewardship, the Library has continued to develop and expand, and her team has risen to meet the challenges that new technology has presented. Miss Baines has faithfully served Members of the House of Commons since 1968 and I suspect all of us have cause to be grateful to her for her diligence and expertise in finding that piece of information that we have needed at one stage or another to complete our research on a particular point.
I know that all Members will join me in thanking Miss Baines for her unstinting and devoted service to the House. We wish her a long and happy retirement.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to members of her team in the Library who, with Miss Baines, have provided us with the excellent service that we enjoy.
Miss Baines will retire on 31 December 2004 and I am announcing to the House today that, after a rigorous competition and on the advice of a selection board, I have appointed Mr. John Pullinger to succeed her. Mr. Pullinger is currently executive director of the Office for National Statistics.
[Following is the letter:
I write to confirm my decision to retire on 31 December 2004.
By the end of this year I shall have served the House for almost thirty-seven years, the last five of them as Librarian. The Library that I shall leave will be very different in many respects from the one I joined early in 1968. The Members' Library in the Palace still looks remarkably similar to the magnificent set of rooms first occupied in 1852 and we are very fortunate that it is still in use for the purpose for which it was originally designed. Much else, has, however, changed, mainly as a result of the technology which now underlies most of our services to the House and to Members.
Exploiting that technology for the benefit of our users has been one of the Library's biggest challenges and I think we can be very proud of the many improvements that we have made in our services. Those improvements might well not have been possible without the technology but we could not provide any of our services without our staff. I have been very lucky to have so many able and committed colleagues, most of all in the Library but also throughout both Houses. I am very grateful for their support and friendship and I shall miss them a great deal .
It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve the House, and Parliament, for so long. I have greatly enjoyed the opportunities to work for so many Members of Parliament and to be part of a department whose services have clearly been highly valued. I have every confidence that the challenges of the future will be met as they have been in the past.]
12.33 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Mr Speaker the whole House will want to join in the tribute that you have paid to Miss Baines. I know that she is held in great regard and much affection by Members and staff alike. Miss Baines has served the Library with considerable distinction and dedication. She is a recognised authority on parliamentary matters and has contributed to many publications, taking a leading role in the proceedings of the Study of Parliament group.
As Librarian, Miss Baines has fostered contacts with parliamentary libraries throughout the world. Throughout her career, Miss Baines has taken a very close interest in staffing matters, playing a major part in strengthening the trade union side.
Miss Baines has overseen the opening of the e-library and the development of the parliamentary information management system. I understand that this will be up and running for internal purposes by the end of the year. In the second stage, it will be an important tool, contributing to the way we deliver information to the public through a much more accessible parliamentary website.
Alongside the introduction of new technology, Miss Baines has taken forward a challenging change management programme aimed at modernising the way the Library Department delivers its services to users. This is a very significant legacy for what remains the finest parliamentary Library in the world.
I also understand that Miss Baines will be missed in the Commons gym, where she is a sprightly early-morning regular. I believe that the whole House will join me in expressing our thanks to her and in wishing her our best wishes on her retirement.
12.34 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to associate myself fully with your remarks, Mr. Speaker, and with those of the Leader of the House.
The services offered by the Library have gone from strength to strength under Miss Baines' leadership. I note that last year a total of 75,000 requests for information and reference briefings were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That shows what an essential resource the Library is for Members. It is particularly so for the Opposition, who are very reliant on and grateful for the services provided.
It is also right to pay tribute to Miss Baines for significant innovations in recent years, such as the introduction of the debate packs, which have been very useful. Miss Baines deserves our thanks for all her work and our very best wishes for the future. Although I have never actually met her in the gym— [Interruption]—I know that she has a pleasant and approachable manner. We all want to wish her a long and happy retirement.
12.35 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add my thanks and appreciation to Miss Baines on behalf of the Liberal Democrats? Whatever party we come from, we accept that a fact in the House of Commons is often a fairly elastic concept, but that a fact from the Library is

1545
a fact which is underpinned by independent analysis, complete professionalism and integrity. An analysis from the House of Commons Library is accepted by all on both sides of the House.
It is worth noting that, before the announcement, we were discussing the reform of government and the introduction of major changes in back offices and IT. Much of it has already happened in the Library: it has been assimilated efficiently without fuss, which reflects great credit on the Librarian. We want to thank her and welcome her successor, John Pullinger.
12.36 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Priscilla Baines has been in control of the Library during a most difficult and complicated period. She has seen a complete change in the way Library services are provided. Every one of us has relied on the Library—in my case, for more than 30 years. Library staff are not only imaginative, responsible and hard-working; under Priscilla Baines' leadership, they have transformed themselves into probably the most imaginative resource that could be provided to any Parliament anywhere. We owe Priscilla Baines an enormous debt, which we shall never be able to repay. I cannot understand why we are letting someone so young retire so early.
12.37 pm
Mr. Robert Key: For 21 years, it has been my privilege to use the wonderful resources of the Library. Only in the last six months, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Information, have I begun to understand the complexity of our great Library. I have always known that it is the Library's staff who make it what it is. Working with our Librarian, I now know why it is so special.
Like a well ordered farm or a well stocked duck pond, the Library is always there in full working order with Members browsing contentedly through papers or computers. The reality is that, like ducks on a pond or stream, the staff are paddling furiously to keep the show on the road. There, mistress of all she surveys, is our swan—the Librarian.
The agricultural analogy is apt, for Priscilla Baines has a first degree in agriculture and a second degree in agricultural economics, both from Oxford. When she
1546
joined the Library in 1968, it was no surprise that when the then Leader of the House, Richard Crossman, first set up the short-lived agricultural and science committees, he turned to her as the expert to take forward an exciting and challenging innovation.
Priscilla Baines has been leading exciting and challenging projects ever since. The House owes her and her senior staff an enormous debt of gratitude for the leadership of that great project which loaned 15,000 of the House's best but least used books to the British Museum. There, they can now be seen by thousands of visitors to the wonderful Enlightenment gallery, formerly the King's library, which was established as part of the British Museum when Parliament first voted to create the first national museum in the world.
More recently, it has been Priscilla's vision and ambition to develop an entirely new information storage and retrieval system for Members and our staff, known as PIMS—parliamentary information management services. The management of change in any great institution is exceptionally difficult. Priscilla Baines knows more about information management than anyone. Her new project comes on stream later this year. She will have had a twinkle in her eye as she christened it PIMS, for her wisdom is combined with wit; her love of opera is enhanced by her pursuit of travel; and her renowned knowledge of food has been known to be washed down with a glass of the other kind of Pimms.
As hon. Members, we respect and admire Priscilla's achievements. She is not, perhaps, a conventional librarian, but that is precisely why she has been so successful. I know—because I have asked them—that her large staff are very fond of her. Only last week, I was told how a colleague, on her first day back from maternity leave, attended a meeting and was instantly greeted by Priscilla saying, "Oh good, you're back!" Another colleague described how they enjoyed socialising after work with a drink on the Terrace, and said, "She is really good fun."
And so say all of us. We will be sorry to say goodbye later this year. We will miss her. Her retirement will be richly deserved. Her legacy to the House is very substantial, and we are truly grateful to her.

Rail Review
12.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement, following the conclusion of the rail review that I announced on 19 January.
The railways provide an essential public service and underpin future economic growth. As the economy grows, demand for travel is increasing. Last year, the railways carried more than a billion passengers for the first time since the 1960s, so it is essential that we put in place the right organisation to run the railways, providing passengers with a reliable and efficient service.
This week's spending review has confirmed that we will be able to make record investment in rail. With increased investment, and with Network Rail now working in the public interest, it is right that we should now put the railways on a stable, long-term footing and tackle the remaining flaws left over from privatisation.
The proposals that I am announcing today streamline the structure and organisation of the railway. They provide a single point of accountability for performance, allow closer working between track and train, and also provide for greater local and devolved decision making. Together, these proposals will make sure that Britain's railways are run in the public interest, for the benefit of its passengers and freight customers.
I am publishing a White Paper today setting out these proposals in detail, and copies are available in the Vote Office in the usual way. Let me set out the key changes that I propose.
First, the Government will take charge of setting the overall strategy for the railways. It must be for Ministers, accountable to Parliament and to the electorate, to set the national strategy for the railways. The Government will set the high-level objectives, including the levels of performance. It is for the Government to decide how much money they are able to spend, and to be held to account for those decisions.
It follows, therefore, that the Strategic Rail Authority will be wound up, and that the majority of its functions, including all its financial obligations, will be transferred to the Secretary of State. The Department for Transport will take responsibility for awarding train operating company franchises. The Department will be restructured to reflect its new responsibilities.
As I said in January, the Government remain committed to maintaining strong, independent economic regulation for rail. That responsibility will remain with the Office of Rail Regulation, which will protect the rights of investors and railway customers and decide how much income Network Rail needs to deliver the Government's strategy. The office will ensure that the Government pay the proper price for what they buy.
Secondly, I turn to operational responsibility. Many of today's problems stem from the fact that, at the moment, no single organisation is in charge of running the railway on a day-to-day basis. In future, overall responsibility for the network will pass to Network Rail. The Government will set out what services Network Rail is to deliver, and Network Rail will take on new responsibilities, including leading industry planning, setting timetables and directing service recovery.
1548
Too often, under the present system, companies have been able to pass the buck for poor performance. So, in future, Network Rail will be responsible for ensuring that the network delivers a reliable service through an agreement with the Government. It will be accountable to passengers and freight users for the network's performance. In consultation with its members, Network Rail intends to bring forward proposals to change its management and governance to reflect its new responsibilities.
Thirdly, the new structure will bring the operation of track and train closer together, allowing far closer working between Network Rail and the train companies. That will replace the current, sometimes confrontational relationship with one based on joint working.
The number of franchises will be reduced, and new arrangements put in place to allow for closer working between track and train operations—the importance of which the architects of privatisation failed to understand.
Experience his already shown—and the establishment of joint control centres is an example—that joint working results in improved performance. By providing for more efficient operation of the railway, these proposals will cut costs.
Under the new structure that I propose, there will be far greater clarity as to the responsibilities of track and train companies. Train operators will be able to concentrate on improving customer service and increasing passengers on the services that they run. When train operators' contracts are awarded, past performance will be taken into account, as well as key issues such as their proposals on costs and service improvements. The contracts will ensure that the Government can take operators off the railway if they repeatedly fail to deliver.
Controlling costs is essential. The White Paper makes it clear that the industry must do a lot more. We are spending record amounts to improve rail, but fare payers, freight customers and taxpayers rightly expect this money to be well spent.
My fourth key reform gives increased powers to the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the London Mayor, as well as more local decision making in England, particularly the passenger transport executives. Many decisions affecting the amount of money spent on the railway should be taken at a local level, but current arrangements often do not allow local and regional bodies to play a full part in decisions affecting their area.
As I said in January, local transport decisions are best taken by people who know what is needed locally. They should be able to make informed decisions as to what works best and what they are willing to pay for. So let me set out what I propose.
In Scotland we will give the Scottish Executive responsibility for planning, specifying and managing services that operate under the existing franchise. As the level of service specified will impact on the rail infrastructure, it is right that, subject to agreement about the transfer of resources to the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Executive should specify the network they require and finance it. So although the infrastructure

1549
will be owned and managed by Network Rail, with these proposals the Scottish Executive will decide what they want and how to pay for it.
In Wales, the Government will devolve additional responsibilities to the Welsh Assembly Government, recognising the different patterns of service there. The Welsh Assembly Government will specify services and fares for local services within and bordering Wales, and they will be responsible for funding those services. There will also be scope for the Welsh Assembly Government to specify and fund additional work on infrastructure if they so wish.
In London, we propose to extend the Mayor's responsibilities for rail services within the Greater London Authority boundary. In the short term, we will work with the Mayor to rationalise fares and ticketing across the different types of public transport in London, giving a better deal for fare payers. We will also work to identify options for giving the Mayor an increased role for services that lie for the most part within the GLA boundary.
In future we propose to enable the Mayor to buy additional services or to propose savings to services. We want to explore all the options, including the possibility of extending this to services beyond the GLA boundary. But that must be subject to consultation with train operating companies as well as neighbouring regional and local bodies before reaching a conclusion. Many London commuter services run well outside the GLA boundary and we need to ensure that the rights and interests of rail passengers outside London are protected.
The White Paper also acknowledges the valuable role of community railway lines, which we aim to put on a better financial footing, following the Strategic Rail Authority's recent consultation.
Passenger transport executives already manage transport provision in some of the main metropolitan areas of England. I propose that in future they will be able to buy additional services and to transfer funding between rail and other transport modes. So we will reform the funding arrangements and legislation for PTEs to provide more flexibility to make choices between rail and other forms of transport—bus and light rail, for example. These proposals amount to a significant devolution of powers across the country which will benefit the travelling public.
My fifth proposal covers a critical issue—safety. The Health and Safety Executive and Commission have done a great deal to improve safety, and over the years much has been achieved. However, we believe that it is essential to provide a very clear railway focus to safety.
The Government intend to simplify the safety regulatory structure of the railways. As part of that, we will therefore transfer responsibility for railway safety to the Office of Rail Regulation, which is independent of both Government and the industry. Safety is an essential part of railway operation. It should be in with the bricks. It needs a clear industry focus to make sure that safety is an integral part of operations. Our proposals will achieve that.
There are a number of other measures covered in the White Paper, including a better deal for freight operators. Rail carries 45 per cent. more freight than it did in 1995, and we want to see more of that. The White
1550
Paper makes proposals to encourage the continuing growth of freight. including giving freight operators more certainty about long-term access to the main freight routes.
The White Paper also includes proposals for a long-term strategy for the use of rolling stock to help the industry plan ahead more effectively. We need to get better value from rolling stock. The original leases were set at privatisation. The renewal of these leases in the same form would be poor value. So as passenger franchises are replaced, we will deal with these problems and drive a better deal for the public.
The White Paper also supports proposals for reform from the Rail Passenger Council Chair as part of the review. So we will create a more independent national structure for the RPC, giving passengers a stronger voice, but maintaining a regional presence.
In the light of the changes I propose, Richard Bowker, the chair and chief executive officer of the Strategic Rail Authority, will stand down and will leave his post in September. For the past two and a half years, he has shown outstanding leadership and a relentless determination to improve the railways. He has made a substantial contribution to the railways and leaves with my strong support and good wishes. I will appoint David Quarmby, who is currently deputy chair, to serve as chair of the SRA until it is closed, probably in the second half of next year. The board will appoint a chief executive to serve for the same time.
The SRA staff have achieved a great deal. I intend to build on the experience and the good work of the SRA and its staff as we restructure the railways. In the meantime, it is critical that everyone in the industry focus on driving up performance and improving costs. We will work with the industry to make the changes as quickly as possible. With the Office of Rail Regulation, we will take forward the changes to the arrangements for Network Rail and the train operators as soon as we can. Other changes I propose, such as in relation to the HSE, Strategic Rail Authority and devolved decision-making, will require primary legislation, which we will introduce as soon as possible.
At a time when the railways are carrying more people than they have done in the past 40 years, it is essential that we have a more customer-focused and passenger-friendly railway. I am streamlining the structure of the railway in order to improve standards and make rail more attractive for passengers. The proposals I am announcing today create a railway to serve passengers and freight. The Government will set the national strategy for the railways, Network Rail will be responsible for operating the network and track, and train companies will work closely together. We are putting the organisation of the railways on a stable long-term footing, backed by increased funding. We have set out a clear direction for Britain's railways, backed by the money they need. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. The White Paper will be judged by what it does for passengers and for rail freight. Passengers have not had much from this Labour Government so far. After seven years, trains are less reliable, fares have risen

1551
more than other prices and promised improvements in the rail network have not been delivered. The east coast main line, Crossrail, Thameslink, the East London line were all promised in the 10-year plan or in Labour's election manifesto, but those projects remain stuck in the sidings with no firm dates for completion and conspicuous by their absence from today's statement.
Today, fewer trains run on time than when Labour came to power. Targets are set that have little chance of being met. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's target for increasing passenger rail use has now been dropped? Four years after the Deputy Prime Minister set up the SRA, it is to be abolished. That may be a welcome admission by the Secretary of State of one of his predecessor's mistakes, but it is of little relevance to the customer.
I welcome the decision to move responsibility for safety to the regulator. However, shifting responsibilities around Whitehall and replacing one set of bureaucrats with another will not make trains more reliable, stations more comfortable or fares more affordable. Why does the Secretary of State think that he and his civil servants can run the railways better than the train operators? Why will giving more power to the rail regulator, to Network Rail and the Department for Transport solve the problems of the railways when the all-singing, all-dancing SRA signally failed to do so?
Why on earth does the Secretary of State think that putting Ken Livingstone in charge of trains is a good idea? How will that affect those rail users whose journeys begin and end outside the area for which the Mayor is responsible, none of whom had the chance to vote against him last month? What discussion of that extraordinary proposal has taken place with the train operators? Why cannot they, rather than Whitehall bureaucrats, decide when trains should run, and thus respond to consumer demand?
Is not the best way to encourage extra investment in the rail network to give the train operators longer contracts, subject to strict performance criteria, so that they have the incentive and the stability to invest more money for the benefit of their customers? How will the new system of fewer franchises actually work? Over what period will train operators be able to plan and run their services without interference from politicians or bureaucrats?
During the dying months of the SRA, how will franchises be allocated? Will subsidies, which already cost the taxpayer £14 million a day, go up or down as a result of the White Paper? How will Network Rail be made more accountable to passengers under these proposals? How will the new governance of Network Rail ensure that it operates in the interests of taxpayers and customers?
Why will not the Secretary of State concentrate on the actual experience of the rail user? Commuters catching trains at Colchester or Manningtree experience conditions that have scarcely changed in half a century. No other business could survive by treating its customers in that way. No airport expects its passengers to stand around in the wind and rain, waiting for departures. What will the Secretary of State's structures and processes now do about those simple but important
1552
and basic challenges? What in the White Paper makes it likely that more freight will be carried on Britain's railways? Will the Secretary of State restore the grants to encourage that, which he withdrew last year?
What the Secretary of State has announced today is another example of fat Government. Instead of slimming down the bureaucracy, as his advance spin promised, bureaucrats will have a bigger role. Instead of the railways being set free, commuter services in the south-east will be burdened with an extra layer of fat and bureaucracy. These proposals give Ministers and bureaucrats a bigger role in running the railways, when what was needed was a smaller one. The winners from this review are the Department of Transport, Ken Livingstone and Network Rail, not the long-suffering railway passengers, who will search the statement in vain for specific proposals to address the reliability, cost and capacity issues that are at the top of their concerns.
Mr. Darling: I appreciate that the Opposition are at a disadvantage when a White Paper is published. It probably was not possible for the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to read it cover to cover, but that is a pity, because about 75 per cent, of the questions he asked would have been answered there. However, I shall attempt to deal with some of them.
It is important that people recognise the distinction between what is properly the province of Government—deciding how much money will be spent and setting the high-level objectives for railways—and what is properly the province of train operating companies, which is whether the 7.42 from Manningtree will run or not. The White Paper proposes the proper distinction. The Government, not the SRA, will deal with the high-level strategy and spending.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is a little nervous of addressing spending, because the Opposition's policy is to spend £1.8 billion less on transport than we now propose. It is not surprising that he does not want to go into that issue. He must recognise, however, that Government will be responsible for high-level strategy, and day-to-day operations will pass to Network Rail. If he looks at the document, he will see that the structure will be massively streamlined, compared with the one that existed in the past.
The hon. Gentleman asked about London. We are not proposing to give the Mayor power over trains outside the GLA. We are saying that for those railway lines within London. it makes some sense that the Mayor should have some say over them, because they are complementary to tube and bus services.
Mr. Yeo: What a muddle.
Mr. Darling: The North London line is wholly within the GLA and is used by people because there is no tube line or bus service. Surely it makes sense that the Mayor should have some say over the trains that run on that line. If the Mayor decided, for example, that he wanted more stopping trains within the GLA boundary, but the trains in question originated from outside the area, the issue would need to be discussed with people who live outside the boundary. We are not talking about transferring all power over those trains to the Mayor. Why does not the hon. Gentleman look at what is actually being proposed?

1553
The hon. Gentleman mentioned longer franchises. One of the problems with privatisation was that it was thought at the time that if franchises were awarded for a long period, such as 25 years, there would be more investment. What happened was that the costings in those long-term franchises proved to be hopelessly unrealistic. That is one of the reasons why costs got so out of control—the botched privatisation for which the hon. Gentleman was responsible.
There will be fewer franchises. In relation to the changes in governance involving Network Rail, it will bring forward proposals in the next few days. We are providing greater streamlining of the organisation of the railways. It will be infinitely better than the dog's breakfast that the Tory party left this country.
John Thurso: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in sending me both a copy of his statement and a letter in response to the letter I wrote him as a submission to the rail review. I appreciate that he could not reply sooner and I am grateful for his courtesy in replying at the earliest opportunity.
I welcome much that is in the statement. The Secretary of State will know from our recent transport debate and the correspondence to which I have referred that he and I have reached many of the same conclusions. That is largely because common sense and logical analysis of the problems lead to some pretty obvious conclusions.
The travelling public are fed up with politicians bickering over blame. They simply want a safe, reliable, affordable railway on which they can count and, subject to the detail of the White Paper, the conclusions of the review should lay the framework for achieving their desire.
The railways have been dogged by over-complex and competing bureaucracies—I would even go so far as to say adversarial bureaucracies—and I have long argued that they need to be simplified. The review clearly accepts that. I welcome the proposed arrangements for strategic leadership by the Government and for operating responsibilities to lie clearly with Network Rail.
I welcome in particular the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of the SRA's responsibility for Scotland, as well as the proposals for Wales, London and the passenger transport executives in England. However, will the Secretary of State again confirm that the appropriate financial resources will also be transferred with those responsibilities?
It is right that Network Rail should have clear responsibility for delivery, which obviously requires strong governance. When will the Secretary of State be able to tell the House his thoughts about that? Does he anticipate restructuring the stakeholder board? At 120, it must be unwieldy to say the least—if not unworkable.
The suggestions for franchisees seem sound, but does the Secretary of State agree that three of the small franchises—namely, c2c, Chiltern Railways and Merseyrail—are among the best performers and that they will not easily fit into a larger franchise? On this occasion, will he accept that small is actually beautiful?
Strong and independent regulation is essential for the railways. I have argued that there should be one regulator for economic, safety and environmental
1554
matters, which is also broadly accepted by the review. Does the Secretary of State see the Civil Aviation Authority as a role model that could be adapted for use with the Office of the Rail Regulator? Will that office review the safety regulations so that there is an appropriate balance between the need for safety and economic drivers? I am pleased that the Government have recognised the basic inefficiency of the rolling stock companies and I look forward to studying the Secretary of State's proposals in detail.
Finally, I note that legislation will be required. In the light of the Secretary of State's acceptance of so many of the points that I have put to him, my colleagues in the House and in another place look forward to working constructively with him to help put the necessary legislation in place and, more important, to help deliver a 21st-century rail network for the long-suffering passengers of Britain.
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman can co-operate with his noble Friends in another place that will be very welcome—it does not always happen. I agree with much of what he said. To his credit, the Liberal Democrats actually have a transport policy, which is more than can be said for the official Opposition.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's questions, Network Rail will be proposing changes in its governance over the next few days. Obviously, that is a matter for the company.
On budgets and the transfer of resources, I want to move to a situation where PTEs actually know how much they are spending on the railways. There is a revealing table in the White Paper, which shows exactly some of the costs for heavy rail in the regions. PTEs will be able to make sensible choices as to whether to invest in heavy rail, light rail, buses and so on.
The hon. Gentleman asked about franchises and mentioned three that work well. I want to reduce the number of franchises because it is important that they are more closely aligned with the track organisation. I attach particular importance to that, but the exact shape and size is something that we shall need to look at.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on safety. There may be parallels with the CAA, if only to show that safety and economic regulation can sit in one regulator. What is important is to achieve the railway focus to which I referred.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and look forward to seeing how the Liberals maintain that steady course over the next year or so.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that every traveller who is fed up with the constant muddle in which the rail industry has had to exist for the past 10 years will welcome his clarity? Will he ensure that the system whereby one company blames another is not continued in the future and that we have clear lines of responsibility, so that we—the Government and the taxpayers, who are paying for the system with greater sums than ever before—are not only given value for money but can see who wastes the cash and makes impossible the service to which every passenger is entitled?
Mr. Darling: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We need clarity as to who is responsible for what. The Government accept responsibility for funding and the electorate are entitled to hold them to account on that. If a new Government came along who wanted to slash spending on transport, they would have to be held to account for that. We need similar clarity on operations, so that we can see who is responsible for trains running on time and, critically, as my hon. Friend pointed out, for spending money. As ever, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. John Horam: Is the Secretary of State aware that about 50 per cent. of all passenger rail journeys are made by Londoners, yet last year London received only £73 million in revenue subsidy while the rest of the country got £1 9 billion? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has taken new powers to himself, which I welcome, will he address that matter urgently?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right: the London commuter network is the most heavily used part of the system. Obviously, subsidy is directed to the network as a whole, but as we move towards more transparent budgets and can see where the money is being spent, sensible decisions can be taken. However, before the hon. Gentleman calls for more subsidy, he might want to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) who is advocating a £1.8 billion cut in transport spending.
Mr. Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that rail congestion in west Yorkshire is greater than in most parts of the country, including the south-east. That is certainly true of the three lines that serve my constituency—Wharfedale, Harrogate and Leeds to Bradford. Can he assure me and my constituents who use those services that the new structures will be able to identify and deliver the renewal of rolling stock and the increase in capacity that is desperately needed to meet not only existing demand but the demand we hope to generate with the opening of new stations?
Mr. Darling: Yes, I can. Part of my proposals for west Yorkshire would give the passenger transport authority greater power to decide what is required. Obviously, the Government can take an overall strategic view as to the size and shape of the railways nationally, but decisions about what happens locally and how transport is provided—whether by heavy rail or other modes—are best taken locally. We want to move towards a situation where there is greater transparency about what happens so that there can be far better decision making than there is at the moment.
Sir George Young: Members on both sides of the House will welcome the increased investment in the railways since privatisation, but the Secretary of State knows that many worthwhile projects are no longer in the plan. Will he have another look at the length of franchises? With a two-year rolling franchise, there is little incentive for a train operator to invest in improved stations or car parks. Will he consider increasing the franchise lengths so that such incentives can be restored?
1556
As the SRA no longer stands behind Network Rail, can the Secretary of State confirm that Network Rail's borrowing will appear on the Government's balance sheet? So far it has not done so. Finally, will he not lose sight of the role of rail in a sustainable and coherent transport strategy? Rail fares are rising ahead of inflation—way ahead of motoring costs—and he has abandoned the growth targets for use of the railway, so in the statement that he has just made is he not running the risk of not capturing the full potential of rail?
Mr. Darling: I certainly am not. As I said in my statement, it is worth bearing in mind that last year Britain's railways carried more passengers than at any time since the early 1960s. That is a measure of their success. Despite all the difficulties railways are doing well. Although punctuality is not nearly as good as it should be, it is improving.
Mr. Christopher Chope: That is the success of privatisation.
Mr. Darling: No, it is not. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it has something to do with the phenomenal growth in our economy over the past seven years, as well as the not insubstantial sums of public money that are going into the railways. However, because someone will no doubt ask about it at some stage, I will give him this: several train operating companies have brought some flair into getting passengers to use them. I have always said that.
On the last point raised by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), he need have no fear. I gently point to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that he and his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) may well ask why we have not built this line, that line or the next one, and we may say, "Yes, we will do as much as we can", but if they cut £1.8 billion from transport spending, they will not be able to build any of those lines.
In relation to the franchise length, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to award franchises that are of sufficient length to give companies an incentive. As I have said, we need to take into account not just costs and performance, but how a company behaves in the first part of its franchise. However, I am wary of moving to something like a 25-year franchise—indeed, I would net agree to that—which was suggested about 10 years ago. For example, the figures included in the Virgin franchises in 1995–96 have proved wildly optimistic. That does no one any good at all.
In relation to the financial obligations, I said in the statement and the White Paper says that they will transfer to the office of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to the valuable role of community railways. I wonder whether he could expand on that, especially with regard to branch lines in rural areas, such as the west Cumbrian line and the Oxenholme to Windermere line. How will the White Paper affect them? What more local control will we have over the railways?
Mr. Darling: The White Paper deals with local community railways and refers to the recent SRA consultation. The idea is that certain railway lines, which may not be viable under the present system, could be operated much better. It does not include specific suggestions, but sets out a framework for decision making in the future. I have been impressed by the fact that a number of working community railway lines would almost certainly have been shut if they had not been transferred to the control of local people. That is something that I want to encourage.
Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the real concern felt in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) about the SRA's proposed cuts to the Maidstone to Ashford line. As a result of the right hon. Gentleman's statement today, will he confirm whether the Government's consultation with the Integrated Kent Franchise will still report as planned in the autumn?
Mr. Darling: I am well aware of the concerns in Kent about the current consultation. It is very clear that, whatever is proposed, if there is a difficulty in one part of the country or another, that is something for the SRA to resolve. I appreciate that it will be very difficult to resolve all the various conflicts, but, obviously, we must have a go. For the avoidance of doubt, the SRA will continue to be responsible for those matters until it is closed, probably in the second half of next year.
Mr. Graham Stringer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent response to the analysis in the Select Committee report, "The Future of the Railway". I particularly appreciate the devolution of both power and cash to passenger transport authorities, so that they can determine what goes on in their areas. A huge quantity of money is spent on heavy rail over which local people have no control or say, but will he assure me that waiting for the legislation to enable that transfer will not delay implementing the extension of the tram system in Greater Manchester?
Mr. Darling: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He has long held the view that there ought to be greater openness, so that PTEs can take informed decisions about whether to provide heavy rail, light rail or bus services. There are a number of light rail schemes, but they are not dealt with specifically in the White Paper, which is about the proposed structure. I have always made the point that, in relation to any rail scheme—heavy or light—or indeed any other transport scheme, we must be satisfied that it stacks up and provides value for money.
One of our problems with light rail schemes, as my hon. Friend well knows, is that the costs have doubled in the past two or three years and what is proposed is half as much as originally planned. The Government cannot sign up to things that do not represent value for money. Some of the changes that I have announced today, whereby we are increasingly able to identify regional transport budgets, will ensure that PTEs and local authorities will also be able to make more
1558
informed judgments about where they are prepared to spend their money. That is obviously of interest to the Government.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the reduction in franchise numbers. I also warmly welcome the closer working relationship between operators and those who control the track. However, may I pick up the point, which was made strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), that the Secretary of State and the Government should consider the length of franchises? Unless the franchises are of a certain length, those companies will not be able to make the necessary investment in car parking facilities at stations. The need for safe, reliable parking at Macclesfield station is critical to getting people off the roads and into trains for journeys to Manchester or south to Birmingham and Stoke. Such investment is very important to my constituency.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Many train operating companies have not just put money into their trains and on-train services, but built car parks. and some run minibus and bus services to round up customers and take them to the stations every morning. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage. I want to ensure that franchises are sufficiently long to encourage companies to stick in there and make that investment.
Past performance ought to be taken into account because we are entitled to ask, "Okay, what did you do for the first part of the franchise? What might you do in the second part?" Obviously, cost and performance are critically important. As I told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), my reservation is that, if the franchise is too long, the numbers bid sometimes become unrealistic, but I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and other hon. Members for the general welcome that they have given to our proposals. Indeed, the only sour note so far appears to have come from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).
Mr. Iain Luke: I welcome transferring the SRA's responsibilities to the Secretary of State, but I am concerned, as the representative of a north-eastern Scottish constituency, that the funding given to the Scottish Executive to upgrade the line north of Edinburgh is sufficient. Colleagues and I have recently had discussions with the SRA, which has decoupled the prioritisation of investment north of Edinburgh, and we have had discussions with the Minister for Transport in the Scottish Executive, and they have told us that they have no money. I hope that any devolution of responsibility will involve sufficient money to ensure that the much-needed investment in north-east Scotland's railway lines can go ahead soon.
Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problems that my hon. Friend sets out in relation to the lines in the north-east of Scotland. Upgrading the line between the central belt and Aberdeen was an issue when I lived in Aberdeen in the 1970s—it is not new. In relation to what I propose in respect of Scotland, it is right, especially as most services in Scotland are discrete to Scotland, that the Scottish

1559
Executive ought to have a greater say, and they can decide to spend more or less. That is a decision that they should properly take.
In relation to rail finances generally, however, the House should understand that the cost of running the railway, especially now that we are clear about the state of the network, has risen very dramatically in the past five years or so. Although there will be improvements—a lot of money is going into the railways—obviously, choices must be made about what can be done and when, so people must be realistic about that.
Pete Wishart: I, too, welcome the statement, especially the part that relates to Scotland. We in the Scottish National party and our colleagues have argued long and hard that there has been an overwhelming case for the transfer of rail powers to the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, to the Welsh Assembly. I am glad that the Secretary of State now sees the clarity of that case. Will he say a little more about how the resources will follow the transfer of powers? I am still unclear about how Scottish objectives will be pursued by the Scottish Executive. In his guise as the Secretary of State for Scotland, does he agree that, when it makes overwhelming sense to devolve such powers, as it does on the railways, he will continue to consider such cases in the future?
Mr. Darling: I am proposing a substantial change in the arrangements for the railways. Of course, the Scottish Executive got a very good settlement, consequential on the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made on Monday. It is obviously for the Scottish Executive to decide how to deploy those resources, and it is encouraging that they are now spending more than £1 billion on transport for the first time ever, I think. That is good news. The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect on the fact that the reason why Scotland's expenditure is going up is that the Chancellor was able to make those resources available because of the strength of the UK economy. Of course, that would all be at risk with separation.
Liz Blackman: My right hon. Friend will know that I have raised the absence of a station at Ilkeston with him before. Indeed, it is the only town of its size in the east midlands that does not have a station. The Government are currently funding a link road to join the town with the motorway, so a station would make an ideal transport hub. In the light of his statement, what comfort can he give to my constituents that a station will arrive sooner rather than later?
Mr. Darling: Tempted though I am, I would probably be better not to make any specific promises. The White Paper deals with the structure and organisation necessary to run the railways rather than specifics. We will need to consider whether a station can be established in Ilkeston. We are spending a lot of money on the railways, but people must understand that the cost of running the railway and the regulatory review
1560
that took place at the end of last year have put a substantial pressure on our budget as a whole. Yes, we want improvements to transport across the piece, but we need to ensure that we bear down on costs because every time that we do that, additional money might be available to do other things. I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind, but the White Paper does not deal with matters in such specific deal.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The Secretary of State tries to claim credit for the increase in passenger numbers over the past 40 years, but in reality, the dramatic increase was caused by the privatisation of the railways by the Conservative party. All the issues with which he is dealing relate to the success of privatisation. That needs to be stated because it is not said often enough.
The right hon. Gentleman might want to address the reality of the discontinuation of the Nottingham-Hinckley-Coventry line that goes through my constituency. He is now taking more powers for himself, so if I write to him will he undertake to examine Railfuture's proposal to reinstate an existing dive-under tunnel at Nuneaton?
Mr. Darling: Again, we are hearing a plea for more money to be spent on the railways. I return to this point: the Conservative party is committed to cutting £1.8 billion from the transport budget, so it is in no position to call for more money for a dive-in tunnel, a new station or anything because it would not make money available. As for what I said about additional passengers, I have never tried to claim credit for the transport system over the past 40 years—I was not responsible 40 years ago. What is happening now with our growing economy enabling more people to travel by our trains and additional public money for the railways is to the credit of the Government, but it is the shame of the official Opposition that they want to cut the amount spent.
Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and especially the extension of the Mayor's responsibilities for rail services in the Greater London area because of the increased integration that I believe that will deliver. Is he aware that my constituents have the fourth highest dependency on public transport services in the country and that we need the East London line to be extended? That is currently an SRA project that is expecting SRA funding, so can he give us any assurance that the long overdue project will go ahead?
Mr. Darling: As I said, the White Paper deals with the structure and organisation of the railways. As my hon. Friend knows, the SRA and the Department have been examining several projects, including the East London line and other London projects. I will be able to say something about those things, but I must be careful to remind hon. Members again that there are huge cost pressures on us. I have always made it clear that London's rail infrastructure needs to be extended, but we must consider how that is paid for and when it happens. Today's announcement was purely about the structure of the railways.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Secretary of State explain how the Evening Standard was able to say with such confidence:
"Ken Livingstone is set to be handed control of the entire London rail network"?
It mysteriously seemed to know the content of the statement before it was given. In that context, will he expand a little further on the mysterious part of his statement saying,
"Many London commuter services run well outside the GLA boundary"?
Can he name any that do not?
Mr. Darling: In relation to the London Evening Standard, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman directs his comments to the editor rather than to me. I do not know why the story was written. The story in the first edition of the Standard is not right, as I said earlier. The right hon. Gentleman should actually read the White Paper, although I appreciate that that would require rather more effort than he sometimes applies to such matters, because he would see that the proposals are rather different from what appears in the Evening Standard. I am told, although I cannot promise the House of this, that the second edition is rather different.
Mr. David Watts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the element about giving more powers to passenger transport authorities. If he is worried about whether the strategy will work, I refer him to the Merseyrail system. It was the worst train system in Britain, but since it transferred to the PTA, it has become the second best and most reliable service. Will he see whether he can support that scheme even more?
Mr. Darling: The White Paper refers specifically to Mersey Electrics and records what it has done. I know that its reliability is pretty good, but it is worth remembering that it has a discrete network, so it is fortunate that no other trains, apart from the odd freight train, go on to the lines. The arrangements for Merseytravel are set out, and my hon. Friend will have every reason to be happy with what is proposed.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Further to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), how will the new governance regime involving the London Mayor impinge on the Crossrail project? Does he intend to make a full statement on that subject before the end of the parliamentary Session?
Mr. Darling: I hope to be able to say something about Crossrail in the not too distant future.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome most of my right hon. Friend's statement, but I am a little worried by his proposals on safety. Will he say a little more about why he has decided to move responsibility for safety from the independent health and safety inspectorate to the Office of Rail Regulation, and confirm that that is not being done because of cost pressures?
Mr. Darling: Absolutely not; safety is absolutely paramount. We thought about the transfer long and hard, and I tell my hon. Friend and the House that the ORR is as independent as the Health and Safety Executive. There is no question of safety being anything but independent from both the Government and the industry—that will remain.
We are undertaking the transfer because given everything that happened in the past, and especially due to European directives on safety, it is much better to have an organisation that can focus on railway safety. We can thus simplify the structure and apply ourselves to the risks faced by the industry. For example, although attention is obviously given to passenger fatalities due to people falling off trains, the vast majority of people killed on the railways are trespassing or suicides. The industry has not examined that risk sufficiently, so we need an organisation with a clear focus. I have, of course, discussed the matter with Bill Callaghan, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. Although his view was different to mine, he told me that he and the rail regulator will work closely to ensure that the transfer works. I will do nothing to prejudice that because I want the transfer to take place properly so that it will help people. I think, on balance, that my judgment is right.
Angela Watkinson: I heard with great alarm that the Mayor for London might be allowed to become involved in commuter services starting outside London and running into London. Two such lines run through my constituency: the Southend-Fenchurch Street line run by c2c; and the Southend-Liverpool Street line, which is run by the renamed Great Eastern—it is now inexplicably called "one", which means that every carriage looks like a first-class carriage. Will the Minister explain what sort of powers the Mayor might be given?
Mr. Darling: I understand that people who read the first edition of the Standard might have got a wholly erroneous impression. I propose that there is room to give the Mayor a greater scope to specify what is needed for services that run wholly in the Greater London authority—I referred to the North London line, for example.
Mr. Oliver Heald: It is called the Northern line.
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman could contain himself for once, he might actually learn something. I appreciate that he has nothing worthwhile to say, so perhaps he should not say anything.
On commuter services that run outside London, the Mayor could say that he would like to pay for more services to stop within the London boundary. Conversely, people coming from, say, Southend might want a fast service into London with few stops. Reconciling those two interests will require plenty of discussion. I have made it clear, both in the White Paper and my statement, that the rights and expectations of people living outside London must be taken into account. There is no question of the Mayor being given control of those services outside his area. If there is an argument for providing more stopping trains and to

1563
provide more services, the question is whether that could be accommodated. I would have thought that that required a common-sense approach, not the scaremongering in which the hon. Lady's colleagues are indulging.
Lawrie Quinn: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his excellent statement, but on the negotiations that he undertook with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on transport spending? May I also be the first Back-Bench Member to thank, as the Secretary of State did, the staff of the Strategic Rail Authority for their work in preparing the way forward for Britain's railways? In particular, I draw attention to the leadership of Richard Bowker, especially on community rail partnerships and the blueprint outlined.
On freight, does my right hon. Friend propose to undertake discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to improve the transport planning arrangements to allow depots to provide access for more goods to go on to the rail network?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I appeal for very short questions and precise answers. I am letting the statement run beyond the original time estimated so that all hon. Members get called.
Mr. Darling: In relation to my hon. Friend's three points, I am always grateful to the Chancellor. That does not, however, get us away from the fact that our budgets are still under pressure. I want freight to be encouraged. Indeed, I am greatly encouraged by the freight companies that have made it clear that they want to go out and win new business. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about Richard Bowker.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Secretary of State understand that there will be considerable concern in Worcestershire about his proposal to extend the powers of the passenger transport executives? We have such poor commuter services because Birmingham and the conurbation specify their services in preference to Worcestershire commuters. Given that he is also talking of giving the Welsh Assembly powers for services bordering Wales, many of which come to Worcestershire, we could be hit by a double whammy. In addition, I invite the Secretary of State to answer the question he did not answer—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, I do not think that we will have an extra question.
Mr. Darling: My proposals on devolution are primarily directed at those services that operate within the areas covered by PTEs and so on. In all parts of the network, there are obviously choices to be made and decisions to be taken between services that run within a
1564
local area and those that run further afield. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would be quiet for one minute, I might be able to answer his question.
The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the tension between people who live well away from PTE areas who rely on services that go into those areas. That is obviously something that we need to reconcile, a point that I made earlier.
Hugh Bayley: My right hon. Friend's decision to pin down the bureaucracy and to provide a clear strategic framework for the railways, and his ability to win extra money from the Treasury to deliver the strategy will be widely welcomed in a railway town like York. Now that the parameters have been set, when will the SRA publish the route utilisation strategy for the east coast main line and when will the refranchising formally start?
Mr. Darling: I hope that the answer to both those questions is "shortly". It is most important that the change does not hold up developments that need to be put in place to ensure that the railways operate over the next few years. I hope that we can do those two things as soon as possible.
John McDonnell: May I give credit where credit is due? Today's announcement shows that the Secretary of State is slowly but surely reinventing a much improved British Rail. Unfortunately. he has not gone far enough in bringing the train operating companies back into public ownership. However, will he at least end the private sector preference, so that if the public sector is operating successfully—as it is with south-east trains—it is not forced into the private sector?
Mr. Darling: Not for the first time I must disappoint my hon. Friend. We are not re-creating British Rail and I think that the public-private partnership works. The performance of south-east trains is improving, but so is the performance of a number of other train operators operating around London. I am afraid that we will have to disagree—but nothing new there.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the new arrangements make it easier for disused railway lines to be reopened, or is the shape of the network to be entirely with Network Rail?
Mr. Darling: The Government have to decide how much they spend and the general overall strategy for the railways. Network Rail, through its industry planning process, will have to decide whether markets mean that new lines might be profitable or old lines might change. That happens with all types of transport because it is necessary to take account of where people are.
If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is referring to community railway lines. They have been successful in keeping lines open that might otherwise have closed. That is acknowledged in the White Paper and we want to build on it.

Business of the House
1.35 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 19 JULY—Remaining stages of the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]. Followed by motion to approve the Draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2004, followed by remaining stages of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 20 JULY—A debate on Iraq on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill, followed by if necessary further consideration of Lords amendments. It may also assist the House if I confirm that there will be a statement about the findings of the balance of funding review report.
WEDNESDAY 21 JULY—A motion to approve three regional assembly and local government referendums orders, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
THURSDAY 22 JULY—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
The provisional business for the week following the summer recess will include:
TUESDAY 7 SEPTEMBER—Second Reading of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords].
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for September will be:
THURSDAY 9 SEPTEMBER—A debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on the EU's new chemical strategy.
THURSDAY 16 SEPTEMBER—A debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on postal voting.
Mr. Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business.
Although we are pleased that it is possible to have the capping of local authorities debated on the Floor of the House next Monday, as is normal practice, it is wrong that only an hour and a half is to be allowed when five councils and one fire authority are involved. May we have more time for that debate?
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so many last-minute amendments on new matters were tabled by the Minister when the Energy Bill was discussed on Report this week, which meant that other hon. Members were unable to have their amendments discussed before the guillotine fell? When will the Leader of the House stop that sort of abuse?
Now that the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill has completed all its stages, will the right hon. Gentleman implement the Westminster boundary review for Scotland by laying the order before we rise?
Finally, I ask for a debate on the Butler report. It was made to Parliament and should be debated here, just like the Hutton report and the Penrose report. The Prime
1566
Minister has a poor record of making speeches here, but we do need a detailed speech from him in response to the report. He needs to address the flaws in intelligence and the way in which he conducts Cabinet business.
Lord Butler says that Downing street stretched intelligence "to the outer limits". He says that the 45-minute claim should not have been in the dossier at all. Throughout the dossier, serious misgivings about the intelligence were taken out. Who took them out? How could the Prime Minister then tell the country that the intelligence was "beyond doubt"? How could he tell this House that it was "extensive, detailed and authoritative" when we know that it was "little", "sporadic" and "patchy"?
The people of this country are entitled to believe their Prime Minister as he leads us into war. Can that ever be the case again—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is calling for a debate. We should not be holding it now.
Mr. Heald: We need a debate in Government time, led by the Prime Minister, before the House rises.
Mr. Hain: Well, that was a bit of windy rhetoric, was it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Before I respond to it, I shall deal with the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not accept that an hour and a half on council capping is insufficient. The matter has been debated regularly in the House and this will be an appropriate way in which to deal with it. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about Government amendments to the Energy Bill. Obviously, I share with him the desire to minimise the tabling of Government amendments to any Bill, especially at a late stage, including on Report. I also regret that other amendments were not discussed. On the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, no, there will not be an order brought before the summer recess. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until an appropriate time for that.
I shall now deal with the substance of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. There will be a debate on Iraq on Tuesday, as I have already announced, in which there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the Butler report. Indeed, I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary will make reference to it in his opening speech. He will obviously take interventions on that matter, and any Members who catch the eye of the Chair will be able to make their points.
I refute categorically the suggestion that the House has not had an opportunity to discuss Iraq. The Prime Minister has made a whole series of statements on Iraq and other matters. He also opened the debate on the Hutton report, at the request of the Opposition, among others. He has held himself accountable to the House more than any other Prime Minister, to the extent that, for the very first time, we had a debate and a vote authorising the decision to go to war, which was carried by a clear majority. So the idea that Parliament has somehow been bypassed in this process is absolute nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
The hon. Gentleman's reference to the Butler report represents the typically opportunistic stance of the Conservatives, who have consistently supported the

1567
action in Iraq. I could add to the quotations from the Leader of the Opposition on that matter which were repeated by the Prime Minister yesterday, but I shall spare the hon. Gentleman's pain. Frankly, if there is an issue of credibility involved, it is the shifty opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think that the voters in the by-elections today and in future will pronounce their verdict on that shifty opportunism. If there is a credibility problem, then it is the Leader of the Opposition who has a credibility problem on Iraq, the Butler report and just about everything else.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the proposed statement on the balance of funding review. I also welcome the Adjournment debate on Iraq next week. It was clear from the statement and the comments made yesterday that there was palpable frustration in the House that some Members could not express their views at that time, and I hope that next week's debate will provide an opportunity for the large number of Members—whether they were for or against the war, and whether they are pleased or displeased with the outcome—to affirm their anger that they were led into war on false assumptions. I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity for that opinion to be expressed.
Will the Leader of the House tell us who will summate in that debate? It is important that the Government should have an opportunity to explain, in response to Butler's finding that "serious errors" were made, who individually carries responsibility, when it has been stated that there was collective blame. Will the Foreign Secretary be the person to convey a definitive answer to that question?
Butler raises a wider question, on which the Leader of the House is perhaps the best person to report back to us. If there was a failure of what has been called an informal system of governance, in terms of the way in which the Cabinet functioned and made decisions, will we have a report presented to us, either through a statement or a debate, on how Cabinet government and its reporting procedures are to be improved?
Switching to another subject, a large number of Members on both sides of the House are concerned that schools are being built and transport systems improved by private finance initiative contractors—particularly Jarvis, which is on the brink of bankruptcy. Indeed, we might come back to Parliament in the autumn faced with serious disruption to building programmes if that company does go bankrupt. Is the Leader of the House in a position to say whether the Secretary of State for Education and Skills or another Minister will be able to make a statement on that before the House breaks up?
Earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Health referred to the serious problems arising from MRSA in hospitals and has now acknowledged that this is a major problem in the health service. Can we have a full statement and debate on this, as there is widespread frustration in the House that, although this issue has been raised by me and many other Members over the last six or seven years, it has taken all this time for it to become a top priority issue for the Secretary of State and for action to be taken? Can we have a fuller explanation of what action is being taken on this matter?
Mr. Hain: On Iraq and the Butler report, there has been an honest difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on this matter. I accept that the hon. Gentleman and his party oppose the action that the Government took; they did so honestly, just as we acted honestly, and there should be a mutual recognition of the honesty of each other's position. That is in stark contrast to the opportunism of the Conservatives, who were actually urging us to go to war before the United Nations passed resolution 1441. In fact, they were inciting us to go to war without the authority of the United Nations, before that process broke down. At least the Liberal Democrats have maintained a consistent position on the issue, although that is about all I can say for it. It has yet to be decided who will reply to the debate on Iraq, but I shall obviously take into account the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in that regard.
On the Cabinet the Butler report made it perfectly clear that the decision making and the style of the Cabinet was no less effective, to quote the Butler report, compared with other Governments. There were 24 Cabinet discussions on Iraq, many of which I attended after my promotion to the Cabinet. There were 25 key meetings of Ministers and officials, and that is apart from the war Cabinet itself. So there was full consultation, every Cabinet Minister had the opportunity to speak, and at the end of that process we came to Parliament and sought the approval of Parliament in the first ever vote on whether to go to war. Any questioning of the decision making is therefore simply unacceptable.
I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats have actually read the Butler report. Perhaps I should read one of its conclusions, which states that
"we have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime:
a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I ought to say to the Leader of the House what I said to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). We cannot go into the details of that debate at this time.
Mr. Hain: I am I happy not to go into the details, in that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On MRSA, we were the first to introduce a mandatory system for collecting reports of bloodstream infections. It was introduced in 2001, and it was much needed, given what went on before, including under the previous Conservative Government. Improved cleanliness is obviously an important part of tackling this problem, but it will not be tackled by that alone. I remind the House that it was the previous Conservative Government who privatised hospital cleaning and contracted it out so that low costs were the order of the day, rather than high quality. We have sought to reverse that. On PFI contracts, I will certainly draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has my friend seen early-day motion 1512 on Cabinet decision making, which stands in my name?

1569
[That this House notes with unease Lord Butler's observations on page 147 of his report concerning the nature of Cabinet discussions on Iraq; is dismayed that while a small number of key Ministers met frequently, no papers were circulated to the full Cabinet or to a Cabinet committee despite the fact that "excellent quality papers" were written by officials and that information given to Cabinet ministers outside the inner circle and in the Cabinet forum was solely by way of oral briefings by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary; further notes that Lord Butler's conclusion that this practice "reduced Cabinet Ministers' ability to prepare properly for such discussions" and this reduced "the scope for informed collective political judgement"; deplores the way in which vital decisions on war and peace were taken on the full authority of the Cabinet but without the active participation and engagement of all its members; and calls on the Head of the Home Civil Service and the Prime Minister to give an undertaking to Parliament that the concerns expressed by Lord Butler in the machinery of Government will be fully addressed.]
It is not just the Liberal Democrats who are exercised about this matter: 147 Labour Members voted against the war. PowerPoint presentations to Cabinet Ministers can be no substitute for considered background papers circulated in advance so that Cabinet Ministers can make an informed judgment on important decisions such as going to war.
Mr. Hain: It is always nice to know that we have the support of my hon. Friend on these matters. I want to say to him frankly and bluntly that I was in the Cabinet during many of those discussions. They took a great deal of time over many meetings—indeed, there were 24 Cabinet discussions on the matter. as I said earlier. There was a great deal of probing of all the issues, and the idea that the Cabinet was some kind of sop in regard to the decision that was made is absolutely wrong. My hon. Friend ought to withdraw that suggestion.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please debate who should set up committees of inquiry? Is it not now obvious that a committee established by the Prime Minister—the chairman was appointed by the Prime Minister, the terms of reference were written by the Prime Minister and the members all got privy councillorships before it started—is not a satisfactory way in which to achieve a truthful outcome? I suggest to the Leader of the House that it might be better if all future committees of inquiry were appointed solely and entirely by the House of Lords.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman's question is eccentric and predictable. Is he impugning the integrity and credibility of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who served on the Butler inquiry? We have had the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry, the Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry, an independent inquiry headed by a judge—the Hutton report—and now the Butler inquiry, which was headed by a former Cabinet Secretary. Those four inquiries produced 1,056 pages of material and 500,000 words of analysis. None of the charges made by any
1570
critics of the Prime Minister or the Government has been sustained, and the critics should shut up, put up and accept the result of those four inquiries.
Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House inform hon. Members why the business for September, which he announced today, does not include the topic of hunting with dogs? As I understand it, unless the topic is brought back in the House today, it will not be debated in the September session because one parliamentary month must pass before a Bill can be debated under the Parliament Acts.
Mr. Hain: I think that my hon. Friend will find that he is not right on that point. I have announced today all the business that I can confirm at this stage. A considerable period of the Session remains, and I do not necessarily expect to make an announcement before the House rises for the recess. However, hon. Members know that I have repeatedly made strong commitments in this House, and those commitments to resolve the issue will be honoured.
Alistair Burt: Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the powers of coroners' courts? An inquest begins in Hatfield today into the death of the son of one of my constituents, who was killed when he was struck by a lorry on the A1. Because the company that owns the lorry and the lorry driver are domiciled abroad, however, the coroner cannot bring the lorry driver to the coroner's court to answer questions. If the Leader of the House agrees that that is an anomaly, I wonder whether he can find time for us to debate and discuss the matter.
Mr. Hain: The issue is obviously serious, and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will want to pay close attention to that point and will hope to support the hon. Gentleman in taking the matter forward.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1497, which describes the astonishing decision by the Conservative council in Calderdale to appoint a British National party member to its racial equality and community cohesion working party?
[That this House condemns the decision by Calderdale Council's Conservative Cabinet to appoint a BNP councillor to the Racial Equality and Community Cohesion Working Party; congratulates the Halifax Evening Courier on its campaign and vocal opposition to this appointment; believes that the people of Calderdale will not support this decision; and calls upon Calderdale Council's Conservative Cabinet to reverse this decision which is at best shortsighted, and at worst provocative and offensive towards ethnic minorities in Calderdale.]
In view of the television programme, which is due to be shown tonight, that apparently includes film of BNP members fantasising about machine-gunning worshipers at mosques with a million bullets, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we had a debate in this House on the activities of the BNP, on the

1571
Conservative party's position towards the BNP and, in particular, on the BNP's contribution to racial equality and community cohesion?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend on that matter. One of the BNP members who appears in the BBC film is quoted in The Sun this morning:
"My dream is to have a Transit van with a machine gun in the back, you know like they have in the back of the helicopters, with about a million bullets. All wired up to it, just open the doors outside the mosque on a Friday afternoon when they are all coming out."
That is a statement of the vilest kind from a vile party of Nazis and thugs, and the sooner we confront it and beat it, the better. The organisation has long-standing criminal connections, and we should wipe it off the electoral landscape by taking it on at the ballot box. West Yorkshire police takes those claims seriously, and it will consider whether sufficient evidence exists to prosecute. It is also important that the House reaffirms our support for the rights of all individuals to worship Islam, which is one of the world's greatest religions. The Government respect and value the major economic and cultural contribution that the British Muslim community makes to our country.
Mr. Greg Knight: Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the number of Government decisions that are not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny because they are made using the royal prerogative? Is he aware that his Department keeps no central record of how many such decisions each Department makes? Will he therefore ask the Modernisation Committee, of which he is the Chairman, to look into ways of making the use of the royal prerogative subject to parliamentary scrutiny?
Mr. Hain: That is an interesting and novel constitutional question. On the question whether to go to war in Iraq, the Government abandoned the tradition of deciding to make war by royal prerogative and came to the House to seek its consent in a vote. I shall bear the right hon. Gentleman's points in mind, but the British constitution has long relied, for good or ill, on the royal prerogative.
Jim Sheridan: As someone whose constituency lies outside London, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in recognising the professional service delivered by the staff in the House of Commons Travel Office. He knows that that service could be jeopardised by the change of supplier; will he use his influence to make sure that the new supplier protects those staff, their jobs and their conditions and, more importantly, that the service delivered to hon. Members is not compromised?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point of which the Administration Committee will want to take careful note. I do not want to see the future of any staff jeopardised in the way that he fears, and those staff will be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. I use the Travel Office and confirm that the staff do a fine job—we all rely on their expertise and professionalism.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: Will the Leader of the House indicate what progress, if any, has been made on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting on occasions in the Province itself? The issue is especially important given the continued absence of devolution in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hain: That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman has raised it properly, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will want to take it into account.
Mr. Graham Stringer: I am sure that you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Cook of the Office for National Statistics cannot count. Mr. Cook has got the population figure for Manchester wrong by nearly 7 per cent. and has made similar mistakes on about 20 other towns, cities and boroughs around the country, which obviously impacts on funding streams. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made a rational and sensible decision to adjust its funding figures for local government in Manchester and other places because of those mistakes. Unfortunately and incredibly, however, the Department of Health has not adjusted its figures, so the health service in Manchester will probably be underfunded by £20 million. Does my right hon. Friend not think that time should be found to discuss that extraordinary situation, in which two Departments are responding to the same statistical mistake in different ways?
Mr. Hain: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in raising the matter. The Secretary of State for Health and the Deputy Prime Minister will want carefully to reflect on the implications for funding and services in Manchester.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Following this week's announcement that the Government are to sack more than 100,000 of their own civil servants, which is more than 10 per cent. of the payroll, in the interests of equity, may we have an early debate on how we might attain a commensurate reduction in the number of Ministers?
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of Ministers has been pretty constant and the limit is defined on a statutory basis. He also knows that this is part of a programme of transferring staff from back-office functions, especially with the use of new technology and efficiency measures, to deliver extra front-line services. That is an objective that the people of Britain will applaud and it stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, who repeatedly cut front-line services in health, education, policing and just about everything that matters to people.
David Winnick: On the Hunting Bill, is not the position that, if the Parliament Acts are to be used, as the large majority of Labour MPs want, the measure rejected by the Lords will have to be sent back to the Lords one month before the end of the present Session? Is my right hon. Friend aware that not disclosing when the Parliament Act will be used, or if it

1573
is to be used at all, will lead to growing disappointment and worry that we will repeat the situation in the last Parliament and that, despite the large majority in favour of banning hunting with dogs, no effort will be made to ensure that the measure becomes an Act during this Parliament? The only way of doing that is through he Parliament Acts, and time is getting very short indeed.
Mr. Hain: I am not sure that time is getting as short as my hon. Friend suggests. We are well aware of the timetabling issues concerned. I have little to add to what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), other than to repeat that, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we intend to resolve the issue in this Parliament.
Mr. John Gummer: The Leader of the House will understand that some of us who voted against the war did so because we did not believe what the Prime Minister said. Many others, on both sides of the House, did not follow us in that because they did believe what the Prime Minister said. I put this to the Leader of the House as someone who cares passionately about it: if we are to discuss the issue properly, we need the Prime Minister here so that he can explain very clearly why he told the House that he had assurance when he clearly did not have that assurance. That is absolutely clear from the Butler report.
The fact that the Prime Minister is not coming to the House is the main issue for those of us who voted against the war. Can we please have an understanding that he will come to the House so that those of us who were not even able to ask a question will at least be able to hear him explain what for many of us is one of the most disgraceful elements of this Government?
Mr. Hain: I understand and respect the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. As his vote demonstrated, he honestly and clearly took a different opinion on whether Britain should have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein, and that is fine. But the Prime Minister came to the House yesterday to make a detailed statement and to answer detailed questions, and he was challenged in detail on all these matters. That is what he did in the debate on the Hutton report and has done consistently in Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to rerun his basic and fundamental disagreement with the Government—which is on a matter of principle, and I respect that—in the face of four independent inquiries that covered half a million words and more than 1,000 pages and which disagreed with the fundamental proposition of the right hon. Gentleman and critics of the war: that the Government acted in a disingenuous fashion. We did not. We saw the evidence—the Prime Minister saw it and I saw it—and we acted honestly on it. That is the situation.
Kali Mountford: Tomorrow, the schools break up for the summer holidays. When we return in September, would it be a good idea to examine the behaviour of some young boys over the summer months? In my area, they have been using replica guns and air rifles as a source of entertainment. Should not the House have an opportunity to discuss restrictions on air rifles and the possible banning of replica guns?
Mr. Hain: That is an important issue, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but in many others where youngsters are acting in an extremely antisocial fashion. It is a great shame that some Members of this House, especially the Liberal Democrats, have voted consistently against tough laws to clamp down on youth yobbery, including that which she describes. In the end, that weakness in the face of antisocial behaviour will be judged harshly by the voters.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House give favourable consideration to holding a debate on the importance of savings to our economy? It is clear that the Government are not really interested in promoting savings, because their current economic position is underpinned by high personal indebtedness, an overheating housing sector, steeply increased public expenditure and very high consumer spending. Will not the Government's neglect of the importance of savings be at the top of the charge sheet when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves out of No. 11?
Mr. Hain: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's charge. People right across Britain, of all incomes and ages, are enjoying greater prosperity and economic stability than in recent living memory.
On debt, whether in the case of mortgages or other loans, the very low interest rates mean that the proportion of people's disposable income that is required to fund those loans and mortgages is much lower than it has been in the past. That is the benefit of low interest rates, low inflation, continued growth and continued high employment that we have benefited from under a Labour Government compared with the shabby record of the Conservatives.
Geraint Davies: When will the Leader of the House find time to debate a review of land legislation that allows property companies such as Warborough Investments to become freeholders of community centres, such as Forrestdale Forum, for thousand of pounds, then to threaten and intimidate lay trustees with forfeiture of the lease, with the consequence of realising hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of profits by an unencumbered freehold, as they did in Brent? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the law and local councils should protect community centres, which provide such valuable family and social facilities, from property companies armed with teams of aggressive lawyers?
Mr. Hain: The account that my hon. Friend gives the House is disturbing. Nobody in those circumstances should be intimidated or threatened as he describes. Community centres do a valuable job in serving local communities and should enjoy the respect of everybody concerned.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Leader of the House look again at the business for next Tuesday, when the Welsh Grand Committee is due to debate the draft Transport (Wales) Bill? As Secretary of State for Wales, the Leader of the House will be aware that that Bill transfers powers to the National Assembly from the Strategic Rail Authority, which the Secretary

1575
of State for Transport has just abolished. As we will have another opportunity next Tuesday to look again at rail infrastructure in Wales, and to welcome the Secretary of State's announcement earlier today, which follows Plaid Cymru policies, can we widen that debate to discuss how those new ideas can be properly funded in Wales? What is the Leader of the House going to do with the draft Transport (Wales) Bill, which now looks rather redundant?
Mr. Hain: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of following Plaid Cymru policy—that would send us up a closed branch line. As regards the Transport (Wales) Bill, we were well aware of the impending announcement on the rail review by the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision was taken to introduce the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we are aware that amendments may be required, either in the Bill itself or through technical amendments to the Strategic Rail Authority legislation that will be necessary to implement the White Paper. These matters are being taken closely into account, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to probe the issue in the Welsh Grand Committee.
Mr. Mike Wood: The Leader of the House will no doubt be surprised to hear that ambulance drivers regularly receive speeding tickets as part of their life-saving work, and even more surprised that ambulance trusts around the country spend £1 million a year to resolve that issue. After a 37-year blemish-free career with the ambulance service, my constituent, Mick Ferguson, was under threat of prosecution for 10 months. On his behalf, and on that of his wife, Ann, and the GMB, his union, who supported him through that trauma, I warmly welcome last week's announcement by Department of Health Ministers that they intend to end that anomaly and to indemnify ambulance staff showing the blue light. We need a statement to the House so that we can unpick the detail of the announcement. When does it start, and does it apply to private ambulance companies as well as NHS—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must practise asking more concise questions. I think that the Leader of the House has the gist.
Mr. Hain: I share my hon. Friend's frustration, as do the Government, which is why the Department of Health is working alongside the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to resolve the problem. Indeed, a new protocol is being drawn up by ACPO, as the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), announced when she spoke at the annual conference of the Ambulance Service Association on 2 July. She will have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said and will, I am sure, be able to clarify the position in due course.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can we have an early statement on the Government's policy of allowing the destruction of green belt land in metropolitan areas where it really counts, and replacing it with green belt in areas where there is little pressure for development? I have been pursuing statistics on that policy since 2 March, when I received a reply from a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister telling me that I would shortly receive a response with statistics. I tabled further written questions in May and June, only to be told that I would receive a reply as soon as possible. I could easily come to the conclusion that the Government have something to hide unless they make a statement in the near future.
Mr. Hain: It is nonsense to suggest that we have anything to hide. We have a great deal to be proud of, as we are making much more use of brownfield sites to construct more housing and developments. The suggestion that we are about to destroy the green belt is a fabrication, albeit unintentional, from the hon. Gentleman. However, he got caught up in his own rhetoric, and for the record, we reject it entirely.
Chris Bryant: May we have a debate as soon as possible on an issue that is often hidden, but is probably the most significant one in many Welsh valley communities—incapacity benefit? There is considerable evidence to suggest that once people are on incapacity benefit for eight months, they are likely to be on it for at least eight years. Most people who start off with minor illnesses end up with serious ones. Can we have a thorough reform of incapacity benefit so that it is not a passport to poor health and low income but enables people to get back into work?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is right to identify a central problem in valley communities such as the ones that he and I represent in south Wales. It is because a large proportion of people are on incapacity benefit that the Government have introduced a number of pilots, working with individuals on benefit to find ways of allowing them to get back into work. Those pilots have been hugely successful, and the Department for Work and Pensions intends to roll out a much bigger programme to encourage people on incapacity benefit to end their dependency on benefit, get jobs and enjoy better health, thus securing greater opportunities and prosperity.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Leader of the House share my concern that self-employed men in the United Kingdom, with the exception of men can low incomes or those who are of a certain age, are not entitled to statutory paternity pay? In view of the discrimination against many of the 2.5 million self-employed men that prevents them from taking time off to assist with the care of their new-born children, could we have a debate in the House to consider the extension of statutory paternity pay and end that discrimination?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting issue. I like to think of myself as a diligent constituency MP, as he undoubtedly is, but I have not come across the problem. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to pay close attention to his remarks and write to him about the matter.
Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the publication of what Butler called the "excellent quality papers" that were prepared for Cabinet Ministers but never seen by them, thus, the report said, reducing their scope for making political judgments? One Cabinet member has already said that, not only did he not see the papers but he was not aware of their existence. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether he has seen them?
Mr. Hain: "Ah!] No, I do not, because other papers were produced. I referred earlier to 25 key meetings of Ministers and officials at which papers were considered.
Paul Flynn: That was uninformed discussion.
Mr. Hain: I respect my hon. Friend's disagreement with the Government's decision on Iraq. He has an honourable point of view, and has argued it consistently and honestly. Equally, he should respect the fact that the decision was taken after a great deal of serious and detailed consideration. There was more high-quality, probing discussion of that issue in Cabinet than of any issue in the first period in which I was a member of the Cabinet. The notion that Cabinet Ministers closed their eyes and followed the Prime Minister into war is nonsense and a fabrication. The Butler inquiry also found that the way in which the Cabinet and the Government worked on the matter was, as I said earlier, no less effective than on other issues and other policy decisions.
Mr. Andrew Turner: If they have not got the papers, they do not need to close their eyes.
Is the Leader of the House aware that our high commissioner to Kenya recently told business men about £188 million-worth of corruption under the new Government? He told them that their
"earnings were being looted by the servants of the state"
and that the gluttony of
"practitioners now in government … causes them to vomit all over our shoes."
1578
I raised that speech with the Chancellor in Treasury questions, but he did not appear to know that a Government spokesman made it. Can we have a debate on the use of overseas aid and how much of it is corruptly abused?
Mr. Hain: There was no suggestion, as I understand it, by the high commissioner that the allegation that the hon. Gentleman makes was the issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): What about the Opposition's cuts?
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend reminds me, if we are debating overseas aid, there will be an opportunity to remind the public and the House of the massive cuts planned for overseas aid and development assistance by the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition following their freeze on all non-school and health funding in the first two years of a Tory Government. As for Cabinet government, there is an obsession with processology, which was raised earlier in the House. People cannot live with, or accept, the fact that four independent inquiries headed by eminent people of the utmost integrity have now disproved all the allegations of disingenuousness and other criticisms levelled at the Government concerning their decision to go into Iraq. People should surely accept that we acted honestly, just as we accept the fact that critics of the Government have an honest difference of opinion with us.
Jon Trickett: Royal Mail deliveries in my constituency are increasingly erratic and recently 60-odd letters to businesses and companies were dumped in an empty shop. My right hon. Friend will share my admiration for Post Office workers who, day after day, whatever the weather, tramp through the streets of our constituencies. Will he organise time for a debate on the use by Royal Mail management of temporary staff and agency workers, which produces more erratic deliveries than we would want as constituency Mps?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend made a valid point in raising the use of temporary and agency staff to plug gaps in the system that should be filled by trained postmen and women, who do a fantastic job. I am glad that he expressed his admiration for the Post Office workers in his constituency. The Post Office and Royal Mail management must address that issue urgently, particularly in his constituency.

Points of Order
2.18 pm
Alistair Burt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to raise the use of the word "shifty". On 1 February 1994, I was called to account by Madam Speaker for good-humouredly but mistakenly using the word "shifty" in relation to the late Donald Dewar—a less shifty man one could not hope to find. She made it clear that if the word was used in relation to an individual rather than their policies she would take the matter seriously and demand a retraction. I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you or Mr. Speaker looked at Hansard, because I distinctly heard the Leader of the House use the word "shifty" in relation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If he falls foul of that ruling, he should come to the House and apologise as I was rightly required to do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I did in fact hear what was said by the Leader of the House. As I understand it, the epithet was attached to the word "opportunism" as opposed to being directly attached to a person. There is a fine distinction to be made between those two things: if an hon. Member is attacked directly with a derogatory word, we deprecate that. This applies to Front Benchers and to all Members of the House: we are enjoined to use moderate language at all times. I do not believe that it lifts our standing in the eyes of the electorate when language is used that, on reflection, is agreed not to be the most suitable for the occasion.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, the Leader of the House had the opportunity to say that there would be condemnation in all parts of the House of the thuggery, vicious remarks and incitement to racial hatred of the British National party, and that it was the duty of all parties to fight that behaviour. On behalf of the Opposition, I want to make it clear that we contest seats against the BNP everywhere in the country and we passionately disagree with its views. In all parts of the House, we hate its creed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand why the hon. Gentleman wished to place that on the record, but he will know that it does not require a ruling from the Chair.

Traffic Management Bill [Ways and Means] [No.2]
2.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Traffic Management Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in connection with permit schemes.
I shall try my very best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be neither shifty nor opportunistic.
On Second Reading, a Ways and Means resolution authorised
"the charging of fees in relation to permits issued, or applications for permits to be issued, under permit schemes".
That wording was tied closely to the wording of the Bill as it existed at the time, and it would not be consistent with the amendments made in another place to allow fees to be charged in connection with the variation of permits. Variation might be needed, for example, when an undertaker approached an authority to ask for an already issued permit to be varied to allow more time for works to be carried out. Therefore, it was necessary for the Ways and Means resolution to be drafted so as to cover variation and to reflect the amendments that were agreed by all parties in the other place. It is merely a technicality, and no more.
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Minister clarify one matter? Is not the Ways and Means resolution drawn fairly widely, so that instead of merely allowing fees to be charged in connection with permit schemes to recover costs only, it could result in some local authorities charging fees in connection with permit schemes to make a whopping profit?
Mr. McNulty: I do not accept that. This point was raised at length in the Grand Committee and in all subsequent stages in the other place. Certainly, their lordships felt able to endorse the amendments put forward. This was one of the strongest points put in that debate, and if their lordships can come to that position, I hope that this House would also agree the point—
Mr. Knight: Not necessarily.
Mr. McNulty: I know that it will not necessarily be the case. The point is merely to reflect the amendments as drawn up in the other place. Given that the words of the original Ways and Means resolution were drawn so tightly in relation to the clauses on permits in the Bill as discussed in this place, it needs to move on technically to reflect those amendments to include variation on permits rather than simply their application. I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is not being anything other than helpful in terms of the debate, to examine the Lords Hansard, where he will see that this question was explored in full. That is not the purpose of amending the Ways and Means resolution.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I fully accept the undertaking that the Minister has given in response to my right hon. Friend's question. Although the House has heard what he said, can he direct us to the

1581
specific place in the legislation where the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) made is ruled out?
Mr. McNulty: I can indeed. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which we are asking the House to agree today—they have already been agreed in the other place—make explicit the Government's intention that permit schemes should not be used by local authorities to raise significant amounts of revenue at the expense of those carrying out necessary works in the street. Instead, the level of fees should be linked to the cost to the authorities of operating the schemes and no more. Exactly what those costs should be, such as those in relation to processing applications for a permit, keeping a register of permits, and ensuring that those issues of permits comply with any condition attached to them, will be set out in regulations. It is those changes in amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which have been agreed by the other place, that necessitate the change. We made explicit in those debates in the other place that what I have just said is what prevails. That is entirely the point that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) just made.
With that short introduction, I commend the new Ways and Means resolution to the House.
2.25 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I, too, will seek to meet your instruction to be moderate in language at all times, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister will do so, too.
It is always worth while for the House to note a Ways and Means resolution, not least because it often means that another stealth tax is on the way from this Government. We have seen that on many previous occasions, and many people will be rightly suspicious that that is precisely what we are seeing again today. The Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends have already referred to previous debates on this issue, both in Committee and in another place. The Minister will be aware of genuine and considerable concern that part of the purpose of this aspect of the Bill is simply to be a revenue-raising measure. He has sought to reassure the House in the past couple of minutes that that is not the case. He was not wholly convincing, as he said that we would have to wait for the regulations to ensure that. We are right to be suspicious that we have not yet been told how that will happen.
Even before we get to discuss the details of the proposal, it is important to establish the principle. On the surface, it appears flatly to contradict what the Minister said in Committee. He made the point that all these matters should be dealt with in regulations, and, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), he said that he understood where he was coming from, but that
"the Bill is not about introducing permit schemes as a revenue-raising exercise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 2004; c. 163.]
In that case, why do we need a Ways and Means resolution? We need it precisely because it is a revenue-raising exercise. The very existence of this debate shows that, no doubt inadvertently, the Minister was misleading the Committee, and that this part of the Bill
1582
was always intended as a revenue-raising exercise. It is a resolution put forward by a Treasury Minister, perfectly properly, no doubt on the advice of the House authorities that this part of the Bill requires a Ways and Means resolution, precisely because it is a revenue-raising exercise.
The Minister went further in Committee. He said:
"I do not think that it will be a revenue-making scam".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 2004; c. 165.]
I hope that that counts as moderate language. We would excuse him of wanting to promote a revenue-making scam—it is not a scam at all, as it is perfectly clear that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to raise revenue, and I am glad that at least Treasury Ministers agree. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's response to that.
This is an important matter, because we need to address who will end up paying this new stealth tax that the Government are imposing on us. On the surface of it, it will be paid by relatively unpopular bodies—the utilities. They are always a good, unpopular target, as all of us have been stuck in traffic jams when the road is being dug up, and we tend to blame the gas company, the electricity company, the cable television company, or whoever it is. Such companies have to dig up the roads to promote their business, and all Members will want such work to be carried out as speedily and efficiently as possible, so that disruption is minimised.
But the truth is that this permit scheme potentially involves revenue raising, and in the end it will be not the companies themselves that pay the tax, but all of us, as their customers. When I say us all, I mean us all. Everyone in this country is a customer of one or other of the utilities, so particularly during emergencies or when the supply of an essential service is cut off, we welcome the fact that they are able to dig up the road, repair the problem and get our lives back to normal. There is genuine concern that, as a result of this potentially revenue-raising measure, the bills of every household in this country will be increased to pay for it.
It is also noteworthy that this measure seems to cut across the policies of other Departments. In their exercising of power, this Government, who promised us joined-up government, want to promote broadband. However, making digging up the roads more expensive will make the roll-out of broadband more expensive and difficult, and it will therefore happen more slowly. The Minister should perhaps talk to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, who constantly tell us that broadband Britain will be one of this Government's triumphs.
Brian White: Given that most of the urgently required broadband involves connection from the kerb to the house, can the hon. Gentleman explain what the hell he is talking about?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here a few moments ago, when I appealed for the use of traditional, customary and moderate language.
Brian White: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the hon. Gentleman's apology, which will be accepted.
Mr. Green: Most broadband does involve such connection, but to connect from the road to the kerb requires digging up the road first. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is more than welcome to visit my constituency, large parts of which are rural. There, the idea that the basic infrastructure already exists is a fantasy. That may not be true of his constituency, but it certainly is of many parts of the country, so this is an urgent issue.
We shall in due course discuss the power and responsibilities of local authorities, but it is worth pointing out now that the motion makes it clear that local authorities will be tempted to make money out of this scheme. The Minister tried to reassure us that that will not be possible, but he was unable to convince us. Frankly, he is skating on thin ice. Given that the very existence of this motion contradicts what he told us in Committee, a little humility would be in order. He should admit that he got it wrong in Committee, and that he is trying to correct matters now. He will understand why the House is mildly and moderately suspicious of his motives.
John Thurso: I have just one question for the Minister. Does this extension come under the auspices of the permit schemes, and do the Government's amendments requiring charges to be cost-reflective and efficiently incurred therefore apply equally to this extension?
2.33 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I was shocked when I heard the Minister say in a casual way that if the House of Lords approves a thing, we should in effect nod it through; at least, that seemed to be the gist of what he said. I must admit that I am rather keen on that doctrine. If we applied it, for example, to hunting, postal votes or the Lord Chancellor, we would be in an interestingly new political world. So I thank the Minister for his inspirational lead, and in respect of those purposes I welcome his suggestion that any matter to which their Lordships agree need not be further considered in this House. I hope that he, as a representative of the Government, will convey that suggestion to the Prime Minister—unless, of course, the Prime Minister conveyed it to him.
That comment usefully set the tone for this little debate on the Ways and Means motion. I was then inspired by the interpretation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). Following my last attempt at debating a Ways and Means resolution, during which I fell foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—not an unusual event, I admit—I again consulted "Erskine May" on this matter. It is clear that my hon. Friend had already consulted "Erskine May", because he obviously took on board exactly what it says on page 897 of the completely up-to-date 23rd edition:
"A Ways and Means resolution is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already tax-payers. It is immaterial whether the tax is solely intended to provide revenue for the public service, or whether its primary purpose is to regulate imports or to promote other public policy objectives."
As ever, "Erskine May" says it all. There we have revealed before us the very reason why we need a Ways and Means motion before us today: to raise a tax. A tax
1584
by any other name is just as painful, and a tax is what we are dealing with. It may well be dressed up as fees, but in the end people will have to pay it.
Mr. John Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes necessary to levy a tax or fee, and that it is very much better to be honest with the public and tell them that one is doing so? People become suspicious when Governments try to hide such things. Is not the real problem that the Government are trying to hide something, which must mean that the provision is actually much worse than it appears?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Sad to say, in this post-Butler era we are entitled to have exactly such a suspicion. All of us would like public life in this country to be renowned, as it used to be, for its integrity and transparency. However, we can no longer make such claims, and we will have to set our minds to that issue when we are in government.
Having sought guidance from "Erskine May", I then went straight to the Bill itself—as you would expect me to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to see whether I could tease out what lies behind this apparently innocuous Ways and Means motion.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I take my right hon. Friend back to hip earlier point about the insidious nature of such transport permit schemes? Is he aware, for example, that the economics of the London congestion charge—a permit scheme of a sort—depend not on the charge itself but on the enormous number of fines that are paid for not obtaining an adequate permit when travelling through London in a car?
Mr. Forth: I would like to pick up on my hon. Friend's point about fines, but not in the context of the London congestion charge; definitely not. There probably will be cause to reflect on what he said, but strictly in the context of the Bill giving rise to the Ways and Means motion. If I may, I shall build towards what he said, rather than responding immediately; nevertheless, I am grateful to him.
I want to dwell for a moment on the phrase:
"it is expedient to authorise".
I always worry when I see such a phrase used in a Ways and Means motion. It may well be expedient, but is it correct and proper? Do we approve of it? Expediency surely should not be the criterion for judging these matters. In this modern age of new Labour, expediency may well be a sufficient reason to justify levying upon the innocent taxpayer, but I certainly do not approve of that. Indeed, the use of that word is in itself almost reason enough for me to vote against this Ways and Means motion, not for it. I hope that the Minister will not suggest that the word "expedient" gives him any cover.
The resolution is bland and gives nothing of the background or detail. We are expected, as so often, effectively to sign a blank cheque on behalf of our taxpayers. We must look to the Bill for guidance. Clause 36 on permit regulations says that the
"appropriate national authority may by regulations … make provision with respect to the content, preparation, submission, approval, operation, variation or revocation of permit schemes."

1585
Horror of horrors, the "appropriate national authority" is none other than the Sec of State. Right away, we have the scary phenomenon of the Secretary of State being given unlimited powers to make regulations. So far, so bad; it then gets worse.
Clause 36(5) says that the permit regulations—made by the Secretary of State, no less—
"may make provision for or in connection with requiring the payment of a fee in respect of an application for a permit or the issue of a permit".
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford helpfully said that we are talking about utilities applying for permits to dig up roads. We now have a lethal combination; the Secretary of State setting out the basis on which utilities will make applications, from which the fees will flow.
As my hon. Friend suggested, it is no good the Minister saying that it will not be the consumer or the taxpayer who will pay; it will be the wicked utilities. As my hon. Friend said, the utilities will not be paying the fees. They have only our money. My hon. Friend missed a trick here, because it is not just the consumer who might pick up a larger utility bill to pay the fee. It could be the shareholder, but since shareholders and consumers overlap to a large extent, that is no excuse either. Someone, somewhere will have to pay for all this. It is not one of those things that sounds good if one says it quickly, which I am not inclined to do. My hon. Friend put his finger on it when he used the term stealth tax, which sums it up.
The Bill refers to
"the amount or maximum amount of any fee"—
there is some small comfort in that—and to
"cases in which fees are not to be payable or are to be repaid."
That is encouraging, and the Minister might say whether he thinks that the number of cases where fees are not to be payable or are to be repaid will be minimal, substantial or significant. That would give us guidance as to how much of an imposition this will be on our hapless voters and taxpayers. The Bill also refers to
"cases in which fees may be discounted".
There are subtleties here that I would not have suspected had I not read the Bill in some detail.
Mr. Damian Green: In Committee, the Minister said:
"The clause as it stands is merely about defining—ill-defining perhaps—the permit scheme, rather than that level of detail. I would ask to leave that detail to regulation".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 2004: c 154.]
I am sure that that will make my right hon. Friend even more suspicious.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful, sort of, to my hon. Friend. We are asked to approve Ways and Means resolutions without any details, and that is made worse when we hear that they will be spelled out in regulations. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque on behalf of our taxpayers, fee payers, stealth tax payers or any other category we care to mention.
1586
That is not satisfactory, and it is not unreasonable for us to ask the Minister how far he feels fees will be automatic, comprehensive and at the maximum level. The authority is, after all, the Secretary of State. The Minister works for the Secretary of State—and, presumably, talks to him occasionally—so I would expect some guidance as to his expectation. We need guidance as to whether we are talking about maxima, minima, every time or some of the time, or whether fees are to be payable, repaid or discounted.
We then come to a point that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—the time and manner of the payment of fees. It would be useful if we were given some indication of the relationship between the authority, the utilities and their consumers or shareholders, and of whether there will be any possibility of deferred payments. Would fines be payable and levied on those who failed to pay the initial fees? If so, what sort of fines are we talking about? It may be that if the fees are not paid, no fines would be levied, which would be interesting. If fines are to be payable, or contemplated, we need to know more before we decide whether to support the resolution.
Clause 36(5)(e) refers to
"the application of sums paid by way of fees."
I am not quite sure of the implication of that but it obviously has a bearing. The fees enabled by the resolution will be applied in a way we know not how, because we have no guidance.
I wish that Ministers would take the hint from the House, and that they would tell us what was on their mind, as well as the extent that taxpayers would be involved, so that we as Members of Parliament can make a judgment. I do not think that that is asking too much. I hope that I have given the Minister something to work on today. I look forward to him persuading me why I should vote in favour of the resolution.
2.49 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: I shall not detain the House for long. On most occasions when I have heard the Minister at work, I have found him a powerful advocate, but I am afraid that his powers of advocacy rather deserted him today. He has not convinced me, certainly at this stage, that the Ways and Means resolution is either necessary or desirable. Those are the two tests that the House needs to apply. Is the motion necessary to enable the Government to discharge their business in the Bill, and is it desirable?
I intervened during the Minister's opening remarks, but he discounted my concerns. I was worried that the charging of fees could be another money-raising exercise, but he said no and that he had done his best to ensure that the fees would recover costs only. He referred me to Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which are relevant to the Ways and Means resolution, but what do they say? Do they reassure the House or add to the concerns expressed?

1587
As I look at Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, I find my concerns deepening and not being allayed by the Minister's reference. Under amendment No. 29, we are told that
"the appropriate national authority must try to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the fees payable in connection with permit schemes do not exceed such costs".
What does
"so far as … reasonably practicable"
mean? I notice that the amendment does not contain any requirement that the costs have to be reasonable: it simply refers to "such costs". A local authority could set up a body and employ council employees at great expense, as there is no duty on those issuing the permits to behave in a reasonable way and keep their costs down. I would have thought that the amendment should contain such provisions.
Mr. Forth: I may be able to help my right hon. Friend. He has, of course, read all the provisions and a later amendment actually refers to
"such costs in connection with permit schemes as may be prescribed."
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the provision goes even further than he is assuming and that the costs will be prescribed, I suspect, by the Secretary of State? That may not give my right hon. Friend any comfort, but that was my reading of the provision. Was it his?
Mr. Knight: That means that it could go either way. A Conservative Secretary of State would, as we all know, impose a provision that the costs had to be reasonable, but I am much less certain about what might be put in place by the present Government. It goes even further because Lords amendment No. 27 refers to the giving of fixed penalty notices. It occurs to me that, if we are charging people for a permit and even if it is a reasonable charge that recoups the cost of issuing it, those issuing the permits are still likely to be awash with money because of the issuing of fixed penalty notices. That poses the question why we need to charge for a permit at all. Why not issue a free permit to the contractor and make bad contractors pay the fixed penalty notice fines? The money received through such payments would undoubtedly cover the cost of issuing the permits in the first place.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is on to an extremely good point,which reinforces the reservations that he expressed—with which I agree—in his opening remarks. The whole nature of the financing arrangement through permits, including the question of how much money will be raised and what the Government's assumptions are, must be significantly explored before the House can vote on the resolution. For example, does the Minister believe that a certain percentage of the total money raised will come from people defaulting on the permits and subsequently being fined? What percentage will come from that mechanism?
Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend raises a very good point and I hope that the Minister will reply to it in his
1588
winding-up speech. I would have thought that he would have set out the answers to such questions in his opening speech rather than wait for them to be teased out by Opposition Members. These questions go right to the root of the question whether the Bill needs a Ways and Means resolution. I have to say that the Minister has not convinced me that that resolution is either necessary or desirable.
What happens when a permit scheme is in place and the fees are rolling in, but it subsequently becomes clear to those examining the arrangements that the charging body is awash with fees because it has charged too much? There is no provision in any of the amendments for a refund of excessive fees. I applauded the decision of the late President Ronald Reagan when he was Governor of California; when he found out that his tax revenues were in excess of his spending plans, he gave the money back to the people of California. Why is there no similar provision to ensure that if, after the first 12 months of operation, the fees are deemed to be too high, they can be returned to those who paid them in the first place?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I feel a bit hurt. He was obviously not paying his usual close attention to my modest contribution to the debate. I read out clause 36(5)(b) of the Bill, which makes provision for
"cases in which fees are not to be payable or are to be repaid".
If my right hon. Friend does not mind, we could perhaps call this the "Ronald Reagan" provision. There it is—in black and white, and in the Bill.
Mr. Knight: Perhaps the Minister could therefore clarify whether my right hon. Friend is right and whether, if the fees were leading to huge profits, a refund would be made. It is not entirely clear to me that that is the Government's intention.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: On that point, can my right hon. Friend think of any occasion when such a repayment has ever been made?
Mr. Knight: In relation to permit fees, no, I cannot think of any occasion when refunds have been made. However, one should always be prepared to look afresh at issues and problems. The fact that it may not have happened in the UK in the past is not a good argument, in my view, for saying that it should not happen in the future. I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that if the Bill allows it to be done, it should be done.
The Minister referred to Lords amendment No.29, but it does not seem to me to contain any sanctions at all in respect of incorrect calculations or huge profits being made from permit fees. What sanctions are there? Does the Minister expect an aggrieved member of the public to embark on judicial proceedings to bring about a review of the permit fees? There should be a far simpler mechanism in place to enable the fees to be reduced without members of the public having to have recourse to their own court proceedings.
There are many unanswered questions and unless the Minister can answer them all satisfactorily, I will not believe that the Bill needs a Ways and Means resolution.
2.58 pm
Mr. McNulty: Many of the points raised by Opposition Members are entirety fair, but they have already been discussed at length when we debated the original Ways and Means resolution and subsequently both in Committee and in the other place. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is entirely right when he quotes "Erskine May". How could he not be, as "Erskine May" is our bible? If we want to assume any revenue-raising powers of any description, there must be a Ways and Means resolution. That was made clear on Second Reading.
There was much discussion in Committee about the breadth of the original Ways and Means resolution. The need to deal with those matters made us look at the problem and table amendments in the other place.
I have not sought to introduce a new McNulty doctrine that we should agree without reservation anything agreed in the House of Lords, save for instances, such as the amendments introduced in the other place on this particular part of the Bill. They were whizzed through the House with unanimity and utter cross-party consensus. If ever an issue, such as fox hunting, were agreed and dispatched without reservation, but with full consensus and cross-party agreement in the other place, I would gladly at least look at it in some detail here.
In answer to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), yes, the level of permit fees must be directly linked to the costs of operating the scheme. The same applies to fees for extending or varying the scheme. That is precisely how the resolution is drafted. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in Committee, this is not intended to be revenue raising, and that remains the case. That was the case then and it is the case now. Because subsequent to our debates and debates in the House of Lords many Members of all parties in both Houses and many from the utility companies sought amendments that would, in their terms, restrict the Ways and Means resolution precisely to the cost of a permit scheme, we introduced the subsequent amendments that mean an adjustment to that resolution. Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 have been positively welcomed by the utility companies and all parties in the other place. They make it explicit that the fees allowed are confined to the cost to the local authorities and the running of the permit scheme. It is precisely because of fears of open-ended revenue raising and of my view that this should not be seen as a revenue-raising exercise that the amendments have been introduced with the subsequent adjustment to this particular Ways and Means resolution.
The right hon. Member for f East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked about the assorted criteria for decisions, how to vary the level of permits and the right of appeal. All those elements are covered in detail in the Bill at clause 36(4).
I fully accept that none of my subsequent points will be of any interest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in that the first set of permit regulations will be subject to an affirmative resolution of
1590
both Houses. We have set up—the right hon. Gentleman will enjoy this—a working group of utilities and local authorities to look in detail at how the schemes should work and how the regulations in clause 36(4) should work in practice. It will make recommendations to us on the level of fees, among other things, and which works will not attract fees, and it is likely to report back to us in August. That is all as outlined in clause 36(4).
We started the process with a Ways and Means resolution on Second Reading to allow fees to be charged for permits, should local authorities choose to have a permit system. During our deliberations and subsequent deliberations in the other place we thought that perhaps that resolution was drawn too widely and could, potentially, allow open-ended revenue raising powers to follow from the permit scheme. As a mature, reflective Government, we listened to debate both here and in the other place and to concerns from the utility companies and others who will be directly concerned—I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) about broadband—and we have come back with Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 that far more narrowly define the scope of the permit regimes so that the fees can be related only to the costs of implementing such a scheme and cannot be an open-ended revenue-raising scheme. In other words we listened and listened again.
The amendments are welcome. The utility companies and all parties in the other place across the board cheered from the rafters. There was no dissent at all. We agreed them in the other place and we bring them here. Subsequent to this resolution being passed, we shall debate those amendments that we seek the House to agree with the Lords on. We need the Ways and Means resolution changed to reflect those amendments to which we have already agreed in response to all the concerns of the utilities and other parties. While I understand the fun involved, not least for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is a master at his craft, this is innocuous in its intention and is necessary to reflect changes that we accept from the other place. I repeat my desire to commend the new, more restrictive Ways and Means resolution to the House in the hope that we might get on to the more substantive points subsequently.
The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 75.

Division No. 224]

[3:06 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Allen, Graham

Browne, Desmond

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Bryant, Chris

Austin, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Barnes, Harry

Burnett, John

Bayley, Hugh

Burnham, Andy

Beard, Nigel

Byers, rh Stephen

Beckett, rh Margaret

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Beith, rh A. J.

Cairns, David

Bennett, Andrew

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Berry, Roger

Caton, Martin

Best, Harold

Challen, Colin

Blackman, Liz

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Chaytor, David

Blizzard, Bob

Clapham, Michael

1591

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Khabra, Piara S.

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Coaker, Vernon

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Coffey, Ms Ann

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Cohen, Harry

Lammy, David

Colman, Tony

Lazarowicz, Mark

Corston, Jean

Lepper, David

Cousins, Jim

Leslie, Christopher

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Linton. Martin

Crausby, David

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

McCafferty, Chris

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Davidson, Ian

MacDonald, Calum

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

McDonnell, John

Dawson, Hilton

MacDougall, John

Dean, Mrs Janet

McFall, rh John

Denham, rh John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Dismore, Andrew

McIsaac, Shona

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

McNulty, Tony

Dobson, rh Frank

Mactaggart, Fiona

Doran, Frank

McWalter, Tony

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

McWilliam, John

Drown, Ms Julia

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Etherington, Bill

Mandelson, rh Peter

Farrelly, Paul

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Martlew, Eric

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Merron, Gillian

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Michael, rh Alun

Miliband, David

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Moffatt, Laura

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Mole, Chris

Gardiner, Barry

Morgan, Julie

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Morley, Elliot

Gilroy, Linda

Mountford, Kali

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Grogan, John

Olner, Bill

Hain, rh Peter

Owen, Albert

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Perham, Linda

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Picking, Anne

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Hanson, David

Plaskitt, James

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Pollard, Kerry

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Harvey, Nick

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Healey, John

Prescott, rh John

Hepburn, Stephen

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Holmes, Paul

Hopkins, Kelvin

Purnell, James

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Quinn, Lawrie

Rammell, Bill

Howells, Dr. Kim

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Hutton, rh John

Rooney, Terry

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Illsley, Eric

Ruddock, Joan

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Jamieson, David

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Salter, Martin

Sarwar, Mohammad

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Sheerman, Barry

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Sheridan, Jim

1592

Singh, Marsha

Trickett, Jon

Skinner, Dennis

Truswell, Paul

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Ward, Claire

Soley, Clive

Wareing, Robert N.

Southworth, Helen

Watts, David

Speller, rh John

White, Brian

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Wicks, Malcolm

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Woodward, Shaun

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thurso, John

Paul Clark and

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Charlotte Atkins

NOES

Amess, David

Loughton, Tim

Arbuthnot, rh James

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Atkinson, David (Bour;mth E)

May, Mrs Theresa

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield>

Bacon, Richard

Baron, John (Billericay)

Moss, Malcolm

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Bercow, John

Ottaway, Richard

Brady, Graham

Paice, James

Brazier, Julian

Paterson, Owen

Browning, Mrs Angela

Portillo, rh Michael

Cameron, David

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Redwood, rh John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Chope, Christopher

Roe, Dame Marion

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Rosindell, Andrew

Curry, rh David

Ruffley, David

Djanogly, Jonathan

Soames, Nicholas

Dodds, Nigel

Spicer, Sir Michael

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Stanley, rh Sir John

Evans, Nigel

Steen, Anthony

Fallon, Michael

Streeter, Gary

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Swayne, Desmond

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Forth rh Eric

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Gibb Nick (Bognor Regis)

Tyrie, Andrew

Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

Viggers, Peter

Goodman, Paul

Walter, Robert

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Waterson, Nigel

Gummer, rh John

Watkinson, Angela

Hague, rh William

Wilkinson, John

Heald, Oliver

Willetts, David

Horam, John (Orpington)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Jack, rh Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Young, rh Sir George

Jenkin, Bernard

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Tellers for the Noes:

Letwin, rh Oliver

Mr. Hugo Swire and

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Mr. John Randall

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Traffic Management Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in connection with permit schemes.

Traffic Management Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003]
That the following provisions shall apply to the Traffic Management Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5th January 2004:

Traffic Management Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 p.m. at this day's sitting.
  2. The Lords Amendments shall be taken in the following order, namely Nos. 4 to 15, 1 to 3 and 16 to 109.

  Subsequent stages
  3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
  4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  The House divided:. Ayes 213, Noes 77.

  Division No. 225]

  [3.20 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Corston, Jean

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Crausby, David

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davidson Ian

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Denham, rh John

  Berry, Roger

  Dismore, Andrew

  Best, Harold

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobson rh Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Doran, Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bryant, Chris

  Fitzpatrick Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flynn. Paul (Newport W)

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Byers. rh Stephen

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Cairns, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gardiner Barry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Challen, Colin

  Hain, rh Peter

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Harvey, Nick

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  1594

  Holmes, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pollard, Kerry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Prescott, rh John

  Hutton, rh John

  Purnell, James

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Illsley, Eric

  Rammell, Bill

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jamieson, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Salter, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Singh, Marsha

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lammy, David

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Southworth, Helen

  McCafferty, Chris

  Spellar, rh John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  MacDonald, Calum

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  McDonnell, John

  MacDougall, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McFall, rh John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Thurso, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Trickett Jon

  McWalter, Tony

  Truswell, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Martlew, Eric

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Michael, rh Alun

  Ward, Claire

  Miliband, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Moffatt, Laura

  Watts, David

  Mole, Chris

  White, Brian

  Morgan, Julie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morley, Elliot

  Winnick, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Woodward, Shaun

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Olner, Bill

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Owen, Albert

  Perham, Linda

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Picking, Anne

  Paul Clark and

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Brady, Graham

  Bacon, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cameron, David

  1595

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Paice, James

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Paterson, Owen

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Curry, rh David

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Randall, John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Redwood, rh John

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fallon, Michael

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Goodman, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Streeter, Gary

  Gummer, rh John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hague, rh William

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Walter, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Willetts, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maples, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Mr. Hugo Swire and

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Traffic Management Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 56. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall arrange for the necessary entries to be made in the Journal.
  Lords amendment: No. 4.
  3.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 10; Lords amendment No. 11 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 15.
  Mr. McNulty: When the House debated part 2, which is covered by the amendments, I explained the importance of the intervention powers and offered a number of assurances relating to the way in which they would be exercised. On Report in another place, my noble Friend Lord Davies made a robust defence, answering the concerns expressed there.
  We have said repeatedly—this goes to the core of the Bill—that local authorities are in the best position to deliver improvements in their area and to ensure that optimum use is made of their existing road network, but if they fail in that, it would be wrong for the Government to do nothing. That is why the new statutory network management duty is in place and why the intervention powers, which are the subject of the amendments and central to the Bill, are needed to ensure that that new duty is carried out.
  Intervention is not new or novel. Local and central Government have accepted the principle and have even gone as far as to agree a protocol governing how intervention should operate in practice. I assured the Standing Committee that subsequent regulations and guidance on intervention powers would fall within that protocol established between local and central Government.
  The process that we outlined in part 2 of the Bill is fully consistent with the protocol that is in place.
  In another place, it was said that it would be wrong to grant these powers without knowing the criteria that would be used to trigger them. Throwing out all the powers on that basis seems rather extreme, however. I note that when the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee looked at part 2 of the Bill, its only recommendation was that the guidance on the criteria for intervention should be subject to parliamentary procedure. That is an eminently sensible and reasonable approach, and the Government therefore accepted that recommendation and tabled their own amendments in that regard. These would give Parliament the opportunity to consider the relevant document through the negative resolution procedure, and we would wish to

  1597
  see them restored. As we have said, this guidance is being developed with the assistance of all the interested parties, including the Local Government Association.
  It was suggested in another place that the comprehensive performance assessment should be the means by which a council's performance of this duty should be measured. Clearly, consideration of transport as part of the environment block in the CPA could offer some useful evidence. However, I find it difficult to see how a process designed to assess a council's performance overall could be used as the sole trigger for intervention in relation to the network management duty.
  It was also said that the intervention provisions marked a fundamentally different approach to dealing with local government, but that ignores evidence to the contrary. One has only to look at the provisions in the Local Government Act 1999, which allow intervention in a council as a whole, to see how wrong that assertion is. There is no significant difference between the way in which those powers are exercised and the provisions that we placed in the Bill. As my noble Friend Lord Davies so forcefully put it, none of this is groundbreaking; it just follows a well-trodden path of prudent provision.
  As I said in Committee, I regard the use of intervention as an absolute last resort. As a consequence of much of the regulatory framework and other inspection frameworks that are now, by mutual agreement, imposed on local government. a whole range of local public service agreements and protocols is now in place, which means that local and central Government can work together to ensure that such intervention need not take place. It is important that people understand that that is the context in which this kind of intervention would take place. I do not want to do anything other than work with local government in this regard, but it is vital and central to the Bill that the network management duty should be given teeth. It can only have those teeth if that last resort of intervention exists.
  One group of amendments tabled in Committee sought to make the traffic manager responsible to central Government, which was not appropriate, although the sentiment behind them was that a traffic manager should be put in place to work with a potentially failing local authority before intervention became necessary, or instead of intervention. In the core of the Bill, we state that each local authority must have a designated officer, a traffic manager, who will be responsible for ensuring that the network management duty is carried out in full by a local authority. A traffic director would be put in place only subsequent to intervention, to rescue a failing local authority.
  After talking to the Local Government Association and others, we have decided that what is now considered good practice in many aspects of local government can prevail, so that there would be support, mentoring and help for local authorities that were in difficulty, long before intervention was needed. If central Government are imposing an additional statutory duty on local authorities, however, it is incumbent on us to put in place all the necessary mechanisms to secure the fulfilment of that statutory duty. Part of that process involves setting out what to do with a failing local authority, which is what the network management duty and the intervention measures are all about. In that
  1598
  regard, I strongly urge the House to support our motion to disagree with the Lords amendments, because we see the intervention powers as central to ensuring that the network management duty is achieved.
  Mr. Damian Green: As the Minister said, this is clearly the key group of amendments. The debates in the other place did many good things for the Bill and resulted in a number of improvements, and I am glad that the Minister, from a sedentary position, agrees. This set of changes is one of the best things that their lordships did to the Bill.
  Mr. McNulty: You've lost me.
  Mr. Green: That was a short-lived consensus. The Minister is alone, because not only Conservative Members but Liberal Democrat Members oppose the Government's position—the Liberal Democrats spoke out in the House of Lords. The Minister is also opposed by the Local Government Association, which he quoted in his introduction as though it supports him. He said that it is co-operating in the preparation of guidance, but one would expect it to do so, because that is prudent and responsible.
  The LGA is currently being particularly prudent and responsible because it is under Conservative control again, with the extremely welcome election as its leader of Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, which is extremely good news for it and for local government generally. I expect it to act responsibly, but, as the Minister is fully aware, it is flatly against the Government's position on this set of amendments, about which it has made many cogent arguments.
  The Government's position genuinely puzzles me, since one of the new intellectual strands that thoughtful people around the Government promote is new localism—I am not sure whether the Minister avidly attends Institute for Public Policy Research seminars, where the bright young things of new Labour still gather. The attempt to reverse the Lords amendments, which are designed to protect the interests of local government in this country, shows that the new localism in new Labour simply equalises the old centralism. When push comes to shove, the Government want to control all details and all aspects of every policy.
  In another place, both Government and Opposition Members forcefully made the point that when they tried to find ways to amend the Bill, they found that the issue is a straightforward matter of principle about whether one believes in and supports local democracy. Both sides agree that there is no way to amend what the Government seek to do, so either one favours the Government's centralising control tendency or one is against it.
  The LGA puts it very well: the Government's attempt to reinstate the original clause
  "undermines local freedoms and accountability".
  I agree with its assessment, and it would be better for the Government if they did too, rather than attempting to reinstate the original clauses.

  1599
  The Government's position is objectionable for a number of reasons. First, their decision to overrule the local authority traffic director and simply impose one of their own is arbitrary, and arbitrary government is almost always bad government.
  Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend may be about to answer my question, but I shall give him advance warning of what is on my mind. Does he agree that if—this is a real case—a party was elected to control a local authority on an explicit manifesto of removing road humps from the roads in the locality and, as is possible under the provision that their lordships wisely sought to remove, the Secretary of State stepped in to say, "You, the local authority, against the wishes of the electorate, will restore and maintain the road humps", that would be the clearest possible indication of the situation that my hon. Friend describes?
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend cites a good example, which, as he says, is from the real world. It involves Barnet and a different arm of the Labour movement—the re-Laboured Mayor of London, who is seeking to use his powers to thwart people's democratically expressed will. As my right hon. Friend anticipated, I intend to move on to the undemocratic nature of the Government's proposals.
  Leaving aside the problem that the Government's proposals are fundamentally undemocratic, nobody running a local authority can know what the ground rules are, because decisions are arbitrary. The Secretary of State will presumably announce that the local authority is not doing its job properly in terms of traffic management. He has not told the House on what basis he will reach that decision. Until we know what those criteria are, it is impossible for the House sensibly to support the proposals. As the Bill stands, any governing party would be able to make a decision about whether it wished to leave a local authority in control of its own traffic management arrangements purely on the basis of political partisanship. I would acquit even this Government of trying to behave like that. However, the fact that the Bill would permit that shows that it is in an unsatisfactory state as regards the potential arbitrariness of the application of the Secretary of State's rules.
  Secondly, the Government's proposals are unclear. The Local Government Association makes that point powerfully. The Government have resisted attempts to add to the clauses the essential detail that anyone would need to assess whether the relevant national authority would be required to provide more statutory justification for any proposed individual intervention. There is no acknowledgment of the financial cost to any authority facing intervention. Most importantly, what would be the timetable for disengagement? Under what criteria and over what time scale would the Government decide that a local authority had been punished enough and could therefore be given back control of its own traffic management proposals?
  Without that degree of detail, it is impossible for the House sensibly to support the Government's contention. We do not know how many people might be
  1600
  involved in a replacement or when the Secretary of State would consider that the traffic director had succeeded. There is a further complication. If it was deemed that a local authority was unsatisfactory and that the Government-appointed traffic director was more satisfactory, presumably the logic is that the Government would be in permanent control, because they could never know whether the local authority would mess up if given back control. The Minister has given us no clarification on that point.
  Thirdly, the new traffic managers would be unaccountable. They would presumably be responsible to the Secretary of State, and it is difficult to imagine how this House, as the place where the Secretary of State is democratically accountable, could be expected to take a detailed interest in the individual traffic management of each local authority. If dozens of local authorities were deemed unsatisfactory traffic managers would the House consider in Transport questions whether democratic accountability was in force? That would simply be absurd, so the Government need to provide an explanation. Traffic directors would be unaccountable to anyone in the local community where their actions would have the most daily effect. People in the community would not only not have any say in who those directors were, but they would certainly not have voted for them. To address the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about local democracy, the wishes of the democratically elected local authority would be overridden. Members on both sides of the House deplore low turnout at local elections, but announcing that a key duty of local authorities can be taken away on the whim of the Secretary of State is a recipe for driving turnout down even further. If the Government are going to second-guess the actions of local authorities as soon as they do something of which they disapprove, people will feel that there is even less reason to vote in local elections.
  The Government's proposals are also objectionable because they are impractical. The Minister said that the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment was an unsatisfactory means of judging local authorities' performance in areas such as traffic management. If that is the case, we should approve it. If it is comprehensive, presumably it assesses the performance of local authorities in every field of important endeavour, including traffic management in the case of those that act as traffic authorities. The Minister will be aware that the assessment has proved to be an effective means of supporting and improving the performance of weak local authorities, and should be used in the first instance—I am glad to see that he is nodding—if an authority faces difficulties in traffic management. As that tool for sensible and practical intervention is already available, we do not need another heavy-handed tool to remove local authority control altogether.
  The Department sets great store by local transport plans—local authorities certainly do so—which will be made redundant under the proposals. Even if a local authority is providing a decent service under its local transport plan, the Secretary of State will have the power to step in and override that control. The Minister will be aware that the Department for Transport aims to

  1601
  make the performance monitoring mechanisms under the local transport plans more effective and robust by introducing a regime of penalties for poor performance and rewards for good performance, which is much more sensible than the proposals in the Government amendments. Finally, on practicality, the Bill does not acknowledge the additional financial and administrative burden that will be placed on a so-called failing authority when reporting to an imposed director.
  The Government have, as the Minister said, made a robust response in another place. Lord Davies of Oldham said that they would intervene only as "a last resort" on an authority that was
  "manifestly failing to live up to its duties".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2004; Vol. 663, c. 169.]
  We do not know what manifest failure means, as the Government will not give us details of the criteria against which any local authority will be judged. Without those criteria, it is impossible for the House to accept Ministers' explanation that only manifest failure would lead to Government intervention.
  Mr. Forth: May I try to help my hon. Friend? I say that with some diffidence as a newcomer to the Bill. One of the great joys of this stage in proceedings is that those of us who did not have the joy of serving on the Committee can now represent our voters on such a matter, which is of great interest in my constituency. Clause 20, which is under consideration, says:
  "If the appropriate national authority considers that a local traffic authority may be failing properly to perform any of their duties under sections 16 and 17",
  one of which refers to the following objective:
  "securing the expeditious movement of traffic".
  That is a hint for my hon. Friend. I presume that the Secretary of State will look down from his pinnacle, judge whether my authority in Bromley is
  "securing the expeditious movement of traffic",
  and be able to judge on that basis whether to appoint this interloper to decide what will happen in Bromley.
  Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend is characteristically helpful, and, as he says, brings a fresh mind to this unsatisfactory part of the Bill. The point that he raises is interestingly controversial: he may or may not be aware that the Transport Committee, in considering that very point, has argued throughout the process of this Bill that relying purely on the "expeditious movement of traffic" as the only measure of satisfactory traffic management is inadequate. It would be possible, although not under the terms of this debate, for the House to debate that. There are those who argue that traffic managers should have as an explicit duty some kind of environmental consideration, and not only the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who may have a different view on this matter from me and my right hon. Friend.
  What is profoundly relevant to this debate, however, is that there is not a clear measure to which everyone could sign up, whereby one can say, "This is how we measure whether a local traffic manager is doing a job properly." There are honest differences of opinion about what set of criteria the Government should operate before deciding whether the local authority is doing a job satisfactorily. Even if we examine the particular clauses, the House is not given enough guidance to
  1602
  accept that the Government have reached a satisfactory conclusion on this matter. The problem is that the safeguards promised by the Government in another place are simply not there. That illustrates a wider problem with the Bill: it has always been an inadequate means to achieve a desirable end—less traffic congestion.
  Mr. Forth: It is also the case that clause 17, which is also referred to in clause 20 now under consideration, refers teasingly in subsection (4)(a) to the fact that the traffic manager, which is now also being imposed on the local authority, must
  "identify things (including future occurrences)".
  Apparently, we now expect the as yet unappointed bureaucrat to have the gift of foresight in order to fulfil his duties to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State. Does my hon. Friend think that that is at all reasonable?
  Mr. Green: I agree that it seems unreasonable. It would seem unreasonable were the traffic manager to be appointed by a democratically elected local body, which is more likely to have some kind of gift of foresight as to what its area might want in the time ahead. It is markedly less likely, however, that a central functionary appointed at the whim of and to serve the interests of a Secretary of State in a distant Department will have the sensitivity to anticipate what people might want in terms of their traffic management. That is asking the impossible, and that is what the Bill appears to do.
  I have always thought, and have said at various stages of the Bill's passage, that this is an inadequate means of achieving the desirable end of less congestion, but what is particularly unhelpful is that the clauses the Government seek to reintroduce are genuinely damaging. They will contribute nothing to the Bill's underlying aim, while also proving dangerous to the idea of local democracy. The Government are wrong, and their lordships were right to remove the clauses. I urge the House to agree with their lordships, to disagree with the Government, and to keep these damaging clauses out of the Bill.
  4 pm
  John Thurso: When the Bill was published, the Minister was kind enough to arrange for officials to brief me and other Opposition Members on its contents. That was very helpful. One of the issues that I raised then was the whole question of traffic directors. This problem has existed throughout the Bill's passage, and I mentioned it on Second Reading and in Committee. As the Liberal Democrats consider much of the Bill beneficial, I offered the Government an alternative in a spirit of co-operation, but they seem to have been curiously intransigent. In the other place, having tried a variety of options, their lordships decided that, on principle, the clauses should be removed.
  I believe that their lordships made the right decision, but—again in a spirit of wishing to offer the Minister something—I suggest that the Government could table amendments. They could adopt the proposal that I made in Committee—or, to be exact, a workable version of it, as my proposal was not entirely workable—or, as suggested by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green),

  1603
  they could draw up criteria for the intervention. It is difficult to accept draconian powers of intervention with no explanation of what they would consist of and when they would be triggered. I know that the Minister is a reasonable man, and I know that he dislikes Draco. I hope that he will consider my suggestion.
  As I said in Committee, it seems to me that there are only two circumstances in which the Government might wish to intervene. One is when a local authority has simply failed to appoint a traffic director; the other is when a traffic manager has been appointed and fails to deliver to the Government's satisfaction. Surely there is a straightforward remedy in both cases. In the first case, it is simply to insist that a traffic manager be appointed. In the second, it is to reserve to the Secretary of State a power to remove a traffic manager who has been seen to fail, and make another appointment. That simple method of intervention would leave most of the clauses that have gone out, but would retain some power of intervention. As I said on that occasion, I accept that there may be times at which the Government need to intervene, and my proposal would provide a mechanism.
  A very germane point has been made about finance. It is extraordinary that a local authority that must finance a traffic manager and associated requirements through its council tax payers should—if the Government choose to impose a traffic director—also have to pay for the full panoply of staff, offices and all the other accoutrements. That is surely an unnecessary burden to place on local people, particularly when there is nothing they can do at the ballot box.
  I genuinely consider the Minister a reasonable man. Given the maths of this House, I am sure that it will vote with the Government, but I hope that, when this provision goes back to their lordships' House, the Government will seriously consider not forcing them to insist. They could avoid that outcome by tabling amendments that would produce the result that I suggested or that would define the relevant criteria.
  Mr. Damian Green: In the light of the burst of reasonableness that we are expecting from the Minister, the hon. Gentleman could suggest that he establish some criteria when the Reasons Committee is set up, so that it can judge them. That would be an improvement on the current situation, whereby we are simply being asked to take it on trust that the Government will provide reasonable criteria. They have had many weeks in which to come up with such criteria, and it seems strange that the House is being asked to make a decision without knowing what they are. The Reasons Committee is another means by which the Government could deal with this issue.
  John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I believe that there is a way forward for the Government that would give them what they require, and which would be acceptable to their lordships. I urge the Minister to demonstrate that burst of reasonableness.
  Mr. Forth: We are being invited to discuss an unusually wide range of amendments; indeed, I hardly
  1604
  know where to start, but I shall do my best. The general point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—the relationship between central and local government—is what this is all about. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—we used affectionately to describe his predecessor as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Island; we thought that funny but he never did—used an interesting phrase. He spoke of the satisfaction of the Government with what the local traffic manager is getting up to, but given his party's devotion to devolution, I would have expected him to speak of the satisfaction of the voters. We have traffic problems in my borough of Bromley, and to my simple mind it should properly be for local voters to judge whether their local councillors and officers are dealing adequately with such problems. I doubt whether anybody in Bromley would be very satisfied to learn that the Secretary of State—or even worse, the Mayor of London—was to look after Bromley's traffic. I shall come back to the Mayor in a moment, because sadly, he is mentioned in these provisions and I cannot imagine why.
  The first point that we must confront in considering these provisions is our view as individuals and as a House of Commons of the proper relationship between central and local government.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Potentially, this issue goes wider still. I represent an area on which, to my misfortune, the Government are seeking to impose regional assemblies. How would the views of regional assemblies be taken into account?
  Mr. Forth: I do not possess my right hon. Friend's intimate knowledge of the Bill, but my glance through it has so far found no reference to regional authorities of any kind, so I assume, given the Government's enthusiasm for elected regional authorities, that there is no role for them in this matter. Presumably, even regional elected representatives would have no role to play in traffic management; yet again, it is the Secretary of State who will decide on such matters, be it road humps or anything else.
  We are in an absurd position. All the main political parties now pay lip service to the idea of local decision making—devolution, decentralisation, call it what one will—yet the Bill contains a perfect example of central Government's belief that they invariably know what is best for local areas, and so will seek to intervene. We already have central government control over the national motorway network, which is long established. Going several steps further to say that the Secretary of State is so omniscient that he will know what is required authority by authority, street by street, is patently absurd.
  I will not dwell excessively on clauses 16 and 17, except to point out that they are referred to explicitly in clause 20, which means that there is at least an opportunity to touch upon them. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I pointed out what appeared to be a helpful reference to the "expeditious movement of traffic" as a criterion for judging whether the local traffic authority was carrying out its duties satisfactorily. However, the phrase is very subjective and, sadly, there is little or no help in clause 16.

  1605
  I looked in vain to see whether clause 17 provided further guidance and came across an interesting phrase. The clause starts by saying:
  "A local traffic authority shall make such arrangements as they consider appropriate for planning and carrying out the action to be taken in performing the network management duty."
  That is the very thing the Secretary of State will use to judge the performance of the local traffic authority.
  Clause 17(4) states:
  "The arrangements must include provision for establishing processes for ensuring (so far as may be reasonably practicable)
  —another subjective judgment—
  "that the authority … identify things (including future occurrences) which are causing, or which have the potential to cause, road congestion or other disruption".
  We are now requiring the local traffic authority to have the ability to gaze into a crystal ball and forecast sufficiently accurately what will happen in the future to avoid traffic congestion. I would have thought it demanding enough to deal with existing traffic congestion, but to use as a criterion one's ability to forecast the future gets us into difficult territory.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: The situation is even worse than my right hon. Friend supposes. Under the comprehensive spending review, the Government slipped out the fact that they had dropped their target of reducing traffic congestion. One would have expected that; they have failed miserably to reach the target since the 10-year transport plan came out. More to the point, the Government will not even define traffic congestion until July next year. They will spend the next year trying to decide if they know what traffic congestion is. Asking a traffic director to predict how traffic congestion will be reduced when the Government cannot even define it puts an onerous burden on the people they are to appoint.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful, but alarmed. Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, there will be at the very least a lacuna, during which nobody will have any idea about these important matters. Having referred to crystal ball gazing and to the anticipation of future occurrences, the Bill goes on to say—with an insouciance of a kind I have rarely seen in legislation—that
  "nothing in this subsection is to be taken to require the identification or consideration of anything appearing to have only an insignificant effect (or potential effect) on the movement of traffic on their road network."
  We are now into multiple subjectivity. We are judging future occurrences that have potential effects that are significant or insignificant. I defy anyone to pick their way through that, given that we are talking about a matter as important as the imposition by central Government of all-powerful traffic gauleiters in local authorities. Even before I get past clause 20, I am thoroughly confused and alarmed.
  I want, however, to try to tease out from the Minister his view of the relationship between the Mayor of London and London authorities. Clause 20(5) states:
  "The Secretary of State shall consult the Mayor before giving an intervention notice to a London authority and, if such notice is given, shall give him a copy of it."
  1606
  We all know about the new bear hug in which the Mayor and the Government are engaging and it is wondrous to behold. However, I would have thought that people in London boroughs, whose councillors are properly elected to take local decisions on their behalf, would be more than a little alarmed at the thought of the remote Secretary of State taking their decisions for them.
  I do not want to be too personal about it, but given that the current incumbent Secretary of State also happens simultaneously to be the Secretary of State for Scotland, it is conceivable that he might be spending rather more of his time in Edinburgh than in London. Earlier today, when he was wearing his Secretary of State for Transport hat, he referred to a surface railway line—or he thought he was referring to one—as the Northern line. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is really a tube line.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the right hon. Member some latitude, but I hope that he will now return to directing his comments at the amendments that we are debating.
  Mr. Forth: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would not dream of disputing anything you say, but we are debating whether clause 20 should be in the Bill, and I am talking about clause 20(5), which explicitly refers to both the Secretary of State and the Mayor, and London authorities. I was talking about the Secretary of State in almost complimentary terms.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we went rather beyond the Secretary of State when we got on to the Northern line.
  Mr. Forth: That is what we all thought when the Secretary of State said that, too. I am grateful for your endorsement, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will send Hansard to him on Monday.
  The point at issue is a very serious one. We now face the dangerous possibility that the Secretary of State—regardless of who he or she may be or what other jobs he or she may have—will consult the Mayor on a matter that should be the business only of the London authority. That applies whether it is my authority or any of the other London boroughs. The Government suggest that there are now two people with the potential to interfere and intervene on London matters in London boroughs. I find that wholly unacceptable and I would be surprised if any London Member representing a London borough were any happier than me about that. I press the matter no further than that.
  Moving on to clause 21—I want to make progress and there are many clauses to wade through—my eye alights on subsection (3), which states:
  "An intervention order providing for the appointment of a traffic director must (among other things) … confer such general powers on the traffic director as the national authority considers appropriate for achieving those objectives."
  So a potential outsider with as yet unspecified but unlimited powers will be imposed on a local authority, subject only to the whim of the Secretary of State. The clause proceeds to hint that the general powers

  1607
  conferred on such a director are to "monitor" and "report"—I might just about be able to go along with that—but then to
  "intervene in activities of the local traffic authority"
  and
  "to carry out functions of the local traffic authority".
  That surely is alarming.
  Moving on rapidly to clause 22—I am picking up speed now, Madam Deputy Speaker, and there will be no legislative congestion here—can the Minister help me? The clause states:
  "Where by virtue of an intervention order a traffic director is to be appointed in relation to a local traffic authority … any person … may be appointed",
  including
  "the national authority making the order".
  That suggests to me that the Secretary of State could be appointed as the traffic manager. Could that possibly be true? Is the Secretary of State bidding for yet another job? In addition to being Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Transport, does he want to be traffic manager for Bromley?
  That strikes me as ambitious, to the say the least. Under the terms of the clause, could he also be the traffic manager for every other authority as well? If so, he would be a busy man. Would his salary rise commensurately? Would he get extra money and work overtime? We need to know. Provisions such as this may look innocuous when they are buried in a Bill as clause 22(1)(a), but they have the potential to be extremely damaging.
  Clause 30 deals with the recovery of costs from local traffic authorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has considered this matter, given his intimate knowledge of the Bill, but the clause states:
  "The appropriate national authority may recover from the local traffic authority such sum or sums as it may consider appropriate."
  That is really scary. It suggests that the Secretary of State, on a whim, can recover any amount of money that he considers appropriate from local authorities and, therefore, from council tax payers. How much further must the Bill go before it wrecks any concept of a proper relationship between central and local government?
  The proposals are truly frightening. The House of Lords is often criticised by the Government as undemocratic and unaccountable, but we must now look to their lordships to defend local democracy and the proper relationship between local government and central Government. The Government repeatedly pay lip service to local decision making and decentralisation, but they are setting out to wreck and undermine the relationship between local government and voters.
  The Bill is appalling and disgraceful. We must oppose it at every turn.
  Mr. McNulty: I shall deal first with some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). There are 35 highway authorities in the London area. The Bill is restricted to
  1608
  looking at, and imposing duties on, highway authorities. Regional assemblies are not highway authorities, so it is clear that they are outside the Bill's scope.
  There are 32 London boroughs, including Bromley. The City of London is another of the 35 highway authorities, as is the Highways Agency, in part, because of its roads network. Finally, there is Transport for London. The relationship between TFL and the London boroughs, after the Greater London Authority Act 1999, is complex. The Mayor is the TFL and GLA representative, and the Bill requires the communication of information to him for that reason alone. However, he must also satisfy the Government in respect of his own network management duty. There is no elaborate conspiracy to Livingstoneise Bromley, or any borough in which people had the misfortune—or were misguided enough—to vote for a party other than the one to which the Mayor now belongs.
  I hesitate to mention that, as the United Kingdom Independence party almost won Bromley in the European elections. I shall not go beyond the scope of the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and push the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about how he voted in those elections. I shall not ask him whether he voted for his party or for UKIP. I shall not go there.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a fair point about Barnet. The same complexities apply here: TFL has a funding relationship, and other relationships, with Barnet and all the London boroughs, which are not part of the local transport plan process referred to by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). In that process, there is a direct relationship between the Department and every highway authority in England outside London, whereas the London boroughs relate to TFL in respect of funding, and other matters.
  I turn now to the way in which Barnet relates to the Government in respect of its ability to fulfil its network management duty. If a party manifesto promised the wholesale removal of sleeping policemen or street furniture, for example, that would have to be seen to be consistent with the fulfilment of the network management duty. I take the point that this is not about a party of whatever colour elected centrally, imposing by some back-door route its view of what the local highway authority solutions should be to achieving its works management duty. Behind the noise and rhetoric, happily, at least in part, Barnet is not doing what the rhetoric suggests it is doing. I do not think that many sleeping policemen or road humps have been moved. Rather like the hon. Member for Ashford, the rhetoric is a lot noisier than any subsequent action. That explains in part why, to the apparent disgust of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Mayor is mentioned so frequently within the whole document. There are complexities that do not prevail in the rest of the country.
  I do not accept that the network management duty and the clauses that we seek to restore are undemocratic, unclear, impractical, unnecessary or unaccountable in part, which was the broad gist of what the hon. Gentleman said. Neither, given all the elements of the Bill, including those that we seek to restore, do I consider it to be centralising control, arbitrary or

  1609
  anything else that he said. It is not undemocratic because we set out clearly what the network management duty should be. We will subsequently flesh that out with criteria and practicalities in guidance. We will make clear in guidance after full consultation what steps need to be taken.
  I know that many find it unsatisfactory, as I do to some extent, when I describe the Bill, as I have done on many occasions during its passage, as like a Christmas tree. Broad, enabling powers are taken in the Bill, around which a whole series of regulations, criteria and guidance will be hung subsequently. In the totality of the Bill there will be guidance on the techniques of securing the national management network duty, on intervention, on what the traffic director may and may not do, on making intervention orders and notices, on what the network's duty will be and on a range of other areas. It may be unsatisfactory that all those are not clearly and explicitly in the Bill, but I assure hon. Members that there will be substantive consultation as each of those sets of guidance and regulations comes to fruition.
  There is also the backstop. Every time there is an apparent need for intervention, there will be a separate intervention order for that specific authority, which can be discussed in the House, should it be prayed against on the negative resolution procedure via a statutory instrument. A series of belts and braces have been established. I do not think in the main that all should appear in the Bill. It is certainly not the norm in legislation. It has not been the norm in the past and I could point to many Acts since 1979 that are of the same order as this Bill, where the substantive work is done in regulation in consultation or subsequently.
  This is not supposed to replace local transport plans, nor does it make them redundant. The network management's duty is entirely consistent with LTPs outside London. The monitoring, which is part of the local transport process, can and probably will be part of the assessment process for the criteria on achieving the network management duty. Such issues are just the kind of matters that we are discussing with local government and others in developing the criteria.
  4.30 pm
  The half point made by the hon. Gentleman that was valid was that it clearly would be foolish to impose a network management duty, and seek to produce criteria and measurements for that duty, as if the whole local transport plan process did not exist. Of course, the two would need to be intermeshed, arid that is what will happen.
  It is not right to say that there would be no consideration of the costs of an intervention. Clause 30 allows the recovery of costs associated with appointing a traffic director, but it does not require the recovery of those costs. The Secretary of State might decide that it would be far more efficient for the authority to use those resources to improve its performance. The burden is not as explicit as some would suggest. Neither is it arbitrary. The intervention powers are not arbitrary or unfettered. Any decision must be consistent with the principles outlined in the guidance in what was clause 27—which we seek to restore—and would need to stand up to scrutiny. Those criteria will he set out in an order and
  1610
  can be discussed. They are being developed with stakeholders—I apologise for using that word, and perhaps I should say interested parties—including the Local Government Association, and will be subject to public consultation.
  We want the process to be as transparent as possible. The guidance and criteria will overcome many of the difficulties that hon. Members have suggested. The protocol is in place. It is wrong to suggest that the power is brand new and a first in the relationship between central and local government. The protocol contains a long list of existing service-specific powers for statutory intervention related to failure, including on housing, environment, planning, education, health, and even libraries and museums. That demonstrates that these powers are not unusual. It is a widely accepted concept that appropriate national authorities should intervene if an authority fails in its duty. The House is not being asked to take the criteria on trust. As I have said, they can be considered in great detail by both Houses.
  The problem with the amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) in Committee was that they personalised the issue around the traffic manager. We have deliberately abstracted the notion of traffic manager. In one way, we could care less who the traffic manager is and where they stand in the structures of the local authority. The failure of the traffic manager is not the issue. The failure would be of the authority to fulfil its collective and corporate network management duty.
  I repeated frequently in Committee that we see intervention as a last resort. I accept that there are those—such as the LGA—who would not seek to push the ability of central Government to intervene any further than it goes now, as a matter of principle. I accept that, but I congratulate the LGA because—despite that principle—it has discussed the criteria and other elements with us at length. We envisage a series of discussions—and, perhaps, mentoring by other highway authorities that are in a better position to address the failure—as well as other measures, some of which will be contained in the guidance and some that will be agreed with local government.
  I have also said that notice will be given of intervention, so that even at such a late stage in the process the difficulties in a highway authority may be addressed. I said on Second Reading, and I repeat today—not least for the benefit of those in the other place who will consider this issue subsequently—that I would see intervention, as outlined in the Bill, as a collective failure of central and local government. Long before intervention was necessary, matters should have been resolved by all three parties—the potentially failing local authority, local government and the Government. However, if we are to impose a statutory network management duty on local authorities, we need, as a long, long backstop—as I have assured the House—the ability to intervene and correct things if an authority fails in that duty, as neither the local community or the Government would want such a situation to prevail.
  On Second Reading, it was suggested that I was simply saying, "Trust me". I am not saying that. I am saying that one of the prerequisites of imposing such a statutory duty on local authorities is that the whole array—the panoply—of powers is in place, so that,

  1611
  ultimately, if there were a failure in that duty the responsibility would return to the Government, who would secure the situation or ensure that the local authority could recover and return to a position where it could fulfil its duty. The intervention powers are thus part and parcel of the Bill, by imposing that network management duty in the first place.
  I shall be more than happy to speak to Opposition Members from both parties, or their counterparts in the other place, about the criteria, the guidance and the other elements, where much work has already been done; and to give them reassurance about any aspect of the process—the intervention notice, the orders, the criteria for the network management duty—to allay any fears that I have been unable to set aside today. However, for the integrity of the Bill and in order for the Government to secure what we want in part 2, we feel that we must disagree with the Lords. The provisions need to be restored and in the spirit of eminent reasonableness that I am pursuing, I ask the House to endorse that approach and to disagree, in the nicest possible way, with the Lords on these amendments.
  Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 78.

  Division No. 226]

  [4:37 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Allen, Graham

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cohen, Harry

  Austin, John

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Berry, Roger

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Best, Harold

  Davidson, Ian

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Denham, rh John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bryant, Chris

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Burnham, Andy

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Cairns, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Caton, Martin

  Challen, Colin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Chaytor, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Hain, rh Peter

  1612

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Owen, Albert

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Perham, Linda

  Hanson, David

  Picking, Anne

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Prescott rh John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Purnell, James

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Rammell, Bill

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Hutton, rh John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Russell. Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Illsley, Eric

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Salter, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jamieson, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Soley, Clive

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Southworth, Helen

  Lammy, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Lepper, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Linton, Martin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  MacDonald, Calum

  Timms, Stephen

  MacDougall, John

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  McFall, rh John

  Trickett, Jon

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Truswell, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  McNulty, Tony

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  McWalter, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  McWilliam, John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Ward, Claire

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Merron, Gillian

  Watts, David

  Michael, rh Alun

  White, Brian

  Miliband, David

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Winnick, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Mole, Chris

  Woodward, Shaun

  Morgan, Julie

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Morley, Elliot

  Mountford, Kali

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Olner, Bill

  Joan Ryan

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Bercow, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bacon, Richard

  Brady, Graham

  1613

  Brazier, Julian

  Maples, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cameron, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Paterson, Owen

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Chope, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Redwood, rh John

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Curry, rh David

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Ruffley, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Evans, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Forth, rh Eric

  Streeter, Gary

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Goodman, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hague, rh William

  Thurso, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Holmes, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Viggers, Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Jack, rh Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilkinson, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Willetts, David

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Mr. Hugo Swire

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 11 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 15 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 1.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With This we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 17, 18, 35, 36, 43, 45 to 50, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 77, 91, 92, 94, 95, 99 to 101, 105, 106 and 109.
  Mr. Jamieson: The expert way in which you read out the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, makes them sound impressive, but they are, in fact, all drafting amendments and the Government agree with them.
  Mr. Greg Knight: I do not necessarily oppose the amendments, but want some clarification.
  Amendment No. 36 deletes clause 40(2). Why does the Minister think that that is the right thing to do? Amendments Nos. 43 and 45 are similar but not identical. They relate to the resurfacing notice. Amendment No. 43 removes "serve" and inserts "give",
  1614
  so a street authority may give a resurfacing notice rather than serve one. Amendment No. 45 removes "serve with" and inserts "given".
  Every lawyer knows that "serve" has a specific meaning. If someone is served a writ as part of legal proceedings, he has to be physically touched with it. It does not matter what he then does with it. He could rip it up. I have dealt with cases in which a young articled clerk has gone to serve a writ on someone. He has touched the individual with it, has been chased down the drive and the writ has been thrown into the back into the articled clerk's car. That does not matter because the individual has still been served. In my days as an articled clerk, I spent many a weekend trying to earn a few extra pounds from my employer by serving writs on less than salubrious characters who had come into conflict with my firm's clients.
  Does the replacement of "serve" with "give" imply that the Government are trying to achieve something less than a personal service, perhaps by placing an advert in a magazine or The London Gazette? Alternatively, does giving the notice simply mean telling a junior employee who happens to be on site about it, rather than issuing an official notice to the contractor, sent to that contractor's registered office? If there is a lessening of the test of service, why is that appropriate? Lords amendment No. 59 removes the term "penalty charge". Again, will the Minister say why that is an appropriate course of action?
  Lords Amendment No. 70 seeks to delete from the Bill the word "guidance" and to insert the word "guidelines". I wondered what the difference was between those two words, and to refresh my memory I consulted the "New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary", which states that guidance is
  "the action of guiding; leadership, direction",
  whereas a guideline is a
  "directing or standardising principle, laid down as a guide to procedure or policy".
  Clearly, the most appropriate word to use in the Bill is "guidelines". The Government spend a lot of money on parliamentary draftsmen who, I suspect, certainly get paid more than a Member of Parliament and perhaps more than the Minister. Why is this change being made at this late stage? It seems, on the face of it, to involve sloppy drafting, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
  Mr. Jamieson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. His first question was on the minor technical amendments relating to the fixed penalty notice in the Bill. Lords Amendment No. 35 corrects an error in clause 40. The Bill incorrectly states that schedule 4B
  "makes provision about fixed penalties for fixed penalty notices",
  but it should read "for fixed penalty offences". Lords Amendment No. 36 also amends clause 40. It is unnecessary to refer to the power to prescribe notices in relation to fixed penalties under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, because the power is already implicit in the existing provision in section 97 of the Act. The provision should therefore be deleted.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the difference between serving notices and giving them. I believe that their lordships probably got more exercised about this

  1615
  than we did. The difficulty was that both terms had been used in the Bill. I am advised that, in legal terms, they are one and the same thing. These amendments are therefore tidying amendments to ensure that we use the same terminology throughout. Had we not put this minor matter right, there could have been some confusion about the two terms, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggested. However, they mean the same thing, so this is just a matter of consistency in the Bill.
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made a tour into our excellent Library—we heard earlier about our chief librarian, who is retiring, and about the excellent service that she provides—to look at the "Oxford English Dictionary", albeit the shorter version. He rightly said that the term "guidelines" more accurately described the directing role of the appropriate national authority. "Guidance", the term that was previously used, suggests a broader discretion than we had intended.
  This is therefore a group of fairly minor but nevertheless important amendments, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his fastidiousness in having looked through them so carefully and asking questions about some of them.
  Mr. Knight: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that the Minister has satisfied us on all the matters that we have raised? I am most grateful to him for his comprehensive reply, and we shall not seek to divide the House on any of the amendments which may, by all means, be put together.
  Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 16
  Mr. McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 34.
  Mr. McNulty: These are all amendments to the permit powers that were alluded to earlier when we were discussing the Ways and Means resolution. Lords amendment No. 16 clarifies that the power for regulations to provide for the review or variation of permits can also cover applications for variations to a permit—for example, where a person wishes to apply for conditions attached to a permit to be varied.
  5 pm
  Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 22 clarify that the powers for an order to modify or disapply primary or secondary legislation are limited to the extent allowed for by permit regulations, and they were tabled in response to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
  Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 23 delete the existing powers in the Bill covering the variation and revocation of permit schemes operated by local and national
  1616
  authorities respectively, and Lords amendment No. 21 is consequential on Lords amendment No. 23. Lords amendment No. 24 replaces those deleted powers with a new clause, which makes it clear that schemes may be revoked or varied by order and that a single order can apply to more than one scheme. It also provides that an order can also make specific provision to disapply and modify primary and secondary legislation, provided that that is in accordance with permit regulations.
  Lords amendment No. 25 allows for wide provision in regulations for the determination of disputes in relation to permits. Regulations will allow for the facilitation of dispute resolution and any system of appeal for permits thought necessary. Regulations could also provide for the appointment of people to hear disputes, and the scope could extend to systems such as adjudication and mediation. Lords amendment No. 26 makes it clear that if regulations provide for adjudication, then the consent of the Lord Chancellor would be required to the making of the regulations or the appointment of persons.
  Lords amendment No. 27 allows permit regulations to make provision for permit offences to be fixed penalty offences. The offences themselves will be defined in permit regulations. Lords amendment No. 31 is consequential and provides a definition of "fixed penalty notice".
  Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 30 make further provision for the payment of permit fees. They set out the cases in which regulations can make provision for the charging of a fee and they also provide that the national authority should try to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that fees payable in connection with permit schemes do not exceed costs as may be prescribed. Those amendments were referred to earlier in the Ways and Means resolution.
  Lords amendment No. 30 enables regulations to provide for the keeping of accounts. Lords amendment No. 32 allows for permit regulations or a permit order to provide for regional variations, for instance, to apply different arrangements for permit schemes in London as against the rest of the country.
  Lords amendment No. 33 provides that the first set of permit regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution. Lords amendment No. 34 is consequential on that, and amends clause 38(4) to make it clear that subsequent regulations would revert to the negative procedure. These amendments were also tabled in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report.
  Given that we have already discussed the core elements of the amendments in the Ways and Means resolution, I urge the House to support the amendments.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: As the Minister said, we have debated the principles. The group of 16 Lords amendments is a welcome improvement, but we still have reservations and wish that the Government had been able to go further to meet our concerns about the stealth tax that effectively lies behind the permit scheme.
  If it were not for the constraints of time, we could spend longer discussing the detail. By my calculation, the other place spent 25 hours and 45 minutes discussing the Bill, during which time 109 amendments were

  1617
  tabled. With their guillotine motion, the Government have allowed us only two and a half hours to consider all those amendments, which is a mean approach. We must try to discuss as much as possible, so the time that we can spend discussing this group of amendments is inevitably restricted.
  May I ask the Minister about the one-sidedness of the fixed penalty notices, because there is still an issue about the fact that the fixed penalty notices will apply to utilities only, and not to highway authorities, although the highway authorities themselves, through the works that they carry out, may cause as much, if not more, inconvenience to the motoring public?
  The National Joint Utilities Group takes the view that this is a one-sided, arbitrary fixed penalty regime that does nothing whatsoever to ensure that there is any incentive for highways authorities carrying out works to do so in a reasonable time and with a minimum amount of disruption to members of the public [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Minister is listening to the concerns expressed by the National Joint Utilities Group, but I hope that he will be able to explain exactly how the travelling public can be assured that when the highways authorities carry out roadworks they will not be able, with impunity, to block the highway by sticking their roadworks there for unreasonable lengths of time. If the Government believe that it is necessary to have a penalty regime, with fixed penalties that may rise to as much as £350, for utilities, why do they not believe that it is necessary for the highways authorities? I hope that the Minister will be able to allay remaining concerns on that matter.
  I hope that the Minister will think again about the overall burden of cost involved in these permit schemes. In correspondence with my noble Friend Viscount Astor, the Minister in the other place said that he did not believe that it would be sensible to tie the costs down as narrowly as we wished. I should have thought that it was in everybody's interests that the costs of permit schemes and the costs of getting permits should be tied down as tightly as possible. That is why we regret that the Government have not gone further.
  Mr. John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He is letting the Government off very lightly, although I realise that that is because we are so short of time that we cannot discuss this properly and divide on it if we hope to deal with the other important matters before us.
  I should have thought that the Minister would want to table rather more amendments to the permit scheme provisions, because we live in remarkable times. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that there is too much waste and bureaucracy and too many stealth taxes, yet here we see the Department for Transport going ahead as if the new doctrine had not come in. It is busily legislating for a very expensive stealth tax on the private sector, but it is not prepared to be fair-minded by recognising that the public sector is often the cause of delays, and is exempting it from the charge.
  These clauses, even when amended as suggested by the Minister, will leave a bureaucratic, expensive and lopsided system. If the Minister knows what is good for him in his future career, he should listen rather more
  1618
  carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and identify this scheme as a new example of the waste, intervention, bureaucracy and stealth taxing that we heard this week was no longer on the agenda.
  Mr. McNulty: If I understood the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly, he wants 25 hours to discuss 19 amendments that everyone agrees with. That seems obtuse, to say the least. He did not mention all the time that we spent on Second Reading and in Committee—it was a good-natured Committee stage—and subsequently on Report and Third Reading.
  Broadly speaking, I do not accept the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Nor, interestingly, does the other place, where all these amendments were ultimately secured without dissent The first set of regulations on permit schemes will be subject to the affirmative order. I do not accept that the proposals are one-sided. We debated that extensively in Committee. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he wants a fixed penalty notice regime whereby the highways authority imposes on itself fixed penalty notices if it transgresses the permit system that it will be afforded the ability to impose on others. One part of the highways authority will therefore impose a fixed penalty regime on another part, and will doubtless take it to court if the notices are not paid. One part would then sue another for recovery of costs and other expenses stemming from the regime if they are not forthcoming. In Committee, we made it clear that we accepted—I am mimicking the hon. Member for Christchurch in case people did not notice rather than the National Joint Utilities Group or any other learned body that partook in our discussions—that it is a network management duty to ensure that highways authorities discharge their functions on roadworks and streetworks properly and respect the spirit of the Bill.
  Network management duties are, quite rightly, not imposed on private contractors and utility groups, but are a function of the local highways authority which, as the relevant public body, will be charged with the efficient and expeditious carrying-out of streetworks. We can set hares running, but it will not be in any highways authority's interest to start digging a hole in the road and leave it there for two or three months, as hon. Gentlemen suggested, doing nothing. It is foolish to suggest that the authorities would act with impunity because they are not charged for permits and are not fined—the Opposition have flogged that point to death. The utility groups accept that balance will prevail, and are represented on a series of working groups that will be set up according to regulations and guidance in the Bill.
  I shall not even bother to grace the tosh about stealth taxes with a reply. Not only have the Opposition fabricated unrealistic and unnecessary rhetoric to the point of ridicule but their criticisms have become a tiresome standing joke. The amendments were agreed by the House of Lords without dissent and, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, they tidy up the permits system in the Bill and deal with many of the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I therefore hope that they will be warmly welcomed as a way of tidying up a complex part of the Bill. All the Lords amendments improve the clarity of the Bill, so we are happy to accept them. They

  1619
  should have been welcomed by the Opposition, so that we could debate the matters of substance in the Opposition amendments in the two following groups. The amendments in the current group, however, are worth while and improve the permit scheme. The House of Lords fully endorses them, and I urge the Commons to do so as well.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 36 agreed to, the Commons being willing to waive their privileges in respect of Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
  Lords amendment: No. 37.
  Mr. McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may discuss the following: Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 42, 44 and 51; Lords amendment No. 52 and amendment (a) thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 56, 93, and 96 to 98.
  Mr. McNulty: Regulations will make provision for appeals from utilities against an authority that has given a direction about the placing of apparatus. Lords amendment No. 37 makes it clear that regulations may also make provision about the person who may determine any such appeals.
  Lords amendment No. 38 makes some useful changes to the giving of notices by undertakers under sections 54 and 55 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Among other things, there will be a requirement that if the notice of the starting date of works becomes invalid under section 55, an undertaker must provide a further notice containing such information as prescribed. Failure to do so will be an offence. Lords amendment No. 93 adds this offence, as a consequence, to the list of possible fixed penalties.
  Under the 1991 Act, if an authority wishes to restrict street works after substantial roadworks it must notify relevant persons at least three months before the substantial roadworks start. Lords amendment No. 39 provides for flexibility for regulations to prescribe the period instead. Lords amendment No. 40 provides that regulations may also prescribe certain descriptions of persons who must be notified of the restriction.
  Lords amendment No. 41 amends clause 50, which amends several provisions in the 1991 Act. Under the Act, certain actions are required when an undertaker sends a section 55 notice. The amendments mean that those actions are also required when the undertaker sends a notice under schedule 3A in relation to works to be carried out before substantial street works. Lords amendment No. 98 deletes the provisions in schedule 3A, which allow for cases where overrun charges are applied to work carried out before the restriction. Those provisions are no longer needed due to amendment No. 41.
  Lords amendment No. 96 widens the existing power in the Bill to prescribe the notification requirements in relation to restrictions on further works under the new schedule 3A provisions. Regulations could prescribe the
  1620
  form of such notification and the information that must be contained. Lords amendment No. 97 clarifies which works are exempt from notification arrangements set out under section 55 of the 1991 Act in relation to schedule 3A.
  Lords amendments Nos. 42, 44 and 51 to 55 apply to clauses 53 to 55 of the Bill. Those clauses insert new sections into the 1991 Act, which provide the basis for regulations to enable street authorities to require undertakers to resurface a street, or part of a street, or contribute to the cost of that resurfacing.
  Brian White: Lords amendment No. 52 refers to
  "whether or not regulations … have been made".
  The industry is concerned that that could be several years later, and that it could be faced with not knowing what the Bill will be. Will the Minister assure the House that the times that that clause is brought into effect and that the regulations come into effect will not be several years apart?
  Mr. McNulty: Certainly, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is not the plan in terms of the timing. I take those concerns seriously, and I will write to my hon. Friend in more detail about timing as and when the time lines are more ready than at present.
  Lords amendment No. 42 clarifies that undertakers can be subject to the resurfacing requirements where an authority has issued a notice under section 58A of the 1991 Act indicating its intention to place a restriction on works after substantial street works. That would apply if the undertaker had given notice of its intention to carry out works in the part of the road where the restriction will apply. It would also apply where the undertaker has given the usual section 54 or 55 notices.
  Lords amendments Nos. 44 and 52 provide that only works carried out after commencement of these clauses could carry a liability for an undertaker, although, depending on the details in the regulations, the scope may be extended to works carried out before any regulations are made.
  Lords amendments Nos. 51, 53, 54 and 55 provide for regulations to ensure that all the undertakers are aware of their liability, and to establish a basis for apportioning the costs between the parties that leads broadly to the same result, whoever carries out the resurfacing works. Those Lords amendments also provide for regulations to include safeguards to cover insolvency of undertakers, and to deal with the interaction of the resurfacing powers with other duties in the 1991 Act, such as reinstatements under section 70 and long-term damage under section 78, in ways that avoid unnecessary works and unreasonable costs for utilities.
  Lords amendment No. 56 widens the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State to allow for a more targeted regime for inspections of the quality of undertakers' work, to enable more inspections of the poorest performers. Regulations would allow disputes to be settled by arbitration.

  1621
  As I said at the beginning, we agree with all those amendments from the other place. They improve matters, for which we are grateful. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Chope: I understood the Minister to say in response to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) that he would accept my amendment (a). I hope he will confirm that. As has been said by the hon. Gentleman and many others, we cannot have retrospection.
  If the Bill were enacted later this month, a commencement order were introduced and the resurfacing clauses became active soon afterwards, but the regulations were not made until, say, July 2010, under the present rules highway authorities would be able to request resurfacing, or a contribution towards the cost, dating back to the time of the order. The retrospection could amount to five or six years, or perhaps even longer. That would cause utilities both regulatory and balance-sheet uncertainty. They would be forced to put aside money for charges that might or might not materialise at some point in the future. Regulators would not accept that such provision would be made until regulations were imminent.
  In the other place Lord Davies, the Minister, assured everyone that the Government did not want to make it difficult for the utility companies to operate. If the Government do not accept the amendment, it will indeed be very difficult for utility operators to cope, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. I hope the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it becomes apparent that the Minister will not accept the amendment—although the tone of the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman implied that he was going to.
  Mr. Redwood: During the Minister's rather garbled and hurried presentation, did my hon. Friend catch his statement that he welcomed an increase in retrospection in one of the amendments because he thought there could be circumstances in which people should have to pay even if the work had begun before the regulations were made?
  Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend has picked up a detail that I had not cottoned on to. I hope he will have a chance to go into it further during this debate, even though it is short.
  Lords amendment No. 56 deals with inspection fees. The Government have introduced an element of variability related to the track record of the company carrying out the work that is the subject of inspection. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the principle, but the only examples given by the Minister in the other place and in correspondence are those in which the fees would be higher. The amount of work to be inspected would increase in the case of a poor record. We need to ensure that in the case of a good record, the burden of inspection is reduced. That underlines the Opposition's continual plea for minimum regulatory intervention in the private sector.
  1622
  I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the variability will be both upward and downward. I hope he will be able to tell us that if a utility operator delivers high-quality work and an inspection shows no need for further work, the burden of inspection will be reduced. I hope he can also assure us that when inspections are paid for, that means that they are actually carried out. It has come to my notice that in Dorset, in certain circumstances, utilities pay for inspections that are then not carried out by the inspection authority. That is basically another stealth tax.
  John Thurso: Retrospective charging, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred, is an issue that concerns me as well, particularly given that it will put a much larger burden on many plc utilities' balance sheets than the Government perhaps appreciate. I chair the audit committee of a plc—it is not, I should hasten to add, a utility company—so I know of the problems that auditors mention when they ask how one is going to account for such liabilities in the balance sheet. I urge the Minister to give some comfort to the utilities in this respect.
  On inspection fees, the basic principle of being able to vary fees to punish those who are bad and, more importantly, to reward those who are good must be a good one, so I broadly support proposed new clause 56. But in the light of the correspondence that has been referred to, it appears that lots of stick and very little carrot will be used. An assurance from the Minister that good use will also be made of the lighter touch of the carrot would be extremely helpful.
  Mr. Redwood: I support amendment (a), which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), and I hope that we will have an opportunity to do something about it. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is right to be concerned about this issue. This group of amendments, which the Government hope to nod through, give further powers to Ministers that I am not sure they deserve, and they offer further threats to businesses operating in this area. There could be an added element of retrospection, as the Minister said, and there will definitely be variable charges and fees of a kind that could be quite damaging; that will make the private sector's life much more difficult.
  This is another example of a well-intentioned Bill—which is trying to do something about the chronic congestion that this Government's transport policy has created—miscarrying and turning into a traditional Labour Government Bill that attacks the private utilities, invents very complicated bureaucracy and creates extra expense. So I hope that we will at least have an opportunity to do something about the very important point made in amendment (a), even if the Opposition are none the less going to go along with the other, rather dubious, complicated and bureaucratic amendments.
  Mr. McNulty: I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I agreed broadly with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), but I certainly did not agree with what is a flawed amendment that does only half the

  1623
  job that it purports to do. On the assurance that I gave to my hon. Friend and what I subsequently put to him in writing, it is not in the interests of the Government or of anyone else for a massive and significant delay to occur between the commencement order and the subsequent regulations. In any event, this flawed amendment does not overcome the problem, because it deals with only one of the two references that are made to such matters. But although we do not accept amendment (a), I do accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.
  The regulations can allow for lower inspection fees as well as higher ones, and as with other aspects of the Bill, that will be a matter for discussion with the people most directly affected. It is true that the provision allows work undertaken between the commencement order and the subsequent regulations to carry a liability, but I hope that the reassurances that I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East deal with that issue. If one makes it clear that a particular system will prevail, and if there is some delay before it prevails, that is not retrospectivity. If we make clear that we will come in and minimise, as much as we can, the gap between the commencement order and the regulations, and if we then speak to the very people affected by the regulations, we will see that the characterisation of the regime by Opposition Members is a complete nonsense.
  Mr. Redwood: That is grossly unfair. The Minister is saying that these companies may have to pay a charge under a regulation that has not been made. How are they expected to know the form and detail of the regulation from the vague statements of the Minister? They must not be imposed upon in this way until they know in detail what the regulatory framework will be.
  Mr. McNulty: They will know the regulatory framework. They may not know the detail of the regulations, but I have assured my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East that the gap between any commencement order for this part of the Bill and subsequent regulations will be as short as possible. That is a practicality and no more; to characterise it as bashing utilities, attacking people and seeking to impede good business is, I repeat, an abject nonsense, given that the very first thing we will do is to sit down with the utilities and the businesses most directly affected to discuss what regulations should prevail. We do not accept amendment (a) but I commend all the other amendments to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 51 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 30, line 4, after "has," insert
  "after the commencement of this section (whether or not regulations under it have been made) and".
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 2, leave out
  '(whether or not regulations under it have been made)'.—(Mr. Chope.]
  The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 186.

  Division No. 227]

  [5:32 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Bacon, Richard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Paterson, Owen

  Brady, Graham

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Cameron, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Redwood, rh John

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Chope, Christopher

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Ruffley, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Curry, rh David

  Spring, Richard

  Dodds, Nigel

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Evans, Nigel

  Streeter, Gary

  Fallon, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thurso, John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor, Regis)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Viggers, Peter

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Walter, Robert

  Hague, rh William

  Watkinson, Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Willetts, David

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantags)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew

  Colman, Tony

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Corston, Jean

  Berry, Roger

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Best, Harold

  Crausby, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Browne, Desmond

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bryant, Chris

  Denham, rh John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burnham, Andy

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Cairns, David

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Challen, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chaytor, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  1625

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Olner, Bill

  Gerrard, Neil

  O'Neill Martin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Owen, Albert

  Gilroy, Linda

  Perham, Linda

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Picking, Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Pollard Kerry

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Prescott, rh John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Purnell, James

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Healey, John

  Rammell, Bill

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Ruddock. Joan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Hutton, rh John

  Salter, Martin

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Illsley, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Sheridan Jim

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jamieson, David

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Soley, Clive

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Southworth, Helen

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Squire, Rachel

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Starkey. Dr. Phyllis

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Lammy, David

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Lepper, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Linton, Martin

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Timms, Stephen

  McCafferty, Chris

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Trickett Jon

  MacDougall, John

  Turner, D. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  McFall, rh John

  Twigg, Darek (Halton)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  McNulty, Tony

  Ward, Claire

  Mactaggart Fiona

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McWalter, Tony

  Watts, David

  McWilliam, John

  White, Brian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Winnick, David

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Woodwaid, Shaun

  Michael, rh Alun

  Wright, Althony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Miliband, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Mole, Chris

  Morgan, Julie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morley, Elliot

  Joan Ryan and

  Mountford, Kali

  Gillian Merron

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 52 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 57 agreed to, the Commons being willing to waive their privileges in respect of Lords amendment No. 56.
  Lords amendment: No. 58
  Mr. McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider Lords amendments Nos. 61, 62, 65, 68, 69 and 102.
  Mr. McNulty: Lords amendments Nos. 58, 61 and 102 address a problem with an overlap between powers for fixed penalty notices in the Bill and in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. These overlapping offences relate to the placing of skips and scaffolding under the Highways Act 1980 on the highway. The amendments provide flexibility to deal with the possible problem of having two separate regimes for the same offences. They also deal with the potential problem that the amounts of the overlapping penalties in London could be different from those set outside London, so there is a power to set different rates for different areas in England and Wales, including within and outside London.
  Clauses 63 to 66 provide powers for different charging regimes for the occupation of the highway by skips, scaffolding and building materials. These charges could be based on either the occupation overrunning agreed deadlines or the entire period of occupation—lane rental, as it is commonly known.
  Lords amendments Nos. 62, 65, 68 and 69 together enable regulations to make provision so that where a series of skips, scaffolding or materials are placed one after the other, they may be treated as constituting a single occupation for the purposes of calculating how long they have been in place and thus what charge has to be paid.
  Lords amendment No. 62 inserts new subsections 17A and 17B into section 140A of the Highways Act 1980. This enables regulations to provide that the series of deposits of skips may be treated as a single one. Lords amendment No. 65 carries that provision across so that the same arrangements apply to lane rental charging schemes covering skips. Lords amendment No. 68 does the same in relation to overrun charging for scaffolding and building materials. Finally, Lords amendment No. 69 applies the provision to lane rental schemes for scaffolding and building materials.
  Given that all those amendments were agreed in the House of Lords, I urge the House to support them. They satisfactorily fill the gaps in the original Bill. I commend the amendments in all their glory on skips, scaffolds and building materials to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 59 to 70 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 71.
  Mr. Jamieson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 72 and amendment (a) thereto, 73 to 76, 78 to 90, 103, 104, 107 and 108.
  Mr. Jamieson: Among other things, the amendments fulfil the commitment that we made on Report to provide for publication of guidance to local authorities

  1627
  on the exercise of their civil enforcement duties. I recall that the Opposition made this suggestion in Committee and we, rightly, acceded to their request, although afterwards hon. Members accused us of doing a U-turn. Nevertheless, the Lords have put all that right.
  Lords amendments Nos. 71 to 74 amend clause 76, so that a vehicle cannot be immobilised for contravening the conditions of use of a paid-for parking bay until a period of 15 minutes has elapsed from the time that a penalty charge notice for the contravention was issued. They ensure that a vehicle cannot be clamped while the driver goes off to look for change for the machine to pay for parking. They preserve the existing 15-minute grace period against being clamped for overstaying the time paid for.
  Lords amendment No. 75 amends clause 77 to enable regulations to be made providing that mitigating circumstances are a ground for appeal to an adjudicator against the imposition of a penalty charge and that, on such an appeal, the adjudicator's function is to decide whether or not to refer the matter back to the enforcement authority for reconsideration. That would effectively give adjudicators a supervisory role over the way in which enforcing authorities exercise their discretion in cases where there are mitigating circumstances.
  Lords amendment No. 76 is a minor operational amendment to clause 77. It provides for enforcing authorities to report to the appropriate national authority rather than the Lord Chancellor on the discharge by adjudicators of their functions. That is in line with the current arrangements under section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
  Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 87 serve to improve clause 83. They extend the prohibition on parking in a special enforcement area to cases where a footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to assist cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway. The prohibition on parking will now also apply where the level of the carriageway has been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge to assist pedestrians and cyclists. Most significantly, the prohibition will now apply to special enforcement areas both inside and outside London.
  Lords amendment No. 88 inserts a new clause enabling the appropriate national authority to publish guidance to local authorities on any matters relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions. Authorities will be required to have regard to this statutory guidance. Inclusion of the new clause on guidance fulfils a commitment that we gave on Report in the Commons.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment. Can he assure us that it will be implemented quickly? Injustices are perpetrated every day and millions of drivers are suffering—
  Bob Russell: Millions?
  Mr. Chope: Yes, millions of drivers are suffering persecution at the hands of wardens. We need the code of guidance soon.
  Mr. Jamieson: Earlier this afternoon, your predecessor in the Chair asked us to be moderate and temperate in our language, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Talk of "millions" and "persecution" does not fall into that category. The hon. Gentleman is guilty of hyperbole, but that is not unusual for him. I assume that the Bill will receive Royal Assent shortly, and we will bring in the measures as soon as is practicable.
  Lords amendments Nos. 89 and 90 to clause 85 serve to implement a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords that regulations made by the Lord Chancellor on representations and appeals would be subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative procedure. We are happy to accept that recommendation.
  Lords amendments Nos. 103 and 104 add six additional signs to be subject to civil enforcement to the table at paragraph 9 of schedule 7 to the Bill. Five of those are concerned with enforcement of cycle lanes and cycle tracks. The other will enable civil enforcement of bus prohibitions.
  Lords amendments Nos. 107 and 108 serve to give effect to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords that guidance by the appropriate national authority on the levels of penalty charges to be set by enforcing authorities outside London should be included in an order.
  Mr. Greg Knight: I urge the Minister and the House to accept amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 72. That amendment, as the Minister has said, would allow the affixing of an immobilisation device if a motorist overstayed by 15 minutes the time for which he had paid on a parking meter. Although that is a small protection, many of us feel that the imposition of an £80 ticket is of itself a sufficient penalty, so is it fair and reasonable for a motorist who overstays by a short time to find that the vehicle is immobilised and a further fee is payable before he can drive his car away?
  On criminal matters, many of us are reassured because the police have the rules of justice and evidence instilled in them. However, we are less happy about traffic wardens enforcing civil penalties because they do not have the same thorough training as the police and some people would say that they are not of the same calibre as police officers. Indeed, they are under pressure to raise money. As we pointed out earlier, a report in one London local newspaper stated:
  "Traffic warden boss says he hates drivers … An APCOA boss in charge of training Camden's traffic wardens has admitted he hates motorists—saying they deserve parking tickets because they are lazy. Citing controversial new government proposals which could beef up wardens' duties"—
  referring to the Bill—
  "he added, 'We will now get the power and respect we deserve'. His comments were made to an undercover Ham & High reporter at a job interview for prospective wardens in Kentish Town."
  The article also points out that Camden council "rakes in £23 million a year from parking, clamping fines"
  and the money it raises from meters.

  1629
  Should a pensioner collecting a prescription for his invalid wife, who puts his money in the parking meter but is delayed both at the doctor's and at the chemist and comes back 16 minutes late, have his vehicle immobilised? Is that fair? Is that justice? We do not think so. Nor do we think that the modest relaxation to one hour proposed in our amendment would undermine the rule of law. Parking fines in this country are already among the highest in the world, so I hope that the Minister will accept our amendment.
  Mr. Jamieson: Lords amendments Nos. 71 to 74 came about as a result of a constructive debate in the other place about when immobilisation was an appropriate deterrent measure against unlawful parking. In tabling his amendment to Lords amendment No. 72, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) seems to be going against what his noble Friend was saying in the other place only days ago. As he knows, we tabled the amendment to deal with the specific concerns raised by the Conservative spokesman, Viscount Astor, who thanked us for doing so. He saw the amendment as beneficial and supported it. The period was changed from 15 minutes after the vehicle was over its time to 15 minutes after the ticket had been put on it.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was in the Library looking at the shorter version of the "Oxford English Dictionary" he must have pulled out a copy of Dickens at the same time, because in true Oliver Twist fashion he now wants more, but I am afraid that he will not get it. Under the present provisions of section 70 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, a vehicle that has overstayed in a parking bay may not be immobilised until 15 minutes have elapsed after the end of the period paid for parking, but the amendment makes immobilisation possible only from 15 minutes after the penalty charge has been given.
  Mr. Knight: The Minister knows that, under our procedures, we cannot vote on our amendment if he is still talking at 6 o'clock. Will he conclude his remarks so that we can test the mood of the House?
  Mr. Jamieson: The right hon. Gentleman has made his remarks and I shall use as much time as necessary to complete the discussion. However, I conclude my remarks by saying that we made a perfectly sensible amendment, with which their lordships agreed and I am only surprised that the official Opposition should disagree with their party in the Lords. If that is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman in considering the matter, so be it.
  We have had extremely good debates on all these issues. We covered a wide range of issues, and we have had good time to consider them—
  It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day.]
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]
  Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 109 agreed to.
  1630
  Motion made, and Question put.
  That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 4 to 10 and 12 to 15; Mr. Christopher Chope, Ms Anne Coffey, Mr. Tony McNulty, Gillian Merron and John Thurso to be members of the Committee; Mr. Tony McNulty to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee; Committee to withdraw immediately.—[Gillian Merron.]
  The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 45.

  Division No. 228]

  [6.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Gardiner, Barry

  Austin, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Barnes, Harry

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gilroy, Linda

  Beard, Nigel

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Roger

  Hain, rh Peter

  Best, Harold

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Blackman, Liz

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Healey, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Browne, Desmond

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Bryant, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Burnham, Andy

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cairns, David

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hutton, rh John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Caton, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Challen, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Jamieson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Clapham, Michael

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Colman, Tony

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Corston, Jean

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Lepper, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Linton, Martin

  Davidson, Ian

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  McCafferty, Chris

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  MacDonald, Calum

  Denham, rh John

  MacDougall, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  McFall, rh John

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Dobson, rh Frank

  McNulty, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  McWalter, Tony

  Drown, Ms Julia

  McWilliam, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Farrelly, Paul

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Merron, Gillian

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Michael, rh Alun

  1631

  Miliband, David

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morgan, Julie

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Owen, Albert

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Perham, Linda

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Picking, Anne

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trickett, Jon

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Purnell, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rammell, Bill

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Ward, Claire

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watts, David

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winnick, David

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Salter, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vernon Coaker and

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Joan Ryan

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Bacon, Richard

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Bercow, John

  Maples, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Brady, Graham

  Paterson, Owen

  Brazier, Julian

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Steen, Anthony

  Curry, rh David

  Streeter, Gary

  Dodds, Nigel

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Evans, Nigel

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Fallon, Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Willetts, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Greenway, John

  Gummer, rh John

  Heald, Oliver

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Mr. John Horam

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
  Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You know how anxious I always am to help the House authorities, so it may interest those responsible for such matters to know
  1632
  that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) snuck into the No Lobby as the Doors were about to be locked and took the selection lists. I think she thought that they related to today's amendments and took them to be recycled. Sadly, she took tomorrow's selection lists, so they are now not available to Members in the No Lobby. I hope that you can put that right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I note the hon. Gentleman's point and we will see what we can do to rectify the matter as soon as possible.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the seven motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
    That the draft Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and the Republic of Croatia) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
    ROAD TRAFFIC
    That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
    BROADCASTING
    That the draft Community Radio Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
    That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
    Question agreed to.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That, at the sittings on Monday 19th, Tuesday 20th, Wednesday 21st and Thursday 22nd July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received, until any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported, and until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Paul Clark.]
  Mr. Eric Forth: Object.

  PETITION

    BUPA Seven
    6.13 pm
    Mr. John Horam: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Eileen Chubb of the BUPA seven and others. BUPA seven is composed of former care workers who spoke out against elder abuse in a care home in Bromley.
    The petition states:
    That silence is a major contributory factor in elder abuse in care homes and that unless whistleblowers are fully protected, the silence will continue, along with the suffering of those who are unable to speak out for themselves. The Petitioners further declare that the case of the "BUPA Seven" has raised real concerns that the Public Interest Disclosure Act is failing to protect those who speak out in defence of the legitimate interests of others. Amongst these failings is the fact that if the employer contests disclosures then the whistleblower is left in a situation where the only court that can hear the caseshas no jurisdiction to hear criminal evidence. The Petitioners further declare that the verdict in the case of the "BUPA Seven" will serve to encourage others not to report cases of abuse, and they note the conclusion of the Health Committee in its Report on Elder Abuse that further measures to make staff aware of their responsibility to report abuse, and to allow them to do this in a confidential manner, may be needed.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to hold a full public inquiry into the case of the "BUPA Seven" in order to address in full the concerns raised and to ensure that whistleblowers can speak out without fear of reprisal or victimisation and that fear and silence are not encouraged.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  NHS Dentistry (East Staffordshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
  6.15 pm
  Mrs. Janet Dean: I welcome this opportunity to raise the concerns of my constituents who have difficulty in finding an NHS dentist. This problem is not confined to east Staffordshire; nor has it recently arisen. It stems from the reduction of dental training places in the 1980s and the dispute between the dental profession and the Conservative Government in 1992, which led to many dentists moving into the private sector. Those practices that loyally remained with the NHS were placed under pressure by patients moving from dentists who had left the NHS.
  It is impossible to determine the exact number of whole-time equivalent dentists offering NHS treatment, because many dentists undertake variable amounts of both private and NHS work. However, the answer that I received in response to a written parliamentary question in March this year showed that the number of dentists per 10,000 population, on a head-count basis, was 2.8 in east Staffordshire, compared with 8.8 in Westminster. Not only do we have a comparatively low number of NHS dentists, but we also have a high demand for regular, routine dental care in east Staffordshire. The uptake rate per hundred of the local population is good compared with the figures for the midlands and for England generally. To some extent, that masks the problems that people have in accessing NHS dentistry in my constituency.
  Those problems can arise when people move into the area, or if they fail to attend for a check-up within 15 months of their last appointment. However, a more difficult situation arises when dentists decide to de-register patients en masse. Such a situation arose in Burton in 2001 and, in March this year, two dentists at one of the only two practices in Uttoxeter notified their NHS patients that they would no longer treat them as NHS patients, following their next appointment. The patients were offered the opportunity to join a private dental health insurance scheme. Indeed, it appeared that the notification letters had been distributed by that scheme, as they had been posted in Winchester, where the company is based.
  Many of my constituents in Uttoxeter who received those letters were extremely angry because, in many cases, they had been with the practice, and the previous dentist at the practice, for most of their lives. They were angry because they were faced with the difficult choice between joining the private scheme, paying for private treatment or having to find an alternative NHS dentist. Some constituents were also angry because they knew that the dental clinic in question had received investing in dentistry funding in 1999, which had helped to increase the amount of NHS dental treatment available in the town.
  It was with great sadness that I reported the decision of those dentists to de-register their patients to the East Staffordshire primary care trust on Monday 1 March 2004, following phone calls from my constituents over the previous weekend. I was particularly saddened by the dentists' decision because I had supported their bid for investing in dentistry funding in 1999. I had also had

  1635
  the pleasure of accepting the invitation to open their new premises in Uttoxeter. Somehow, it felt like a kick in the teeth—no pun intended, but there had to be one, did there not?—that they should decide to take a decision that so badly affected so many of my constituents at a time when the Government had recognised the problems with the current general dental service contract and were in negotiations with the British Dental Association regarding a new contract. The receipt of the letters by my constituents followed about a week after I had publicly welcomed the extra Government funding being made available to support dentists in east Staffordshire from the beginning of the financial year. There is something wrong with a system that leaves 3,500 people without an NHS dentist and where a decision taken by an individual dentist affects so many people. I am disappointed that dentists who have stuck with the NHS through all of the years of pressure within the system since the early 1990s should feel the need to cease to treat NHS patients.
  Dentists give several reasons for ceasing to treat adults as NHS patients. They claim that remuneration has been inadequate in the past and that the proposals put forward in the new contract do not address the perceived underfunding of the service. They also suggest that patients' quality of care will be compromised under the new proposals. Looking at the reduced opening hours of those practices where dentists decide to leave the NHS, it appears that their quality of life improves, but those constituents who cannot register with an NHS dentist pay the price. Some dental practices in my constituency have remained totally or mainly with the NHS, increasing or maintaining their NHS registrations, and I pay tribute to them for their loyalty and dedication to their patients.
  Since 1997, the Government have made dramatic improvements to our health service. In my constituency, that investment has increased the number of people employed at Burton's Queen's hospital by 35 per cent. The number of consultants whom the trust employs has risen from 65 to 92. There are 255 more nurses and midwives, 41 more ancillary staff and a 68 per cent. increase in the number of doctors. There has been an improvement in primary care for my constituents in Winshill, with the opening of a medical centre, made possible by the employment of a GP by the East Staffordshire PCT.
  In spite of funding initiatives for dentistry, such as the investing in dentistry and modernising NHS dentistry programmes, the lack of capacity within NHS dentistry in east Staffordshire remains. I know that the Government are committed to tackling the problem. The importance of retaining NHS dentistry for adults as well as for children cannot be overstated. The issue is about not only the care of teeth, but overall oral health and the early identification of wider disease, which is important. Oral health care should not be jeopardised because people cannot afford to pay into private insurance schemes.
  In east Staffordshire, we are fortunate that our children have low levels of tooth decay because our water supply is fluoridated—naturally in Uttoxeter, and artificially in and around Burton upon Trent. However,
  1636
  we have difficulty in recruiting dentists. I understand that there are currently vacancies for four associate dentists, three in Burton and one in Uttoxeter. The primary care trust has paid for adverts in the "British Dental Journal", but to no avail, and discussions have occurred between the PCT and the Department of Health regarding the recruitment of overseas dentists. Will my hon. Friend indicate the time scale for overseas recruitment and how PCTs can support such dentists?
  The difficulties in recruitment have their origins in the decision in the 1980s to close two dental schools and to reduce the number of places at the Birmingham dental school. One reason why we have a particular difficulty in recruiting dentists in east Staffordshire is that we are on the fringe of the west midlands, and some distance from the nearest dental schools in Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester. There is a tendency for dentists to practise close to the area in which they have trained, because after five years at university they have often developed close ties to that area.
  I welcome the Government's commitment to open two new dental schools. May I seek my hon. Friend's reassurance that one of those will be in the midlands, bearing in mind the work force problems in the area? At present, all training of dentists, hygienists and therapists takes place in Birmingham, so not only is there a tendency for them to stay in that area, but local students may be hindered in accessing that training in the first place. There are also concerns about the capacity for dental nurse training in the area, as dental practices in east Staffordshire also report difficulty in recruiting and retaining dental nurses, especially as salaries are higher in the private sector. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether an increase in the local training capacity would assist east Staffordshire?
  I commend the efforts of the NHS dentistry support team and the East Staffordshire PCT over recent months in looking for ways to improve the situation in my constituency. Following my representations to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), I know that representatives of the new special health authority have been in close contact with Staffordshire primary care trusts and the strategic health authority. I am pleased to say that a new dental access centre has been opened at the Balance street health centre in Uttoxeter for two days a week. That will complement the full-time service at Cross street clinic in Burton and help many people who are displaced by the deregistration of NHS patients to access urgent treatment and pain relief.
  The East Staffordshire PCT has been in discussions with three local dental practices over their potential transfer to personal dental services contracts in advance of the move to local commissioning in April 2005. They are also in negotiation with five practices over grants under the general dental services initiative scheme. I am pleased that the Government made £113,000 available for 2004—05 to East Staffordshire PCT for that purpose. That will help to stabilise capacity at some practices and help others to expand. Will my hon. Friend say whether East Staffordshire PCT could be considered in any further round of funding available through the dentistry support team? Will he also confirm when PCTs are likely

  1637
  to receive their indicative dental services budget, which would allow them to test the requirements for live commissioning in 2005–06?
  I turn to the funding arrangements from 2005. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made a commitment to the British Dental Association that
  "if any dentist wishes to increase his or her NHS commitment now or in the run-up to the new arrangements we will fund that extra commitment and make sure their PCT is adequately resourced to sustain that funding level under the new contract."
  If it proves difficult to fill vacancies for some months, will it still be possible for the necessary funding to be made available to PCTs for the three years from 2005? Indeed, will the historic inequalities in NHS provision be addressed in the funding of dentistry through primary care trusts from next year?
  Can my hon. Friend assure me that it will possible to avoid a postcode lottery in dentistry in future? There is a fear that when PCTs are given cash-limited budgets, they will, after the three-year base contract guarantee period has ended, be forced to prioritise what is commissioned in order to maximise the impact of funding. That could mean that some traditionally provided services might no longer be supported if PCTs are to address the challenges on access of service and oral health inequalities. It is likely that PCTs will vary in the decisions they take at that time.
  I am aware that the Secretary of State for Health is due to set out the Government's plans to strengthen NHS dentistry tomorrow. I hope that that announcement and my hon. Friend's response today will give reassurance that the problems in NHS dentistry that we have seen for many years can be overcome. I hope that dentistry provision can e experience the same expansion that has taken place in other sectors of the NHS. I believe that if we can increase the number of NHS dentists in east Staffordshire and elsewhere where there are shortages, more people will be treated as NHS patients rather than as private patients or through private insurance schemes. We may then see the end of the downward spiral, and some of those dentists who have left the NHS may choose to return to the fold.
  6.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this important debate on NHS dentistry in east Staffordshire, on the interest she shows in these important matters, and on the constructive way in which she put her case. I sympathise with her and understand how she feels let down by those dentists who have taken the NHS shilling in order to expand their practice, then decided to abandon the NHS.
  I am well aware of the keen interest that my hon. Friend takes in access to dentistry in her area. I know that she raised the matter with the Secretary of State at oral questions last week, as she has on other occasions, and that she has written to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), on the subject. I want to address not only the specific issues that she raised, but to talk about the programme of action that is under way nationally to reform the overall system. First and foremost, as my
  1638
  hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will make an announcement tomorrow that will detail the Government's plans for improving access to dental services in future. I know that she is eager to hear that announcement, but I hope that she will forgive me if I do not let the cat out of the bag, as that would not do my career any good at all.
  The oral health of the population has improved enormously since the NHS was set up, and the number of dentists has increased year on year. There are now more dentists than ever before—more than 19,000 dentists provide NHS care, compared with just 15,411 in September 1992. While the number of dentists has been going up, we accept that the commitment of dentists to the NHS has fallen. As a result, in some areas people have difficulty accessing NHS dentistry, despite the fact that the Government have increased dentists' fees in line with the doctors and dentists pay review body recommendations, resulting in an increase in fees of 32 per cent. since 1997. We accept that some areas have a serious shortage of NHS dentists. The problem is not new, however, and has its roots in the actions of the previous Government, including the contract debacle of 1990 that led to a fee cut in 1992 and caused dentists to start to move away from NHS dentistry. That might explain how the problems came about but, of course, it does not help us to make progress and solve them. One set of clauses in the new Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, however, which was welcomed by Members from all parties in both Houses, covered the reform of NHS dentistry, and represents the most significant reform of dentistry since NHS dental services were established in 1948.
  The reform will provide a better deal for patients, dentists and the NHS. It will allow dentists to spend more time with patients and provide patients with the dental care that they need. Our policy, therefore, is not to maintain the status quo but to rebuild NHS dentistry and provide a more up-to-date legal framework that will better allow primary care trusts to develop and plan those services strategically. It will enable services to be more responsive to patient needs while improving the working lives of dentists and their teams. The general principles of the new primary dental service were set out in the report "NHS Dentistry: Options for Change", which was published in August 2002. One of its key recommendations was for the local commissioning of a high-quality dental service. It proposed that funding should be devolved to the local level to allow PCTs to secure the provision of a new service. The implementation of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 will enable those changes to be made.
  The existing patterns of NHS expenditure on dentistry reflect the varying willingness of dentists to treat NHS patients. However, we need to move to a system in which the NHS locally decides what is necessary to meet the needs of the local population, and the new arrangements will enable us to do so. Under the new system, we are giving PCTs the responsibility for £1.3 billion of financial resources that are currently held centrally. We have transferred decisions about the commissioning of local services to the local level. At the same time, current spending will be protected. The devolved funding will be used to commission more dentistry locally, for example, through extra sessions for NHS patients. In the short term, however, we accept

  1639
  that there are serious problems with access. Since last year, we have provided new investment totalling £90 million to support PCTs as they get to grips with the new agenda, of which £59 million will support access and £30 million will support IT. The balance of £1 million will support organisational development locally.
  In my hon. Friend's constituency, East Staffordshire PCT is working closely with Shropshire and Staffordshire strategic health authority. They are being supported by the Department of Health in their efforts to improve local dental access by using their share of the access funds—some £1.4 million in Shropshire and Staffordshire in 2004–05. We also aim to bring more dentists back to practice after a career break, and have recently placed advertisements in the national press. The keeping in touch scheme is designed for people on a career break who want to return to practice. We have also begun to recruit dentists from abroad, including Europe and further afield.
  It is not just about dentists but about the whole dental team. We have already increased training places for dental therapists from just 50 to 200, and the first newly trained therapists will be entering the work force in autumn 2006. In addition, there are a number of avenues available to support the training of dental nurses. We are exploring how best to make those more readily accessible to dental practices.
  In the longer term, NHS funding allocations for dental services will need to take oral health needs into account, as general NHS allocations currently do in relation to general health needs. We already have the experience of five years of local commissioning of dentistry under the personal dental services pilot programme, where resources are devolved to the front line. The pilots, now treating 750,000 people a year, have shown what works well and what works less well. The field sites are building on that learning experience to refine a simple but robust base contract, which all PCTs and dentists can have in place for 2005. PCTs are already building up relationships with their local dentists, and we are confident that devolving commissioning responsibility for dentistry to PCTs will enable areas to tailor more appropriate local solutions to any particular access issues that they may have.
  I appreciate the real concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, and can well understand that her constituents may be worried that they will have to wait for those changes to come into effect. East Staffordshire PCT is aware of the problems that local people are having in accessing NHS dental services. At the moment, there are two practices in the area, one at Burton, and the other at Uttoxeter, which are accepting new NHS patients. I am informed by Shropshire and Staffordshire strategic health authority that in the past both of those practices have been forced to stop accepting new registrations due to the high demand.
  Mrs. Dean: My hon. Friend might like to be aware that although one of those practices is accepting new patients, there is a waiting list of several months before someone can see a dentist and join the list properly.
  Dr. Ladyman: I accept that point entirely, and that is why the local PCTs are working so hard to try to address those issues.
  While there are dentists in other PCT areas that may have been able to take some of the demand, it is recognised locally and by me that that does not really tackle the underlying problem. The PCT has therefore been working hard to develop a range of local solutions to those difficulties. For example, the PCT has commissioned a dental access centre in Burton, and dental access centre services are now available for two days a week in Uttoxeter. The PCT has used previous grant initiatives to support local practices under the investing in dentistry and modernising NHS dentistry programmes.
  The PCT received —113,000 in grants for 2004–05 under the general dental services initiative scheme and is in negotiation with local dental practices about stabilising and expanding capacity. The PCT is also looking into pooling its £11,000 share of salaried primary care dental service capital funding with other PCTs in Staffordshire in a fund of £55,000, which can be used to improve premises and efficiency across the area.
  The PCT is also in discussion with three dental practices about the potential transfer to personal dental services arrangements in advance of the move to local commissioning in 2005. It is hoped that that will stabilise practices, which otherwise could move further towards private treatment. Work is also under way within the PCT to establish the extent of inequalities in dental health between affluent and relatively deprived communities. In addition, the Department of Health is working closely with local NHS organisations to ensure that they have appropriate support. With the additional funding from the Department, PCTs are now in a position to develop firm plans for the future and are now developing dental action plans to set out how they will use that additional funding.
  I have listened carefully to all of the issues raised by my hon. Friend today. At a national level, a reform programme is in hand, and national support is being provided to those areas that are most challenged until those reforms are safely in place. I know that my hon. Friend wants more practical action, however, so I am happy to announce that further support should soon be available to east Staffordshire from the Department of Health. The Department's dental support team has just decided its next programme of visits, which will include east Staffordshire. The Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA, including the East Staffordshire PCT area, will be prioritised for around 10 of the next tranche of dentists who will shortly be recruited from Europe by the Department of Health. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that as a result of her campaigning, and that of her Labour colleagues in the area, two have been identified for specific vacancies in East Staffordshire PCT.
  I hope that that additional help will please my hon. Friend and, of course, her constituents. The changes will take time, but the framework is in place, and the extra investment and support from the Department should enable much-needed improvements in dental services to be delivered in east Staffordshire.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Seven o 'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Inter-Parliamentary Union
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Rammell.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister to open this important debate on the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, let me say that I had to leave a reception given by the Leader of the House early to be here. I know, however, just how important this debate is.
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are delighted to see you here. Given your involvement with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, it is appropriate that you are presiding over the debate.
I shall speak only briefly because I hope to respond to the debate later. On behalf of the Government, let me start by paying tribute to the IPU's significant work. I very much look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) highlighting some of that work. The twice-yearly assemblies, in particular, give parliamentarians internationally an important opportunity to engage with one another. I know from the feedback that I get from MPs that the bilateral visits are exceedingly important, and I always try to meet those who come on such visits when I can. Many hon. Members are present this afternoon, which shows the degree of interest in the issue, and I very much look forward to their speeches.
2.31 pm
John Austin: In responding to my hon. Friend the Minister, let me say how grateful we are for the support and encouragement that we have had from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—not only from Ministers, but from the civil service and, in particular, the parliamentary relations and devolution department. I may say something about that later.
I rise to speak in the debate, which is the first of its kind in the House, as the chairman of the British IPU group. My term of office is coming to an end, although I have been more fortunate than others because, despite a three-year time limit, I have enjoyed almost four years in the post following the retirement of my predecessor, Mr. Rogers, and the intervention of the general election.
In my four years as acting chair or chair, there have been several significant changes not only in the workings of the British group, but at the international level. When I first chaired a conference, there were several problems with the IPU budget internationally. I very much regret, as I think all my colleagues on the executive of the British group do, the withdrawal of the United States of America from active participation in the IPU. We are
496WH
the oldest international inter-parliamentary body—indeed, the largest international political body—in the world. We predate the League of Nations, never mind the United Nations, and it is sad that one of the most important democracies in the world is no longer a member. I know that the Minister and his colleagues share our concern and will use all their endeavours to get the United States to rejoin.
Because of the size and wealth of the United States, its absence has had an impact on the IPU's budget internationally. When I first became the chair of the British group, I was among those who said that the IPU had to come to terms with the reality of its budget and to trim its activities—to reduce the scale of its operations, not the impact of its work—and become a more lean and focused organisation. One of the initial changes was that we moved from having two major assemblies a year to one, and a smaller conference in Geneva in the autumn, thereby reducing some of our costs.
We also changed the way in which we operated. The IPU moved from being a general assembly of parliamentarians from across the world to holding more focused discussions. It created three new standing committees—one concerned with peace and international security, one concerned with sustainable development, finance and trade, and one concerned with democracy and human rights. That new structure is not as radical as some of us had hoped it would be. We had hoped for smaller committees with some of the powers that the Select Committees have in this House, such as conducting investigations and summoning witnesses. However, the majority view was that every member country should have the right to be represented on every committee. Therefore, we have somewhat large and unwieldy committees. Nevertheless, they have been focused and there has been a change in their structure. Each committee has a bureau representing all the geopolitical groups in the IPU and two rapporteurs who prepare detailed working papers before we go to the assembly. The conferences are not ill prepared; a great deal of work goes into them beforehand to ensure that they are productive.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is one of the vice-presidents of the bureau on the peace and international security committee, and who has been very active in the IPU's work in that regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has been a co-rapporteur of the committee on trade and sustainable development, and I am sure that he will want to address hon. Members on its work. Other hon. Members present have attended meetings of the IPU. While those standing committees are meeting, there are, in parallel, meetings of the women parliamentarians. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) have played an important part in the working group on the committee of women parliamentarians.
In the past few years, the IPU has addressed a number of gender issues—notably, in recent years, female genital mutilation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Broxbourne have been vigorous spokespersons on the issue in this House. I record my thanks to the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who has served on the special

497WH
panel established by the IPU to tackle the abuse of girls and women, particularly in Africa, by the custom of FGM. She also serves on the IPU's panel on the sexual exploitation of children.
The IPU is not a talking shop; it is a doing body, trying to tackle some of the major issues that confront us. It is also concerned not only with human rights across the board but with those of politicians. As British parliamentarians, we enjoy a degree of free speech that is unheard of in many parts of the world. We would find our civil liberties somewhat curtailed if we made in other parliaments some of the utterances that we make here. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley for her work on the committee on the human rights of parliamentarians. One bit of good news is that Leyla Zana is now free, and we hope that she will visit this Parliament later this year. That is due in no small measure to my hon. Friend's work.
The period during which I have been chairman of this very important body has not been easy. The conference, as it then was, in Santiago took place against the backdrop of the invasion of Iraq. There will be divided views in this Chamber on the rights and wrongs of that intervention, as there are strongly held views on both sides of the House and within parties. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know of the difficulty that I had leading a delegation of eight Members of Parliament, four taking one view and four another. I pay tribute to that delegation, because its members were determined to ensure that something positive came out of the meeting in Santiago and that it was not some sterile debating society issuing bland resolutions. It was a difficult assembly, but I pay tribute to our delegation for staying together and concentrating on what we as parliamentarians could do constructively to assist in the process of reconciliation and reconstruction in Iraq. When the IPU president, Senator Páez of Chile, came to London, he met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and spoke to him about the ways in which parliamentarians might assist the process in Iraq, helping the growth of emerging democratic institutions.
In the same way, parliamentarians from the House, through a variety of organisations—such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the East-West Parliamentary Practice Project and the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe—have assisted the newly emerging democracies in eastern and central Europe. We have not told them how to do things, but have shared our experiences of operating a parliamentary democracy. We do not have all the right answers, but we can share our experiences and, in so doing, learn from one another.
In Geneva last year, we gave strong support to the proposal that the Inter-Parliamentary Union should assist the Iraqi people in establishing a constitutional conference that could lay the foundations for the establishment of representative institutions. To that end, the IPU convened a meeting of Speakers of the Parliaments of the countries neighbouring Iraq to discuss the constitutional processes. The meeting took place in Amman in May, with the Speakers from Bahrain, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, together with representatives of the IPU, the United Nations and the
498WH
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The IPU is playing a key role by sharing experiences, providing constitutional advice, assisting with the establishment and consolidation of state institutions, directly supporting the emerging Parliament and harnessing regional solidarity in support of that process.
Let us turn to the middle east process. The IPU has a standing committee on middle east questions. At the assembly in 2003, there was a direct encounter, organised by the IPU,between members of the Israeli Knesset and the elected Palestinian Legislative Council. At a time when the Israeli Prime Minister was refusing to speak to the Palestinian President, and when negotiations on the road map were stalled and had broken down, under the auspices of the IPU, the Speakers of the Legislative Council and of the Knesset could meet in dialogue and debate.
I want to refer briefly to our relations with the United Nations. During my period as chairman, we have entered a new era. The IPU has been granted special observer status at the UN, with a right to circulate papers. The Minister will know that there are problems with the procedures. We would like the papers tabled to become official UN papers, to be catalogued and dealt with as such. We are still in discussions about that.
The IPU has worked extensively with a range of United Nations organisations, and has worked intensively with the United Nations Development Project since the early 1970s. The IPU administers a number of UNDP-funded programmes in various parts of the world. In Burundi, we have assisted the National Assembly in the peace process, trained staff and Members of Parliament. and provided equipment and assistance with EU funding to the women's caucus. We have strengthened the library and Hansard services in Equatorial Guinea, and have trained staff and Members in the establishment of a computer network and a library and documentation service in Ethiopia. We have assisted MPs in Rwanda in the oversight of legislation and have also assisted the human rights committee. The list of projects in Africa is very long, and I will not tire hon. Members with it. Recently, the IPU published a document—one of many—setting out the 10 years of its work in Africa and an assessment of its effectiveness. Outside Africa, the IPU is working in the context of capacity building in Kosovo, Albania, Uruguay, and Timor-Leste, and projects are in the pipeline in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
Another priority of the IPU has been gender partnership and gender equality, focusing in particular on the contribution of men, and men parliamentarians, to the promotion of gender equality. The IPU has produced a number of handbooks for parliamentarians, to assist them in their task. One of the most important is "Parliament, the Budget and Gender", which shows how the budget of a Parliament can begin to address the issues of gender inequality.
The IPU has looked at a range of issues concerned with the electoral rights of disabled people. It has considered the information society and its implications for democracy, and the impact of information technology on people's lives—on their social interaction and their political engagement. It has also considered the health and educational communities and their

499WH
economies. The IPU has been a partner in the world summit on the information society, the second meeting of which is to take place in 2005.
The IPU has also been engaged in parliamentary meetings on the fringes of international organisations, including UN bodies such as UNICEF and UNESCO. One of the most powerful organisations in the world—it is not democratic, not accountable and not elected—is the World Trade Organisation. A parliamentary forum now sits alongside the WTO, bringing a parliamentary perspective to its deliberations. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley), for Putney and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) have been intimately engaged in that.
The IPU has been in the vanguard on a number of international issues—for instance, anti-personnel land mines; the International Criminal Court; trying to combat the trafficking of women and children; developing programmes to prevent drug trafficking and money laundering; combating desertification; the management of natural disasters; and getting parliamentarians not Governments to sit and work together on the major problems facing the world today, not least trying to combat the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. I am pleased to say that the IPU has been able to build on the excellent work done by the all-party group on AIDS, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), and the all-party group on Africa, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York.
There are one or two issues that I would draw to the Minister's attention regarding our relations with the United Nations. Under the auspices of the Secretary-General, the UN set up the Cardoso panel, headed by the former Brazilian President to consider the relationship between the United Nations and civil society. We welcome that engagement, particularly with regard to non-governmental organisations. We had not anticipated that the Cardoso panel would include Parliaments and parliamentarians in its definition of civil society. Our relationship with the UN is quite different from that of NGOs, especially as we have observer status. The Minister knows the arguments and issues—we have discussed them before—but it would be absolute folly for the United Nations to set up a parallel organisation for consulting Parliaments and parliamentarians outside the IPU framework. It would be costly and less effective.
I shall refer briefly to some of the other issues with which the British group of the IPU has been involved. The House will know that a group of Members is actively dealing with the great lakes region of Africa and the question of genocide. We in the British group have been keen to support the response of Parliaments and parliamentarians in the region to those issues. That is why we are supportive of the Amani forum, which brings together not Governments but Parliaments and parliamentarians of the countries involved in the great lakes region.
The British group has been actively engaged with the British Council in its attempts to create a south-east Balkans forum. We recently hosted a delegation from Serbia and Montenegro, where we talked about the contribution that parliamentarians could make in bringing peace to that troubled region. I am pleased to say that, irrespective of their Governments, the Balkan
500WH
Parliaments have come together to form the Cetinje forum, which will allow parliamentarians from that region to meet and try to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the area. I am pleased that the British group and the Speaker have been invited to appoint representatives to attend the Cetinje forum in September.
Apart from that wider scene, the British group of the IPU is engaged in a range of bilateral exchanges. We have between six and eight incoming delegations a year, and we send out a similar number. Contrary to the belief held by some hon. Members, the chair of the British group of the IPU does not participate in the outgoing delegations, which are extremely useful. Hon. Members present who have participated in some of them may want to say something about how valuable they have been.
As someone who does not go on the outgoing delegations, I should like to say how valuable it is to have delegations coming here, which result in frank, open and honest parliamentary discussions. I am grateful to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and particularly to the Minister for his willingness to engage with incoming delegations. On behalf of the IPU, I record our grateful thanks to Mr. Speaker, who has always been willing to receive delegations from overseas in Speaker's House and to engage with them.
May I say a few words about the bilateral visits? We choose which countries to invite, and we are governed a little on where we send people by who invites us, but we are always happy to enter into a dialogue with the Foreign Office about what would be in the interests of Parliament and the country.
At a time when all of us in this Chamber wanted to bring Libya back into the international community, it would not have been appropriate for a Minister to have gone to Libya, or for the Foreign Office formally to have invited Libyans here, but we did invite them here and we did send a delegation there, which was headed by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). That was very productive and oiled the wheels, enabling a transition to a more rational relationship between our countries. I hope that, as well as being interesting to Members and informative, it was helpful to the Government.
Joan Ruddock: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on Libya. That was an interesting precedent. Afghanistan does not have a Parliament—indeed, parliamentary elections appear to have been postponed. Does the IPU have any plans to engage with those who are politically active and who wish to see democracy in that country?
John Austin: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Afghanistan has been on our agenda. The Loya Jirga is not a Parliament, but it could be considered to be a Parliament in embryo. The IPU internationally has certainly been considering ways in which it might support it and engage in some capacity building. Indeed, we in the British group have discussed whether we might engage in an initial exchange with it, even though Afghanistan is not a member of the IPU.
There are some precedents. Palestine is different, because it has observer status. It is not a member, it does not have a Parliament, but it is an observer member and

501WH
we have had exchanges. When I entered this House, one of my first visits was to Ethiopia, when it had a transitional Government who were not yet a member of the IPU. I believe that the IPU has a particular role to play—not just in defending human rights and democracy in member countries, but in assisting emerging democracies in which there is no Parliament or civil structure, as we did in central and eastern Europe. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in Afghanistan, and I assure her that the British group will do all it can to assist in that process.
I wanted to mention Colombia. At one stage, I wondered whether the Whips would decide who should go there, as more politicians disappear in Colombia than anywhere else in the world and I thought that they might have a short list of people in mind. It is an important country to visit because of key issues such as corruption, international crime and drug trafficking. Perhaps some of the Members present who were on that delegation would like to report on it.
My final point about international exchanges, which I make with some trepidation with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Tom Cox) sitting behind me, is that we are in a strange position because we engage with all the Parliaments in the world in the IPU abroad, but in this House there is a division of labour, and we relate bilaterally only with non-Commonwealth countries, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—of which I am the vice-chairman, I hasten to add—deals with the Commonwealth. Therefore, one thing that we in the IPU have tried to do, because of Africa's importance, is to concentrate more on bilateral exchanges with Francophone Africa than with the non-Commonwealth countries of Africa. We have begun to build up good links there.
We are a founder member of the IPU, along with France. The union was founded by Randal Cremer, whose bust stands by the members' entrance. I should like to thank the Government for their contribution to ensuring that Randal Cremer's memory lives on in the IPU by commissioning the building of the foyer of the IPU's headquarters in Geneva.
I end on a note of sadness. As hon. Members will know, we should have hosted the 110th assembly of the IPU here in London. I believe that it would have been one of the best organised assemblies, because I have absolute confidence in the IPU's staff and I should like to pay tribute to them. We did not host that assembly, because the IPU said that we should allow any person appointed by any Parliament with membership of the IPU to attend. The executive committee of the IPU took the view that we were honour-bound by international obligations that we had signed up to in the Council of Ministers to operate the travel ban against certain members of the Zimbabwe regime. We were pressed by our colleagues in the IPU to seek a derogation from that decision from the Government on the grounds that we were an international organisation.
Not one Member in the British IPU group, from any political party, was willing to go down the road of seeking a derogation of that ban. It would have been absolutely unthinkable for us to invite Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Speaker of the Zimbabwe Parliament and the man responsible for the Matabeleland
502WH
massacres, who ought to be before the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide. It would have been unthinkable to give him a platform, here in Westminster Hall.
We lost the assembly as a result, although we are in ongoing discussions with the IPU about the issues. I believe that we were absolutely right, because we stood by the principles enshrined in the statutes of the IPU. We are there to promote democracy, good governance and regional co-operation on human rights. Allowing Emmerson Mnangagwa or Patrick Chinamasa—the Minister of Injustice in Zimbabwe—to come here would have been a derogation from that constitution and those statutes.
I should like to thank the Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House and, unusually for me, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), my party's Chief Whip, for allowing us to have this debate. This is the first time that we have debated the IPU's work. Perhaps there should be one on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's work too. We are appointed to represent this Parliament in the association of all the Parliaments of the world, and as such it is right that we should be accountable to Parliament. I hope that this debate is not a one-off. I hope that we have established a precedent and that every year we can have a debate on the British IPU group's positive work.
I thank hon. Members for their tolerance in allowing me to speak for so long. With that, coupled, I am sure, with the thanks of everyone associated with the British IPU group, I should like to thank Kenneth Courtenay and all the staff of the IPU—they are a small group—who have served us so well over the years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I must tell hon. Members that I am keeping my eye on the monitor, as I understand that there may shortly be a Division in the main Chamber. If there is a Division, I shall suspend this sitting for 15 minutes, and ask Members to be back within that time. In order to maintain calm and equilibrium in the Chamber, I intend to call the officers of the British group of the IPU very early in the debate, so I hope that Members will not panic. I also hope that all Members present will be called this afternoon to make their contribution.
3 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), whose remarks I endorse wholeheartedly. It has been a great pleasure to serve with him and with other officers and members of the executive committee in a common purpose that unites us across party lines. The United Kingdom can be proud that the hon. Gentleman has been elected to the executive committee of the worldwide Inter-Parliamentary Union.
The timing of the debate is very appropriate. In the centenary year of the entente cordiale, we remember not only Randal Cremer but Frédéric Passy, his French counterpart, who initiated the IPU back in 1889. Some of us will recall the celebration of the 100th anniversary in the Palace of Westminster. I might range less widely than the hon. Gentleman and focus a little closer to

503WH
home, but that is only to try to reinforce the importance of our work in the IPU to this Parliament and to Members of Parliament in their personal development.
The IPU is a means of international co-operation between Parliaments and parliamentarians across the globe, whereby Members of Parliament and peers can develop their expertise in foreign affairs, gain greater understanding of some of the principal challenges that face the international community, and bring that understanding to fruition in a more effective contribution in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
I had, for example, the opportunity to attend a conference in Santiago immediately after the restoration of democracy in—I believe—1990. That historic conference underpinned the approval of the international community of the peaceful transition back to democracy in Chile. I also attended the Chilean conference in 2003, and a conference in Mexico City.
I am also very glad to have had the real pleasure of taking part in conferences in the American hemisphere, because we in the House of Commons do not have enough relations with that hemisphere, apart from north America, of course—although the transition to democracy throughout central and south America has been one of the most exciting features of modern times. The underpinning of democracy in those countries is a really worthwhile enterprise in which the IPU can play its part. I therefore found wholly satisfactory the election of the Christian Democrat MP from Chile, Mr. Páez Verdugo, to the presidency of the IPU.
I had the honour of leading delegations to Estonia, to Finland, to Latvia and to the General Assembly of the United Nations, and many Members will have had similar experiences that will have given them not only an opportunity to exercise personal responsibility but to gain a greater understanding. I also started parliamentary groups again for Chile, Ukraine, Estonia and the Philippines after their return to democracy.
I emphasise that the IPU's role as a custodian body for democracy around the world is the most important aspect of its work, so I share the disappointment of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead that the IPU acted in a somewhat aberrant manner in not allowing the 110th conference to take place here in London. In so doing, it underplayed the importance we attach to ensuring that parliamentarians in Zimbabwe, who have been indicted for serious crimes, cannot take part in an international forum of that magnitude.
The inward-bound delegations are as important as the outward-bound ones. My counterpart, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead brought that to the attention of the Chamber. I think, for example, of the delegation that has just come from El Salvador. Some would say that it is a shame that priorities have dictated the closure of our embassy in El Salvador. However, we were able to demonstrate to our parliamentary counterparts from that small but significant, country, which has reformed its economy and is making genuine progress, that we still care for their country and that the United Kingdom remains interested in it.
3.6 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
3.36 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Wilkinson: Another inbound delegation that I am sure will be important for the British group is that from Bolivia, which is due in October. As reciprocation is the name of the game, many of us will have had the interesting privilege of going to Bolivia. I went with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House. As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was an unforgettable experience and we learned much from it. That will help us to welcome our Bolivian guests, who need every encouragement with the important task of underpinning their democracy even more strongly following the forced resignation after popular pressure of an elected President of Bolivia only too recently.
As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, the strength of our work is achieved largely because of the quality of the people involved. My predecessor as vice-chairman of the British group of the IPU, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe), has championed the issues of female genital mutilation and women's rights generally. Likewise, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has championed both those issues and, above all, the human rights of parliamentarians in a most exemplary way. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), with whom I have also had the pleasure of attending overseas assemblies, brings great commercial expertise and understanding of overseas development to the work of the IPU and is a distinguished rapporteur.
I pay tribute to Ken Courtenay, our general secretary, and his admirable staff. I also pay tribute to Sue Breeze of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because without the information that she is able to supply at our fingertips, members of British delegations would be much less well equipped to make a worthwhile contribution. We work effectively together not only in the British group, but across delegations. In that context, I pay tribute to the chairmanship of the standing committee on peace and international security—with which I am involved—by Senator Menem, the brother of the former Argentine President. I am on the bureau with him, and we work very well together.
The understanding that is achieved in our committee work makes it easier to have fruitful bilaterals at the margins of the assembly. I am thinking of the Argentine one in particular, as well as those with the Russians and with the Belarusians. I hope that the process of constructive engagement at parliamentary level, which the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead described in connection with Libya, can over time ensue with Belarus, too. Indeed, I am sure that we can help to ensure the right atmosphere for addressing such vexatious questions as the Arab-Israeli dispute, Kashmir and the future of Taiwan.
However, representation is not always equitable in the IPU. I am thinking of the exclusion of the Republic of China on Taiwan, which is a fully fledged democracy and a prosperous nation that deserves to send a delegation to the IPU. The IPU is an interesting body. Like the United Nations, it is full of rogue states and exemplary democracies. I do not believe that the United

505WH
States is wise in remaining out of it, and I join the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead in asking it to come back.
On the subject of collaboration across delegations, one of the most challenging aspects of our work is producing reports with rapporteurs from another part of the world. I am currently engaged in producing a report for the first committee, and my co-rapporteur is from Jordan. She is a fine lady—a senator—but it is difficult at extremities of distance and with different political backgrounds and experiences to come to a consensus. That is different from my experience as a rapporteur in both the Council of Europe and the Western European Union.
The biggest future challenge that faces the IPU and affects the 12-plus group of countries—the Council of Europe countries plus the New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians—is whether the European Parliament should have full membership. I do not believe that it should, because if it did, it would call into question the nature of the representative membership of federal countries such as Australia, Canada and many others. It would also prompt the question whether we could maintain such a strong national delegation. There would be a demand for national delegations to be reduced, and that would not be in the British interest.
My final words relate to the importance of single-country all-party groups at Westminster. They are the bedrock of our day-to-day work, and I wonder whether the House of Commons rule that there should be a minimum membership of 20 is wise. It is easy for Germany, America, France and the other big countries that we all know well and visit often to get 20 members and more, but small countries that perhaps need help more find it difficult to get 20 parliamentarians interested and prepared to become members. That they cannot be registered as qualified groups is a mistake, and I hope that the House will reconsider that rule.
In the meantime, with our work programme ahead, I am sure that we are looking forward more than anything else to the assembly in Manila. As chairman of the all-party group on the Philippines, I am particularly happy about it. It is a Christian archipelago in a challenging part of the world and is facing all sorts of problems, including terrorism and AIDS. However, it has been a good supporter and friend of the United Kingdom, and it will be an admirable host for a successful assembly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: One vice-chairman follows another. I call Ann Clwyd.
3.43 pm
Ann Clwyd: I congratulate the present chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin). I had to write down his constituency, as it is rather a mouthful—Cynon Valley is much simpler to say. I thank him for his leadership in the past few years. His knowledge of foreign affairs is equalled by few in the House, and I have had full advantage of that knowledge and his guidance in the several IPU conferences that we have attended together. I thank him warmly for his leadership.
506WH
I also thank my co-vice-chair, if I can call him that, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). He has been extremely helpful and supportive in the conferences that I have attended with him and in the work of the executive committee. I thank all other members of the executive committee as well; it has been a pleasure working with them.
I agree with the sentiment already expressed that it is unfortunate that the. United States is not a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That is ridiculous given that, as recently as a year ago, Iraq was a member of the IPU. I remember lobbying once on behalf of Indict at a conference in Brussels. We put out all our leaflets on a table, but within 10 minutes of the start of the conference, they had all been scooped into a bin by the Iraqi delegation. I hope that when the other representatives of Iraq join us at the conference, we can put whatever leaflets we like on the table without them being scooped up and thrown away.
I am a member of the human rights committee of the IPU and I shall highlight the work done by that group. Few people know what we do because we are tucked away in a committee room, usually in the basement—we managed to get a room with windows in Mexico City, for which we were very grateful. The committee meets in parallel with the sessions of the main IPU assembly. Sometimes we are forgotten about and lost from view, although in the past year people have begun to remember that we are also sitting. We like to be kept in the picture and I thank Kenneth Courtenay and his staff for ensuring that that happens.
It is an excellent committee and I am pleased to have been a member of it. It sits in defence of parliamentarians the world over who are or have been subject to arbitrary action such as state harassment, arrest and detention, unfair trial or violation of parliamentary immunity during the exercise of their mandate, whether the Parliament in question is sitting, in recess or has been dissolved by unconstitutional or extraordinary measures. Since 1977, the committee, which consists of five parliamentarians from around the world, has looked into and acted on complaints received concerning the violation of the human rights of parliamentarians—rights which we take for granted in this country.
I have had the privilege of representing this Parliament on the committee for several years and I am proud of its work over the past 27 years. I take this chance to thank MPs who have supported the committee's efforts and co-operated with it during that time. It has a very small but dedicated staff in Geneva. I do not know how they get through all the work, but they do—Ingeborg Schwartz and her staff are excellent and totally dedicated.
The committee has dealt with a large number of cases, from those involving MPs who have been unjustly stripped of their mandate, to those involving MPs who have been threatened, prosecuted, jailed or forced into exile—and ultimately to the most tragic cases of MPs who have been killed or "disappeared" because they exercised their right to freedom of speech. Sadly, although parliamentary democracy has been embraced in theory by an increasing number of countries worldwide, the reality is that many MPs are still not able to speak their mind for fear of losing their mandates, their liberty or their lives.

507WH
Over the years, the committee's case load has grown. At its first session in 1977, it investigated the situation of 40 MPs in nine countries. At its sestion this January, it studied 48 cases of allegations of violations of human rights involving 190 Members of Parliament in 28 countries. They included public cases involving Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Israel/Palestine, Rwanda, Syria, Turkey and Zimbabwe.
The committee meets four times a year in camera to consider complaints it has received. Essentially, it acts as an intermediary between the complainant and the authorities of the state concerned. Through its intervention, it aims to end any arbitrary measures that are applied against MPs, to ensure their protection, and, where appropriate, to secure compensation for them. Although its procedure is essentially written, it frequently conducts hearings with the representatives of the authorities and the victims, and may also carry out on-site missions. Government delegations are often questioned at IPU assemblies; selected delegations appear before the human rights committee.
This year, in addition, the committee conducted an on-site mission to Zimbabwe, to examine the growing number of complaints about the mistreatment of MPs in that country. In Mexico City, we also met a delegation from Zimbabwe, which included the Minister of Justice, whom the chair of the human rights committee of the IPU described privately as the "Minister of Injustice", as did my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead.
The complaints received by the committee are very varied; they originate from the MPs in question, from regional, parliamentary and human rights bodies, from Amnesty International and other human rights organisations, and sometimes from anonymous sources. The committee then has to establish whether the complaint comes within its remit. When that has been established, the procedure in dealing with a complaint involves two phases.
The first phase is confidential. During that phase the committee can hold hearings and undertake on-site missions. As of June this year, the committee was dealing with 22 complaints out of 47 through the confidential procedure. If it does not prove possible to reach a satisfactory settlement of the case during the first phase of confidential examination and communication with the authorities concerned, reports and recommendations for specific measures are then submitted by the committee to the IPU governing council, the plenary policy making body, and the complaint is then made public. If hon. Members are interested in reading a selection of the complaints made to the committee, they can do so on the internet, which shows a variety of the complaints that have been made public.
The work of the committee can be supported by parliamentarians more widely, on the basis of the information released in those reports. Parliamentarians can make further representations and have informal discussions during bilateral visits. We often bring up with visiting delegations cases that have been made public, to underline ongoing concern. I hope that many MPs, in this Parliament and elsewhere, will familiarise themselves with the workings of the committee, so that
508WH
they can give their backing to its work, and also demonstrate their solidarity with fellow MPs all over the world who are being unjustly victimised.
The committee also makes more general recommendations to Governments and parliamentary bodies when it believes that a particular situation is a major contributory factor to the danger faced by MPs in a specific country. For instance, in Mexico City this year, we asked the Congress of Colombia to play a much more active part in the peace process. The conflict in Colombia has had a serious impact on the ability of parliamentarians to do their work, with six Colombian MPs continuing to be held by Colombian guerrillas. The committee also called on the Colombian Congress to set up an independent inquiry commission, in view of the magnitude and seriousness of the alleged collusion of officials from the Attorney-General's office and the paramilitary.
The IPU committee and the committee on legal affairs and human rights of the Assembly of the Council of Europe recently issued a joint statement of concern relating to the case of Victor Gonchar, a former Deputy Speaker in Belarus, and a major political opponent of the President of Belarus. Gonchar disappeared from Minsk in 1999, as have others in Belarus, allegedly for political reasons. That is of great concern to all of us. I hope that it will be the first of many joint statements from various parliamentary bodies on such matters. There is great potential for co-operation with regional and multinational bodies, which as yet is largely untapped.
It is hard to say precisely how many cases over the years have been resolved as a direct result of the committee's work. However, I do not doubt that in many instances in which a case remains confidential, the committee's intervention behind the scenes is a crucial determinant in getting a Government to act to remedy the injustices facing the MPs in question. As the procedure is confidential, I cannot go into those details, but I know from first hand that many cases are resolved at that initial stage.
However, there are success stories that I can talk about: for example, the release of parliamentarian Mr. Agboyibo in Togo on the eve of the IPU conference in Marrakesh in March 2002. Megawati Sukarnoputri, the President of Indonesia, came personally when we were in Jakarta to thank the Committee for its work on her behalf. She was unfairly unseated in June 1996 and afterwards effectively prevented from standing as a representative. She is extremely grateful to the IPU, and has stated so publicly.
In some instances, for one reason or another, cases become intractable. Sometimes a case involves political in-fighting, with certain MPs bearing the brunt. The treatment of Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in Malaysia is a case in point. Sometimes, member states are reluctant to engage in any meaningful dialogue about the fate of particular MPs or the political environment generally, and Burma comes immediately to mind in that respect. There remain very many cases on the committee's books concerning Burmese MPs. Seventeen MPs are reportedly still serving their prison sentence either in prison or under house arrest, six have died in custody,

509WH
and two were assassinated. In 1999, the committee was dealing with more than 200 cases of MPs-elect, most of whom had been wrongly imprisoned.
There are a number of cases in which MPs have been killed in suspicious circumstances, and the authorities have not conducted the investigation or the prosecution of the murders with due thoroughness and diligence. Those cases, such as that of Zorig Sanjasuuren of Mongolia and Miguel Angel Pavon Salazar of Honduras, have unfortunately dragged on for many years. When such cases have gone public, often the committee's representations bring the matter to the attention of a much wider international audience and can add to the critical mass which may eventually turn the tide in the MPs' favour. Persistence pays off and is a necessary attribute of any organisation working on human rights issues.
In that context, our chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, mentioned the case of Leyla Zana and her three colleagues, on whose behalf the IPU has been campaigning for many years. After the case remained unresolved under the confidential procedure, the committee helped to publicise the injustice done to the MPs and was able to put ongoing pressure on successive Turkish Governments to release them. Unfortunately, although they were released, in the last few days a Turkish court has ordered the retrial of those four former MPs, who were freed after nearly 10 years in prison. The European courts had already said that they were mis-tried, and recommended either that they should be freed or retried.
A retrial has already taken place in Turkey, but I am sorry to say that it was a farce. The MPs were released, but another retrial has been ordered. We must make the strongest possible representations to the Turkish authorities, because it is a disgrace that those people, who have spent nearly 10 years in prison and who seem to be regarded as practically nothing, are to be retried again. In the retrial a few months ago, the judge who tried them in the first place retried them, and started by saying, "Nothing that I am going to hear in this retrial is going to change my mind on what I decided in the first place."
Tom Cox: My hon. Friend has a distinguished record in the campaign for the freedom of politicians in Turkey. Those of us who belong, as I do, to the Council of Europe are continually bringing to the attention of the Turkish delegation there the injustices and the total unacceptability of how their authorities are treating those people. I assure my hon. Friend that that campaign will continue.
Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the Council of Europe has been at the forefront in pursuing the MPs' cases. I notice that earlier this week the police pressed for new charges to be brought against them for making separatist speeches at rallies in south-eastern Turkey last month. They were also accused of speaking Kurdish at the rally, in violation of Turkish law. I thought that most restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language had been lifted in the past 18 months, but speeches in Kurdish are still forbidden under Turkish law governing elections and political parties.
510WH
That is outrageous, particularly because we are supporting Turkish membership of the European Union. Most people believed that restrictions against people of Kurdish origin were easing, but if that is not so, we must be very vigilant and continue to put pressure on the Turkish authorities.
A new Administration in a country can radically change the political environment for the better, and I had hoped that that would be true of the new Turkish Administration. In some cases, it is true. I note, for example, that the human rights committee has not considered any public cases in connection with Nigeria, after the gradual tailing off of cases in the late 1990s.
At our most recent conference in Mexico City, we discussed the case involving Israel/Palestine—that of Marwan Barghouti, a potent symbol of Palestinian resistance, who is widely seen as a possible successor to Yasser Arafat, and who was given the maximum sentence of five life terms plus 40 years for allegedly organising killings, for a botched suicide bombing and for membership of a terrorist group. The human rights committee of the IPU commissioned a report from an independent legal expert, who made stringent observations on the process of the trial of Marwan Barghouti. In Mexico City in April, the governing council of the IPU unanimously adopted a resolution, recalling
"the concerns that it has expressed at the alleged ill-treatment of Mr. Marwan Barghouti in detention, the interrogation methods used, and his state of health, in addition to its questioning of the competence of the Israeli court to try Mr. Barghouti".
At the back of the report, which is on the internet, there are comments made by the independent legal expert commissioned by the IPU, which are well worth reading.
The committee's work should be further publicised and more MPs should be encouraged to take an interest. The cases in question involve our colleagues. We all have an interest in supporting—a duty to support—our fellow parliamentarians, to ensure that they can enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted, and to assist in putting democracy on a firmer footing. I urge Members of this House and other Parliaments and institutions to bring up those cases in the relevant forums.
4.6 pm
Dame Marion Roe: First, I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) for his kind comments on my contributions to the deliberations of the IPU. His support is always much appreciated and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his leadership of the British group during his term of office. I add my tribute to all our staff working in the IPU secretariat for the excellent job that they do, as well as to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the help that it gives us and the full briefings that are made available to us. Those are very welcome.
I am delighted to be called in this afternoon's debate, because I fear that some of the work of the IPU is frequently underestimated and undervalued, because of a lack of understanding. Although I have been a member of the UK branch of the IPU since 1983, owing to parliamentary duties over the years I could never participate in an IPU visit abroad until I became vice-chairman in 1998. In that year, for the first time, I

511WH
attended an IPU conference and spoke in the assembly on an issue that is close to my heart—child labour, which is an aspect of my campaign on child protection. It was the first time that that important matter had been raised in that public forum.
I shall not bore hon. Members with a detailed, blow-by-blow account of my quest to raise child protection issues at all IPU conferences ever since, but I have become known for my views on labour, child soldiers, child trafficking, child pornography and internet chat rooms, and particularly for my views on female genital mutilation. I want to give an account of the constructive and positive role that the IPU has played and is playing in the elimination, worldwide, of the abhorrent practice of FGM.
During its conference in Burkina Faso in September 2001 the IPU organised a panel discussion on the topic "Violence against women: FGM". Its purpose was to make parliamentarians aware of the importance of eliminating that harmful traditional practice. The session was well attended by men and women MPs who wanted to take the matter further. A further brainstorming session was organised at the next IPU conference, in Morocco in March 2002, which I addressed. A parliamentary think-tank for the eradication of FGM was created. There were six members of the panel, comprising a Member of Parliament each from Kenya, Nigeria, Norway, Uganda, Senegal and the United Kingdom. I was the United Kingdom representative.
We were mandated to study the possibility of working towards an international convention for the eradication of FGM and of organising, if need be, a parliamentary conference on parliamentary action to eradicate FGM; the latter would be convened jointly by the IPU and the African Parliamentary Union and should bring together MPs, Inter-African Committee representatives, religious and traditional leaders, non-governmental organisations and former practitioners of FGM, together with many others involved in the issue.
Another meeting of our parliamentary think-tank was held at the next IPU conference in Chile in April last year. Discussions resulted in the presentation of recommendations to the full international council of the IPU on the future work to be done in this field by the IPU in co-operation with the APU and national Governments.
The IPU has also set up sections on FGM on the IPU website, which includes details of countries throughout the world where this is practised and what action, if any, Governments have taken to eliminate it. The idea of the website is to disseminate information to anybody and everybody who has an interest in eradicating FGM so that the wheel is not reinvented and good practice is spread. Many African countries have found those web pages extremely helpful.
As a representative of the international IPU, together with a parliamentarian from Norway, I attended a conference in Addis Ababa in February 2003 called "Zero tolerance to FGM", organised by a non-governmental organisation, the Inter-African committee on traditional practices affecting the health
512WH
of women and children. My Norwegian friend and I were the only parliamentarians attending the conference and we were given a warm welcome by all the delegates.
We listened with great interest to the presentations and comments from young and old representing NGOs and voluntary organisations from countries throughout Africa, as well as UNICEF and the World Health Organisation. They described plans for mobilising religious leaders, community leaders and young people, projects for entrepreneurial training for former circumcisers, so that they can find new employment, and awareness programmes. I remind hon. Members that every year 2 million young girls are estimated to be at risk from this harmful practice.
It was a very heartening experience to hear religious leaders explaining that there is no religious base to FGM and also to hear young men condemning this abuse of human rights. There were former circumcisers who had abandoned their practice and were now preaching to the communities the error of their ways. Needless to say my Norwegian friend and I briefed our IPU colleagues on the conclusions of this conference and reported back on how we could assist.
In April this year, in Mexico City, the IPU, in conjunction with UNICEF, launched a handbook for parliamentarians on child protection. I shall refer to its contents in more detail later but FGM is, of course, featured, and recommendations and strategies for parliamentarians to eradicate the practice are outlined. We in the IPU are now beginning to achieve our objectives. First, on 11 July 2003, at the second summit of the African Union in Mozambique, the AU adopted the protocol on the rights of women in Africa, a supplementary protocol to the African charter on human and peoples' rights. It has been seen as a significant step in the effort to promote and ensure respect for the rights of African women.
The protocol requires African Governments to eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence against women in Africa and to promote equality between women and men. It commits Governments, if they have not already done so, to include in their national constitutions and other legislative instruments those fundamental principles and ensure their effective implementation. In addition, it obligates them to integrate a gender perspective in their policy decisions, legislation, development plans, and activities, and to ensure the overall well-being of women. The protocol will enter into force after 15 states have ratified it.
Secondly, I am pleased to say that the IPU, together with UNICEF, is in the process of organising a parliamentary conference to take place next year in Africa, where we can bring together MPs, religious and traditional leaders, NGOs and former practitioners and others. This conference will be a major step forward in persuading national Governments to take action against this abhorrent practice. Other like-minded parliamentarians and I are doing our bit internationally to eradicate FGM, but that will not be achieved without the intervention, co-operation and major support of the IPU.
I have also participated in forums on child labour, child trafficking and the commercial sexual exploitation of children, at which I presented papers on the United Kingdom's policies on combating such abuses. The

513WH
response of IPU conference delegates to those special forums was interesting: they developed the dissemination of good practice between all countries, as well as assisting the developing world with new ideas and providing an opportunity to contribute to possible solutions.
The comradeship that I have witnessed between parliamentarians from all over the world, as they tackle the pressing problems of the day together, has convinced me that the IPU has a major role to play in international affairs and matters of concern to us all. Briefing parliamentarians on possible legislative routes to combat a particular problem can create a climate of understanding and co-operation, and thus have a major impact. For example, laws on child pornography on the internet cannot be imposed beyond a country's borders. We therefore all need to work together.
I was heartened that copies of my written presentation and speech on the use of the internet for child abuse were gathered up by other delegates at the last IPU conference. They were aware of the difficulties that their countries face and were keen to learn of new approaches to the problem. In fact, my presentation has now been put on the IPU website so that any country can use the UK experience to help prevent that misuse of modern technology.
I return to the IPU-UNICEF parliamentarians' handbook on child protection, which catalogues all forms of child abuse and what action parliamentarians can take to combat violence, neglect, sexual exploitation and harmful traditional practices as they affect children. It gives guidance on prevention, law reform and methods for developing parliamentary mechanisms for child protection. Such information is helpful to us all. We in the United Kingdom are not immune from the need to keep a watchful eye on child abuse. Child trafficking, for example, is taking place in this country, and it is still possible to practise FGM by sending young girls abroad for the mutilation. The private Member's Bill recently introduced by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) amends the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which I introduced as a private Member's Bill, and is designed to combat the problem.
As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, three major committees have been set up under the new IPU committee structure. One deals with democracy and human rights, and I am pleased to say that I have been appointed the UK branch's titular member. I hope to convince the IPU headquarters in Geneva and the international IPU executive that we need a sub-committee of that committee to deal with all forms of child protection on a continuing basis, rather than through ad hoc forums. The proposal will be discussed at a mini IPU conference in Geneva in September, and I hope that the IPU will display once again its flexibility in dealing constructively and positively with major international issues.
Of course, Governments can always speak to other Governments, but it is equally important that Back-Bench parliamentarians can raise the profile of worthy causes and put pressure on their Ministers to take action. The IPU is in a unique position to avail
514WH
parliamentarians of a special international platform of influence and action. We should applaud that, and long may it continue.
4.20 pm
Tom Cox: It is a great pleasure to be called immediately after the previous two speakers. They are Members who are held in the highest possible esteem, and we have today heard from both of them the enormous role that they have played in fighting for the freedom and human rights of people throughout the world. I am sure that we all appreciate their contribution to the overall standing that our Parliament has in organisations such as the IPU.
I suppose like all new Members who come to the House, when I came here some 34 years ago one of the first things that I did was join the IPU. I have been an officer of it and, like many Members present this afternoon, I am now a member of its executive committee. Over the years, there have been some major changes in the membership and role of the IPU, as we have already heard. I can recall when many IPU member countries came from what was then eastern Europe. I remember going to an IPU conference in East Berlin during that period, when, whatever we did and wherever we went, we were watched and followed. Although no one could in any way have called those countries democratic, or said that they had election systems that were free or fair, that allowed us to make contact with people. After a period of time, certain friendships and a certain respect started to be developed. That is, to me, the great strength of the IPU.
I want to refer to two involvements that I have had. One goes back to the period immediately after the 1982 Falkland Islands conflict when, as we know, the Falkland Islands were invaded by the Argentine military forces. I am sure that we can all remember the events of that time. When that conflict was over, there was no contact—no involvement whatever—between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Argentina. That lasted for a long time. At that time, the chairman of the United Kingdom IPU branch was Sir Michael Marshall, a well respected Member of this House. He had been a Minister, and in time he became the president of the IPU, such was his standing and the respect in which he was held. I can recall Michael saying to me, "We have got to try to build up a relationship with Argentina."
That was certainly not easy. We were seen as the spokesmen of the British Government who had defeated the Argentines in the Falklands conflict. It did not matter that we belonged to different political parties. I have to say that the first meetings were extremely difficult. At times, after meetings, we would wonder whether we should continue, and whether it was the right time to be trying to be involved. However, we and the other members of our delegation to the various conferences where the meetings took place held the view that, yes, as long as they were prepared to meet us, we were going to meet them.
We started by saying, "Look, whatever may have happened in the Falklands, the link between our two countries goes back a long way. That means something to us and we believe that it must mean something to you. We will not discuss the Falkland Islands with you, but

515WH
we will discuss one of the other issues that you would like to talk about." Contact was made slowly and real friendships were made. That happened with no Government participation, but solely with the involvement of the British IPU group.
My hon. Friend the Minister also speaks on behalf of our relationships with the Falkland Islands and the Argentine. I am the chairman of the all-party group on Argentina and I know about his excellent work and involvement. He will be aware of our excellent relationships with the Argentine: Ministers from both countries visit each other, senior military personnel work together, there are massive business contracts and the Argentine Government play a role in world affairs.
I am sure that hon. Members in the Chamber will be pleased to hear that yesterday Mr. Kenneth Courtenay and I visited the Argentine ambassador in London. During a warm, friendly meeting we discussed a future IPU visit to the Argentine in the coming months. That is an example of what has been achieved solely as a result of the British group at the IPU. I am sure that all hon. Members and the British and Argentine Governments welcome that. When the rebuilding of contacts was starting to take place, no one but the IPU could have done it. I attended all the meetings and, as I have already said, I have great pride in that, because I regarded Sir Michael Marshall as a very dear, personal friend, and none of it would have been possible without his commitment and dedication. Despite all the problems—and with people saying, "Do we go ahead?" and "Is it really worth it?"— Michael insisted that we went ahead. We now see, as a result of that involvement long ago, how the relationships between our two countries have turned out. Although that happened many years ago, the British IPU group, as always, has an ongoing involvement with many countries.
At the moment, we are involved with the Ukraine, where in recent years important developments have taken place. Its economy is strong and growing, large investments are being made and the UK is one of the major investors. Sadly, however, there is another side to that situation. The conduct of elections leaves much to be desired, as does the operation of its ports and legal procedures. The IPU is providing real, positive help and advice to the Ukraine. Next January, we are to host a parliamentary visit from the Ukraine, and we are already working on the programme. I know from a recent trip to the Ukraine that it attaches great importance to the visit. We are being advised and supported in that visit by the excellent British ambassador to the Ukraine, Mr. Robert Brinkley.
On a recent visit by the delegation, which was fully supported by the British IPU group and led by Lord Geoffrey Howe of Aberavon, along with the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (M r. McLoughlin) and me, we stressed at all the meetings that we had with the President of the Ukraine, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Rada, and the Prime Minister how crucial the forthcoming presidential election in October this year was to the Ukraine and its image in Europe and the world. The election must be free and fair to all candidates. Again, the British IPU group is playing, and will play, a major role in seeking to help and advise the Ukrainians to ensure that the election is free and fair.
516WH
We have a great deal to be proud of as an organisation. As the two previous speakers clearly said, we are respected and listened to wherever we are represented. Other colleagues who have spoken paid the warmest tribute to Kenneth Courtenay and all the secretarial staff of our branch. As you know from your many involvements in organisations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, such staff are vital to a group's role and success. I have a long association with the branch, and I know of their great value. I thank them all very much indeed.
4.32 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to say a few words in this important debate. I join other speakers in congratulating the chair of the British group of the IPU, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin)—I almost forgot the name of my hon. Friend's constituency then; my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is right that one needs to write it down to remember it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead described, over the years that he has been both acting chair and chair he has had a challenging time on occasions. Difficulties have had to be addressed, and he has done that with great skill. There has also been enormous progress. I echo the remarks of previous speakers in congratulating him on the tremendous work that he has done as chair.
I congratulate also all previous speakers who have made enormous contributions to the group—far larger than mine. This afternoon, we have had the benefit of the wisdom of those who have worked in the IPU both in the UK and internationally. I echo the thanks paid to Kenneth Courtenay and staff, who are always incredibly helpful and manage to smile even when we ask some rather funny questions. I also thank the Foreign Office staff. On IPU delegations, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations and the occasions that my Select Committee on Trade and Industry travels overseas, the Foreign Office staff's support both here and in embassies and high commissions abroad is absolutely exemplary.
Our chair, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, invited us to refer to bilateral links. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Tom Cox) referred to bilateral links that have been particularly productive in recent years. I would like to do the same to illustrate an important point that I know we recognise, but I am not sure that those outside IPU discussions do. The value of inward and outward delegations does not rest only on what happens in those five or six days. The benefits are not transitory; they can be very long term and to the enormous advantage of both sides.
In September 2001, the IPU invited me to lead a delegation to Lithuania. The timing was good, as Lithuania was celebrating 10 years of membership of the United Nations; 10 years had passed since the political upheavals of 1990 and 1991, which had resulted in Lithuania gaining its independence again.
When the IPU delegation visited Vilnius and other parts of Lithuania in September 2001, the parliamentarians we met were not only celebrating 10 years of membership of the United Nations. More

517WH
importantly, they had other clear messages for us. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) might have heard similar messages from our parliamentary colleagues in Latvia and Estonia. The two strongest messages that we received during our visit that week were that Lithuania wants to join NATO and the EU. Five days of meetings on ostensibly different topics all ended up focusing on those same two themes, and they did so for the obvious reasons of security and wishing to be part of a united Europe after the end of the cold war. The Baltic states' requests to join NATO and the EU were the cornerstones of their foreign policy; all parties were united on that, and they still are.
We received a third request from the Lithuanians. It was pointed out to us that we had parliamentary groups for Latvia and Estonia but that there was not a parliamentary group for Lithuania. Our delegation was firmly told that it would be appreciated if we did not forget Lithuania upon our return. So, when we came back, we established an all-party group on Lithuania with Lord Bowness as the Conservative co-chair, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) as the Liberal Democrat co-chair, and me as the Labour co-chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is waxing lyrical, but I am afraid that there is a Division in the main Chamber. We can return sooner than in 15 minutes if Members wish to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I suspend the sitting for 10 minutes.
4.38pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.48 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Berry: A number of us on the IPU outward delegation to Lithuania in 2001 came back determined to establish an all-party group. We did so; it has three co-chairmen, one from each party. The group has enabled us not only to gain an enormous insight into the enlargement process from an applicant country's point of view, but to appreciate the implications of that enlargement for the UK and the other member states. It has been incredibly useful. The practicalities are that the all-party group on Lithuania visits that country once a year. We have regular contact with the Lithuanian ambassador in London and our ambassador in Vilnius. We frequently meet Lithuanian parliamentarians who come here for whatever reason, and we are happy to do so. We have entertained the Lithuanian President.
My point is simple: an IPU delegation, whether outward or inward, has enormous spin-off benefits. It is important for us to realise what those benefits are. I am sorry to admit this, but I am conscious of not having followed up on IPU visits as much as I now wish I had. It is important that we try to encourage that as far as humanly possible.
We had the great pleasure last month to visit Lithuania again. It was the first of our annual visits since Lithuania became a member of NATO and the European Union. In fact, we visited the week after the
518WH
European Parliament elections. I might confide that Lithuania had some surprising results in its elections, just as we did, but I shall not bore hon. Members by discussing them. The visit was an historic occasion and important for the ongoing dialogue between our two countries. Our relations are incredibly warm and friendly.
Obviously, inward and outward delegations are an important way of building relations between parliamentarians and Parliaments, but following them up is terribly important, and there have been countless examples of all-party groups doing that.
The British group also provides assistance to all-party groups for what are, perhaps, less ambitious activities. Since December last year, 14 all-party groups in this place have been assisted by the British group of the IPU through the arranging of meetings, provision of money for lunches or the odd flight and so on. Such assistance enables all-party groups in this House to raise their level of activity—to raise their game—which is very important. It would be wrong to think that only inward and outward delegations matter.
Mr. Wilkinson: May I say on behalf of my Baltic colleague that the Latvian group was immensely grateful for the support of the British group of the IPU in making possible a lunch attended by the President of Latvia? That also was a historic occasion, as were the many events of the hon. Gentleman's group.
Mr. Berry: I know that much assistance of that kind is in the pipeline. As it happens, I am one of the founder members of the all-party group on Vietnam, led incredibly ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). If anyone can raise funding to promote bilateral relations between two countries, he can. I was elected Treasurer with no money—two of my colleagues think that that is the appropriate thing for me—but in fact I will have to open a bank account at the Co-op this weekend, as we are getting some financial support, including generous support from the British group of the IPU, for which I am very grateful, for a visit to Vietnam later this year.
I quickly comment in passing that that visit will be the first-ever delegation of UK parliamentarians to Vietnam, to the best of my knowledge. There was an inward delegation four years ago, but our visit will be the first outward delegation. In essence, it is being organised by the all-party group. It is an example of how a little assistance—or a lot—from the IPU can enable all-party groups to do this kind of work.
I am conscious of the fact that several other Members wish to speak. Let me make two very brief comments. The first echoes remarks of other hon. Members about the importance of relations between parliamentarians, in contrast with relations between Governments. We are all conscious that other Governments in office have different policies, and we all want to be helpful and so on, but the job of parliamentarians is different from that of Governments.
In the meetings in which I have taken part, the frank discussions on various issues about which we were all concerned have been particularly useful. It is a well-known fact that there is a difference of opinion on the European Union within some political parties, as well as

519WH
between political parties. It is a well-known fact that there have been differences of opinion about Iraq. There is value in parliamentarians being able to meet and exchange views to determine what is behind the position of their Governments, and the openness and frankness of such dialogue can be and is facilitated by the work of the IPU.
Reference has been made to Randal Cremer, who was the joint founder of the IPU. He was a far-sighted internationalist who had a deep commitment to seeking to resolve conflicts peacefully. The need for internationalism and for seeking to settle conflict peacefully as is great now as it was 100 years ago.
People often talk about globalisation being a problem, but I do not think that it is one. The problem is how, in a globalised world, we can promote political and economic democracy, and how we can develop a real international community where people have respect for each other's views but seek above all to ensure that the majority interest is represented and that it is an international community that represents the interests of the people who live on this planet. The work of the IPU is essential in seeking to achieve that task.
4.56 pm
Hugh Bayley: The things that first drew me into politics were domestic issues such as low wages, unemployment, health care, and the quality and accountability of public services. Nevertheless, I am instinctively an internationalist. I believe that long-lasting, sustainable solutions to domestic problems cannot be found in isolation from the rest of the world. That has always been the case; there is nothing new, or 20th or 21st century about that. It was true in the 19th century. The repeal of the corn laws was a domestic policy that had profound implications for the rest of the world and the abolition of slavery was an international policy that had profound implications for this country and for the national politics of other countries.
Domestic and international politics are hugely intertwined and always will be. That was true in the 19th century, when the IPU was formed. It probably became more so in the 20th century, which was one of two great world wars that led to the creation of intergovernmental bodies that mirrored the IPU—the League of Nations and then the United Nations. It is even truer in the 21st century. Globalisation gathers apace and makes more issues tractable only on a transnational basis.
Some anti-globalisers want to resist the trend and they say that we should opt out, but that simply cannot be done. Some parliamentarians blame globalisation for our failure to tackle current issues such as rights at work, the offshoring of jobs, levels of taxation, developing countries' debt, or the role of a public sector. If we were to tell the public that globalisation undermines our effectiveness as MPs, we would not get sympathy or understanding from our constituents; they would just regard us as irrelevant to their problems and those of a modern world. They would switch off and there would be more abstention from elections and less interest in politics. There would be apathy and cynicism, which we experience during some elections. For instance, although we got an increase in turnout for the
520WH
European elections in this country—from an extremely low level at the previous European elections—across Europe as a whole there was a huge decline. Depressingly, there was a turnout of less than 25 per cent among the accession members. That apathy and cynicism is sapping the lifeblood of parliamentary democracy.
When it was created more than 100 years ago, the IPU was an enormous innovation. It was created to pursue the principle of international dialogue based on the principle of equality of nations and it predated the other major international institutions, such as the UN, the EU, the African Union and the Organisation of American States. The need for dialogue now is as important as ever.
I do not want to be a party pooper. I am a passionate supporter of the IPU and am fortunate to have been elected for a number of years as a member of its executive, but I believe that it is losing its way, and therefore that it is losing its relevance to international politics. It is illustrated by the growth of other inter-parliamentary bodies, which do good work, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and more recent innovations such as the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank.
Recently, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development approached me asking for a parliamentary arm so that it could be more accountable to parliamentarians and, through them, the public. I asked why it could not work through existing institutions, as we would end up with so many inter-parliamentary bodies that we would have one parliamentarian attending each and no dialogue at all.
We must take stock of the fact that those new bodies have been created because parliamentarians see them better able to deal with some of the issues than the original body—the IPU. That has been illustrated by the withdrawal of the United States of America from the IPU. I join every Member present in urging the United States to rejoin the fold, but only a fool could ignore the signal that America's decision sends about the relevance—to itat least—of the IPU.
The problem of relevance was illustrated by the IPU's failure to put the principles of parliamentary democracy and human rights first when it decided to withdraw the 110th conference from London. It is also illustrated by its procedures and priorities at its conferences, which put discussion of policy before control by parliamentarians of the executive in national Parliaments and the influence of executive decisions in international bodies, such as the World Bank and UN agencies.
On several occasions, I have argued that IPU conferences should spend at least as much time allowing parliamentarians to report back to the IPU on the action that they have taken in their Parliaments to pursue the policies agreed at previous IPU conferences. Unless one does that work, one does not get any positive outcomes in the way in which the world is governed. If we do not seek such outcomes, I do not know what we seek to do.
I pay tribute to the tremendous work that colleagues who have spoken in this debate do in committees of the IPU and, in particular, to the work that the chair and the

521WH
vice-chair, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and others have done to modernise the IPU and its procedures. I say, as a friend of the IPU and as somebody who wants to create a valuable future for it, if it does not change to make itself more relevant it will wither away. It must change, like some of the 19th-century practices in this place, such as having to wear a top hat in the Chamber if one wanted to ask a point of order during a vote. It took our Modernisation Committee and some 100 years to abolish that. Changes must be made.
John Austin: Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate is one of those ways of stepping forward, as what we do in the IPU is debated in the Parliament rather than the chair writing a letter once a year to the Secretary of State? I know that he is passionately concerned about the millennium development goals, and the IPU is convening a conference next year of Speakers of Parliaments of the member countries of the IPU precisely so that member parliamentarians can report back on the action that their Parliaments have taken to achieve those goals.
Hugh Bayley: It is a step forward. If I did not think that change was possible I would not attend this debate, play a part in the IPU or urge that process along.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, the vice-chair of the UK branch of the IPU on the important part that he has played in driving that agenda forward. I want to encourage that, which is why I have risen to my feet to speak briefly in this debate. I was fortunate enough to represent the UK branch at the IPU meeting at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in São Paulo last month. If we had more time, I would report in greater detail on my experiences at the conference. I have produced a written report, which I have sent to the branch, and, because I know that other Members wish to speak, that is probably the best way to report back.
Let me say this: I welcome the work that the IPU is doing to establish a parliamentary wing to the World Trade Organisation. That is important. Parliamentarians represent people in their countries and the views of those people need to be represented in the WTO. However, I am slightly concerned that the international secretariat of the IPU is seeking to establish the parliamentary wing of the WTO on too exclusive a basis. For instance, it seeks to exclude the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank, which wants to play a part in that parliamentary wing.
The IPU needs to be inclusive and not exclusive. It cannot claim to represent individual Parliaments or other interparliamentary bodies and, of course, it does not have a monopoly on wisdom. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am a member, recently produced a very interesting report on international trade and development, and the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank has started some work in that field. Parliamentarians who work together internationally on these difficult issues need to pool their knowledge and skills.
The IPU is the parent. It was the first body of its kind. I certainly do not want to be accused of patricide or matricide—I do not want to kill it off. It is not perfect;
522WH
it is not a stairway to heaven, but it has certainly helped to lift some Parliaments and parliamentarians out of the abyss, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). If it did not exist, some inspired leader or leaders somewhere in the world, such as Randal Cremer, would seek to create it.
However, if the IPU is to remain relevant in the 21st century, it needs to change in two ways. It needs to learn to live with its children, to give them their head, and to recognise that they have things to say too and that there are some things that they can do better than their parent. It also needs to reform its own procedures so that it spends more time considering the implementation of policy and not just its creation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are due to finish at 11 minutes past 6, although that is dependent on whether there are any more Divisions in the main Chamber. I hope that those who are still to be called to speak will bear that in mind. I want to give the Minister at least 16 or 17 minutes to reply to this important debate.
5.8 pm
Mr. Bill O'Brien: As Henry VIII said to his wives, "I'll not keep you long."—[Laughter.] It is a privilege to take part in this debate, and it is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). Although some of his remarks might be regarded as controversial, I am sure that we will have another debate in which those issues can be discussed.
The UK branch of the IPU is modernising. We are welcoming and extending services to many other Parliaments and nations who seek support and guidance from people of experience, such as those who have spoken in this debate. It has been very interesting, and I am sure that the Minister has been impressed by our colleagues' reports of their contributions to and their experience of the way in which the IPU has been providing a service and operating over the past few years. Long may that continue. It takes time and effort to ensure that we are fully represented on visits and to receive internal delegations properly, but it is always pleasing to meet people from abroad, to hear their views and to consider some of the problems in their countries.
For the Minister's benefit, I wish to refer to a procedural matter involving our own branch. At the main meeting of the executive, it was agreed that we should establish an audit committee for the IPU to bring it into line with other bodies to which Treasury rules apply and public funding is provided. During discussions in the executive committee, it was decided that the audit committee's purpose would be to advise the executive committee and the responsible officer—the honorary treasurer—on the adequacy of our risk control measures and the need for internal audit of our proceedings. We also had the opportunity to discuss the financial arrangements, the balance sheet and the business of the IPU branch. We agreed at that main meeting that the audit committee would comprise eight members of the executive who did not hold posts as officers in the branch—"Back-Bench" members of the IPU—with representation from both Houses. We also agreed to meet quarterly.
A meeting of the group was held on 5 July. I was appointed chairman of the audit committee and I want to make it clear to the Minister that we are now in line

523WH
with all the other organisations that receive public funding. Our audit committee has been encouraged by the Treasury, as documents on best practice in non-departmental bodies and the Treasury principles of the audit committee state that for bodies. with management board structures, the audit committee should be a committee of a sub-committee of the executive. That is precisely what has happened. The audit committee has the duty to give advice and assurance to the honorary treasurer, as the accounting officer, and to the executive committee on the adequacy of audit arrangements and control of risk in the organisation. We considered the possibility of internal audit, but we do not have a great deal of funding—it was higher than usual this year because we anticipated having the international conference here, so more money was put into the funding, but the balance sheet is not normally as inflated as it was at the end of March this year.
I wish to put on the record the procedures that have been followed by the IPU branch in the United Kingdom. We are now regulated in line with the Treasury's recommendations and we intend to report to the IPU branch in the United Kingdom. We shall ensure that all the Treasury's requirements are met and that the IPU follows the usual route of ensuring that any risk or risk management measure is reported to the executive, and the executive takes note of the audit committee's report.
5.15 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: It is an honour to follow so many distinguished parliamentarians. I praise as others have the superb leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), the two vice-chairs and all those who serve on the IPU committee.
When I came into the House. I knew of the work of Select Committees but I did not know about the secret society of behind-the-scenes organisations. I am glad that one secret society that does great good has come out from behind the Speaker's Chair and has been given the opportunity today to speak to a wider public through Hansard and, I hope, through "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" by its members talking about the work that we do outside this Chamber, working with other Chambers throughout the world.
That is clearly done, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, but I see the IPU as the doyenne of such organisations, because it is the one that brings together all the Parliaments of the world. At the last meeting, 122 Parliaments came together in Mexico. Taking on my hon. Friend, let me point out the main reason for the growth of some of the other organisations is the fact that the United States pulled out of the IPU some four years ago. It did so because it did not like the deep questioning it was getting at the meetings that I attended when I first became a member. We should think about whether we play along with the Americans' absence from the IPU as a reason for some of the other organisations developing. I am concerned that some of those organisations operate on a "signing-on" basis. They are not representative of all the parties in a Parliament, but represent people on a partial basis, and
524WH
the organisations themselves fund some of the events. That does not mean that I am against organisations like the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank. It is simply a matter of fact that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund fund that organisation. It is important that it has an independence of spirit, instead of being seen as a replacement for the IPU.
Hugh Bayley: I rise to correct my hon. Friend. In fact, a number of developed country Governments—in particular, the Government of the Netherlands—supplied the funding to create the trust that established the network. I am simply suggesting that there are a number of bodies that do particular jobs of work in different ways, and the family of inter-parliamentary bodies must learn to live together and respect the advantages that each body brings to better international understanding.
Mr. Colman: I agree with my hon. Friend on the need for the bodies to work together. I agree, and put it on record, that the Netherlands provided funding initially, but increasingly the funding has come from the World Bank, and I am concerned that the participation of developing countries at the meetings at the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank has been dependent on whether funding has come from sources such as the World Bank. It is important that there is an equality of approach, which is reflected in the IPU's funding base, but not in the approach of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank.
At the moment the IPU is the only organisation at which issues such as the World Bank can be discussed at some length by representatives of the Parliaments of all the developing countries, rather than only those who are able to make it to meetings that are held in Europe, which is true of the last four I have been able to get to. The Parliamentary Network is not a world organisation as the IPU is. That is not to say that daughter organisations should not be welcomed; however, the IPU remains the one that represents all the Parliaments of the world.
By going to conferences, I have learned a great deal and I have been able to understand the views of fellow parliamentarians, who have stood for election and gone through the same heat of the hustings that I had to. They include not only Government parliamentarians but those from Opposition parties. It is important to me that the IPU constitution requires that the delegation represents the party political mix of the Parliament that is being represented.
I first got involved in the IPU at the 1999 Berlin meeting, at which I was put forward by the then chair, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). I was the rapporteur on a committee dealing with global financial architecture following the collapse of the east Asia economy the previous year. To me, that showed that the IPU was the one institution that would grip such an enormous problem and discuss how to attempt to deal with it. The resolutions we produced are still worth reading, because they led to the work on heavily indebted poor countries and are an example of how the godfathers and mothers of the HIPC process came through the IPU.
I was pleased that the branch supported my appointment to the original sustainable development committee in 2000. It was formed after the 1992 Rio

525WH
conference and overviewed the work of the IPU with UN organisations. That link between the IPU and the UN was cemented in the years following the 1992 conference. It was particularly apposite at the Ouagadougou conference in September 2001, because the appalling atrocity of 11 September in New York occurred in the middle of the conference. We decided that we must stay: it was important that democracy was not cowed by a terrorist act. That act occurred on the other side of the world but it was brought to our attention by CNN. To me, that was an important base on which the IPU was founded.
In 2003, following the reform of the IPU, the second committee on sustainable development was established. It became one of the three main committees. I was appointed rapporteur to that committee, together with Madame Tamboura, the deputy speaker of the Malian Parliament. Together we produced a report and draft resolution on the issues of trade in agricultural products and access to basic medicines. That was interesting because it took place eight months after the Cancun ministerial meeting—at which the IPU met the European Parliament, which had shadowed the Cancun ministerial meeting. The latter had broken up in disarray because the developing countries' voice had not been listened to. It was important that we got a resolution that, following long discussions, all sides could agree on.
The drafting committee members were Belgium—which represented the EU—Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Japan, Switzerland, Russia, Uganda and the United Kingdom. Through the four days of the committee, we worked on resolutions that will, I think, serve the Doha settlement well. That settlement may be agreed in Geneva in the next seven days. Work is going on there, particularly behind-the-scenes work on cotton subsidies. At this point, I join in the praise given to Sue Breeze from the Foreign Office. She e-mailed London at short notice to get answers to the difficult questions that were asked about cotton and agricultural subsidies and about the nature of the settlement agreed on 30 August 2003 under the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement. It was important to get those negotiations sorted out. I know that the wires were humming between Mexico and the home Governments of each of the other 11 countries, not necessarily to represent the views of the home Governments, many of which disagreed with each other, but to have that closeness of negotiations. All 122 countries signed up to the final resolutions that were agreed on the two issues. The one caveat against a complicated and difficult resolution was put in by China, which did not like the fact that Burkina Faso was still insisting that the fact that China had given subsidies on cotton should not be recognised, whereas China was saying that they had been phased out.
That is the new process that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will go through this autumn, when he acts as rapporteur to his committee. One has to stand by one's report and one's resolution. In the past one had what I described in Mexico as 40 or 50 Christmas trees of resolutions that had to be pushed into one. Now there is just one resolution, and one has to add to it. About 95 per cent.
526WH
of the Mali-UK resolution survived and went through. That was a good example of the reform that is changing the IPU from a cosy talking shop to a hard-edged negotiating chamber. A lot of us welcome that change, given its wide membership of 122—I think that that of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank is up to about 30.
I should also like to mention an experience that I had that was similar to that of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). It was my outward mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina last month. I shall not go into great detail because the report of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Sink), who was with me, appears in the Official Report, of 7 July at columns 247WH onwards. I was not able to attend that debate due to pressing constituency business, but he quoted me at the time.
I pay particular tribute to the protocol officer for the IPU in the Bosnia and Herzegovina Assembly, Samir Corovic, who spent a great deal of time working with us to make that mission work. Also—the Hansard writers will be glad to know that I have written these down—the leader of the Bosnia and Herzegovinan IPU delegation, Milos Jovanovic, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Martin Regusz, and the Speaker of the House of Peoples, Mustafa Pamuk, are leading their country out of the chaos of some 10 years ago. It has only been possible in recent times to stand in Sarajevo and see the Parliament building, directly opposite the Holiday Inn, with shell holes marking it like a Gruyère cheese. That reminds one of the need for parliamentary democracy in a way that no other visual aid can do. In a sense, it needs to remain in order to remind people of what they are moving away from.
I should also mention last week's suspension by the high representative, Lord Ashdown, of the speaker of the Republika Srpska entity Parliament, Dragan Kalinic, and others within the Republika Srpska. It was important for us—having our interchange with the national Government, and being seen as the first ever IPU delegation to go to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to be seen to recognise the role of the national Government and not of the entity Parliaments.
I should like to emphasise the fact that the hon. Member for Castle Point and I will ensure that the all-party group has great support. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has agreed to link with Mostar and Sarajevo, and it is possible that on 21 July a royal personage will reopen the bridge at Mostar. I am sure that we all support that. However, we also support the idea that the Local Government International Bureau works with Bosnia and Herzegovina to discuss the experience of local government officials after the elections this autumn. There are many other initiatives. The support that the UK branch of the IPU can give to Bosnia and Herzegovina branch of the IPU is a good example of how outward missions can work.
I have also privileged to listen to the views of members of inward missions including from El Salvador last week. From such visits, I have learned a great deal and acquired a good understanding of what is going on in their countries.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead emphasised at the beginning, and I emphasise now wearing my hat as chairman of the all-

527WH
party group on the United Nations, we need to revise the recommendations of Cardoso's panel on civil society and state very clearly that it should be recognised that the IPU represents the Parliaments of the world. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for City of York said, I do not believe any comparable organisation can fulfil the requirements.
I do not often quote George Monbiot's "The Age of Consent"—he is usually a little too left-wing for me—but interestingly from page 76 onwards, he states very clearly that the only world parliamentary body that can give the consent of the world is the IPU. He prefers a one person, one vote election to a world parliament, but he accepts that that will not happen for several lifetimes. For now, however, he believes that the IPU should be supported. It may surprise Guardian readers who believe that he has no faith in Governments or Parliaments that this is George Monbiot's recommendation.
5.32 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.40 pm
On resuming—
Hugh Bayley: There are important issues of legitimacy affecting international bodies. IPU conferences are not like a Parliament, where each delegate represents an equal number of constituents. My hon. Friend overstates the legitimacy of IPU decisions. Certain common positions are adopted at IPU conferences, and the conferences are valuable for that reason, but because they are common positions, they are sometimes lowest common denominator positions. For instance, at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the initial draft put forward by the IPU secretariat did not mention the private sector at all. Given that it was a trade conference, that was strange. Nor did the IPU mention the need to tackle corruption or the rule of law—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. Colman: I agree that there could be greater accountability under a world parliament, which could sit alongside the General Assembly. George Monbiot makes the point in his book that such a parliament should have a one person, one vote system across the world. He sees it as a 600-member parliament. One could say that that would be preferable to the IPU, but my point was that that would be impractical. What we have at the moment is the IPU, and although it is not as accountable as Mr. Monbiot's proposed system, it exists and involves all the Parliaments of the world.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York to the enormous list of observers to the Mexico conference. It mentions some 40 organisations. I do not imagine that it would be a problem if the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank sent a delegate to go on the great list of organisations with observer status and speak in the general debate if it so wished. I shall not list the daughter organisations, because we are up against time now but there is a great
528WH
list of them, including those that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. They have observer status and are included in the democratic process.
I come back to my point, so that we do not lose sight of it—although the Hansard will read smoothly anyway, I hope—which is that the Cardoso report needs to be questioned strongly by the Government, in terms of it excluding the IPU as the legitimate voice of Parliaments across the world. That needs to be corrected.
I am pleased that we have had this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who was here earlier but had to go, suggested at an IPU meeting in June last year that a debate about the IPU should be held on the same day in every Parliament around the world. I hope that the absolutely brilliant secretary Ken Courtenay will take back to Geneva the fact that we, the co-founders of the IPU, have started the trend. We hope that it will be adopted by every other parliamentary member of the IPU.
5.44 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: It is a great privilege to take part in a debate in which we have heard so many of Parliament's political heavyweights. I should like to thank the Leader of the House for allowing this innovative debate on the IPU, and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), as a member of the executive, for his leadership as the chair of the British IPU group.
It is worth looking back to those two great men, the French parliamentarian Frédéric Passy and our very own Sir Randal Cremer. Before the IPU, the United Nations or any of the any international organisations that we take for granted had been established, those two advocates of peace had the foresight to acknowledge that only through greater communication and friendship between nations would the world be a safer place for future generations. We are still struggling to come to terms with that reality more than 100 years and many millions of deaths later, but had not that initiative been taken by Cremer and Passy, who can tell how many more battles would have been fought and how less stable our modern world would be?
The visions of 1889, when Cremer and Passy founded the IPU, can be seen to have influenced many other drives for greater international co-operation, running from the international peace conference of 1899 all the way through to the establishment of the UN in 1942 and the recent expansion of the modern EU. It is much better for the leaders of countries to be in constant communication, continually developing mutually beneficial relationships, than for each to close off contact with the outside world, thereby sowing the seeds of distrust and xenophobia. If there is a new Government in the United States in autumn, perhaps the United States will return to the fold.
In my eyes, that role of the IPU must not be undervalued or forgotten. Peace was, perhaps, the primary motivation for the organisation's establishment. The positive effects on peace and the notions of tolerance and co-operation that have resulted cannot be overstressed. Although the ethos may now be focused more on such problems as human rights abuses and world health, we must remember to appreciate discussions with our friends around the world for what

529WH
they are: the product of many years of hard work by people who shared a common ideal of universal peace and co-operation.
We have heard that the recently reformed IPU, having traditionally served as a forum for general debate, now concentrates on standing committees that debate reports and resolutions drawn up by legislators. I pay tribute to some of the giants of Parliament whom we have heard today who take part in those conferences and are rapporteurs for the resolutions drawn up. I have not yet been to an IPU conference. That is not a hint—well, perhaps it is; I am envious of colleagues who have been. That change in the IPU does not mean that its role as a centre for parliamentary diplomacy has been undermined; rather, as we have heard, it has strengthened the union and given it more relevance and responsiveness to the rapidly changing world around us.
We have heard that the IPU's three main areas of focus are the standing committee on peace and international security, the standing committee on sustainable development, finance and trade, and the standing committee on democracy and human rights. Each committee undertakes investigations in matters within their given sphere of concern. The amalgamation of diverse views agreed upon through majority voting is presented to the assembly, and the resulting reports and publications are an invaluable tool for parliamentarians worldwide, giving us access to information from all corners of the globe that we may find useful in developing domestic policy or helping to resolve conflicts.
Aside from the conferences and committee work, the IPU runs three core programmes in areas in which it holds strong beliefs. That is perhaps where the work of the union can be best observed having a dramatic practical impact on real world scenarios. First, the IPU plays an important role in protecting the human rights of legislators. We have heard from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about her work on that committee, to which I pay tribute.
The second core programme focuses on providing guidance to newly established Parliaments, helping them to find their feet and offering solutions to the day-to-day problems that they are encountering for the first time. East Timor is one example of the programme's success story, as the IPU was heavily involved in setting up a Parliament that we hope will continue to bring greater stability to the region.
The third programme relates to the representation of women in Parliament. We in Britain are as guilty as any other country of failing to represent women adequately in our governing Chambers. The IPU runs a dynamic programme of seminars and activities designed to advance the interests of women politicians throughout the world. Not only does the IPU talk the talk, it walks the walk by insisting on a fair gender representation from delegations. Article 15, point 2(c) of the IPU statute states:
"Any delegation that for three consecutive sessions is composed exclusively of parliamentarians of the same sex shall have a minimum of eight votes (instead of the ten for mixed delegations) at the Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union."
I thank the staff of the IPU. We have already had tributes to Kenneth Courtenay and his wonderful staff, but I also pay tribute to Kenneth's predecessor, David
530WH
Ramsay, and to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is unstinting in its support of the work of the IPU. The FCO is the biggest employer in my constituency, so I always enjoy paying tribute to it.
During the 12 years that I have been in this House, I have been privileged to meet many inward delegations. I remember particularly a delegation from Angola: with pain in his eyes, one of the MPs asked us to help end Angola's civil war. I do not claim that the UK branch of the IPU achieved that aim single-handedly, but I like to think that meeting us and seeing how we do things in our Parliament in a peaceful and tolerant way strengthened the resolve of the Angolan delegates and helped to end that devastating war.
I also accompanied the hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox), another giant of our Parliament, and the hon. Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on an election monitoring delegation organised by the IPU to a Commonwealth country—another war-torn country—Mozambique. We had the privilege of meeting the former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, and his wife, Rosalynn, who were heading the Carter Centre group monitoring those elections. On that visit, I formed the opinion that history would be kinder to President Jimmy Carter than the American voters were in 1980. I believe that our branch of the IPU should carry out more election monitoring. It is valuable work that gives credence to elections overseas and encourages new democracies to develop peacefully.
With my final thoughts on the IPU and the praiseworthy role that it plays in the sphere of international politics, I come full circle back to where I began. In the cut rent climate of world politics, it is essential that we encourage as much dialogue as possible between nations to safeguard the fragile peace in many regions. We must seek to maintain communication between factions involved in hostilities so that we can find a resolution to such conflicts. We must also learn that unilateral action cannot be a reasonable way to police the international arena. If we are to encourage communication between opposing factions and support the notion of debate over destruction, we must be careful to heed our own advice. I will be a happy man when delegates from countries such as Iraq, where I worked before I entered this House, can join us around the table at an IPU conference and have a productive discourse with representatives from all over the globe.
5.54 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: It is a pleasure to be able to place on record in this important and interesting debate the full support of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to the work of the IPU. As we have heard, the IPU has existed for more than 115 years—115 years of building relationships between parliamentarians all around the world. In that time, we have experienced two world wars, the rise and fall of various tyrannical dictators, the division of the world into two hostile blocs during the cold war, and now the confusion and uncertainty of the war on terror and a fast changing world. It is difficult to measure the contribution of the IPU during that period, but I have no doubt that it has played its full part in contributing to global co-operation and security. I pay tribute to all those on the current executive who work so hard, and to

531WH
the chairman, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), who is a fine leader as we have heard today.
I also commend the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) for having the audacity to sound a slightly brittle note. I have learned that it is always worth listening when we are challenged about whether we got it right or wrong. I have no idea whether the IPU has lost its way, as he asserted, but I am sure that the executive will take on board his challenge and respond to it properly.
Although the organisation is old and revered, I suspect that it has never been more relevant than in today's world. Following the end of the cold war and the break-up of the old blocs, fledgling democracies around the world are feeling their way towards a proper understanding of democratic rule, the rule of law and market-based economies. I imagine that IPU support for them is as necessary now as ever before—perhaps more so.
In my role since November as a shadow Foreign Minister, I have travelled extensively to the middle east, where there are early stirrings of movement towards democracy in many Gulf states. I was in Bahrain in February working with Members of Parliament there who were hungry to learn about our experiences of "doing democracy". I am sure that the IPU has a vital role in helping those countries to move forward.
This morning I met the ambassador of Kazakhstan who told me that they are holding elections in September and intend to form an Executive from their elected house for the first time. That is their choice, but the model will be based on the best bits that they have seen around the world, and I am sure that the IPU can help them. The role of national Parliaments around the world is becoming more important. National Parliaments have existed for a long time in many countries, but perhaps only now are some becoming real for the first time. The work of the IPU is not finished yet.
We live in a world in which sort power is vital—perhaps more important than hard power. In Afghanistan and Iraq we have seen the exercise of hard power by the world's only superpower in coalition with us, but soft power is even more important. The IPU's work in bringing parliamentarians together is part of exercising that soft power: not working on behalf of any country in particular, but working together to build global stability and security. Britain should be at the forefront of the exercise of soft power through our much respected diplomacy, the role of our non-governmental organisations, our aid and humanitarian work, the impressive peacekeeping skills of our armed forces and our historical commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Those assets all equip us to play a significant—perhaps unique—role in exercising soft power and influencing the world for good. We know that we are no longer a superpower or an empire, and we do not want to return to those days, but perhaps the spirit and heart of democratic understanding lives on impressively in this country—as long as we can still persuade people to vote for us at ongoing elections and the next general election. It is no coincidence that one of the two founder members of the IPU was British. We have a crucial role to play.
532WH
In our discussions about supporting democracy around the world, it is important to talk not about exporting our style of democracy, but about sharing values and experiences. Local democracy will take different forms where it emerges. Although the principles of free and fair elections and freedom of speech should be universal, we must accept that their implementation will be diverse from place to place. It is also important to understand that these things take time. Our Parliament has been developing since 1295, and less than 100 years ago women did not have the right to vote in this country. We must take care not to lecture other countries about the speed of their progress.
We have heard about the important work of the committee on the human rights of parliamentarians and about the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe) on championing the rights of children. Those are important issues and that work is greatly admired.
May I make three brief points that I hope will contribute to the debate? My understanding is that the IPU's key role is building relationships between parliamentarians around the world. The hon. Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned that in their speeches. The key role of the IPU is to develop bilateral relationships between parliamentarians; that is how it was set up. I believe that that is its core business, and—although I have no knowledge with which to back up the statement—I believe also that sometimes it is wrong to move away from our core business. I have seen some of the excellent work that is being done by the different committees of the IPU, but I still believe that it is right to focus on bringing parliamentarians together so that they can exchange views and strengthen one another in their challenging role.
Secondly, it is crucial—I am sure that it already happens—that the IPU works with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other agencies and organisations to avoid duplication. There must be a spirit of co-operation in theory and in practice. I mentioned Bahrain earlier. I know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through its global opportunities fund, is putting together an important programme in that country. I would like to think that the IPU could take part in that, working with those MPs who are hungry to learn.
Thirdly, I have seen in some of the literature—it was also mentioned earlier in several of today's excellent speeches—that there is talk of adding some kind of parliamentary bolt-on to the WTO to provide some kind of accountability. I understand the reasons for that, but I must place on the record my deep belief that democracy will continue to be expressed by a people group electing its own leaders, with the ability to elect them and remove them within a nation. That is the primary form of democracy. [Interruption.] Do you want me to stop, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was hoping that you could finish your speech before we suspend for the Division.
Mr. Streeter: I shall make one more point. I welcome the growth of IPU activity in countries such as North

533WH
Korea, as we saw in last month's edition of the IPU Review. I believe that the IPU and parliamentarians can sometimes go where Governments cannot. The IPU should take that kind of risk.
National Parliaments are increasingly important, and developing relationships between them so that they can learn from each other is an essential part of building a better world. I wish the IPU well in the future.
6.2 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
6.10 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members have made important contributions to the debate, but with the permission of the Minister, the initiator of the debate and the Chair, some have excused themselves. Therefore, using my discretion again, I now call the Minister to wind up this excellent debate, for which I am delighted to say that he has been present throughout.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I shall ignore the comment from the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that I should just write to hon. Members, tempting though that may be.
This has been an exceedingly good debate, which has underlined the intent and purpose of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in bringing a depth of knowledge, understanding and experience to international relations and international affairs, which is of enormous benefit to this country and the wider world.
I start by paying tribute, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) for his leadership of the UK branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union over the last four years. He has performed an exceedingly challenging job, and that is a view that is widely held on both sides of the House. I pay tribute, too, to Ken Courtenay and the staff of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and to Sue Breeze and the Foreign Office team, to whom a number of hon. Members have paid tribute. I know how highly hon. Members value their support and assistance in providing briefings. I add my thanks on that score.
As hon. Members have said, this is the first debate of its kind, and I hope that it will be repeated. Given the difficulty of arranging parliamentary debates in the House, I listened with trepidation to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) that debates should coincide, and be held on the same date at the same time for every member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Several hon. Members commented on the withdrawal of the United States of America from the IPU, which is a matter of regret. It was done not on a government-to-government level, but by senators, who withdrew because they said that they prefer to conduct inter-parliamentary relations bilaterally. Attempts have been made by the IPU and by many parliamentarians to encourage the US to rejoin, but to no avail. We are
534WH
prepared to lobby, and if the Chair wishes us to do so I will take on that responsibility. However, the best way that the issue can be resolved is at parliamentarian level.
I listened with genuine interest to the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, who talked about the new structures and the committee-based system in the IPU, which has much to commend it. The system is bedding down, and individual members of the British group—my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—are already taking on key responsibilities, which is welcome. I am particularly interested in the work that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) are doing in the women's group to try increase the representation of women parliamentarians from throughout the world. We have made some progress in our own Parliament, albeit that the level is still low. The challenge remains, and we need to take it forward across the world.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne has undertaken an immense amount of work, particularly with regard to female genital mutilation. In mobilising on that issue, the IPU has been absolutely right in seeking to gain media and NGO attention at the grass roots in the fight against that inhumane and dangerous practice. I shall return at a later stage to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on the human rights of parliamentarians.
I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead said about leading the delegation at the conference in Santiago at a particularly difficult time during the Iraq conflict. He described the 4:4 split in the UK delegation. Given what I know of his views on the conflict in Iraq, it is to his immense credit that he handled the matter with such diplomacy and dignity, and managed to carry it forward. I agreed with his comments about the importance of the IPU playing a role in Iraq as we move toward the critical January elections and the establishment, at long last, of a fledgling democracy there. Any advice and assistance that the IPU can give on that will be enormously helpful.
My hon. Friend talked about the middle east peace process and underlined the fact that there are conflicts throughout the world over which Governments simply do not speak to each other. The IPU can break through that process and begin to build human contact, which is the absolute minimum requirement with which to move forward from an intractable dispute or conflict. That is one of the major benefits of the IPU.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the UN and the special observer status that has been gained. He raised the issue, which he has discussed with me, of whether the papers that have been tabled should become official papers of the UN. From our discussions, and from what I know, that seems to be a bureaucratic issue to which there must be a solution. The Government certainly seek to offer support.
Several Members mentioned the WTO and the desire for a parliamentary forum. I understand that desire, as I believe that we need parliamentary engagement on such issues, but I am not sure whether we should go forward with a multiplicity of parliamentary forums in

535WH
a way that might be seen as being in competition with the work of the IPU. Perhaps that issue should be further debated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead spoke about the Cardoso report—another issue that we have discussed privately. I was concerned to hear about the work of the UN Secretary-General's Cardoso panel, as it appeared to be likely to recommend the setting up of a network of parliamentarians that would duplicate the work of the IPU. That is the fundamental concern—the work of the IPU. Now that the report is out, it is clear that its drafters have made several efforts to reflect the IPU's concerns, but the proposals are still not satisfactory. I agree that there could still be a high level of duplication with the work and structures of the IPU, and I assure my hon. Friend that officials are in touch with the UK mission to the UN about how best to influence the next steps in that process.
My hon. Friend also talked about the importance of outgoing and incoming IPU delegations. I was unaware that one of the sacrifices that the chairman makes on attaining that office is to absolve himself from taking part in outward delegations, which are of enormous benefit. Having been a Foreign Office Minister for the past 19 months, I know that however many briefings and books one reads about a country, nothing enhances one's understanding of a country, region or conflict better than visiting the area, talking to people and debating the relevant issues. That gives a real sense of what is going on there. The reciprocal, incoming visits are also of enormous benefit to us, and I do my best to meet incoming delegations, and to host lunches for them.
I very much took my hon. Friend's point about liaising to agree our priorities regarding which countries that we should visit. The Foreign Office is prepared to do that, but that must not undermine the independence of the IPU, which has to be seen as being separate from the Government.
I listened to my hon. Friend's comments about the situation in Colombia. One of the IPU visits that I found to be the most constructive in my work as a Foreign Office Minister was the IPU delegation to Colombia some six to nine months ago. The Government are right to take the approach that they do to the appalling conflict in Colombia, but I am conscious that that issue is controversial, which is why I believe that the engagement of parliamentarians in that process through the IPU is of enormous benefit.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the cancellation of the London assembly, on which many hon. Members have commented. It was a real cause for concern that we were asked—and most importantly that he was asked—to tear up the international commitments that we had made in order to host that conference. I was certainly grateful for the significant efforts that were undertaken by the chairman of the British IPU branch and other members to seek a resolution to the issue. From a Government level, we tried our best to find a resolution. Ultimately, in the circumstances of being forced to take someone on the banned list, we and members of the group were absolutely right to stick to our guns and
536WH
ensure that the issue was resolved in that way. I hope that the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead to the executive committee of the international IPU will ensure that such issues can be considered on an international basis.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made an important point when he referred to the personal development of Members of Parliament and peers through the IPU process. The fashionable view of the press is that MPs who undertake foreign travel are engaged in something that is not quite proper and which comes close to junketing. That is not the case. The need in the world for travel and engagement between parliamentarians has never been greater. It is in the public interest and to the public benefit that such work is undertaken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley highlighted the work of the all-party group on human rights, which has made significant progress in championing the causes of Members of Parliament who are under repression throughout the world. Such work should be taken forward. The hon. Member for Broxbourne highlighted that work that she has done in connection with female genital mutilation. Her work to raise consciousness about the issue is to be applauded tremendously. As she said, each year 2 million young girls are at risk of genital mutilation. That figure is shocking and we all need to be doing more on that front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Tom Cox) referred to the situation in Argentina and the need to maintain dialogue. We certainly do not resile from our view on sovereignty in respect of the Falklands about which we are in no doubt. Outside of that, we want a constructive relationship with Argentine and the efforts that hon. Members have made through the IPU are of benefit to that process. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) spoke about the way in which his IPU visit to Lithuania had brought an all-party group to life. That is much to be welcomed. He also talked about the importance of Parliament-to-Parliament links outside of the Government. In terms of enhancing international understanding, that is particularly significant. Otherwise, other parliamentarians and other Governments simply receive a single-facet view of the politics within a country. Such enhancement is to be welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) referred to globalisation and the need for an international response. I wholly agree with him. He then bravely challenged the conventional wisdom. Such issues need to be debated. That was difficult action to take and I am sure that the members of the IPU will take his comments on board. Any organisation needs to reflect on matters and consider how to go forward. Whatever people felt about those comments, they were a constructive contribution to our debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) talked about the role of the audit committee, and I take the view that when we are talking about a significant commitment of public funds, it is right that such arrangements are in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney spoke about his role on the sustainable development committee. I know that it has an exceedingly challenging task, and

537WH
I pay tribute the work that he does on it. Sustainable development presents an important challenge, and the Government are reviewing our strategy on it. We need to move forward in international forums, as we are doing, and the support that can be provided and work that can be done at a parliamentary level to back that up should be welcomed.
We have had an exceedingly good debate. If anyone was in any doubt, the breadth of understanding demonstrated this afternoon has amply justified the existence of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I genuinely believe that it brings a level of dedication and understanding that enhances international relations. It
538WH
has been going for 115 years, and I hope that it will continue for many years more. I congratulate everybody involved in the process, and I hope that the branch will continue its good work.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply on all the matters that were raised by hon. Members. Using my authority from the Chair, I say to all those who have participated that they have made a good contribution on an important subject. Parliament believes that the Inter-Parliamentary Union is extremely important in the work that it does, and its role is greatly valued.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester): The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Palace of Westminster: College Green Ticket Booth
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnesasked the Chairman of Committees:
Which body was responsible for approving the erection and design of the ticket booth on College Green.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Westminster City Council, after consultation with English Heritage, approved the erection of a temporary ticket booth on College Green and gave advice about the nature of the final design. Within that limitation, the design was approved by the joint visitor route steering group, in conjunction with the Parliamentary Estates Directorate. The booth is the same as that erected during the Summer Recess in 2003. Options for a permanent ticket office continue to be explored.
Baroness Oppenheim-BarnesMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that some people have described the booth as a cross between a hot-dog stand and a hoopla stall? I would not go that far myself, but does he believe it to be in keeping with the dignity and beauty of the Houses of Parliament?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I quite appreciate that the design of the booth may not be to everyone's tastes; presumably, the architect liked it. However, given security considerations and the pressure of space within the Palace, a ticket office outside it is necessary. None the less, I assure the noble Baroness that options for creating a permanent ticket office are being taken forward, so that the temporary structure can be removed.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the demand for visits to this beautiful Palace is a great wonder. Would it not be better if the Palace were turned into a museum of democracy, with plans set in hand to build a 21st-century parliament? Such a place would not turn our thinking into old thinking, but would invigorate our whole democracy by putting our parliamentarians in a 21st-century and radical frame of mind.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord's question probably goes slightly outside my
1352
brief and, on the whole, I do not agree with him. If this were not a working Palace, presumably a lot of the visitors would not want to come.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees aware that there will not be universal agreement with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally? After all, he was calling for this Parliament to imitate the Scottish Parliament in setting up a new building. Apart from the expense— as I recall, it has risen from£40 million to£400 million so far—it has not enhanced the behaviour of the Scottish Parliament.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord probably tempts me slightly beyond my brief again. However, I am sure that there will be lessons to learn from the building of the Scottish Parliament, and no doubt from the building of the Supreme Court when we get one.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does my noble friend agree that the Prime Minister has in fact done a remarkably fine job of turning this place into a museum of democracy without any of the expenditure that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, envisages?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that I am provoked to point out that, after the building of this Palace, Mr Disraeli suggested that the architect be hanged?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not think that we would go that far with the architect of the ticket booth across the road.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that architects usually like their own work and have to be kept under control, like all other experts?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is true. It might be useful if I gave a little of the history. The Palace was first opened to the public during the Summer Recess in 2000, at which time tickets were only available off-site by telephone or the Internet and had to be picked up from the British Tourist Office in Regent Street. That rapidly became obviously unsatisfactory, and a ticket office was then set up in Westminster Hall. Unfortunately, that meant that people had to go into Westminster Hall through security, buy their tickets, go out again, go along the pavement and go in through Black Rod's Garden and again through security. That was obviously unsatisfactory as well. The following year, a temporary tent or Portakabin was erected. That proved not to the liking of English Heritage and such people, so the new booth was erected. As I said in my

1353
Answer, we hope to have more permanent facilities in due course. The permission to put the booth where it is lasts only until 2008.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees agree that the site on College Green is extremely badly managed? During the winter, it was dug up and was plain earth. In the spring, it was regrassed, presumably at vast expense. The grass that was put down in early spring is now covered with a type of carbuncle that has come to revisit us again this summer.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the booth is on only part of the grass.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we could have the ticket booth in Parliament Square, on the site of the current tip?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is a possibility. The only problem is that most of the visitors would probably be run over crossing from Parliament Square to the Palace.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, do I understand that, because our business takes place in this ancient and wonderful building, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, proposes that we are incapable of thinking in the 21st century?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord must ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about that.

Kyoto Protocol
11.7 a.m.
Lord Mitchellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans to encourage Russia and the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government continue to urge Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol as soon as possible. Indeed, the Prime Minister has spoken personally to President Putin on the matter. There would be economic as well as environmental advantages to Russia, which we put across at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the United States Administration have made it clear that they have no intention of ever ratifying Kyoto. However, we continue to engage them on climate change. For example, my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett spoke to senior members of the administration during her recent visit to Washington, and we look forward to their constructive engagement.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. It was not entirely reassuring, but I
1354
thank him all the same. Global warming poses what many have described as mankind's greatest threat—irreversible climate change. The Kyoto Protocol to limit carbon dioxide emissions cannot come into effect unless either Russia or the United States ratifies the treaty. President Putin is indecisive; President Bush is indifferent. When will our Government use their considerable influence with both leaders to give the issue the priority that it demands?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct to say that the issue is the greatest challenge facing the world's politicians. It is deeply regrettable that the leaders of many countries have failed to give it the same priority as we in Britain and many other countries in Europe have. We use all our best efforts to try to persuade both the Russian and United States Governments to engage constructively in discussions on climate change. I regret to say that the United States Administration are more than indifferent; they are deeply hostile to the Kyoto Protocol. However, they are ignoring increasing concern within America as a whole about climate change, and we wish to engage the United States, perhaps beyond the Kyoto Protocol, in a more constructive relationship. We look forward to that occurring. With the Russians, there is a chance of ratification and we continue to press them on it.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recognise that Britain's influence in the world on global warming might be a great deal better if the Government were to recognise that the biggest single contribution we could make to its reduction was to have a fresh look at nuclear power? They should recognise that it is both renewable and benign in terms of carbon dioxide.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have had this debate and I suspect that we shall have it again when we deal with the Energy Bill immediately after these Questions. Clearly, like all governments, this Government have adopted an energy policy based on low carbon energy with the intention of achieving it over a considerable period of time. We believe that we can do that with a combination of energy efficiency measures and renewables, but we are keeping the nuclear option open. There may be a role for nuclear, certainly in a global context. But, however we achieve it, the aim must be to have low carbon energy sources and a substantial cut in carbon take for energy over the next few decades.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House when the restrictions on land grazing in North Wales, which were imposed as a result of fall-out from Chernobyl, were lifted? They may still be in place during certain times of the year.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness has switched me back to agriculture and left me slightly unbriefed on this question. However, I am aware that not long ago some of the restrictions arising from

1355
Chernobyl were still operating in parts of North Wales. That indicates that, although nuclear power is a very low carbon technology, it will not be a sustainable technology until we are absolutely clear about the safety and disposal of nuclear waste.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government agree that practical energy-saving measures are necessary in order to fulfil the obligations of Kyoto? Will they use the visit of the G8 leaders next year to demonstrate what we are doing in the UK? Will they be visiting BedZED in Sutton and Woking, and will they be driving around in hybrid cars and buses during the visit of those leaders?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, energy saving is clearly a major part of the world's, as well as Britain's, achievement of low carbon technology. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we shall use the presidency of both the G8 and the EU to ensure that climate change is a central preoccupation of those organisations next year. As to the detailed arrangements of the visit, I have no information at this stage, but I shall let my noble friend know.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the United States is in denial about Kyoto but that some of its states are supportive of the idea? Are the Government in contact with any of the states which have progressive views—for example, on emissions trading schemes—and what have they found? And are they influencing the situation as best they can?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord made a distinction between the attitude of many in the current United States Administration and the changing view of many in the business and political worlds within the United States. He is clearly right. For example, the five north-eastern states of the United States, the majority of which are run by Republican governors, have joined a proper climate change programme and are looking to join, in some way or another, European emissions trading schemes. That is a very positive development, as are developments in California. We hope that they spread to Washington soon.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, within the EU how hard are the Government pressing for a deal with Russia? When will that country's WTO status be sufficiently clear so that its Kyoto ratification can then be adequately secured?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, discussion on the WTO front is proceeding positively. I cannot give the exact timing of any deal, but clearly that is a consideration of the Russian Government. We are saying that, from a political, as well as from an economic and environmental, point of view, Kyoto is part of establishing Russia as a major player and it has environmental and economic advantages for Russia.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there may be some tension
1356
between the Government's commitment to meeting their own Kyoto targets in respect of emissions and their declared policy in respect of expansion of air travel?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, aviation creates a serious problem of CO2 emissions. As I suspect my noble friend knows, international aviation was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol and therefore it does not make any difference. At present, aviation accounts for a small amount of CO2 emissions. However, the level of such emissions will rise, and it is therefore important that aviation begins to take seriously measures to reduce the effect of CO2 emissions from air travel. We are trying to urge the British and European aviation industries to take measures to join the second phase of the emissions trading scheme starting in 2008. Some parts of the UK aviation industry are taking on board that message.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, if I understand matters correctly, the Kyoto Protocol applies to OECD countries. But it looks as though, within a decade, CO2 emissions from non-OECD countries will exceed CO2 emissions from OECD countries. The problem will not be resolved without the involvement of the non-OECD countries. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that they also play their part in tackling this global problem?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly true that climate change in total will not be properly tackled until the burgeoning economies of China and India also participate. However, it is incumbent on the developed countries to take a lead in the matter. The carbon take per person in the United States is 20 times the carbon take per person in India. If we cannot persuade the United States and Russia to join the protocol, it will be difficult to persuade the Chinese and the Indians to do so.
Certainly, in the phase beyond Kyoto, when it is hoped that the United States will have taken heed of the concerns of its own citizens, as well as world concerns, we can engage both the United States and the developing countries—particularly the big economies—in tackling what must be the biggest challenge to this generation of politicians. It is about time that politicians in all parts of the world recognised that as their top priority.
Lord Lawson of BlabyMy Lords, is the Minister aware that considerable doubt has been raised about the quality of the economic analysis underlying the climate change projections produced by the International Panel on Climate Change—the IPCC—with which the panel has refused to engage? As this is such an important matter, as the Minister said, is it not important that the Government use their influence to have the economic aspects analysed separately by the OECD before any further conclusions are drawn?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, because the scientific basis for, and the physical effects of, climate change

1357
are virtually unchallenged by any serious scientist. The economic calculations are subject to some degree of dispute. I am happy to urge people to engage in discussing those calculations, but they do not undermine or threaten the basic conclusion that, unless we do something, this world will get dangerously warmer.

Hospital-acquired Infections
11.17 a.m.
Baroness Cumberlegeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making in reducing hospital-acquired infections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, as the National Audit Office report on hospital-acquired infections, published yesterday, observes:
There has been notable progress at trust level in putting the systems and processes in place and in strengthening infection control teams.
The report also cites examples of good practice in our hospitals. We are determined to bring all hospitals up to the standard of the best, and the wide range of work under way is set out in Towards Cleaner Hospitals and Lower Rates of Infection, published recently.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I think that the Government have been extraordinarily complacent on this issue. Is it not true that very little progress has been made? In fact, in its report, the National Audit Office says that over the past three years the situation has got worse.
If we had a rail crash, killing 100 people, there would be a massive inquiry and heads would roll, yet 100 people a week die due to hospital-acquired infections. This is a terrible, microbiological and preventable disaster, and I am afraid that the wet mops and well meaning volunteers that the Government have suggested will not put it right.
Is the Minister aware that several British companies—there is no need to fly in experts from abroad; we have world leaders here—have the technology to zap MRSA and superhugs? Does he recall that, seven months ago in Winning Ways, the Government promised a rapid review to assess those companies but nothing has happened? In fact, the department now states that it hopes to start the evaluations before the end of this year. Is the Minister content that more than a year will have passed and another 5,000 people will have died unnecessarily, and that the Government will have ignored the microbiological solutions that are here on our doorstep? Will he take responsibility for initiating the rapid review now?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall not trespass on the patience of the House by producing an answer quite as
1358
long as the question. Healthcare-acquired infections in the UK are at similar levels to those in Europe: 9 per cent in the UK; 7 per cent in the Netherlands; 8 per cent in Spain and Denmark and 6 to 10 per cent in France. So, we have a problem similar in scale to the rest of Europe. We have tackled that very energetically. I remind the noble Baroness that we know about the scale of MRSA in our hospitals only because this Government introduced a mandatory surveillance system, whereas the previous government relied on a voluntary system, which understated the problem.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I should like to ask a totally non-partisan question. Does the Minister have any figures which give a comparison either way with the private sector in the UK?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the problem is that in the private sector there is a high percentage of elective surgery whereas in the NHS many of the patients who are being treated are much more vulnerable to healthcare-acquired infections and MRSA. Furthermore, the pressures on NHS beds are rather higher than the pressures on private sector beds.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the NAO report demonstrates quite clearly that we have the worst rates of MRSA in Europe. That is a matter of record. This is a matter of basic hygiene and it is clear that not enough progress has been made since the NAO report was produced. Does the Minister not accept any criticism of the Government at all on this matter? Furthermore, have the Government considered the adoption of British standards on this matter for every hospital and bringing in cleaning services to hospitals so that ward managers have proper control of cleaning?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear yesterday that the Government take this issue very seriously. It is this Government who came out with a strategy called Winning Ways in December last year, and, as I said in my Answer, it is this Government who came out with further plans in Towards Cleaner Hospitals and Lower Rates of Infection. However, we must also take account of the fact that in terms of healthcare-acquired infections, we are not out of line with the rest of Europe. We have a particular problem with MRSA, as do other countries. I would remind noble Lords that the United States, which has lower bed occupancy than this country, has similar levels of MRSA to the UK.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that the responsibility lies with the medical

1359
profession, with the nursing profession, and with the trusts which administer hospitals? It is a bit much to expect the Prime Minister himself to swab the wards.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we know that the Prime Minister is a greatly talented person, but even he probably could not clean all the hospitals along with his day job. What my noble said about the importance of engaging all staff in this area is correct. Healthcare-acquired infection is a problem for everyone. Some trusts have met their waiting list targets and have a good record on MRSA rates, so it can be done. Somerset NHS Trust and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust are two examples. The Government are now fully engaged with staff on this issue. If people read the document Towards Cleaner Hospitals and Lower Rates of Infection, they will see the range of measures that we shall take in full cooperation with the medical and nursing professions to clean hospitals where that needs to be done.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we shall have to move on to the fourth Question. We are well into the 24th minute.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
11.24 a.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consult Parliament and the public before reaching a decision on whether to accept the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (enabling complaints to be made to the United Nations Human Rights Committee of breaches of the covenant by United Kingdom public authorities).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)My Lords, the issue is being addressed in our review of international human rights instruments, the outcomes of which we intend to announce before the Summer Recess. The review was announced to Parliament on 7 March 2002, and has been the subject of various Questions and debate. Although the review was internal to government, representations were invited and received from a wide range of outside organisations and from the public. We have given these careful consideration.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Can the Minister confirm that every other member of the European Union has accepted the optional protocol, as have the great Commonwealth democracies and 39 countries of the Council of Europe, and that we are the only major European state
1360
not to have done so? Is there not a powerful case for consulting Parliament on this—at least through its Human Rights Committee—given that Ministers are judges in their own cause if they continue to use their prerogative powers to prevent our fellow citizens having recourse to the United Nations Human Rights Committee for alleged breaches of the covenant by the Government themselves?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, as I said, the review was announced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in March 2002. For good reason, its terms of reference were clear: to review the UK's position on international human rights instruments in the light of the experience of the operation of the Human Rights Act. We have had a process that has welcomed and involved representations from others. We have also been clear that the outcomes with the reasons will be made clear to Parliament. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for Parliament, no doubt through the usual mechanisms, to engage with the Government's decision in that respect.
Lord Astor of HeverMy Lords, the majority of rights in the ICCPR are already protected under the Human Rights Act. What important areas are not covered?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, without wishing to add fuel to the fire, as was said in May, I think, most of the covenant's rights and freedoms are protected also by the European Convention on Human Rights. To that extent the covenant adds nothing, as victims of breaches have effective remedies in British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. As he also said, in important respects the covenant is wider: it covers the guarantee of equality before the law and non-discrimination is freestanding.
The latter point means that if we signed up to this, an individual could make a petition to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on issues that are not within British law. That raises an interesting constitutional issue about the balance of the advantage or disadvantage in so doing. In practice, the lack of overlap is very narrow indeed. However, there are areas where the United Nations would allow access for issues which are not rights in the UK to be exercised or heard there.
Lord GoodhartMy Lords, does the Minister accept that the provisions of the European convention on discrimination are seriously defective? There is currently no freestanding anti-discrimination clause in the convention. In those cases in particular, there would therefore be considerable advantage, until the European convention is brought up to date, in giving the right of approach to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Lord FilkinMy Lords, those are some of the issues that the review, on which we are not yet able to announce a conclusion, explored; in other words, the extent to which

1361
there are deficiencies in human rights protections in the United Kingdom. Our broad position is that, in the Human Rights Act, our citizens probably have some of the best human rights protections in the civilised world. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is correct that there is not a right at large to take discrimination action. However, it is also debatable whether a right to take discrimination action at large is always desirable. I can, for example, think of arguments about whether there should be a right to take discrimination action because one does not have access to a private Italian beach.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I do not think that the Minister answered my first question, which was whether it is right that we are in "unsplendid isolation" in Europe. Can he tell us what it is about the United Kingdom especially that makes us uniquely unable to accept the optional protocol?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, I shall check Hansard carefully, but I am happy to take on trust that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was correct in what he said in the introduction to his first supplementary question. I seem to be in the position of explaining that the fact that we are not necessarily in the majority on issues this week does not necessarily mean that we are wrong as a society.
The issue is essentially whether our citizens are suffering significant disadvantage as a consequence of not having a right of access to the United Nations human rights court. That is the real issue, and that is the issue on which the Government will have to come to a conclusion as a result of our review. I think that noble Lords have had a taste of the relatively narrow scope of the issue.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is not just a question of the extent to which these rights exceed those in the European convention, but whether Great Britain is setting a useful and effective example to the rest of the world in complying with our obligations under the ICCPR?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is correct that one of our aims is to set human rights standards for the rest of the world. Although I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the review, I am not necessarily convinced that signing the optional protocol would make the most significant difference. What really counts is the reality of what happens domestically and the ability of our courts and of Parliament itself to uphold the rights of our citizens. Those are the fundamentals of the issue.

Energy Bill [H.L.]
11.31 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Whitty.)
1362
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 93 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 1, Leave out Clause 1

Clause 2, Leave out Clause 2

Clause 3, Leave out Clause 3

Lord WhittyMr Lords, I to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3. I shall refer also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 8A, which logically go with them. I shall start by addressing Amendment No. 1, which deletes what was Clause 1 in the Lords Bill, and Amendment No. 31, which the Commons have proposed to replace it. There has been considerable debate in both Houses during the passage of this Bill about security of supply—and rightly so.
It is fair that I should pay tribute to the efforts of some who participated in the debates, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Jenkin, whom I see here today, for making contributions on that topic, and who were behind the original amendment on security of supply, which would have placed a requirement on the Secretary of State to,
ensure the integrity and security of gas and electricity supplies.
The Government recognised that that amendment, which was carried against our advice, was well intentioned, but it would have had unintended harmful consequences, creating uncertainty in the market and would have undermined firms' incentives to invest in a timely manner. It would also have had an effect on the independence of the regulator and so on. That was not only our view; it was also the consensus in the industry. We could not therefore accept the noble Lords' amendment.
However, we listened carefully to the concerns expressed in both Houses. In Commons Committee, the opposition parties came forward with an alternative amendment, which we considered a good way to address the concerns expressed and to reflect in legislation the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility for security of supply and her accountability to Parliament for its delivery, without causing unintended consequences in the existing regulatory framework. So, we tabled an amendment on similar lines, which was accepted on Report in the Commons and appears as Amendment No. 31 today.
Amendment No. 31 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the availability of electricity and gas for meeting consumer demand in Great Britain and to lay that report before Parliament. As we signalled in the Commons, it is our firm intention that there should be a debate on the report in Parliament each year.

1363
The report would have to cover energy security in both the short and the long term. By "the short term", we mean the next year or so, and by "the long term" we would talk generally about a span of the next 10 years or so, although different aspects of the report may lend themselves to different timescales. For example, the NGC currently forecasts plant margins seven years ahead in its seven-year statement, whereas there are government plans for the renewables obligation, which extend well beyond 10 years.
The amendment specifies that the report must cover three areas in particular: generating capacity—the plant margin—the availability of gas infrastructure, which we have defined as including pipelines and terminals; and the availability of electricity and gas networks to get the supplies to consumers. That list is not exhaustive. It is subject to the more general requirement that the report must deal with the availability of gas and electricity. This will necessarily mean that we have to consider some wider issues.
The amendment also specifies that the report is to be prepared jointly by the Secretary of State and Ofgem. This reflects the complementary roles that the Secretary of State and Ofgem have in relation to security of supply. There are some areas—for example, the enforcement of licence conditions which are properly delegated to the independent regulator, and the necessary expertise therefore lies with Ofgem.
Amendment No. 31, which replaces the previous amendment, is a proportionate and appropriate way of emphasising the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility for security of supply. It would enable Parliament, industry and the public to scrutinise that assessment and to call the Secretary of State to account. It has the support of industry and had the support of all parties in the Commons. So, we have come a long way since the original discussions to something like a consensual position on that.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 8 would impose various reporting duties on the Secretary of State. Your Lordships will remember that during our first debate on Clauses 2 and 3 I pointed out that it was not necessary to impose reporting requirements in legislation. I seem to make that point in most legislation that I deal with in this House. The Government are in fact already required to publish a yearly report on progress made towards meeting the energy White Paper's objectives.
We said clearly in the White Paper that the Government would not achieve the targets without a wide degree of support and participation by a range of stakeholders. So we have a vested interest in ensuring that this is all open to public scrutiny. Therefore, we welcome the general duty in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. I believe that we now have a more informed debate on energy. We shall not necessarily agree on everything, which I suspect will become apparent in the course of today, but we have had a more informed debate since the publication of the White Paper. The report will provide a further basis for that discussion, as will subsequent reports. As a result of concerns
1364
expressed here and in the Commons, we proposed a new clause that would encapsulate the essence of Clauses 2 and 3. The main difference is that our new clause amends the general reporting requirement in the Sustainable Energy Act, so that the relationship between new and existing duties is completely transparent. It will require information to be provided on precisely the same list of low-carbon energy sources as is set out in existing Clause 2, with the addition of coal-mine methane, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others have been concerned with. The new clause goes further, with item (k) broadening the remit to include any other source of energy that may help to reduce carbon emissions.
The new clause departs from the previous Clause 2 in other ways, but only to ensure that the provision is workable. As it stands, Clause 2 would impose unreasonable demands on information requirements, but as reconstituted it is a more realistic basis for that report.
As regards Clause 3, the original amendment regarding energy efficiency has been incorporated into the new clause. The text has been adjusted to make the strongest possible link with the Sustainable Energy Act, again for transparency and consistency. The report will set out steps to meet the energy efficiency aims for residential accommodation in England and Wales that have been published as a result of the requirements of the Sustainable Energy Act.
I am sure that some noble Lords will point out that the statutory energy efficiency aim is 3.5 million tonnes of carbon to be saved from household energy efficiency in England. In practice, we will of course report back on measures taken throughout the UK. So we shall be looking at the overall UK aim, which we have set at 4.2 million tonnes of carbon. That is different from the 5 million tonnes of carbon stipulated in the original clause, the justification for which was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others, on the basis that that was the figure in the White Paper. In fact, the White Paper suggested around 5 million tonnes of carbon, based on the carbon savings that we expected to be delivered by measures already in place. More detailed assessment has changed that view. In terms of the amount deliverable under existing measures, we think the figure of 4.2 million tonnes of carbon is more realistic.
I say in passing that the total amount that we now believe is deliverable in energy efficiency subsuming that 4.2 million tonnes of carbon, is actually 12 million tonnes of carbon, rather than the 10 million tonnes that was in the White Paper. Therefore, adjustments have been made more than compensating in other parts of energy efficiency, for example, as a result of the energy efficiency commitment being extended through to 2011.
The new clause proposed by the Government covers the key issues that were in the pre-existing Clauses 2 and 3, and it will provide a more comprehensive and understandable reporting framework. I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to accept these amendments.

1365
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, I am grateful to have an opportunity to come in early in the debate. I will comment later on some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has made.
I begin, however, by offering an apology to Ministers and to the House. On Monday 12 July, there was a Question about the Prime Minister's policy on nuclear energy. I asked:
Why have DTI Ministers removed from the Energy Bill the only two words which would have made that a reality? The words `including nuclear' do not appear in the government amendments".—[Official Report, 12/7/04; col. 1013.]
I confess that I was wrong. Amendment No. 8, before Clause 84, subsection 2(1A)(b) contains the words,
including sources of nuclear energy,
that should be addressed in annual reports under Section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has reminded the House of what took place when the Bill was in this place, and we added Clause 2 with the reporting obligation and it was passed after a Division. It expressly included nuclear power as one of the energy sources on which research and skills should be reported annually. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his colleagues will remember that throughout the Committee stage, noble Lords repeatedly came back to the question of the nuclear option.
We then read that Clause 2 had been taken out in another place, but it was not until I saw the full list of Commons amendments on Tuesday this week that I realised that the clause had been replaced, with some amendments, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, by what is now Commons Amendment No. 8. Without wishing to make any excuses, I do not believe that I was alone in the House in failing to have realised what had happened. When the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, replied to me, he could have clearly said, "But it is still in the Bill!" but he did not do that. I suspect that he may not have been aware of what happened in another place.
The Government's new clause, which appears now as Commons Amendment No. 8, had a curious history in the other place. It was grouped with the first group of amendments taken in the Commons Committee stage at col. 4 on 20 May. So far as I can see, there was no mention made of it at all in the debate. In another place, new clauses—which is what it was—are taken at the end of the Committee stage. This new clause came up on the last day of the Standing Committee—22 June. Because in theory it had already been debated, it was added to the Bill without debate. What happened after that is perhaps the cause of my confusion. I hope that the House might have some sympathy.
We had added the clause as Clause 2. It now comes back to this House as a new clause, the clause before Clause 84. I have made inquiries of the authorities in another place, and apparently it is Ministers, and not officials, who decide where a new clause is to be
1366
inserted in the Bill. I confess, and I again suspect that I might not be alone, that I did not read the entire Bill as it went to Report stage in another place. I certainly did not read what had then become Clause 82. That was why I accused the Minister of having removed the references to nuclear power, and I can only repeat my apology to the Ministers and to the House. Perhaps I might be forgiven.
11.45 a.m.
The words,
including sources of nuclear energy,
are clearly there, and I warmly welcome them. It is the first time that it has been written into the Bill. Some attention is being paid to keeping the nuclear option open, and we now know that the Prime Minister was instrumental in ensuring that went into the White Paper.
Before I sit down, I accept warmly the new "security of supply" clause, which is Commons Amendment No. 31. I welcome Ministers' recognition that security has become the number one concern. This new clause is a useful step on the road to ensuring that the lights do not go out in the UK.
I also welcome the Minister's assurance that the annual reports will be debated—in government time— in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will give that firm assurance. The most important thing is that both Houses are able to debate the annual reports.
Baroness Miller of HendonMy Lords, as we said the first time we had occasion to consider the Bill, we certainly never opposed what it was trying to achieve. As often, the devil is in the detail, and we had concerns not so much about what was in the Bill as about what was left out of the Bill. We were all pleased when we passed the Bill on to the other place, because we believed that it had been greatly improved by the amendments that we made and that were supported by Members from all sides of the House. I am most grateful to the Government that those concerns have been listened to and that they have made concessions to address some of the issues in question, even where they do not go quite as far as we would have liked. We are grateful for what we have achieved.
The security of supply was a particularly pressing problem, which certainly needed consideration. Through our energy debates, we have always highlighted that the aim behind energy policy should be centred on the reduction of carbon emissions. I am glad to see that Amendments Nos. 8 and 31 from the other place will ensure that there are regular reports on energy source technologies including the all-important, carbon-free nuclear option and the annual report on the security of supply. They are even more important now in view of the diminishing gas supplies mentioned by EU Select Committee B and the recent ripples through the oil prices.
I have one concern, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether he can assure the House that when this report comes out we will be able to have an

1367
annual debate on the security of supply and those made under the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. After all, that would be the opportunity to consider these issues by debating them on the Floor of the House. That would be a matter of great significance to all Members.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, can I make a point of order— The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has an amendment down to one of the amendments in this group. I hoped to hear from him at this stage. Is that not right?
The Chairman of CommitteesMy Lords, that is Amendment No. 8A, which will be taken as Amendment No. 8 when Amendment No. 8 is called.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 12, page 9, line 32, leave out from "policy" to end of line 39
5 Clause 12, page 10, line 18, at end insert—
(3A) In the case of each designated installation, designated site or designated facility, it shall be the duty of the NDA, in carrying out its function by virtue of section 10(1)(e)—

to have regard, in particular, to the extent to which the person with control of the installation, site or facility was doing anything falling within subsection (3B) prior to its designation; and

to consider what obligations in relation to the doing of anything falling within that subsection should be imposed on any person with whom the NDA is proposing, in connection with the discharge of any of its responsibilities in relation to the installation, site or facility, to enter into a contract for that person to provide services.

(3B) What falls within this subsection is anything that is done for the purpose of giving encouragement and other support to

activities benefiting the social or economic life of communities living near the installation, site or facility; or

activities producing other environmental benefits for those communities.

(3C) Where the NDA is proposing, in connection with the discharge of any of its responsibilities in relation to a designated installation, designated site or designated facility, to enter into a contract with any person for him to provide any services, it shall be the duty of the NDA, before entering into that contract—

to require that person to produce his proposed strategy for the procurement of the goods and services that he will need to procure for the purpose of carrying out his obligations under the contract; and

to consider the likely effect of the implementation of that strategy on the economic life of communities living near the installation, site or facility.

6 Clause 13, page 11, line 44, leave out subsection (5)
7 Clause 25, page 23, line 39, at end insert—
"() In determining—

whether to make a grant under this section to the NDA, and

1368

the amount of such a grant,

the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to the extent to which he considers that the NDA should exercise its power to make grants or loans of the kind mentioned in section 13(2)(c) in order to mitigate the effects of the cessation (whether before or after designation) of the operation of a designated installation.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
The speed of proceedings also took me a bit by surprise, but we will deal with Amendment No. 8A later. I accept the gracious apology made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, particularly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. I would not go as far as the noble Lord in criticising the proceedings in another place, but we can all understand how these matters arise. We will have a debate, and all government reports are debated in government time. I do not think that undermines the position of business managers, and it is hopefully a sufficient reassurance.
This group of amendments relate to the NDA clauses of the Bill and they cover three areas: the socioeconomic support for local communities; the laying of the NDA's strategy and plan before Parliament; and some minor drafting clarifications.
The Government recognise the importance of social and economic support for local communities, which are currently heavily dependent on the nuclear industry. We had a number of debates in Committee and in the House on that matter. We are certainly committed to ensuring that both the NDA and the site operators continue to play a full role in their communities.
The Bill has always provided for the NDA to give encouragement to and support for the social and economic life of local communities. Following representations made by noble Lords opposite, we did expand the scope for NDA activity to cover support for activities bringing environmental benefits to these communities.
At Third Reading in this House two more amendments were made to strengthen further the NDA's remit in this regard, requiring the NDA to give proper weight to its employment and contractual arrangements and to engender local confidence that the levels of support given by existing operators will be maintained and enhanced. The Government accepted the general purpose of these proposals. But the drafting of these amendments was a little ambiguous in legal terms and generated a risk that the NDA could be hindered in the discharge of its principal clean-up of responsibilities. The Government therefore introduced new amendments in another place which clarified the purpose of the original proposals while removing the risk that the NDA could be deflected.
Amendment No. 5 therefore replaces the drafting deleted by Amendment No. 4 to impose two new duties on the NDA: first, to have regard in particular to the extent to which the previous operator was

1369
supporting such activities before designation to the NDA and, secondly, to consider the obligations that should be imposed on its site operators or management contractors in respect of such activities.
That reflects the reality that the NDA will deliver its social and economic support predominantly through its site operators and its contractors, which are operating in the local community and will have the biggest impact. It will control this through its contractual arrangements. The amendment requires the NDA to show that it has given due consideration to local community support issues in entering into such contracts, with particular reference to current levels of local community support by the current site operators.
The NDA will therefore have to consider the extent to which bidders will support social, economic and environmental life in local communities having regard in particular to the previous level of support. The underlying objective here is to maintain or enhance that support for as long as NDA's site operators remain significant economic players in the local community. Obviously, for some sites such as Sellafield and Dounreay that will be for many decades to come. These duties are focused on the activities which BNFL and UKAEA currently carry out worth several million pounds a year. They are very valuable and valued by those communities.
In subsection(3C) the amendment also puts a duty on the NDA to require its site operators or contractors to have a procurement strategy for carrying out work at the site and to consider the effect of this on the local community before entering into the contract.
This addresses the underlying point of the amendment agreed by your Lordships to ensure that the NDA considers the contribution its employment and contractual arrangements can make to local communities. In practice it will be the site operators and managers who will meet those objectives in this regard. They will be making the decisions and the development of the supply chain which will impact on the economic life of the local community. I think the amendments make that clear.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 clarify that the provision is not to be a limitation on the other matters to which the Secretary of State may legitimately have regard when determining the amount of grant under Clause 25. The Secretary of State will need to consider in the round the NDA's plan for such activities and all other functions. In addition, as Clause 25 deals with the question of grants it is proposed to make the amendment in this clause rather than in Clause 13 which principally concerns the power of the NDA itself.
We are all agreed that the NDA must have a crucial responsibility to discharge its activities for the benefit of the nation—securing nuclear decommissioning and clean-up. We must not allow it to be deflected from that path. We also recognise that there are areas which are heavily dependent on the nuclear industry for employment. I mentioned earlier the west Cumbria and
1370
Caithness areas. As part of its corporate social responsibility, the NDA must take on the responsibilities of its predecessors.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 were agreed in response to Opposition proposals in the Commons to increase parliamentary oversight of the NDA's activities. I hope that they will be welcomed in this House. The key documents relating to the NDA's long and short-term plans for cleaning up and operating its designated sites will be made formally available to Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41 are three minor drafting changes which have arisen from a detailed check of the Bill. They are entirely inconsequential as regards effects and remove ambiguities.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 7.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, I very much welcome these amendments. I moved the original amendments with all-party support. It is very good to see that those measures have been incorporated into the Bill.
I make two points. The first is that in dealing with this matter at earlier stages in this House, Ministers made much play with the problem of interfering with the activities of the regional development agencies and sought to argue that the NDA's activities must not cut across and contravene the general policies of the regional development agencies. Now that this duty has been inserted into the Bill, it will require a good deal of careful administration by the regional development agencies in the areas concerned and by the NDA to make sure that they work extremely closely together. I can understand the anxieties of the RDAs in knowing that someone else has the same sort of task. I welcome the fact that the NDA has been given this additional responsibility.
The second point is that the problems could be substantially reduced if it was recognised that the existing nuclear sites would be admirable places to build new nuclear power stations. We have made that point on a number of occasions. It is coming closer. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, indicated on Monday at Question Time, the Prime Minister's statement sounded like a change of policy and read as such. Many of us would have agreed with him that we hoped that it was a change of policy. However, we are not going to get that now. If that could happen, it would certainly meet the requirements of the people who are facing unemployment and disruption as a result of the winding down of the existing nuclear establishments.
My main point is about the RDAs and the NDA. That is going to be the key to making the provisions work.
Baroness Miller of HendonMy Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendments. The inclusion of the duty to ensure that the NDA will give encouragement and other support to activities benefiting the social and economic life of communities

1371
living near to a site, particularly those that will provide environmental benefits, is very reassuring. There is also the duty to produce these measures within the strategies which they create or which they require a contractor to provide.
As my colleagues in another place have said and as the Minister mentioned a few moments ago, given the moneys allocated to and deployed by the NDA, and given that it will be doing so much important work, it is important that Parliament keeps an eye on what is going on through the publication of the reports.
I also welcome the measure to ensure that these publications are provided directly to the Scottish Parliament considering the number of energy installations there are north of the Border.
Lord JoplingMy Lord, I believe that it was my amendment with which noble Lords agreed when we last debated these matters. Anyone who has worked for a long period in this building knows that, relatively speaking, amendments drawn by amateurs rarely attain the approval of the parliamentary draftsman in Whitehall. I am not remotely surprised, therefore, to see that the wording of the amendment has had to be changed.
Cumbria County Council first raised this issue. I am not sure whether it now has everything it wanted because it has not yet been in touch with me. But I want to add my welcome to that expressed by my colleagues.
Noon
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I am grateful for the expressions of support for these changes in the Bill which address the basic problems outlined at earlier stages by noble Lords, some of whom have spoken again today.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about the regional development agencies. We were anxious that the original phrasing of the amendment might suggest that the more strategic role, one that might almost create a sub-regional RDA, was an ambiguity in the original drafting. The way it is now worded does not run that danger, but I agree wholeheartedly that it ensures close co-operation between the RDAs in those areas where there are substantial employment implications.
I do not think that I need to go into the question of future nuclear sites. As has been made clear, the Prime Minister is not enunciating new policy, and I agree with him. In any case, were we to take the nuclear option at some later stage, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority would not be the body to run those operations. Therefore it would not be appropriate to reflect that in this Bill, even if I were to agree with the basic point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
In relation to the Scottish Parliament, I am not entirely sure what should appear in UK legislation, but in practice I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will need to be informed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, Scotland has a number of significant nuclear sites.
1372
I turn to the questions raised about west Cumbria. I understand that the redraft has been discussed with Cumbria County Council, whose representatives say that they are happy with it. I hope that everyone is now reasonably appreciative of the clauses now agreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Before Clause 84, Insert the following new Clause—"
"Reports under section 1 of Sustainable Energy Act 2003

Section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 (c. 30) (annual reports on progress towards sustainable energy aims) is amended as follows.

After subsection (1) insert—

(1A) The report must include, in particular, all such information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about—

things done during the reporting period for the purposes of the development or the bringing into use of any of the energy sources or technologies mentioned in subsection (1B);

things done during that period for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of the scientific and engineering expertise available in the United Kingdom that is necessary for the development of potential energy sources (including sources of nuclear energy); and

things done during that period for the purpose of achieving the energy efficiency aims designated under sections 2 and 3.

(1B) The energy sources and technologies referred to in subsection (lA)(a) are—

clean coal technology;

coal mine methane;

biomass;

biofuels:

fuel cells;

photovoltaics;

wave and tidal generation;

hydrogeneration;

microgeneration;

geothermal sources; and

other sources of energy, and technologies for the production of energy, the use of which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, cut the United Kingdom's carbon emissions.

(1C) The references in subsection ( IA) to things done during the reporting period include references to proposals of the Secretary of State published during that period.
(3) In subsection (2) for "subsection (1)" substitute "subsections (1) to (1C)"
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Ezrarose to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 8A:
8A Before Clause 84, Line 19. at end insert—
(d) things done during that period and proposed to be done to secure carbon savings from domestic energy efficiency of 5MtC per annum by 2010 and a further 5MtC per annum by 2020.
The noble Lordsaid: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment, as is made clear on the Marshalled List, is to add to the list of subjects to be covered in the reports under Section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 by including carbon savings from domestic energy efficiency. I need hardly remind noble Lords of the great importance which the Government have attached throughout the period since the publication of the energy White Paper to improving energy efficiency. Together with their emphasis on renewables, these are the two main planks of the Government's policy to achieve the reduction in carbon emissions to which they have committed themselves under Kyoto and in other ways.
This matter has figured largely in the debates on the Bill. Indeed, at Third Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to it:
We will review our progress on the energy efficiency aim for the household sector in the review of the climate change programmes later this year, and in the 2007 review announced in the energy White Paper action plan. If we find that we can go further than we set out in the action plan, we will do so—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/04; col. 1366.]
I personally am firmly of the opinion that the Government should do so, and that they should revert to the figures mentioned in the energy White Paper and which are set out in the amendment I have proposed. Those figures were confirmed no fewer than 15 times—I repeat, on 15 separate occasions—by Ministers and senior civil servants as being the energy saving objectives for the domestic sector on which the Government have set their sights. Therefore, in the Energy Bill, which is intended to reflect what was set out in the energy White Paper, I think it is wholly desirable that reference be made to the objectives and that reports be produced annually on what has been done to achieve them, bearing in mind what the Secretary of State had to say about the Government wanting to go further than their recently announced reduced figures.
I hope that the House and the Government will be prepared to accept this small amendment so that we can reconfirm what the Government have already stated on so many separate occasions; that is, their commitment to achieve these savings of carbon emissions in the energy sector. I beg to move.
Baroness ByfordMy Lords, I support Amendment No. 8A, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Like the noble Lord, I am slightly mystified about why the Government have not included the higher targets. It appears that the Government have discussed what they think can be achieved and have set their target accordingly rather than pushing for the higher figure that they had originally hoped to achieve. However, I
1374
shall not repeat what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because he has defined the point very clearly.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that Early Day Motion 96, which expressed strong support for the higher 5MtC target for residential energy, was signed by 338 honourable Members, representing over half the elected Chamber. Since the clause was removed in Committee, some 229 MPs have signed Early Day Motion 1341 in support of the higher target. In addition, four of the MPs who voted to remove the clause in Committee have now signed this Early Day Motion, which must beg the question why the Government are refusing to accept it. Given that the Government won that vote by only two, it could be argued that the four MPs who have now signed the Early Day Motion have had second thoughts, there is now a Committee majority in the other place for Clause 3. Some 120 Labour MPs have issued press releases to their local papers supporting the higher target, and it is important that noble Lords are made aware of that.
In our earlier discussions we pressed for the higher target, and my noble friend Lady Miller wanted to ensure that it was reached. The Government's own sustainable energy policy website now lists CO2 savings as specified in the proposed amendment—as 5MtC per annum by 2010, and a further 4MtC by 2020 as commitments and objectives. It is hugely important that the noble Lord reconsiders this issue.
My noble friend highlighted the document Policy in Confidence, a draft written on 2 March 2004 of the Government's energy efficiency implementation plan. She drew the attention of noble Lords to paragraph 96:
However, the most recent update of the United Kingdom's energy projections has highlighted the fact that changes to our baseline projections mean that the existing package of measures may no longer be sufficient to keep us on track to deliver the expected absolute.
Concerns are being widely expressed. For the Government to settle for the lower target is very regrettable. I shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord has to say in giving the reasoning behind the Government's refusal to accept the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, I would like to make a general point. It is relatively easy to establish standards for new buildings and dwellings which would reduce considerably the amount of energy necessary to heat them. The Minister's department has progressively tightened up on that—indeed, when I was Environment Secretary many years ago, we were already working on that. That is one of the main instruments whereby one can reduce carbon emissions in the domestic sector. However, that only takes one so far, because the vast majority of buildings are in existence.
This is to some extent linked to issues of fuel poverty. Very often those in fuel poverty, who find the greatest difficulty in paying their energy bills, are least able to invest in the kind of measures that are necessary to reduce their energy consumption. The Minister's

1375
department therefore operates a series of policies to try to target people in those circumstances and offer them free help with insulation and other measures.
My inquiries have elicited that when Defra seeks to identify specific groups of people who might be the target of advertising or individual approaches to tell them what is on offer for instance people suffering from disabilities, on certain benefits or suffering from particular health problems, such as asthma the other authorities involved, including the social services and health authorities, point blank refuse to give Defra information about those people. The department is left with only general, blanket advertising—leaflets into letterboxes and television advertisements and so on. It is impossible for it to target the information about the help and the subsidies available because other parts of government, for reasons which as a former Secretary of State for Health and Social Security I entirely understand, are precluded from handing over information that might help Defra.
I suspect that when the targets were set for emissions and fuel poverty, it was hoped that there would be a much bigger programme of assisted insulation, if I may so describe it, through targeting vulnerable groups. I suspect that the Minister and his department, because they find themselves unable to do this, have perforce been driven to reduce the targets.
It would help the House if the Minister could indicate how the Government intend to address the problem. There are far more—"millions—of existing dwellings which could benefit, both from the point of view of the comfort of the inhabitants and from that of emissions, which is addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra's amendment, if somehow they could be targeted. This has not happened and therefore the targets have had to be reduced; that seems to me a pity.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I have some sympathy for many of the points made, but I do not think that this is an appropriate amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the activities of Members in another place, signing EDMs and press releases. Well, that is what they do, but it is not the basis for us legislating. We must decide what is appropriate to put in legislation and which piece of legislation it is appropriate to put it in. That is what we are debating under this amendment.
Baroness ByfordMy Lords, I am somewhat mystified by that, because clearly some Members of the Committee had a change of heart. That is why I raised the matter—"it was not a flippant thing. Two Members subsequently voted in a different fashion from the way in which they had voted in Committee, which is why noble Lords should be aware of what went on.
12.15 p.m.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, the noble Baroness has been in politics for enough time to know that a vote is a vote at the point at which it is taken, and that is what changes the nature of the Bill. The argument in Committee about why we should not put this
1376
provision here was partly concerned with the issue of duplication. There is already a requirement in the Sustainable Energy Act that we set an aim. It is the size of that aim that is under dispute, but we already have the obligation to set it.
The aim was set at 4.2 million tonnes of carbon savings in the energy efficiency action progress policy to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. I recognise that there is some disappointment that the figure is not as high as the 5 million tonnes of carbon mentioned in the Energy White Paper. Of course, when we come to legislate, we are under an obligation to ensure that that has happened and that we are confident of the measures for that to happen. Looking at the existing measures, including some new ones, 4.2 million tonnes is a more realistic figure—as I said in the earlier debate on Amendment No. 8.
We have also considered the other aspects of energy efficiency in the White Paper. Particularly because of the adoption of the energy efficiency commitment in a forward period during the next six years, we considered that some of those targets could be raised. The total contribution of energy efficiency towards matching supply and demand and reducing carbon is actually higher than was set out in the White Paper. Presumably, noble Lords would not object to that and nor would the industry or the campaigners on these fronts. It is important to recognise that we must be realistic about the time-scale in which different parts of the energy efficiency programme can meet those objectives.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin's point about the stock and the flow of buildings. Clearly, it is easier to build in better energy efficiency measures in new and refurbished buildings than it is to address the stock of buildings. That is why progress on that front is perhaps a bit slower than people would otherwise hope. That is partly reflected in the fairly robust calculation used to reach the 4.2 million tonnes figure for the United Kingdom as a whole.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin referred to the fuel poverty programme, although some of the things that he said on that are not right. Clearly the fuel poverty programme makes a significant contribution to energy efficiency. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, noticed that in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement on Monday there was a significant increase in the resources allocated to Defra for the fuel poverty programme. This should help us to get closer to the targets for taking people out of fuel poverty but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin says, have an energy efficiency effect. It will help us to increase resources for energy efficiency.
The Government are committed to putting more resources into these fields. Nevertheless, it is the case that by 2010 our best guess of how far existing policies can take us on the building front is 4.2 million tonnes of carbon saving. However, there is a better picture on the industrial, commercial and public sector aspects of energy efficiency savings.
I would like to correct, for the record, one other thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin said. It is true that there are some inhibitions in the passing over of

1377
information from health authorities and social services to other government departments. However, with the agreement of the householder that information can be passed on. In many local authorities, there is an arrangement whereby names are passed on from the health services to the scheme managers of the fuel poverty programme. As far as possible under the understandable restrictions other departments of government are involved—local authorities and health authorities in particular—in passing on information where the householder agrees.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, I am grateful for that—it is helpful—but can the Minister indicate what proportion of vulnerable households can be approached through those joint arrangements? My information is that it is very few of them and that most of the authorities do not agree to give the information.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, the noble Lord is correct that performance on that front is patchy, but in those health authorities where it has been pursued more than in others, there is a significant number. The gateway to the receipt of fuel poverty help is through benefits information and through application. The attention of households is drawn to these provisions by a number of interfaces with public bodies. Health authorities and the Department of Health have asked all their bodies to ensure that people are aware of these facilities. Health visitors and social workers can pass on the information, but only with the explicit agreement of the householder. That would not measure the total number of applications because they are quite often made at the suggestion of a health visitor or social worker, but it is the householder who applies.
So there is joined-up government in this regard. It is not as good as it should be, but the fuel poverty programme has been over-subscribed. We still have a long way to go to deal with everyone who comes in through the system and is identified by the various other services.
The House should recognise that the total contribution of energy efficiency reflected in the energy efficiency action plan is more ambitious than in the White Paper. We are being sensible in ensuring that the individual subsections are robust and cautious because we are dealing with a statutory obligation. Certainly, as Patricia Hewitt said, we would wish to go further on all fronts, but we think we can reasonably guarantee that this one will be met. We have therefore included that as our obligation for specifying the statutory aim.
Both for the reason that this is not a rolling back of the contribution of energy efficiency to our energy policy—quite the reverse—and for the reason that there is already an obligation in another piece of legislation, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Baroness ByfordMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he did not accept in his reply that setting the
1378
lower target may well discourage people from achieving a higher target. I am quite surprised that the Government are reluctant to accept the amendment because it will send out the wrong vibes to the wider audience out there. I am most disappointed. I shall wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has to say. In truth, I do not think the Minister has answered the questions put to him as to whether the higher figure should be accepted.
Lord EzraMy Lords, I am also very disappointed that the Minister has not been able to accept the amendment. When the figures for energy saving were published in the energy White Paper, the proposals were enthusiastically supported by all those who follow these matters and were, of course, many times reiterated by Ministers and senior officials.
This is, indeed, an objective; it should be restated as an objective and we should know what we are doing to achieve it. I quite agree that the Government have so planned matters that overall energy saving could be rather larger than first envisaged, but there is notorious inefficiency in the use of energy in the domestic sector and a determined effort has to be made to improve it. Inserting the amendment in this important Bill would have galvanised efforts. However, the Bill contains many measures that we strongly support and I do not wish to delay it in any way. So, with much regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 8A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 8, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Before Clause 84, Insert the following new Clause—
"Microgeneration

The Secretary of State—

must prepare a strategy for the promotion of microgeneration in Great Britain; and

may from time to time revise it.

The Secretary of State—

must publish the strategy within 18 months after the commencement of this section; and

(b) if he revises it, must publish the revised strategy.

In preparing or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consider the contribution that is capable of being made by microgeneration to—

cutting emissions of greenhouse gases in Great Britain;

reducing the number of people living in fuel poverty in Great Britain;

reducing the demands on transmission systems and distribution systems situated in Great Britain;

reducing the need for those systems to be modified;

enhancing the availability of electricity and heat for consumers in Great Britain.

Before preparing or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult such persons appearing to him to represent the producers and suppliers of plant used for microgeneration, and such other persons, as he considers appropriate.

The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to secure the implementation of the strategy in the form in which it has most recently been published.

1379

For the purposes of this section "microgeneration" means the use for the generation of electricity or the production of heat of any plant—

which in generating electricity or (as the case may be) producing heat, relies wholly or mainly on a source of energy or a technology mentioned in subsection; and

the capacity of which to generate electricity or (as the case may be) to produce heat does not exceed the capacity mentioned in subsection.

Those sources of energy and technologies are—

biomass;

biofuels;

fuel cells;

photovoltaics;

water (including waves and tides);

wind;

solar power;

geothermal sources;

combined heat and power systems;

other sources of energy and technologies for the generation of electricity or the production of heat, the use of which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, cut emissions of greenhouse gases in Great Britain.

That capacity is

in relation to the generation of electricity, 50 kilowatts;

in relation to the production of heat, 45 kilowatts thermal.

In this section—

"consumers" includes both existing and future consumers;
"distribution system" and "transmission system" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the 1989 Act;
"fuel poverty" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 (c. 30);
"greenhouse gases" means—

carbon dioxide;

methane;

nitrous oxide;

hydrofluorocarbons;

perfluorocarbons;

sulphur hexafluoride;

"plant" includes any equipment, apparatus or appliance."
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. In doing so, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 21 and 35. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be slightly more pleased with this position of the Government than he was during the previous debate.
We fully agree that microgeneration has a key role to play in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have lent our support to a number of initiatives. We have recently legislated to make it easier for small renewables generators to receive renewables obligation certificates. We have established with Ofgem the distributed generation co-ordination group, which has a workstream looking specifically at microgeneration. In financial terms, we already support microgeneration to the tune of£35 million through our funding of the major PV Demonstration
1380
programme and our Clear Skies initiative, which provides grants towards the costs of residential or community renewables projects.
The clause originally proposed raised some concerns—in particular the inclusion of a duty to set specific targets for small-scale generation of electricity which would have cut unhelpfully across other commitments in the White Paper. There were also some drafting issues around that, particularly the definition of "microgeneration". It was for those reasons that my colleagues in the Commons proposed the deletion of the clause inserted by your Lordships.
But it is clear that there are distinct benefits to a clear, joined-up strategy for microgeneration. Although I do not think, in general, that we need legislation for that, there needs to be a legal duty to establish a strategy which gives the industry and potential investors in this technology new confidence. Amendment No. 9 would impose a clear duty on the Government to publish a microgeneration strategy within 18 months of the commencement of this section of the Bill, and then to take reasonable steps to ensure implementation.
For technical reasons, Amendment No. 35 excludes the obligation from Northern Ireland. As energy is a devolved matter, it would not be appropriate to extend the strategy across to that administration unless there was separate Northern Ireland legislation. But we will, of course, keep in touch with our Northern Ireland colleagues on this issue.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord EzraMy Lords, perhaps I may express my appreciation of the amendment. When the Bill was in this House we spent much time debating the subject of microgeneration as being potentially a substantial contributor to the achievement of the Government's objectives in reducing carbon emissions.
I had the benefit of a meeting with Mr Stephen Timms, the Minister for Energy, and explained to him the reasoning behind our amendment, even though I accepted that support for microgeneration had been included in the White Paper. He was very sympathetic to this concept but he drew attention to the problem of the targets that had been included, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred. I accept that the Government were faced with that difficulty, but I was very pleased that he accepted the concept that the Government should develop a strategy for microgeneration.
It is an area in which I have been much concerned— I declare an interest in it—and I can say that, with this provision, the sector will be only too pleased to assist the Government in developing such a strategy. I very much support the amendment.
Baroness Miller of HendonMy Lords, we on these Benches are also supportive of and grateful for the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I have a question. Subsection (8) sets

1381
out the capacity that is to be regarded as falling within the description of microgeneration—50 kilowatts of electricity and 45 kilowatts thermal of heat. Is there any particular reason why those figures have been put into the Bill, or is it simply a matter of judgment as to where a line should be drawn? Has there been any scientific study of the equipment that might be available, both for electricity and the combined heat and power systems referred to in the amendment? I should be most grateful for an explanation.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I am not fully clear about the scientific basis for it but, on the electricity side, the threshold for electricity generation is set at the equivalent definition of micro-CHP in the EU co-generation directive. On the heat side there is not a similar precedent to follow. The general view is that 45 kilowatts thermal ensures that the technologies which are capable of generating heat for small households or community heating projects would fall within the scope of this strategy. There is a less clear answer on the heat part but it is for consistency on the other part.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
12.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 84, Leave out Clause 84
Lord Whittyrose to move, that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 but do propose the following amendments in lieu—
10A Clause 84, page 64, line 29, leave out from beginning to "(the" in line 30 and insert "In each of section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) and section 3A of the 1989 Act"
10B Clause 84, page 64, line 31, leave out from "Authority)," to end of line 35 and insert "in subsection (5)—

for the "and" at the end of paragraph (b) substitute—

(ba) to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; and";

for "and shall" substitute "and (so far as not otherwise required to do so by this subsection) shall"

The noble Lordsaid: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 but propose that we adopt instead Amendments Nos. 10A and 10B.
We have argued in both Houses that the three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—are already covered in legislation. Sustainable development is already taken fully into account when the Secretary of State, Ofgem and GEMA carry out their functions under Part I of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986. We have questioned whether this additional duty on the Secretary of State would significantly alter the way the work is delivered.
However, on further reflection and having listened to the arguments originally proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and by others both here and in the Commons, the fact
that this
1382
sustainable development duty has wide cross-party and stakeholder support demonstrates to us that it might be better to make this clear in the Bill.
I am familiar with the precedent in the Water Act 2003. It is difficult to argue with it. I tried earlier, but I am not sure that I convinced myself, and I clearly did not convince many noble Lords or Members below. We should have a similar provision in relation to the Secretary of State and GEMA in this Bill and, for consistency, in the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986, which were referred to in the original amendment.
We are therefore content to propose that that a sustainable development duty is added to those to which the Secretary of State and GEMA must already pay attention. I hope that shows beyond doubt the Government's intention in this matter.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 but do propose Amendments Nos. 10A and 10B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerMy Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 10A and 10B. I express my considerable gratitude to the Minister for listening to all the arguments. As he said, he played a considerable role in ensuring that there was a similar provision in the Water Act 2003, and so he was open to the suggestion that it was important to have such a provision in this Bill, as far as the regulator is concerned.
There was some debate around the fact that guidance could be issued for environmental and social requirements and the question of whether that was sufficient. The fact that the Government have had a change of heart and have included a sustainable development duty for GEMA signifies a real step forward for the industry.
All too often, the parts of sustainability are taken separately. The Minister is correct to say that they all need to be considered together. The Government's amendment, which replaces the deleted Clause 84, is extremely welcome and satisfactory.
Baroness ByfordMy Lords, we are delighted that the Government have been persuaded. We had long debates at earlier stages in the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and I pressed very hard. We took the Water Act through. I am grateful that the Minister has listened to the arguments and has convinced his colleagues at the other end. We support the amendments.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, I would like to add my support to this and draw the House's attention to what I have found a compelling report by Sustainability First, Economic regulation and sustainability policy. It took my printer a long time to print it out, but it was worth it.
The main recommendation in that report is that sustainability obligations should be the same for the energy regulator as they are for the water regulator, as

1383
the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has said. The Government are wise in moving in that direction. I support the amendments too.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I am grateful for this support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Clause 100, Leave out Clause 100
12 Clause 101, Leave out Clause 101
13 Clause 102, page 78, line 10, after "extension", insert "of a generating station"
14 Clause 102, page 79, line 13, at end insert—
"36B Duties in relation to navigation

Neither the Secretary of State nor the Scottish Ministers may grant a consent in relation to any particular offshore generating activities if he considers, or (as the case may be) they consider, that interference with the use of recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation—

is likely to be caused by the carrying on of those activities; or

is likely to result from their having been carried on.

It shall be the duty both of the Secretary of State and of the Scottish Ministers, in determining—

whether to give a consent for any particular offshore generating activities, and

what conditions to include in such a consent,
to have regard to the extent and nature of any obstruction of or danger to navigation which (without amounting to interference with the use of such sea lanes) is likely to be caused by the carrying on of the activities, or is likely to result from their having been carried on.

In determining for the purposes of this section what interference, obstruction or danger is likely and its extent and nature, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the Scottish Ministers must have regard to the likely overall effect (both while being carried on and subsequently) of—

the activities in question; and

such other offshore generating activities as are either already the subject of consents or are activities in respect of which it appears likely that consents will be granted.

For the purposes of this section the effects of offshore generating activities include—

how, in relation to those activities, the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers have exercised or will exercise their powers under section 36A above and section 103 of the Energy Act 2004 (extinguishment of public rights of navigation); and

how, in relation to those activities, the Secretary of State has exercised or will exercise his powers under sections 96 and 97 and Chapter 2 of Part 3 of that Act (safety zones and decommissioning).

If the person who has granted a consent in relation to any offshore generating activities thinks it appropriate to do so in the interests of the safety of navigation, he may at any time vary conditions of the consent so as to modify in relation to any of the following matters the obligations imposed by those conditions—

the provision of aids to navigation (including, in particular, lights and signals);

the stationing of guard ships in the vicinity of the place where the activities are being or are to be carried on; or

1384

the taking of other measures for the purposes of, or in connection with, the control of the movement of vessels in that vicinity.

A modification in exercise of the power under subsection must be set out in a notice given by the person who granted the consent to the person whose obligations are modified.

In this section—

consent' means a consent under section 36 above; `offshore generating activities' means—

the construction or operation of a generating station that is to comprise or comprises (in whole or in part) renewable energy installations; or

an extension of a generating station that is to comprise (in whole or in part) renewable energy installations or an extension of such an installation;

the use of recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation' means—

anything that constitutes the use of such a sea lane for the purposes of Article 60(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941); or

any use of waters in the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain that would fall within paragraph (a) if the waters were in a Renewable Energy Zone.

In subsection 'extension', in relation to a renewable energy installation, has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Energy Act 2004."

15 Clause 102, page 79, line 22, at end insert—
() In subsection (1) of section 35 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74) (operations not requiring consent under section 34), after paragraph (g) insert—
(ga) subject to subsection (3) of this section, any operations comprised in offshore generating activities carried out in accordance with a consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 granted after the commencement of section 102 of the Energy Act 2004;.
( ) After subsection (2) of that section insert—
"(3) Operations in or as regards Scotland fall within paragraph (ga) of that subsection only if and to the extent that the Scottish Ministers by order made by statutory instrument so provide.
(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.
(5) In that paragraph 'offshore generating activities' has the same meaning as in section 36B of the Electricity Act 1989.""
16 Clause 103, page 79, line 32, after "extension" insert "of a generating station"
Lord TriesmanMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 16.
Clauses 100 and 101 on navigation were introduced by noble Lords on Report. We recognise the importance which the shipping and ports industries attach to including navigational matters in the Bill. At Second Reading in the other place, the Government gave an undertaking to retain the substance of these two clauses. However—I say it with great respect to those who drafted the clauses—in their original formulation, both clauses had a number of shortcomings which meant that they would be difficult to implement in practice and could create confusion which might well lead to litigation.

1385
The main shortcomings were, first, that Clause 100 did not make it clear who had the duty to ensure that installations and the safety zones around them do not interfere with the use of recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation. Secondly, this clause was almost the same as Article 60(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but there is no express link to that article in the clause. Thirdly, Clause 101 took no account of the devolved competence of Scottish Ministers.
Commons Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 14 and 15 address these shortcomings, while retaining the substance of Clauses 100 and 101. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 remove Clauses 100 and 101 from the Bill. Amendment No. 14 places the duties in relation to navigation encompassed by Clauses 100 and 101 on the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers who have responsibility for deciding whether to grant a Section 36 Electricity Act consent for the construction, extension and operation of a generating station. At the same time the Secretary of State must also take into account how she has exercised or will exercise her powers in respect of safety zones.
The Commons amendments go further than the strict requirements of the amendments made by your Lordships' House. Amendment No. 14 provides at subsection (2) for the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to have a general duty to have regard to the nature of any obstruction or danger to navigation in deciding whether to give a Section 36 consent for an offshore generating station.
It was clear from our debate on navigational issues that noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who I see in his place—were concerned to see a general reference to the safety of navigation in the Bill. We have listened to those concerns.
This consolidation of duties in respect of navigation into Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 has the benefit of ensuring that a comprehensive assessment of the impact of a proposed installation and any safety zone around it on navigation forms an integral part of the process of deciding whether to grant a consent for a generating station.
DTI Ministers will continue to work with the Department for Transport and more particularly the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which has responsibility for marine safety in carrying out these duties. They have already built a close relationship with the MCA on the first round of offshore wind farm projects.
The effect of Amendment No. 15 is to disapply Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 where consent has been obtained for a generating station under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 after Clause 100 of the Bill has been brought into force. Section 36B(2) to (6) do the same job as Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act, so it can be disapplied. With regard to Scotland, the amendment gives Scottish Ministers a power to make an order which disapplies Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act.
1386
Amendments Nos. 13 and 16 are purely drafting amendments designed to make it clear that the reference to "an extension" in 36A(1)(b) and Clause 103(2)(b) means an extension of a generating station. These amendments ensure that these references to an extension of a generating station tie in with the definition of offshore generating activities at Section 36B(7).
I commend the Commons amendments to the House. They address the issues which caused some concern in the House and are now in a form that would not give rise to litigation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 16.—"(Lord Triesman.)
Lord GreenwayMy Lords, I warmly welcome these amendments which, as the Minister said, go slightly wider than the two clauses which were written into the Bill during its passage through this House. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who is otherwise engaged in the House at the moment, and I raised the concerns of the maritime industries in connection with the proposed siting of offshore wind farms in relation to the dangers of interfering with well recognised shipping lanes.
What the Government are now proposing meets nearly all our concerns. For that, I should like to express my gratitude, which I am sure will be echoed by my colleagues in the maritime industries. I do not think that it would be correct for me to thank the Minister on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Perhaps the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench would do that.
Lord Dixon-SmithMy Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that, from here on, shipping will be able to miss maritime wind farms? At Question Time about six weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said something to the effect that shipping could not possibly miss maritime wind farms.
Baroness Miller of HendonMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Higgins—on behalf of everybody, really—we welcome these changes to navigation which have been so well championed. We are grateful to the two noble Lords who spent so much time, in so many debates, discussing these proposals, and to the Government, for agreeing to what is before us.
Lord TriesmanMy Lords, the intention of everybody in this matter has been that shipping should miss these installations. That seems a prudent step. I suspect that the best way to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is to say that I am sure there will be some adjustments to the way in which navigation operates with respect to the installations. We now have a framework in which the obligations of all parties are well defined. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have pressed the argument to this conclusion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Clause 118, page 95, line 15, leave out from beginning to "insert" in line 26 and insert—
() For subsection (3) of that section substitute—
(2A) An order under section 32 may provide that, where—

a renewables obligation is one in relation to which provision made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) applies in the case of the electricity supplier who is subject to the obligation, and

the period ending with such day (after the day by which the obligation had to be complied with) as may be specified in or determined under the order has not expired,

the taking of steps under section 27A in respect of a contravention by that supplier of that obligation is prohibited or otherwise restricted to the extent specified in the order.

(2B) An order under section 32 may provide that, in a case in which the amount received by the Authority, or by the Northern Ireland authority, by way of discharge payments for a period falls short of the amount due in respect of that period, persons who—

were subject to renewables obligations for the relevant period, and

are of a description specified in or determined under the order,
must, by the time and in the circumstances so specified or determined, make a payment (or further payment) to the Authority of an amount calculated in the manner so specified or determined.

(2C) An order under section 32 may not by virtue of subsection (2B) confer an entitlement on the Authority to receive a payment in respect of the shortfall for any period—

in the case of a shortfall in the amount received by the Authority, if the receipt of the payment is to be while a prohibition or restriction by virtue of subsection (2A) applies, in one or more cases, to the taking of steps in relation to contraventions of renewables obligations for that period; or

in the case of a shortfall in the amount received by the Northern Ireland authority, if the receipt of the payment is to be while a prohibition or restriction by virtue of a corresponding provision having effect in Northern Ireland applies, in one or more cases, to the taking of steps in relation to contraventions of Northern Ireland obligations for that period.

(2D) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (2B) includes—

provision for the making of adjustments and repayments at times after a requirement to make payments in respect of a shortfall for a period has already arisen; and

provision that sections 25 to 28 are to apply in relation to a requirement imposed by virtue of that subsection on a person who is not a licence holder as if he were a licence holder.

(3) The amounts received by the Authority by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section must be paid by it to electricity suppliers in accordance with a system of allocation specified in an order under section 32."
() In that section, at the end"
18 Page 95, line 29, at end insert—
"(7) For the purposes of this section—

the amount received by the Authority by way of discharge payments for a period falls short of the amount due in respect of that period, and

1388

the amount received by the Northern Ireland authority by way of discharge payments for a period falls short of the amount due in respect of that period,
if, and to the extent that, the Authority or (as the case may be) the Northern Ireland authority would have received more by way of discharge payments if every renewables obligation or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland obligation for that period, so far as it was not otherwise discharged, had been discharged by payment.

(8) In this section—
"discharge payment", in relation to a period, means—

a payment by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) for discharging (in whole or in part) an electricity supplier's renewables obligation for that period;

so much of a payment by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection for securing that such an obligation is treated as discharged to any extent as does not exceed the payment that would have discharged that obligation to the same extent if it had been made before the day mentioned in that paragraph; or

so much of any payment to the Northern Ireland authority as corresponds, in relation to a Northern Ireland obligation for that period, to anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above;

"Northern Ireland obligation" means a renewables obligation of a Northern Ireland supplier under Article 52 of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/419 (N.I. 6));
"the relevant period"—

in relation to a shortfall in amounts received by the Authority by way of discharge payments for a period, means that period; and

in relation to a shortfall in amounts received by the Northern Ireland authority by way of discharge payments for a period, means any period that includes the whole or a part of that period.""

Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
These amendments take further steps to reduce the impact of a future shortfall in the renewables obligation buy-out fund so as to improve investor confidence. I think we know what lies behind this from the discussions we had in Committee and elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was prominent in those.
The arguments for mutualisation have been put forward here and in another place. They reflect the failure of TXU and, more recently, Atlantic Electric and Gas. That strengthens the case for mutualisation. However, it must be remembered that the renewables obligation is a market mechanism and, as such, there is always an element of risk companies can, and do, fail. Therefore, a balance must be struck between reducing the impact of shortfalls in the buy-out fund while at the same time avoiding undue additional burdens on consumers or adversely affecting competition. This means that although the amendment reduces the impact of a shortfall to suppliers, it does not entirely remove the risk of it happening in the first place.
The amendment is not a complete answer to removing all risk, and I do not think that it can be. But taken together with other measures contained in

1389
Clause 118, such as reducing the length of obligation periods and imposing surcharges on late payments, I think that it offers a balanced response to the problem.
Before changes are made to the renewables obligation order, we will need to engage in detailed consideration of issues such as how the payments are assessed, when the suppliers need to make those payments, and over what period those payments are to be made. As part of this consideration, a statutory consultation exercise will take place later this year. when these issues will be addressed.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, will shortly be moving her amendment, for which I have some sympathy. I shall reserve my remarks on her amendment until I have heard her speech.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.—(Lord Whitty.)
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonrose to move Amendment No. 17A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 17:
17A Line 16, leave out from "period" to end of line 20 and insert ", every person who—

was subject to a renewables obligation for the relevant period or for a subsequent period specified in or determined under the order, and,

is of a description so specified or determined,"

The noble Baronesssaid: This amendment relates to the so-called mutualisation provisions introduced in the other place in order to secure the renewables obligation against default following the difficulties with TXU, Maverick and Atlantic. These clauses were introduced by the Government following concerns expressed in both Houses by both opposition parties.
The Government's clause, however, has a potentially significant problem, in that it requires any default to be recovered from the other suppliers according to their supply in the year of default, rather than according to supply in a later year. We have been advised by the electricity supply industry that this could have the potential to introduce distortions in the supply market, especially for industrial customers. This could negate the benefit of the Government's clause and may leave some smaller suppliers facing risks if their market share were to fall.
The industry's view is that recovery of the deficit should take place according to supply in a later year so that the parties can take account of it in their commercial behaviour. This reflects the approach for the main renewables obligation and other government measures for the electricity industry to achieve public policy objectives.
Our amendment is designed to increase the flexibility of the legislation so that the Government can consider this matter further in consultation and, if they agree with the views that have been expressed, implement a mutualisation scheme which avoids the market distortions that I have mentioned.
1390
I hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment as a technical, but valuable, improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, I cannot possibly add to my noble friend's words, and I shall be very interested to hear the noble Lord's reply. It seems to me that in these circumstances, there needs to be some flexibility.
The noble Lord will remember that when we addressed this matter in Grand Committee, it was extremely unclear whether mutualisation was a preferable way forward rather than what was at that stage summed up in the word "securitisation". The more I have thought about this and discussed it, the more I realise that securitisation could have some very damaging effects on some of the more vulnerable producers and suppliers. The interest rates they would be charged by the market for putting up in advance a security for their payment into the buy-out fund could be very severe and could tip them over into insolvency.
The advantage of mutualisation, as my noble friend has said, is that it spreads the burden, although it may appear unfair to some who have paid on the nail, regularly, that they have to pay for their defaulting colleagues in the industry. The fact is that the damage that would be done by allowing the buy-out fund to fall into deficit would be considerable.
It would damage the Government's policy for the encouragement of renewables. This is a mechanism by which consumers generally, from whomsoever they buy their power, subsidise the renewables industry. It may be argued, as we may in regard to a later amendment, that how much consumers are paying towards the renewables obligation should appear more explicitly in consumers' bills. The Government are not paying that subsidy; the consumers are paying it. Nevertheless, that is a separate argument. In the end, I believe that mutualisation is the right answer, perhaps with the amendment suggested by my noble friend.
My only other point is that I am sure that the Government in their consultations will consult all branches of the industry, but I hope that they will also consult those who make the market the noble Lord introduced the matter by saying that it is a market—in renewable obligation certificates. I was first alerted by the market to the danger that came from TXU going into administration. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will remember a conversation that he and I had outside the Chamber very soon afterwards, in which I sought to impress upon him the damage that that would do to the Government's policy. He accepted that without demur. Many months later, the result, after a good deal of travail and consideration, is what we have before us today.
The market makers and those who operate in the market—the brokers and others—will certainly have some views to offer. I hope that they will be consulted too.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I shall respond to the amendment of the noble Baroness and to the noble

1391
Lord, Lord Jenkin. Clearly, the mutualisation proposition, which everyone is proposing, helps to reduce the risk significantly without the straightforward cost that securitisation would impose, with the dangers to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly referred. I am happy to accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness as it gives flexibility in this regard. There are situations in which we would want to look at the current suppliers at the point when the mutualisation payment was made rather than at the point when the shortfall arose, when there may be a very different market share.
Therefore, we want the flexibility to consult with industry. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that the industry would be broadly defined and would include the market itself. Therefore, I am very happy to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of HendonMy Lords, I am very happy that the Minister is very happy. We are grateful and sure that the industry will be very pleased as well.
On Question, Amendment No. 17A agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Page 95, line 29, at end insert—
"(7) For the purposes of this section—

the amount received by the Authority by way of discharge payments for a period falls short of the amount due in respect of that period, and

the amount received by the Northern Ireland authority by way of discharge payments for a period falls short of the amount due in respect of that period,

if, and to the extent that, the Authority or (as the case may be) the Northern Ireland authority would have received more by way of discharge payments if every renewables obligation or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland obligation for that period, so far as it was not otherwise discharged, had been discharged by payment.
(8) In this section—
"discharge payment", in relation to a period. means—

a payment by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) for discharging (in whole or in part) an electricity supplier's renewables obligation for that period;

so much of a payment by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection for securing that such an obligation is treated as discharged to any extent as does not exceed the payment that would have discharged that obligation to the same extent if it had been made before the day mentioned in that paragraph; or

so much of any payment to the Northern Ireland authority as corresponds, in relation to a Northern Ireland obligation for that period, to anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above;

"Northern Ireland obligation" means a renewables obligation of a Northern Ireland supplier under Article 52 of the Energy (Northern Ireland ) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/419 (N.I. 6));
"the relevant period"—

in relation to a shortfall in amounts received by the Authority by way of discharge payments for a period, means that period; and

1392

in relation to a shortfall in amounts received by the Northern Ireland authority by way of discharge payments for a period, means any period that includes the whole or a part of that period.""

Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 120, Leave out Clause 120
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.
This debate has engendered much interest. The amendment tabled in the Commons removed CHP. The amendment made here would remove CHP from the renewables obligation base. In the Government's judgment, the effect of that would be a small benefit to CHP but would affect the renewables target, just when we are seeing some progress on that. It does not seem to the Government to be the best way of supporting CHP.
However, throughout the debate on this matter there has been support on all sides for recognising that CHP needs further measures to support it. While the focus of the debate has been on whether we should remove them from the renewables base, it does not alter the argument that at present the CHP target of 10 gigawatts is unlikely to be achieved on existing measures. Therefore, we recognise the need to do something about CHP, but we do not want a measure that would introduce a range of uncertainties and which would not be helpful in achieving other targets.
As I have said during the course of the Bill in this House, the Government will certainly look at CHP in the review of the renewables obligation to see whether there are other ways in which the obligation could help CHP without damaging the renewables sector. The discussions in this House and elsewhere have been very helpful in that regard.
In the latest stage of the Commons' consideration of the Bill, an alternative proposition for CHP support was proposed, which was described as similar to a fixed-rate mortgage. The Government would guarantee a certain level of spark spread from CHP; that is, the difference between the price paid for gas and the price paid for electricity generated. In times when the spark spread was below a certain threshold, it would be topped up by the equivalent of a mortgage fund and on other occasions when the spark spread was above the threshold, it would be capped and the mortgage fund would receive an income.
That seems to be an interesting new suggestion, but my colleague, Alan Whitehead, MP, with support from the industry, and my colleague Stephen Timms and I met with them a few days ago to discuss the practicability of such a measure. We are certainly willing to support further consideration of it and to

1393
look at the cost benefits and mechanisms. That applies to my department and to the DTI working with the Combined Heat and Power Association; they will look at the matter in more detail. That would not require a legislative change in the way in which this Bill is constructed, but we would have to consider what would be needed to make such a mechanism work. We would also need to avoid the downside risk associated with the price of CHP generated electricity, so that the cost to consumers remained acceptable.
I recognise that there is a need for further help for CHP and that CHP at the moment is undershooting the target for 2010. We believe that a number of measures that we have introduced will help to improve that performance, but something else is probably needed. Therefore, we are not in favour of keeping the change in the renewables obligation which was introduced in this House, but we are in favour of considering other ways of helping the CHP industry that will work in the interests of CHP and the renewables sector. Therefore I hope that the House will accept Commons Amendment No. 19.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Ezrarose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19, at end insert "but do propose the following Amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—
19A* After Clause 119, Insert the following new Clause—
"Annual assessment on Combined Heat and Power
In section 47 (general functions) of the 1989 Act, after subsection (1)(b), insert—
(c) to publish an annual assessment which shall outline what has been the particular impact of the Authority's activities in relation to Combined Heat and Power.""
The noble Lordsaid: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has told us about CHP. I was particularly pleased that the Government are now seriously considering additional measures. It is becoming obvious that the target of 10 megawatts by 2010 cannot be achieved. The latest figure given is 8,500. We know that there are 2,000 megawatts of potential CHP on hold at the moment and further doubt has spread throughout the sector.
It is satisfactory that talks are taking place in an active way to find out other measures that may not require legislative backing, which would, of course, impose further delay. I was particularly interested in what is suggested in relation to what is known as the spark spread. That is the difference in the price paid for the gas and the price obtained for the electricity. I wish those discussions well.
However, I believe that it would be a great pity if the Bill were to go forward without any reference whatever to CHP. Therefore, I have proposed a very simple, unobtrusive amendment that at least mentions CHP and mentions it in relation to Ofgem. The fear has been that as a result of the way in which Ofgem has operated, particularly in the new electricity trading arrangements, CHP has come out of it badly.
1394
It may well be that Ofgem is really taking CHP very seriously these days, in which case, it would be helped by the amendment that I have proposed; which is that, under the Electricity Act 1989, it should publish an annual assessment which will outline what has been the particular impact of the authority's activities in relation to combined heat and power. That will bring home the importance of CHP to the authority and will bring CHP into the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 19A in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill".—(Lord Ezra.)
1 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, what a deal of kicking, pushing and shoving is necessary to persuade Ministers to move in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated a few moments ago. Again and again, this matter has been raised. The association that represents the industry has been assiduous in promoting its cause to both officials and Ministers. I share the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that something may at last come of it.
I have two points. The first relates to the speech—I heard most of it—that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, addressed to the CHP Association at its lunch in the Cholmondeley Room on 10 June. It sounded extremely friendly to the industry. However, it came at a time when the Government had moved to leave out Clause 120, which this House had put in. I am told that David Green has asked the Minister's private office if he might have a copy of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on that occasion, but he has so far been refused. That was, in a sense, a public occasion. There must have been more than 100 people present, most of them from the industry, but with a number of Members of this House and the other place who support the Combined Heat and Power Association. I find it astonishing that a Minister's office should decline to provide the association with a copy of what the Minister said. I hope that the Minister can now give us an undertaking that it will indeed be forthcoming. The incident suggests that Ministers, when appearing in front of a particular audience, were very happy to say how much they applauded and approved of everything that it did, while actually taking legislation through the House which was denying it any further help.
My second point reinforces what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra: the amendment is proposing yet another aspect of power generation on which Ofgem will be obliged to report. It is not asking for any specific relief. I understand the arguments that were made in relation to the amendment about the ROCs. We received a good deal of representation from the rest of the industry about that. However, I hope very much that the Government really can now accept that Ofgem should report in line with what the Minister said about the consideration that the Government are giving to the scheme that was put forward by his honourable friend Alan Whitehead in another place.

1395

That would be a useful step forward, but Parliament needs to be told what is taking place on that front. Many of us have received representations from what is an extremely active trade association that represents an important part of the energy industry. We really are owed a regular update of what is happening in this field. I hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, can be accepted.
Baroness Miller of HendonMy Lords, the Minister will obviously appreciate that we have all been very disappointed that Amendment No. 19 would leave out Clause 120, because we thought that we had had such a great success in introducing CHP to the Bill in one way or another. We are very disappointed to see the removal of the clause.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I welcome the comments made by the Minister in responding to the amendment. Indeed, I am intrigued by what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said about what the Minister was able to say at that CHP reception. Regrettably, I met the Minister coming out as I was going in because I had been delayed elsewhere. There was not a written report of the meeting so I did not know what the Minister had said.
If the Minister really means what my noble friend Lord Jenkin reported that he had said, and, indeed, what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra believed to be the case after listening to the presentation of this amendment today, he should welcome and support it. That would at least give us a way of coming to the issue. Since it is not only noble Lords but also the CHP that is requesting something, perhaps I may read a brief note that David Green sent to me. Before I came into the Chamber, I looked at the amendments that we had moved on Report on this matter and I was quite certain that the Minister would not be able to bear it if we repeated them. They went on from page to page and column to column. I did not know that I knew quite so much about the subject until I read Hansard again this morning. David Green's note states:
The delivery of the Government's CHP target has been sadly lacking.
I think everybody would agree with that. It continues:
It has contributed to the sorry story of inaction on CHP that is the Government's approach to CHP. Indeed I very much regret that the Government saw fit to remove this Place's changes to the Energy Bill in relation to CHP.
David Green points out that the Government have not managed to come forward with any genuine proposals, other than those few which relate to micro-CHP. They have come forward with nothing more substantial than that.
I urge the Minister to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. If he is unable to do that, will he tell the House what the Government plan to do to get the CHP policy back on track? It would remedy the serious problem if he were simply to say that it is an easy amendment for him to accept, which we believe that it is.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I do not want entirely to destroy the consensual atmosphere, although I suspect
1396
that by the time we have finished on this amendment, I will have. Before I address the amendment, I must respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Without beating about the bush, he effectively accused me of saying one thing in one place and another thing in another. He also accused my private office of being unco-operative. I refute both of those charges.
On the speech that I made at the CHP reception, I am informed that my private office never received a request for a copy of it, but it may be that David Green has mentioned it to me personally and that I have said to him, as I say to noble Lords now, that I do not always stick very closely to any prepared speech. I do not stick to them even in this House, as noble Lords will have noticed from time to time, and in the case of receptions, I very often speak off the cuff. There is therefore no text of my speech. What that speech covered was what I said in Committee in relation to the renewables obligation; namely, that we would give the matter serious consideration, but that the time to do so was not in this legislation, but in the review of the renewables obligation next year and that, as I said a few minutes ago, we need to do more to enable the CHP industry to reach its target of 10 gigawatts. That is a very serious problem which is facing government as a whole and my department as the prime department with responsibility for CHP in particular. I agree that more needs to be done in that respect.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, on the question of the Minister's speech on 10 June, I entirely accept his description of what subsequently happened. If I mentioned his private office, that was per incuriam. David Green asked the question and he received the same answer as that we have heard today. That speech was not scripted by the department; it was something else of which no record has been kept. One has to recognise that Ministers do that—I have done it myself—but that is the explanation.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord did that rather more frequently when he held a more elevated position than mine. Nevertheless, the speech revealed that there is consistently strong support for the Combined Heat and Power Association and the CHP industry and a recognition of the difficulties that current measures and current economics have meeting that target; I repeated that in Committee and in our debate today. There is not much inconsistency there. I recognise that the Government have a serious problem meeting that target, which is in the Energy White Paper but which also pre-dated it.
The amendment was moved very reasonably by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and spoken to very gently by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I oppose it not for reasons of principle but because it is not necessary and in an effort to avoid duplication. Ofgem/GEMA already has a statutory duty to make an annual report to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. That includes details of progress on all projects identified in the work programme and the environmental action plan and duties relating to small generators and CHP. There is already an obligation on Ofgem/GEMA to report.

1397
As we indicated in the government strategy on CHP, we will continue to monitor and report annually on progress towards the CHP target. We do that through the annual report on the implementation of the Energy White Paper, which will be available to Parliament, and in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, the latest of which is due for publication at the end of this month. Formal reports are already required of Ofgem and the Government that cover the CHP point, among others.
To pick out CHP and place another reporting mechanism in the Bill appears unnecessary. It might be seen by some in the CHP industry as a gesture, but it is not a necessary gesture and it would not change the existing requirement to report, and to report fully, on what has been achieved—or not achieved—in terms of the CHP target. I therefore ask the House not to agree to the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness ByfordMy Lords, the Minister said that there was a duty already to report to Parliament. Is that duty laid down in an Act or does it simply happen?
Lord WhittyMy Lords, the duty on the authority is in the legislation. I refer to the duty on the authority to report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State's duty to report to Parliament. That involves the legislation that set up GEMA—I will not give chapter and verse—and is reflected in this Bill.
Perhaps I should correct myself. The Sustainable Energy Act contains the explicit requirement. That is the legislative requirement.
Lord EzraMy Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's response to the amendment. I am still rather puzzled about why he rejected including it in the authority's obligations under the Electricity Act. Under that Act, the authority already has to make a report covering various related issues and it appears logical and appropriate that CHP should be included in it. Perhaps it has to be dealt with in other ways under other legislation but that appeared to be the most appropriate place and a convenient way in which CHP could he mentioned in the Bill. I am very sorry indeed that the Minister was not prepared to accept that. It would not apparently have placed any additional burden on the authority if it already had to do so under other legislation. It might have involved some repetition but it would have given a signal in this important piece of legislation, which we are now seeing through its final stages, that the Government attach importance to CHP. However, as I said when I withdrew an earlier amendment, I certainly do not wish us to divide on this issue. I regretfully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 19A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 19, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 128, Leave out Clause 128
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 to 30 and 34, which concern a renewable transport fuel obligation.
We have had a substantial debate on this issue at earlier stages of the Bill's passage and I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that renewable transport fuels have an important part to play in reducing the carbon content of our energy use and in the effort to tackle climate change. It was pretty well agreed by all parties in the House that some form of renewable transport obligation is a serious option for ensuring that those fuels become part of the mainstream fuelling of vehicles.
There has been much constructive discussion on this matter before and after the original amendment was agreed to. The clauses that were tabled by the Government in another place have resulted in a more complex system than that which we agreed in this House—one clause has been transformed into nine. That is the effect of further consideration. However, some of the complications that must be faced in retaining the principle behind the original clause require the system to be that lengthy. We have taken the advice of parliamentary counsel that we should do so in this form. There are a number of complications because we do not have an existing regulator to help to run the scheme. A number of clauses therefore have to relate to the appointment of an administrator, funding issues, penalties, appeals and so on. That is the main reason why this group of clauses is so much more complicated than the original approach.
These are all permissive clauses; they will allow the Government to introduce an obligation that would require designated fuel suppliers to demonstrate that their total UK fuel sales included in aggregate a specified proportion of renewable transport fuels. I appreciate that the drafting is complex but it reflects the principle of the clause, which was adopted earlier in this House, and the precedent set by the legislation in the Electricity Act concerning the renewables obligation. For example, it includes features such as the issuing and trading of certificates, the buy-out mechanism, the flexibility that that brings and the ability to make different arrangements for different fuels based on their comparative benefits.
These permissive clauses do not mean that we have taken a final decision but it gives us powers to do so if we wanted to go down that road at, for example, the end of the current consultation by the Department for Transport, or at any subsequent stage. There will be consultation on the precise provisions at that point, and the new clauses include a commitment that we will consult widely before introducing such an obligation.
Noble Lords will have noted that all nine clauses are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That means that if we go down this road, we will debate the

1399
issue again in your Lordships' House in future. Personally, I am extremely pleased that that option is available. A great synergy is involved: there is another mechanism to ensure that the transport sector, which has been one of the most difficult to control in terms of carbon generation, has some benefits in terms of cutting carbon. There may eventually be better mechanisms. Incidentally, I point out to my noble friend Lord Carter, who moved the original amendment—he is almost on his feet now—that the approach would also bring huge potential benefit to the agricultural sector. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord CarterMy Lords, the reason I am anxious to get on my feet is that I am chairing a Grand Committee at half-past one. I apologise if I have to leave before the end of this short debate.
I thank the Minister most sincerely for the measure. As he said, the very modest little amendment proposed by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, comprised about 20 lines but has been replaced by a measure comprising no fewer than nine pages of legislation. My noble friend will remember that perhaps the main reason he accepted the amendment at Third Reading—he said that it would need a certain amount of adjustment in the Commons—was that if there was nothing in statute to allow for an obligation, there was no way of introducing one. That was a compelling argument but I did not think that I would be proved right to the extent of nine pages of legislation.
However, I thank all those who have worked behind the scenes, the officials in the Department for Transport and the DTI and my colleague Mr Peter Clery, the chairman of the British Association for Bio Fuels and Oils—I am the vice-chairman and I declare that interest. A lot of work has gone on behind the scenes and, despite what the Minister said, I cannot really believe that after the Government have gone to all the trouble of drafting no fewer than nine clauses to cover the obligation they will not want to introduce one when the time comes. I assure him that there will be plenty of lobbying to try to ensure that the Government do so.
I have some technical comments that relate largely to the drafting of the orders that will be required, but in the mean time I again thank the Minister for the measure.
Lord Dixon-SmithMy Lords, I should like to begin by stating how sad it is that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is not present today because he has been a tireless advocate of biofuels. It is very sad that he cannot be here to discuss this measure. I am not so sure that he would be pleased to see what a monster his simple little clause has become, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It now comprises nine pages of legislation. That, of course, is another matter. Certainly, the noble Lord will welcome the fact—as, I am sure, does the whole House—that the Government have seen fit to accept this obligation and have
1400
brought forward what I would call almost consultative legislation and put it on the face of the Bill in order to have a complete scheme, which I hope we shall see working at some stage.
I accept that all of this depends on orders which are to be brought forward, but I have one or two questions because two aspects of these new clauses cause me some concern. An administrator will have,
power to impose charges of specified amounts on transport fuel suppliers… Sums received by the Administrator by virtue of provision within subsection (3)(c) must be used by him for the purpose of meeting costs.
I am afraid that I always become a little frightened when I see that someone has a power to impose charges which he can use to meet his costs. My immediate reaction is to ask where is the financial control and how do you know that that money will always be used in a very cost-effective way? The Minister may say that he cannot define that yet because the scheme does not yet exist, but I think that we should be aware that there is a possible marginal problem there. If a man can set his charges to meet his costs, he has no incentive to act in a completely businesslike way.
I turn to the new clause on renewable transport fuel certificates. It appears that these might be tradable certificates in that if someone uses "too much" green fuel, he will then have an asset that he can sell to someone else who has not met his obligation. I do not know whether that is the intention and perhaps I am misreading the way in which these new clauses are drafted. However, it appears that that might be the case.
I turn to the new clause on discharge of obligation by payment. That is well and good, but the following new clause concerns the imposition of civil penalties and states:
An RTF order may … provide that a person is to be liable to a civil penalty … That penalty must not exceed the lesser of the specified amount; and the amount equal to ten per cent of the turnover, as determined in the specified manner, of the specified business of the defaulter.
If that applied to BP, it might result in a phenomenally large penalty. I merely mention those points as they appear in the amendments. I accept that we do not know how these measures are to be brought forward. I should have thought that if there were a question of financial discharge, there would not be a question of civil penalty. However, without some assurance on how those measures will be brought forward, it is rather difficult to know precisely how one should react to them. It is a remarkable aspect of this development that we have these new clauses, which are very welcome, but they are almost of a consultative nature in the sense that, for implementation, they depend subsequently on orders. Some things may be included and some things may not. I think that it is the first time I have ever come across this in primary legislation, but the measures are very welcome.
Lord EzraMy Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Dixon-Smith, in welcoming this amendment. Indeed, before we finished with the Bill in this House, the noble Lord,

1401
Lord Whitty, assured us that the Government would take the amendment very seriously but might have to amend it somewhat. It did not occur to us that the "somewhat" was going to lead to this enormous compendium.
What is pleasing about it is that the Government have now devised a way in which the problem of carbon emissions in the transport sector can be seriously dealt with. This is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made. The transport sector is an enormous emitter. There is no doubt that through technological change the degree of emissions of individual cars has much reduced, but the number of cars keeps on increasing all the time and measures of a more fundamental nature are therefore obviously required. This amendment provides the means for such measures.
I take it that what is proposed here would be consistent with the Biofuels Directive which is presently going through its various stages in Brussels, and that therefore it would be perfectly straightforward for us, if that directive were finally to come into force, to apply the measures in this amendment and that would put us in full conformity with the directive.
I conclude that this is one of a number of very beneficial effects that the debate on the Bill has had. There have been one or two aspects that we have not dealt with as satisfactorily, but I think that the satisfactory outcomes have somewhat outweighed the less satisfactory ones. I am very pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness ByfordMy Lords, I thank the Minister for the measure. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has had to leave as he and noble Lords on all sides of the House tried to persuade the Government of the importance of introducing this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith asked a couple of questions and I have further questions. We are in slightly unusual water at this stage. I say straight away that we are happy to accept these amendments. We welcome the way in which they address the concerns that have been raised during the various stages of the Bill's passage.
The Minister touched on my next point when he said that the new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce an obligation—that is, he may do so—but it does not require him so to do. I am still a little disappointed with that phraseology. The Minister will no doubt comment on that because I am sure that the Government are committed to the measure. I accept that something may be done later rather than sooner, but some of us on this side of the House would like to have the measure more clearly defined than it is in the new clause at present. Will the Minister clarify the Government's intentions in that regard? The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the important issue of how that will relate to the requirements within the EU directive.
Sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She and I faced exactly the same situation when
1402
dealing with the Water Bill. I record my dismay that we are dealing with the Bill as best we can while other directives are emerging which have a bearing on what we should be doing, but we have to discuss them at different times. They do not coincide. In future, if ever we can, it will be much better to avoid being in the situation in which we find ourselves.
1.30 p.m.
Obviously I am grateful that consultation will take place, but can the Minister give me some idea of the time plan for it? When does he think that it will be completed? On what time scale will the orders come through? Is he talking in terms of six months or a year? They will need to address technical issues.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith raised two specific questions that I shall not repeat, but I have a further question. I draw the Minister's attention to proposed new subsection (1) in his Amendment No. 30, in which biofuel means,
liquid or gaseous fuel that is produced wholly from biomass.
A query with that was raised with me this morning; if it had been raised yesterday, I would have tabled an amendment. It is impractical to have biofuel defined as "wholly from biomass" because it would exclude certain combinations, such as bio-ETBE, and processes, not to mention any bioethanol with a necessary admix of denaturant. Would it not be much safer to describe biofuel as "principally from biomass"? That would cover any new combinations from which we could produce biofuel.
I spoke to the Clerks, and it would be possible for me to move such an amendment and for the Minister to accept it, although it would be slightly unusual. I apologise to noble Lords; my attention was not drawn to the issue until it was too late to table an amendment. I am slightly in the Minister's hands on that issue.
I thank the Minister for all the work that has gone into the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, touched on the fact that biofuels will have enormous benefits for the farming industry at an increasingly difficult time. Biofuels, combined with the commitment to provide a strategy on micro-generation, will give our farmers another string to their bow in terms of survival and their ability to meet future environmental responsibilities. We support them.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, while the Minister's advisers are dealing with the string of very relevant questions put to him by my noble friend Lady Byford, I want to ask one rather simple question. I have read through the many pages of proposed new clauses. Do they apply in any way to the suppliers of fuel for the aviation industry? There seems nothing specific to exclude them. Can there be some use of the new obligation to impose pressure on the aviation industry to become more sustainable?
It is a very regrettable fact that more tax is paid on a lorry-load of lettuces from Lincolnshire than on a whole planeload of cargo of cantaloupes from California. There is a soundbite for noble Lords.

1403
No tax is paid at the moment on aviation. The pressure to become more efficient is not applied properly in the area.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I am grateful for the support from all round the Chamber, especially that of my noble friend Lord Carter, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. They have been constant protagonists for this or a similar solution for biofuels. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was right to say that the definition of "somewhat" had been expanded beyond all our understanding. However, that is in order that—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said—we have a robust operation if we take decisions to go down the road as the best way of promoting biofuels in the transport market. It is largely a mirror of what applies to the ROCs in generation.
Some of the features and structures are more or less equivalent, so some of the answers to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others are that we are using the pattern to apply to the fuel supply companies. That means that there is provision for an administrator. All regulators normally have some obligation to cover costs; they are all subject to approval of their charges, of course, and of the general obligations on efficiency in the public sector. It is not an unusual provision for a regulator to be able to charge to cover its costs. Likewise, the issue of selling and tradability is more or less the equivalent of the situation with ROCs, as are discharge by payment and potential penalties. The administrator has discretion to impose a penalty of appropriate size. It would have to be one of the lesser of the specified amounts relative to the offence, and 10 per cent. Some of that may be covered in regulations, but the key principle is clearly proportionality.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked how the issue related to the biofuels directive. Consultation on how we implement that directive has just finished from the Department of Transport. The directive sets indicative rather than obligatory targets, but we are required to report to the Commission how we will achieve those targets and the policies that need to be put in place. The level of take-up of biofuels in the UK is so low that there is no possibility of achieving the target set by the EU for 2005, so we have to focus on the 2010 target and measures that might bring us to meet that.
The noble Baroness made some general points about how much was in regulations and how much was in the Bill. There is clearly a fair amount of detail in the Bill, but we will have to consult on the principle, as well as on the details of what will be in the affirmative resolutions when we have adopted the principle. Therefore, it is difficult to give an answer on the timing. If we took a decision, all the timing would stem from the point at which we took the decision in principle. As my noble friend Lord Carter said, the option needs to be there, in order that we can have legislative backing for moving down the road.
As noble Lords who have followed the debate will know, there have been other suggestions—not all of which are dead yet—to aid biofuels. They have varied
1404

from greater fiscal incentives, to capital allowances and other measures to support the industry. Some of them may be needed to meet the requirement, and to aid the agriculture sector to meet the bulk of it from domestic production. We need legislative backing here but not elsewhere. If we go down this road, we therefore need fairly detailed legislative powers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the subject of the definition of renewable transport fuels. I understand that the definition is flexible enough to cover the issues to which she referred, as they are part of the production of fuel based fully on biofuel sources. The fuels could therefore be labelled biofuels or other renewable fuels. The other aspect to the matter is that one can achieve the target under the obligation by blending biofuels with conventional fuels. That certainly would not be prohibited. The proportion that was biofuels would go towards meeting the target and therefore towards meeting the obligation.
I turn to the subject of aviation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Aviation fuel can be included, and the affirmative resolutions may or may not include aviation fuel at some point. As the noble Lord will be aware, there are some technical problems. Whereas biofuels and biofuel blends have fairly well proven technology, so long as the quality control is sufficient, in relation to road vehicles, there is no similar proven technology in relation to aviation fuel. But there is no reason why that should not be the case over the timescale within which we set the obligation. Therefore, theoretically aviation fuel could be covered.
The noble Lord's comments about aviation touched on a point raised at Question Time—that is, whether the aviation industry was making a contribution in the area of climate change. The taxation of aviation fuel is, directly or indirectly, an important issue, but there must be an international, or at least a European, consensus on that before we can move heavily down that road.
That subject goes somewhat beyond this amendment. However, the amendment would allow the Government and the administrator flexibility to ensure that a biofuels obligation could be made effective. It would also allow them to ensure that the transport sector, which at present, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, is the least controllable in terms of carbon discharge, could begin to use an already proven technology to make a major contribution towards achieving those objectives.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Leave out Clause 129
22 After Clause 129, insert the following new clause—
"Imposition of renewable transport fuel obligations

The Secretary of State may by order impose on each transport fuel supplier of a specified description the obligation mentioned in subsection (a "renewable transport fuel obligation").

1405

That obligation is an obligation, for each specified period, for the supplier to produce to the Administrator, by the specified date, evidence which—

is of the specified kind and in the specified form; and

shows that during the specified period the specified amount of renewable transport fuel was supplied at or for delivery to places in the United Kingdom.

An order under subsection (1) is referred to in this Chapter as an "RTF order".

Before making an RTF order the Secretary of State must consult such persons appearing to him to represent persons whose interests will be affected by the order, and such other persons, as he considers appropriate.

The power to make an RTF order is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

23 Insert the following new clause—
"The Administrator

An RTF order may, for the purposes of provision made by or under this Chapter, appoint a person as the Administrator.

Such an order may—

confer or impose powers and duties on the Administrator for purposes connected with the implementation of provision made by or under this Chapter;

confer discretions on the Administrator in relation to the making of determinations under such an order and otherwise in relation to his powers and duties; and

impose duties on transport fuel suppliers for purposes connected with the Administrator's powers and duties.

The powers that may be conferred on the Administrator by virtue of subsection include, in particular—

power to require a transport fuel supplier to provide him with such information as he may require for purposes connected with the carrying out of the Administrator's functions;

power to impose requirements as to the form in which such information must be provided and as to the period within which it must be provided;

power to impose charges of specified amounts on transport fuel suppliers.

Sums received by the Administrator by virtue of provision within subsection must be used by him for the purpose of meeting costs incurred by him in carrying out his functions as the Administrator.

The duties that may be imposed by virtue of subsection include, in particular, duties framed by reference to determinations made by the Administrator.

Only the following persons may be appointed as the Administrator—

a body or other person established or appointed by or under any enactment to carry out other functions;

a body established by virtue of subsection.

Where provision is made by an RTF order for the appointment of a body or other person within subsection, such an order may make such modifications of any enactment relating to that body or person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of the functions of the Administrator.

An RTF order may—

establish a body corporate to be appointed as the Administrator;

make provision for the appointment of members of that body;

make provision in relation to the staffing of that body;

1406

make provision in relation to the expenditure of that body;

make provision regulating the procedure of that body;

make any other provision that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for purposes connected with the establishment and maintenance of that body.

The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection in relation to a body corporate includes, in particular, provision conferring discretions on—

the Secretary of State;

the body itself; or

members or staff of the body.

The Secretary of State may make grants to the Administrator on such terms as the Secretary of State may determine."

24 Insert the following new clause—
"Further provision relating to RTF orders

An RTF order may make provision about how amounts of transport fuel are to be counted or determined for the purposes of provision made by or under this Chapter.

The provision that may be made by virtue of this section includes, in particular—

provision for amounts of renewable transport fuel to count towards discharging a renewable transport fuel obligation for a period only if the fuel is of a specified description;

provision for amounts of renewable transport fuel of a specified description to count towards discharging such an obligation only up to a specified amount;

provision for such an obligation not to be treated as discharged unless a specified minimum amount of renewable transport fuel of a specified description has been counted towards its discharge;

provision for only such proportion of any renewable transport fuel of a specified description as is attributable to a specified substance, source of energy, method, process or other matter to count towards discharging such an obligation;

provision as to how that proportion is to be determined;

provision for an amount of renewable transport fuel of a specified description to count towards discharging such an obligation only if, or to the extent that, specified conditions are satisfied in relation to its supply, the person by or to whom it was supplied or the place at or for delivery to which it was supplied;

provision for evidence produced by a supplier in relation to any fuel not to count for the purposes of his renewable transport fuel obligation for a period if evidence in relation to the same fuel has previously been produced (whether by him or by another supplier);

provision for evidence produced by a supplier in relation to any fuel not to count for those purposes if, after the supply to which the evidence relates, the fuel is supplied by any person at or for delivery to a place outside the United Kingdom or a specified part of the United Kingdom;

provision about the measurement of amounts of different descriptions of transport fuel;

provision for units of transport fuel of a specified description to count for more or less than the same units of transport fuel of other descriptions;

provision about how measurements in different units of different descriptions of transport fuel are to be aggregated;

provision for the application of presumptions where specified matters are shown.

1407

The provision that may be made by virtue of this section also includes, in particular, provision which—

is made having regard to one or more of the effects mentioned in subsection (4) (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere); or

requires regard to be had to one or more such effects.

Those effects are the effects of the production, supply or use of fuel of a particular description on—

carbon emissions;

agriculture;

other economic activities;

sustainable development; or

the environment generally.

25 Insert the following new clause—
"Renewable transport fuel certificates

An RTF order may make provision for the Administrator to issue certificates to transport fuel suppliers ("RTF certificates").

An RTF certificate is to certify—

that the supplier to whom it is issued has supplied the amount of renewable transport fuel stated in the certificate;

that that amount of such fuel was supplied by him during the period stated in the certificate;

that that amount of such fuel was supplied by him during that period at or for delivery to a place in the United Kingdom or in the part of the United Kingdom stated in the certificate; and

the other specified facts.

Such a certificate may be issued to a supplier only if—

he applies for it in the specified manner;

his application includes evidence of the specified kind and in the specified form; and

the other specified conditions are satisfied.

An RTF order may authorise transfers of RTF certificates (whether for a consideration or otherwise) between persons of specified descriptions.

Such an order may also provide that such a transfer is not to be effective unless—

the specified details of it have been notified to the Administrator in the specified manner and within the specified time; and

the other specified requirements have been complied with.

If a supplier produces an RTF certificate to the Administrator, it is to count for the purposes of section (Imposition of renewable transport fuel obligations)(2) as sufficient evidence of the facts certified.

An RTF order may provide that, in specified circumstances, evidence produced by virtue of subsection may count to the specified extent towards the discharge of a renewable transport fuel obligation for a period even if it is produced after the time by which evidence had to be produced for the purposes of that obligation.

Such an order may also provide that, in specified circumstances, evidence produced by virtue of subsection may count to the specified extent towards the discharge of a renewable transport fuel obligation for a period that is later than the period stated in the certificate in question in accordance with subsection."

26 Insert the following new clause—
"Discharge of obligation by payment

An RTF order may provide that a person who does not wholly discharge his renewable transport fuel obligation for a period by the production of evidence must pay the Administrator the specified sum within the specified period.

The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes, in particular, provision—

for the specified sum to increase, in cases where that sum is not paid within a specified period, at the specified rate until it is paid or until the occurrence of a specified event;

for specified amounts to be adjusted from time to time for inflation in the specified manner;

for the repayment of sums in cases where provision made by virtue of section (Renewable transport fuel certificates)(7) applies in relation to a person;

prohibiting the Administrator from taking steps to recover the specified sum or a part of that sum if specified conditions are satisfied.

Provision within subsection may refer, in particular, to a specified index or to other data, including any index or data as modified from time to time after the coming into force of the order.

An RTF order may provide that, in a case in which the amount of payments by virtue of subsection (1) which the Administrator has received by the specified time in respect of renewable transport fuel obligations for any period falls short of the amount due in respect of that period, the persons who—

were subject to renewable transport fuel obligations for that period, and

are of a specified description,
must, within the specified period and in the specified circumstances, each make a payment (or further payment) to the Administrator of an amount calculated in the specified manner.

The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection includes, in particular, provision for the making of adjustments and repayments after a requirement to make payments has already arisen.

An RTF order may require the Administrator to use, to the specified extent, the sums received by him by virtue of this section for the purpose of meeting costs incurred by him in carrying out his functions as the Administrator.

To the extent the Administrator does not so use the sums so received, they must be paid by him to transport fuel suppliers, or to transport fuel suppliers of a specified description, in accordance with the specified system of allocation."

27 Insert the following new clause—
"Imposition of civil penalties

An RTF order may—

designate a provision made by or under this Chapter for the purposes of this section; and

provide that a person is to be liable to a civil penalty if—

he contravenes that provision; and

any other specified conditions are satisfied.

Where the Administrator is satisfied that a person (the "defaulter") is so liable, he may give a notice to the defaulter in the specified manner (a "civil penalty notice") imposing on the defaulter a penalty of such amount as the Administrator considers appropriate.

That penalty must not exceed the lesser of—

the specified amount; and

1409

the amount equal to ten per cent of the turnover, as determined in the specified manner, of the specified business of the defaulter.

The civil penalty notice must—

set out the Administrator's reasons for deciding that the defaulter is liable to a penalty;

state the amount of the penalty that is being imposed;

set out a date before which the penalty must be paid to the Administrator;

describe how payment may be made;

explain the steps that the defaulter may take if he objects to the penalty; and

set out and explain the powers of the Administrator to enforce the penalty.

The date for the payment of the penalty must not be less than 14 days after the giving of the civil penalty notice.

A penalty imposed by virtue of this section must be paid to the Administrator—

by the date set out in the civil penalty notice by which it is imposed; and

in a manner described in that notice.

Sums received by the Administrator by virtue of this section must be paid to the Secretary of State, who must pay them into the Consolidated Fund."

28 Insert the following new clause—
"Objections to civil penalties

A person to whom a civil penalty notice is given may give notice to the Administrator that he objects to the penalty on one or both of the following grounds—

that he is not liable to pay it;

that the amount of the penalty is too high.

The notice of objection—

must set out the grounds of the objection and the objector's reasons for objecting on those grounds; and

must be given to the Administrator in the specified manner and within the specified period after the giving of the civil penalty notice.

The Administrator must consider a notice of objection given in accordance with this section and may then—

cancel the penalty;

reduce it;

increase it; or

confirm it.

The Administrator must not enforce a penalty in respect of which he has received a notice of objection before he has notified the objector of the outcome of his consideration of the objection.

That notification of the outcome of his consideration must be given, in the specified manner—

before the end of the specified period; or

within such longer period as he may agree with the objector.

Where, on consideration of an objection, the Administrator increases the penalty, he must give the objector a new civil penalty notice; and, where he reduces it, the notification mentioned in subsection must set out the reduced amount."

29 Insert the following new clause—
"Appeals against civil penalties

A person to whom a civil penalty notice is given may appeal to the court on one or both of the following grounds—

that he is not liable to pay the penalty;

that the amount of the penalty is too high.

1410

An appeal under this section must be brought within such period after the giving of the civil penalty notice as may be set out in rules of court.

On an appeal under this section, the court may—

allow the appeal and cancel the penalty;

allow the appeal and reduce the penalty; or

dismiss the appeal.

An appeal under this section is to be by way of a rehearing of the Administrator's decision to impose the penalty.

The matters to which the court may have regard when determining an appeal under this section include all matters that the court considers relevant, including—

matters of which the Administrator was unaware when he made his decision; and

matters which (apart from this subsection) the court would be prevented from having regard to by virtue of rules of court.

An appeal under this section may be brought in relation to a penalty irrespective of whether a notice of objection under section (Objections to civil penalties) has been given in respect of that penalty or whether there has been an increase or reduction under that section.

In this section "the court" means—

in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court; and

in Scotland, the Court of Session."

30 Insert the following new clause—
"Interpretation of Chapter 5 of Part 3

In this Chapter—

"Administrator" means the person appointed by virtue of section (The Administrator) as the Administrator for the purposes of provision made by or under this Chapter;

"biofuel" means liquid or gaseous fuel that is produced wholly from biomass;

"blended biofuel" means liquid or gaseous fuel consisting of a blend of biofuel and fossil fuel;

"civil penalty notice" has the meaning given by section (Imposition of civil penalties)(2);

"renewable transport fuel" means—

biofuel;

blended biofuel;

any solid, liquid or gaseous fuel (other than fossil fuel or nuclear fuel) which is produced—

wholly by energy from a renewable source; or

wholly by a process powered wholly by such energy; or

any solid, liquid or gaseous fuel which is of a description of fuel designated by an RTF order as renewable transport fuel;

"renewable transport fuel obligation" has the meaning given by section (Imposition of renewable transport fuel obligations)(1);

"RTF order" has the meaning given by section (Imposition of renewable transport fuel obligations)(3);

"specified" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an RTF order;

"supply" means, in relation to fuel, the supply of that fuel to any person with a view to its being used (whether by that person or persons to whom it is subsequently supplied) wholly or primarily for transport purposes;

1411

"transport fuel" means—

renewable transport fuel;

fossil fuel; or

any solid, liquid or gaseous fuel that is neither renewable transport fuel nor fossil fuel;

"transport fuel supplier" means a person who, in the course of any business of his, supplies transport fuel at or for delivery to places in the United Kingdom.

For the purposes of this section a process powered by electricity that was generated by energy from a particular source is to be treated as being powered by energy from that source.

For the purposes of this section fuel is used for transport purposes if—

it is used as fuel for one or more of the following, namely, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, trains or any other mode of transport; or

it is used for producing fuel that is intended to be so used.

In this section—

"biomass" means the biodegradable portion of a specified product, waste or residue;

"fossil fuel" has the same meaning as in section 32 of the 1989 Act;

"renewable source" means, in relation to energy, any of the following sources of energy—

wind;

solar heat;

water (including waves and tides);

geothermal sources; or

biomass."

31 Before Clause 169, insert the following new clause—
"Annual report on security of energy supplies

The Secretary of State must, in 2005 and in every subsequent calendar year—

publish a report dealing, as regards both the short term and the long term, with the availability of electricity and gas for meeting the reasonable demands of consumers in Great Britain; and

lay that report before Parliament.

The report must include, in particular, overall assessments, as regards both the short term and the long term, of each of the following—

generating capacity in Great Britain and its offshore waters so far as it will be utilised for generating electricity for introduction into transmission systems in Great Britain;

the availability of capacity in those systems and in distribution systems in Great Britain for transmitting and distributing electricity for supply to consumers in Great Britain;

the availability of capacity in infrastructure in Great Britain for use in connection with the introduction of gas into licensed pipe-line systems in Great Britain; and

the availability of capacity in those systems for conveying gas to consumers in Great Britain.

The report must be prepared jointly by the Secretary of State and GEMA.

In this section—

"consumers" includes both existing and future consumers;

ributing", "distribution system", "transmission system" and "transmitting" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the 1989 Act;

1412

gas" and "gas transporter" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44);

infrastructure" includes pipe-line systems, terminals and other facilities but does not include licensed pipe-line systems;

licensed pipe-line system" means a pipe-line system that is operated by a gas transporter for the conveyance of gas to any premises or another pipeline system as authorised by his licence under section 7 of that Act;

"offshore waters" means, in relation to Great Britain—

so much of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom as is adjacent to Great Britain; and

waters in a Renewable Energy Zone (within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of this Act)."

Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 31.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 31.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
32 Clause 181, page 138, line 38, leave out from "must" to end of line 46 and insert—

publish a draft of any scheme proposed to be established by the order;

publish an assessment of the costs likely to be incurred by different persons in consequence of the order; and

consult authorised suppliers and such other persons likely to be affected by the order as he considers appropriate.

( ) An assessment published under subsection (7)(b) must set out, in particular, the Secretary of State's assessment of the likely effect of the order on charges for electricity in Great Britain.
( ) Subsection (7) may be satisfied by publications and consultation taking place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section.
33 Page 139, line 30, leave out "An order under" and insert "The power to make an order containing provision authorised by
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 to what was Clause 181 when it left this place. The clause concerned the power to allow an adjustment to transmission charges for renewable generators in a specific area.
These government amendments are made, by and large, by simple drafting changes. They do not seek to alter the spirit of the amendments made here, except perhaps in that they remove the duty on the Secretary of State to produce an annual report covering the costs and impact of any scheme established under the clause. On that point, the cost of any scheme to consumers should not change substantially from year to year, and therefore the requirement for an annual report seems unnecessary.
It is also worth remembering that the scheme will have a duration of only five years. After that time, another order would be needed to extend it or to create another scheme for a maximum of a further five years.

1413
At that point, the costs and benefits of any extension would be published and no doubt, if necessary, debated. An annual report in relation to this power would only be an unnecessary addition to bureaucracy.
The amendments also make it clear that consultation on the use of the power may take place before this section is commenced. I do not think that there is any hostility to that. Such a provision was not in place previously, and the amendments provide for that. The other changes are simple drafting changes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, I moved the original amendment introducing the new clause at Third Reading. I well remember that the House accepted it with a significant majority against the Government's advice. I can only say how delighted I am that the Government have now recognised that there is merit in the proposal that we put forward—particularly the proposal that there should be a draft scheme and an assessment of the likely costs and how the costs will fall on different persons.
I want to go one stage further. As I indicated in an earlier debate today, I believe that it would be helpful if in some way the costs of the whole renewable energy policy, which, as I said, is being paid for not by the Government but by consumers, could be reflected as a renewable energy surcharge on consumers' bills. They are paying for it, but the costs are not separated out. At least, under this clause, for the transmission purpose there will now be a draft of the scheme, an assessment of the costs likely to be incurred and an obligation to consult. That preserves the heart of the new clause which we inserted, and that I welcome. I am glad that it has survived what otherwise might have been the chop.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
34 Clause 189, page 145, line 39, after "than" insert "sections (Imposition of civil penalties) to (Appeals against civil penalties) or
35 Clause 194, page 150, line 6, after "sections", insert "(Microgeneration),"
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 Clause 194, page 150, line 8, leave out subsection (5)
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. It deletes a privilege amendment inserted into the Bill when it left this House after Third Reading.
1414
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
37 Schedule 2, page 161, line 27, at end insert—
() The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of anything that the NDA publishes in accordance with subparagraph (1) or (2), and the Scottish Ministers must lay before the Scottish Parliament a copy of anything that is so published.
38 Schedule 3, page 164, line 5, at end insert—
() The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of anything that the NDA publishes in accordance with subparagraph (1) or (2), and the Scottish Ministers must lay before the Scottish Parliament a copy of anything that is so published.
39 Schedule 6, page 180, line 4, leave out "transfer"
40 Schedule 7, page 184, line 28, leave out "issued out of the Consolidated Fund" and insert "paid by the Secretary of State
41 Schedule 9, page 202, line 23, leave out "1988" and insert "Taxes"
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 41.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 41.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [H.L.]
1.47 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [General function]:
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 7, leave out ", subject to the following provisions of this Part,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 14, 16, 17 and 45. It will be fairly obvious to the House that these are technical amendments arising from a change made to the Bill on Report. I shall respond to the amendments tabled by the Opposition at the end of the debate.
As noble Lords will remember very well, when we debated this Bill on Report an amendment was passed that fundamentally changed the commissioner's general function under Clause 2. The main change was that instead of,
promoting awareness of the views and interests of children,
the commissioner is now,
promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children.
The other changes introduced by that amendment included restricting the commissioner's Clause 2 function to England and extending the definition of "children" for the purposes of Clause 2 to include certain groups of young adults.
I would not want to go back over the debate that we had on Report. I remind the House that my noble friend resisted that amendment and it is now a matter

1415
for debate at another time and in another place. But, today, in introducing these amendments I must correct certain anomalies that arose from the change to the Bill and I must correct one minor error in a reference to other legislation. By convention, we must ensure that the Bill leaves this House with any such anomalies corrected.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the amendments. Most of them are the result of restricting the commissioner's Clause 2 function to England. Amendment No. 1 removes words that are now simply superfluous. Those words were required when the commissioner's Clause 2 was UK-wide to make it clear that the UK role was subject to the conditions in Clause 6 that prevented the commissioner becoming involved in devolved matters in the other nations. Now that there is no UK-wide role in Clause 2, those words are clearly not required.
Amendment No. 14 is similar. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 6 respectively set out the restrictions on the commissioner's UK-wide function in Clause 2 and place a requirement on him to take account of the other commissioners' work and views when discharging that function. Now that there is no UK-wide role in Clause 2, these subsections are also redundant.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are both needed in consequence of the removal of Clause 6(1) by government Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 16 is needed to prevent the commissioner from holding an inquiry under Clause 4 into a case where the issues it raises relate to a devolved matter in relation to children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 17 prevents the Secretary of State directing the commissioner to hold an inquiry under Clause 5 where the issues it raises relate to a devolved matter in the other countries of the UK. So, those are the mirror clauses.
Those are the amendments that now arise from the commissioner's Clause 2 function becoming limited to England. The other two amendments in this group relate to the extension of the definition of the word "children" in Clause 2(10). Amendment No. 5 corrects a technical error. The subsection to bring care leavers over 18 within the commissioner's remit refers to the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. In fact, that is not right. The reference should be not to the 2000 Act but to the relevant sections of the Children Act 1989 which were inserted by the 2000 Act and set out the relevant local authority duties.
Amendment No. 45 qualifies the definition of "children" in Clause 52. As Clause 2(10) has widened the definition for the purposes of Clause 2, that fact must be reflected in the Clause 52 definition. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of GresfordMy Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome that the Government have accepted the principle that the commissioner should be confined to England. We asked for that at Second Reading and the National Assembly certainly wanted it. In Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15, we
1416
have sought to tidy up the Bill in precisely the same way as the Government are tidying it up, so as to remove unnecessary references to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Amendment No. 15, we have sought to make it clear that the Children's Commissioner will work with the commissioners for the respective countries on matters that are of a broad interest—such as children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom and that the Children's Commissioner for England will also work with the appropriate commissioners on individual matters that concern children in those countries. I hope that we shall hear from the Government that these tidying up amendments are accepted.
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I am grateful for that response and for the welcome given to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15 revisit the issue of the commissioner's role on UK-wide matters and his relationship with the other UK Children's Commissioners. As the amendments are rather complex and difficult to unpick, I want to go through them carefully. I shall start by explaining their consequences and why we cannot accept them as they are, and then set out in more detail the effect.
The package of amendments is clearly designed to follow through, as the noble Lord said, the consequences of what has happened to Clause 2. The current text of Clause 2, as amended by your Lordships' House on Report, restricts the commissioner's general function to England only. As I said, that is now a matter for debate in the other place. At the end of my remarks I shall say a few words on where we are in our discussions.
These amendments seek to "tidy up" the commissioner's other functions in the light of that change; so there is a logic in them. They are focused more on England than the other countries in the UK. However, if I may summarise, the consequence of the amendments would be to create a commissioner who can still carry out inquiries into non-devolved matters in the UK but who will be stripped of formal inquiry powers and who—I think this must be unintentional and I shall explain how it happened—will now be able to carry out inquiries into devolved matters across the UK as well. The result will be a gap in provision following from the fact that there will no longer be a commissioner who is able to carry out an effective inquiry into a non-devolved issue. I am sure that noble Lords would not want to see that.
I turn to the amendments in order to outline the specific effect of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would remove the commissioner's inquiry powers, such as the power to call witnesses and evidence, when he is carrying out his own inquiries into individual cases in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 similarly remove the commissioner's inquiry powers when he is carrying out inquiries directed by the Secretary of State in relation to those countries. The commissioner would still be able to carry out inquiries into non-devolved matters throughout the UK, but he would be gravely weakened. He would be left with no

1417
formal inquiry powers to back him up, only the hope that goodwill will prevail and witnesses will co-operate.
As I explained earlier, government amendment No. 14 removes Clause 6(1) and (2) as those provisions are consequential on the new Clause 2 England-only arrangements. By also removing Clause 6(3) and (4), however, Amendment No. 15 would remove the measures that we have currently set down in Clause 6 to reflect the realities of devolution and which prevent the commissioner carrying out his own inquiries into devolved matters. This will allow the commissioner to carry out inquiries, albeit without any formal powers, into devolved matters in other parts of the UK. I am sure that that was not the intention of noble Lords. Amendment No. 15 would also replace the existing Clause 6 with a requirement on the commissioner to consult and work together with the other commissioners on matters concerning rights and interests throughout the UK.
So, the overall effect would be rather paradoxical. The commissioner would be unable to carry out effective inquiries into non-devolved matters because he would be stripped of his formal powers of inquiry. He would still be able to carry out inquiries but they would not be meaningful. Given that the other UK commissioners are prevented from doing so at all, we would create a situation where no commissioner is able to carry out robust, effective inquiries into cases of individual children across the UK where the case is a non-devolved matter. I would argue that that would leave an unacceptable gap in provision for children who are affected by non-devolved issues such as immigration. Again, I am sure that that was not an intentional outcome.
I understand what noble Lords have tried to do. They have tried to address the gap through Amendment No. 15, by requiring the commissioner to work closely with his UK counterparts. We do not believe that that goes far enough to replace what we have now, which is a commissioner who has the necessary powers to carry out effective, independent inquiries into non-devolved matters and to report back to Westminster where the decisions on those matters are made.
So, although I cannot accept the amendments, I would hope to reassure noble Lords, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill at every stage, that the whole issue of the commissioner's role in the UK and his relationship with the other commissioners is something that we have taken, and continue to take, very seriously indeed.
I described our intentions at Report stage. We are currently urgently considering ways of paving the way for effective working between the commissioners so that they can be the first port of call and single initial point of contact for children in those countries. Officials at the Department for Education and Skills are working extremely hard with colleagues across the UK to find a way forward to which all four nations can agree, and we hope to be able to offer something to
1418
that end when the Bill reaches another place. As I said on Report, that is the point that we have reached. I hope that noble Lords will think that that is sufficient.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed. There has been relevant debate on these aspects of the Bill at all stages and we have certainly enjoyed contributing to that. With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
() In carrying out his functions under this section the Commissioner must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the wellbeing of children.
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, I am moving this amendment at Third Reading because I was unable to move it on Report due to the success of a major opposition amendment to Clause 2. This House and indeed many of the children's charities have, on various grounds, been seriously concerned about the powers and duties which the Government plan for the commissioner. One of those grounds for concern was that he has no obligation to work with or to take into account the views of parents and others caring for children.
On Report the Government introduced an extremely helpful and important amendment to Clause 7. It may be helpful if I quote it. It stated:
In making arrangements under this section a children's services authority in England must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of children.
Many noble Lords welcomed that amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has obviously persuaded her colleagues that it was a good idea. However, it does not touch on the work of the commissioner. Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I believe that the same clause or one slightly adapted as it must be, as in my amendment, should appear in the directions for the commissioner in Clause 2.
Before we pass the Bill on to another place, I should like to hear the Minister either accept the amendment in principle or give the House a convincing reason why it should not be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. He has consistently argued that the Bill should have a greater recognition of the important role of parents. Indeed, it was fairly amazing that there was no mention of parents when it first appeared. As he has acknowledged, the Government have made a concession in Clause 7.
I have read the extremely helpful letter sent to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explaining some of the background to the establishment of the various objectives and a copy of the conclusions of Aim High: Stay Real. I could not help but notice the groups which were consulted. The children's own views identified

1419
friends and family, parents and carers. They would be expected to identify them and they did so. The importance for children was family and home. The practitioners' views were health and emotional well-being. I would interpret—and we will come to it later—emotional well-being as very much a role for parents and carers. So I quickly but heartedly support my noble friend's amendment and hope that we can ensure that the children's commissioner will have that duty.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, we on these Benches also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We are of course aware of the importance of parents and families to the emotional well-being of children. We think that it would be a good signal of the Government's intent for the commissioner and his or her obligation to consult and involve parents at every stage of his or her work if such a phrase were to be put into the Bill.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. If this form of words, which we welcome very much, in Clause 7 is the right one for co-operation between agencies, I cannot see why it should not be equally important in the general function of the commissioner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)My Lords, I share noble Lords' respect for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in consistently reminding us and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, ensuring that the Government take seriously the question of parents. I am grateful for noble Lords' support and endorsement of our amendment.
I have to say that I disagree with what the noble Lord seeks to do for a very straightforward and simple reason. We have set up the commissioner with your Lordships' assistance in helping us to refine the post—and perhaps sometimes taking us in slightly different directions—in such a way that the commissioner is clearly focused around children and focused as an independent body looking to support and protect children in all the right ways in order to make sure their voices are heard.
I was particularly struck when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about involving parents at each and every stage. That might not always be the best way forward for children and young people. Young people need to feel that the commissioner is for them; mum and dad or their carer or foster parents are important people, but not so important in the commissioner's eyes as they are. That is the way it should be.
The reason I do not want the provision on the face of the Bill is not in any way to detract from the critical importance of parents, carers and family—far from it—but to say that the focus for the commissioner is around children and young children. To have even one very important group added as one to which the commissioner must have particular regard, changes the focus. So, with all respect and with an absolute understanding of the critical role of parents and carers,
1420
I just want the Bill to be crystal clear that the commissioner's job and responsibilities are around children and young people.
I am sure that part and parcel of the work of the commissioner will be that he or she will be talking to organisations and to parents and carers. But I would not want that on the face of the Bill for the reasons that I have given.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that in the spirit in which it is given. I think the amendment changes the focus and that would be a pity. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw it.
Lord NorthbourneMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I asked for an explanation and I got one, although I am not wholly happy about it. I recognise the Government's intention is to put children at the very centre of the commissioner's work, but I think that when talking about children they are thinking of teenagers in particular. I know that younger children have opinions. But in varying degrees as they get younger and younger their opinions are perhaps influenced by short-term considerations and a lack of knowledge of the world around them; and parents and carers have a role to play in interpreting the needs and wishes of younger children. I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that half the nation's children are under the age of 13.
We must not think that teenagers represent children. Indeed, teenagers often have a special agenda which is different from that of younger children. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 26, leave out "section" and insert "Part"
The noble Baroness saidMy Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 3 and to speak to Amendment No. 4. They also tidy up Clause 2. Amendment No. 3 to subsection (5) of Clause 2 proposes that the power to enter institutional premises and interview children, if necessary in private, should not only apply to the commissioner's general functions under Clause 2, but to the whole of Part 1.
The purpose is to ensure that the commissioner has this power when carrying out a formal inquiry under either Clauses 4 or 5. While we understand that the powers given to the commissioner in relation to formal inquiries include the right to summon witnesses and so on—and that is very welcome—they may not always be appropriate for children, and it may be necessary to enter premises and interview children in the course of an inquiry. So, we need this amendment to ensure that the commissioner has the full range of powers he needs to carry out the job.
Amendment No. 4 amends Clause 2(10) in a similar way. It would ensure that the extended definition of children, which we put into Clause 2 to include care leavers, young people in custody to the age of 22 and young people with disabilities to the age of 21, applies not only to the commissioner's general functions

1421
under Clause 2, but to the whole of Part 1, thus including the power to carry out formal inquiries under either Clauses 4 or 5 and the relationship with the other commissioners under Clause 6. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward as we have debated these issues. As noble Lords know, we agree with the need for the power of entry in Clause 2 and that the commissioner's remit should be extended to include certain vulnerable groups of young children over the age of 18.
Looking specifically at Amendment No. 3, the reason that the Government sought to include the power of entry in Clause 2 was to ensure that under the more manageable general role that the Government still want to see for the commissioner, he or she would have the power to make sure he could seek the views of all children. Should the commissioner be carrying out an inquiry under Clauses 4 or 5, it would be in a more formal context. He or she would be able to summon witnesses and to take evidence under oath. There is simply no need to make the extension that the noble Baroness is seeking under the provisions of Clause 2(5), as it is already covered. Therefore, it is unnecessary. I have taken advice to ensure that is correct. If there is anything further to add, I will get the note now.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, the Minister will have noticed from my face that I am rather puzzled. Is she confirming that there is no need to give a special power to enter premises under these circumstances because that is already covered in what we have done to the Bill? If she is, I am satisfied; if not, I am not satisfied.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandIndeed, my Lords. The noble Baroness would be right not to be satisfied. My understanding is that because we moved from a general power, which is about how to ensure that the commissioner can talk to all children, as we discussed on Report to the more formal powers of conducting an inquiry, the rules around formal powers come into being. Therefore, it is unnecessary to have both. He does not need to have those powers because he has the power to summon people to him in any event, so it is not an issue.
I have checked with the officials, and I understand why the noble Baroness is looking puzzled. If I discover that I have in any way misled the House by saying that, we will correct it in another place. My understanding is that we simply do not need it, because the nature of the formal powers means that the commissioner does not have the problem—which we sought to address under the other part—that he could not get access to children. Because he has formal powers under the inquiry, he does have access to children. The two merge to meet the same end.
It may not look like that, but I am reassured that that is the effect. Of course, if that is wrong I will correct it. There is no difference between us; that is
1422
what we both seek to achieve. I understand why the noble Baroness has brought this forward and I am grateful, but the effect is the same; the commissioner can reach the children that he needs to reach, because the powers enable him to do that. I will confirm that in another way, but the House can be reassured that is right.
I can see the logic behind Amendment No. 4, but I must resist it, partly for reasons of principle and partly on pragmatic grounds. The Government do not accept that when young offenders reach the age of 18 they are still "children". In the judicial system they are adults. Although I understand completely that noble Lords who have concerns about young offenders in our institutions would wish the commissioner to have some role, we have strong views about making sure that the commissioner is focused in the right way. The concerns about young adults in institutions need to be addressed in a different way by those who have responsibility for them. There is no desire on my part to run away or move away from resolving those issues. We simply do not believe that the commissioner can resolve all noble Lords' concerns.
I accept that there may be a stronger case in relation to care leavers and young people with learning disabilities, but the amendment as worded is defective, and I must oppose it for that reason. I made a commitment to widening the scope of the commissioner's remit to include young adults leaving care and those with learning disabilities. As noble Lords will know, I was not able to do that because of the adoption of the revised Clause 2 on a non-government amendment, which had more far-reaching provisions than those we were contemplating. I stand by that commitment, and I indicated on Report that there were issues about making the drafting more effective. Another place must look at Clause 2 and determine what it wishes to do. I stand by our commitment to ensure that the commissioner's remit is extended in an appropriate and legally accurate manner to cover those groups. I apologise to the House that I cannot do that now, but it must go to another place to ensure that the legal drafting is correct.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness in respect of Amendment No. 3 that the commissioner can do what the noble Baroness wishes him to do. Our commitment to take forward learning disabilities and young people leaving care shows that we wish to do what the House wants us to do. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of ListowelMy Lords, before the Minister sits down, there is the Children (Leaving Care) Act, which applies to children in care, and 30 to 40 per cent of young people in young offenders' institutions have come through care. I recently visited a young offenders' institution, and the governor had no idea that the Children (Leaving Care) Act applied to young people in her prison. There is a danger that if we do not include young offenders we will miss out a whole bunch of care leavers simply because the system is rather chaotic. Is it not safer to include them?
2.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, as I have indicated, we wish to do something in respect of care leavers. I have already indicated that we would do that. That would cover care leavers regardless of setting. The difference relates to the specific group that I have indicated of young adults in institutions. We want to ensure that they are classified as adults and that the system is able to support them and care for them in the most appropriate way.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances on the subject of Amendment No. 3. On Amendment No. 4, I am disappointed that she is still resisting putting in young offenders. The logic of our amendment to include young people up to age 22 is that that is the age at which they move from young offenders' institutions into the adult penal system. I also welcome what the Minister said about putting right the extension of the definition of "children" in the other two respects in another place. Despite my disappointment, I hope that colleagues at the other end of the building will take up that point again. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) young people in respect of whom a children's services authority has duties under sections 23C to 24D of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41); and
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS TO SHARING OF INFORMATION

The Secretary of State has the following specific functions in respect of the sharing of information—

to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom this section applies guidance as to the sharing of information between and amongst themselves;

to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom this section applies guidance as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for those persons and bodies to share information between and amongst themselves;

to maintain under review the guidance set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

In drawing up the guidance set out at subsection (1)(a) and (b) above, and in reviewing such guidance under subsection (1)(c) the Secretary of State shall consult with—

the Children's Commissioner;

the Information Commissioner;

such other interested persons and bodies with statutory responsibility for children as the Children's Commissioner sees fit.

The guidance under subsection (1)(a) and (b) above shall in particular make provision—

as to the nature of the information that, in the circumstances of the case, must or may be shared;

1424

as to procedures designed to ensure the accuracy and security of information shared;

as to procedures designed to ensure, where appropriate, the co-ordination of the sharing of information between and amongst relevant agencies and persons;

as to procedures designed to govern the circumstances in which information can be lawfully shared notwithstanding any rule of law which prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information;

as to procedures designed to guarantee, as appropriate, the rights of data subjects in respect of any information about them that may be shared;

as to procedures designed to govern the period for which it is appropriate that information should be shared and to ensure appropriate deletion of any information shared in compliance with the Data Protection Principles.

This section applies to the persons and bodies identified at section 7(1) and any agencies, companies or individuals who may be contracted to work for them or to supply goods and services to them.

The information for which provision may be made under this section may include—

information as to services provided to, or activities carried out in relation to, an individual child to whom arrangements referred to in section 8(1) relate; and

information which gives reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.

The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to affirmative resolutions in each House of Parliament, proscribe and penalise contravention of any guidance under this section as to the collection, sharing, use, holding and disclosure of information."

The noble Earl saidMy Lords, at the outset, I offer my sincere thanks to the Minister for meeting me and my noble friend Lord Campbell yesterday. I can only hope that she found the occasion as fruitful and helpful as we did. Indeed, on the basis of our discussion, we have redrafted our amendment in an attempt to seek common ground with the Government's position. I will turn to that matter in due course.
First, for the sake of clarity, I will explain our principal objective in the amendment, namely to make provision for legally effective and enforceable statutory guidance in respect of the sharing of information among and between agencies working with children. We should be under no illusions as to the importance of that. It has been a recurrent theme in recent years. Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report Lost in Care states:
Guidance is required to social services departments and police forces now in relation to…the sharing of information generally for criminal investigation and child protection purposes".
Paragraph 23 of the introduction to Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry report states:
I suggest … that better guidance is needed on the collection, retention, deletion, use and sharing of information, so that police officers, social workers and other professionals can feel more confident in using information properly".
Clearly, there is an urgent requirement for improved systems to facilitate the sharing of information. That was the case four and a half years ago when the Lost in Care report was published; and it continues to be the case now. I concede that the Government have sought to strengthen the guidance in the intervening period and have come forward with the Bill. None the less, as

1425
evidenced by the Richard report, the problems associated with information sharing continue to be deeply acute.
The Government's preferred solution to that conundrum, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, as "an organisational malaise", is at least in part what is now Clause 9. It is important to recognise that our amendment is complementary, rather than antagonistic to this provision. Certainly, it does not in any way proscribe the use of databases. Indeed, in many respects, notably subsections (3)(e) and (3)(f), it implicitly promotes them. Moreover, the insertion of the amendment would go a long way to allaying most, if not all, of my concerns about Clause 9.
As I have consistently said, it is crucial to draw the distinction between the practical and technical problem of what sort of mechanisms should be put in place to ensure the appropriate recording of information about children and the cultural problem of how to ensure that the sharing of information—actually talking and communicating—is to be established between the various bodies, agencies and persons concerned with children's welfare. In my judgment Clause 9 is aimed at the first, but not the second. To that extent it is limited in scope, and our amendment would plug the gap.
In addition, while I pay due tribute to the Minister for striving to draw some of the sting of the original drafting of Clause 9, I continue to have deep-seated reservations about it, not least in respect of its potential cost-effectiveness, let alone whether it will actually inspire better and more co-ordinated sharing of information. More fundamentally, in the absence of any meaningful provision for enforcement in its drafting, I would be very hesitant about the prospect of it standing part of the Bill without the buttress of our amendment to qualify it.
I am also aware of certain misgivings about the original structure of our amendment, particularly the way in which it may have conferred too much responsibility and power on the commissioner. Indeed, the Minister expressed that as a concern at our meeting yesterday. In response, we have recast the amendment, so that the Secretary of State has the responsibility of preparing the relevant guidance in consultation with the commissioner and the other consultees listed in subsection (2), rather than the other way round. I should explain that, in the first instance, we felt that in so far as the commissioner is intended to be a children's champion—a point that the noble Baroness reinforced again today—it was more appropriate for him or her to have, as it were, ownership of the guidance, as a means of ensuring that it would be prepared from the perspective of children. In the event, the point is adequately covered in our redraft, on the basis that the commissioner is one of the consultees listed in subsection (2). Moreover, in terms of one of our primary aims for the amendment—giving legal effect to the guidance—there are not inconsiderable advantages in the Secretary of State being responsible for its preparation.
1426
I should acknowledge the view of the Minister that no single measure will address all the problems and difficulties associated with the sharing of information. What is required is a kaleidoscope of appropriate measures. I agree with that. Indeed, it should be self-evident that this has been part of the inspiration for our amendment and that we see it as a crucial element of this kaleidoscope.
I hope that I do not misrepresent the position of the noble Baroness here if I say that in reality she and the Government support what we are trying to achieve, but there may be residual nervousness about our drafting. With that in mind, I wonder whether, even if the noble Baroness cannot accept the amendment as it stands, she might be prepared to give an undertaking that the Government would be prepared to revisit the issue as the Bill goes through another place.
I also suspect that the Minister shares my view that for too long inter- and intra-agency guidance on the sharing of information in the field of child welfare has been too disparate, almost to the point of incoherence. That has acted as a spur to our efforts to draft the amendment. It is a regrettable but inescapable fact that in so far as we rely on the current themes in the report of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and of Sir Michael Bichard, there continues to be a gap here. As I say, our aim is to draw the guidance together into a coherent whole and with legal effect, as a means of facilitating the appropriate sharing of information by professionals in the field and of instilling an improved culture of information sharing.
I close with this thought. The Government's response to Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report states:
The Government is determined to learn the lessons contained in Lost in Care. We must use it as a catalyst for meaningful and radical change in children's services.
I applaud that sentiment. Moreover, I hope that the Minister might feel able to offer some sympathy to our proposition in order to back it up. I beg to move.
Lord LamingMy Lords, I strongly support the general thrust of the amendment so ably outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. I am particularly grateful that he and his co-supporters have recast the amendment to meet some of the concerns expressed at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
The sharing of information is crucial and complex. It is important that as the Bill progresses towards becoming an Act it strikes the right note to ensure that the way in which information is shared commands the support not only of the general public, parents, children and young people but of the many professional people in the different organisation who will have responsibility in this field.
I believe that great progress has been made. Like other Members of the House, I was very impressed by the meetings we had with those carrying out pathfinding work in this area. I hope that the House will support the thrust of this amendment and that as the Bill progresses the amendment will be reshaped. In other words, I hope that the House will support the

1427
thrust of the amendment without signing up to the exact wording. I hope that is not too disappointing or too confusing.
Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, the purpose of this speech is to seek to establish at this stage common ground on two assumptions. The first is that another place shall restore Clause 2 and not accept the amendments to it. The second assumption is that Clause 9, which is declaratory and supplemental to this amendment, shall stand part, if Amendment No. 6 commends itself in principle.
On that basis and on those assumptions, there are four matters of fundamental principle on which I seek common ground. The first is that the respective functions of the Children's Commissioner and of the Secretary of State should be clearly defined on the face of any clause. Secondly, on sharing information, the Secretary of State should have functions relating to the drawing up of guidance in consultation with the Children's Commissioner. Thirdly, the parameters and purposes of such guidance should be clearly defined in the Bill. Lastly, the Secretary of State should be enabled to make regulations to proscribe and penalise the contravention of any such guidance—in other words, the trigger clause of the Bill for secondary legislation.
If such be common ground, the fly in the ointment is the drafting, for which I take total responsibility. A parliamentary draftsman who had the requisite expertise could remove the fly from the ointment before the Bill reaches another place. In such circumstances, if the Minister could give a wholly satisfactory undertaking, there would be no need to divide on this amendment, and the House would no doubt wish to accept the undertaking.
My noble friend Lord Northesk will attend with unusual care to what the noble Baroness may say in the hope of not having to divide your Lordships' House.
2.30 p.m.
The Countess of MarMy Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because for many years the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and I have discussed my concerns about mothers, in the main, who have had the wrong information entered into the current Samson computer. The noble Baroness knows that I have asked many times why it is that false information cannot be expunged from that computer, and I have been given a variety of reasons in response.
The amendment covers many of my concerns, especially about the accuracy and security of information to be shared, as well as the appropriate deletion of information shared in compliance with data protection principles. It will give a great deal of hope to many people. I should say that I have received many letters from mothers who have been falsely accused of Munchausen syndrome by proxy just on the word of someone en passant. That goes on to the record where it remains for ever. Such mothers are never able to work with children again. If we can prevent that happening, I would be absolutely delighted.
1428
I recognise that it may be necessary to brush up the amendment a little, but I would be extremely grateful to the Minister if she were prepared to accept it in spirit.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the object of the amendment, but I shall be extremely boring and pedantic as a lawyer. I hope that noble Lords will also forgive me for the fact that I have a terrible cold and therefore it is a pain to listen to me at all.
I simply do not understand why it should be a proper function of the Secretary of State to give such guidance rather than the Information Commissioner. Under our data protection legislation, which is comprehensive, the Information Commissioner normally gives guidance to all bodies in all circumstances about how to comply. Therefore it seems strange that one should write very detailed provisions into this Bill, including that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Children's Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and many other bodies, should give guidance. I may be wrong about that, but I wanted to make the point.
My second point is more substantial than one simply of drafting, and it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will be able to explain it to me. Turning to subsection (3)(d) of the proposed new clause, I do not understand how the Secretary of State could give guidance,
as to procedures designed to govern the circumstances in which information can be lawfully shared notwithstanding any rule of law which prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information.
The rules of law which prohibit or restrict the disclosure of information are rules of law. Those rules are embodied in the European directive on data protection and in our data protection legislation. I do not understand how any Secretary of State could effectively lay down guidance that is contrary to rules of law. These points probably can all be answered, but I am puzzled.
Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I would be delighted to intervene, but we have reached Third Reading and an intervention in response would be complicated and take up much time. Since we are not in Committee, I decline to entertain the intervention.
Earl HoweMy Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment tabled in the names of my noble friends. It addresses an issue of fundamental importance quite distinct from the debate that we have had about databases and the rules surrounding them. With the arrival of statutory joint working between agencies of many descriptions, governmental and non-governmental, we are entering territory in which one thing is depressingly predictable; that is, huge incertainty as regards what information it is legally permissible for one agency to share with another. There is enormous scope for confusion about what is legal and permissible under the Data Protection Act.
Where a child is at serious risk of harm, there is perhaps less confusion about information sharing—although the Soham case makes me hesitant about

1429
saying that. However, if a child is not at risk of immediate or serious harm, what are the rules then? What information is it permissible for a professional to share, and with whom? What principle determines whether information can be shared? The medical profession, to name but one example, is extremely exercised about this.
Equally, I suspect that there are many professionals who have no measurement tool by which to analyse and balance risk. Many are simply not trained to do this kind of thing. One has to ask how they are expected to adhere to the obligations set out in the Bill without some sort of clear guidance, and how can the public be confident that there is a real imperative for such guidance to be followed unless it is laid down in regulations that people have to do so—regulations that will, if necessary, provide the basis for judicial review in the event that they are not followed? Moreover, the procedures that are followed and the interpretation put on the legal duty of co-operation as it relates to information sharing need, as far as possible, to be consistent and uniform throughout the country. Only statutory guidance will achieve this, which is why, with some hesitation, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—which I do not do lightly—in his suggestion that it should be the Information Commissioner who draws up this guidance. If the guidance is to be statutory, a Minister of the Crown should be the one to draw it up.
I believe that my noble friends are to be congratulated on having pinpointed this very important issue and on having pursued it so tenaciously throughout the passage of the Bill. I support them.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, throughout our debates on information sharing, noble Lords who have considered this Bill will know that I have worked quite closely with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. As I have said on many occasions, I believe that we stand on one side of a line and the noble Baroness stands on the other. We take very different views of the extent to which information sharing should be set within a tight framework.
Both noble Lords are to be congratulated on doing what this Bill singularly fails to achieve in Clause 9, which is to set out coherently and in one place all the points that professionals who need to share information about children need to know and observe. It is quite clear, from all the cases and reports cited by noble Lords, that perhaps more than ever before there is now deep confusion on the part of statutory agencies about exactly what information they may share and how they may do so. I agree with the comment that this matter will have to be returned to when this Bill is sent to another place, and I am sure that it will. However, the issue of information sharing between statutory bodies goes far wider and perhaps should be the subject of a whole new piece of legislation, which I suspect may well happen in the next Parliament.
1430
In the mean time, I hope that when the Minister returns to us with the regulations and guidance, having consulted the trailblazers and so forth, they will bear a greater resemblance to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, than to Clause 9.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the Information Commissioner has a role in providing general guidance around the Data Protection Act, but the specific guidance in such matters is addressed by the Secretary of State. In this case no one is either right or wrong; it is just different in terms of the guidance we are issuing.
I, too, express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their time yesterday. I thought that we had an extremely useful and fruitful discussion around many of these issues. I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords for recasting their amendment.
It will come as no surprise that I do not intend to accept the amendment as it stands, for a number of different reasons. However, I hope that the reasons for which I will not accept it will find favour, particularly with those who tabled the amendment and with all noble Lords who have spoken. I hope one day to stand on the same side of the line as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I do not think that there is such a line in the sand—we seek the same thing, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, will know, it is more complex to get there.
I also wish to reassure the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that there is no case information of any kind on the database. I understand the noble Countess's concerns. She has explained them to me and I continue to consider them, but in this context I hope that what I have said is of some assurance.
I am pleased that we have reached the point of recognising that the Secretary of State is responsible for bringing together the guidance. I am also pleased that the importance of the guidance has been well recognised in your Lordships' House in the way in which the amendment has been framed. I am also pleased that we have not lost sight of the role that the commissioner might play in that. Indeed, yesterday we reversed the amendments slightly, because it is important that as the commissioner develops expertise and talks to children and so on, he is able to feed into the guidance what he knows and what he believes to be right. I would want that to be part and parcel of the function. Without imposing an obligation on the commissioner, I would hope that it would be a natural part of the role.
The fundamental fly in the ointment, to borrow the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is that we do not need the amendment for the Secretary of State to issue the guidance that the noble Earl, Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, seek. Under the Children Act 1989, the powers already exist. The noble Lords will remember that I went off to see the lawyers after we met yesterday to confirm and check. It is right and proper that one of the ways in which we are

1431
supported by parliamentary counsel and by legal opinion is by them ensuring that we do not duplicate existing law or make laws that are difficult to interpret. In this case, the 1989 Act already provides the powers.
As noble Lords will know, under Clauses 7, 8 and 9, the Secretary of State can issue guidance to which the recipient must have regard. We are clear that comprehensive statutory guidance is needed for the reasons given by noble Lords and not least because of what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. said about taking away the lack of certainty around what sort of information should or should not be shared. Being clearer about the ways in which we want people to work together is important. Clarity, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said is important if we are to ensure that we safeguard children and protect them well. We must do so effectively and efficiently to ensure that our actions do not lead to the sort of negative outcome about which the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is so concerned.
I can also reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that almost all the issues that are mentioned in the amendment as needing to be supported by guidance will be covered by guidance under our proposals. I am grateful for the suggestions that have been made to me. In relation to (3)(a) in the amendment, we do not think it is right to set out a detailed list of information that practitioners must share because as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, we do not want to cut across the important general duty to share information. We might run the risk of information being excluded because people feel that it is not included in a list.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about the training needs of those involved. It is important that the work to do with guidance, support and information sharing is backed up by the kind of training and support that the professions need. Noble Lords who had the benefit of meeting the Trailblazers may remember that the vast majority of the £1 million given for each project had been spent on training, to very good effect. I do not underestimate for one moment the importance of that in ensuring that things work.
2.45 p.m.
The duties in Clauses 8, 21 and 23 involve an implied responsibility to share information when it is judged to be in the best interests of the child. We want this to be part and parcel of the way in which organisations and the professionals employed in them meet their duty under the clauses. The guidance that we are intending to produce under Clauses 7 and 8 will provide greater clarity on the circumstances under which information may be shared to promote the welfare, safety and well-being of children. We will make it clear how practitioners will be able to share information appropriately in compliance with the data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1994. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester indicated, the Information Commissioner's guidance will come into play at this point.
1432
On the issue of the databases and new Clause 9, we will specify through regulations how they will operate and guidance and directions will set out what practitioners and those managing the databases should and must do. We plan to issue draft guidance in the autumn of this year and the guidance will be available before the duties are commenced next year, assuming that the Bill passes through this House and through another place. It will include guidance on information sharing as well.
We hope that we have covered as noble Lords would wish the areas of information sharing in both the guidance and the regulations, and how the implementation will be undertaken in the context of the training regime.
We are not in favour of regulations that will penalise contravention of the guidance. We want to rely on the traditional application of statutory guidance. We do not think that we should institute a separate regime for information issues. We must ensure that good information sharing practice is embedded in the overall approach to the planning and delivery of services. That is why we intend to cover information sharing in the statutory guidance under Clauses 7 and 8. Good practice in information sharing should be part of the overall good practice in the established inspection framework, and will form part of the professional development for the workforce as a whole. We want to ensure that we disseminate good practice as we identify it and work with professionals in so doing. We also want to ensure that all this is in place. The funding for any databases will be partly based upon whether all of this is in place, to ensure that there is appropriate use of the database.
Our general approach will be to use our existing powers under the Children Act, to use effectively the role of the Children's Commissioner and of the Information Commissioner and to deal with contravention using the Data Protection Act 1994. We want to ensure that statutory guidance is followed in the way in which it has traditionally been followed by professionals who understand its importance and relevance—who know that it cannot be ignored without good reason and good cause. We do not want to specify too rigidly on the face of the Bill the provisions on information sharing for fear of excluding elements of information sharing, which could be dangerous and would certainly be unsatisfactory. We do not want to move away from that principle.
I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that we are continuing to discuss this area. I have no doubt, though I cannot predict, that it will be discussed in another place. We will continue to keep those who tabled the amendment in touch with what we are doing. As we develop the regulations and guidance we will ensure that noble Lords who have been part of the debate are aware of what is happening.

1433
[BARONESS ASHTON OF UPHOLLAND]
We are grateful for the points that have been raised. On the basis that we have covered with legislation, guidance and regulations all of those points, I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
The Earl of NortheskMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful for the support offered by many of your Lordships to the amendment—particularly that offered by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker and my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Campbell. As I must, I pay due heed to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. He may rest assured that I draw a great deal of comfort from his support, qualified though it may be. Indeed, I favour his recommendation, namely that the underlying principles of the amendment should be supported on the basis that it would be knocked into shape in another place. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Campbell's remarks followed the same vein. However, it is a source of regret to me that the Minister chose not to pick up on the point.
The Minister assures me that the powers exist already under the Children Act 1989. However, this is the crucial point—the mere existence of the powers has not given rise since 1989 to any improvement to the culture of information sharing.
It strikes me as idiotic to continue to rely on the extant powers when the reports of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and Sir Michael Bichard continue to demonstrate that a problem exists. Moreover, guidance issued under later clauses in the Bill, to our judgment, lack sufficient legal efficacy to ensure that it will be paid attention to.
For those two reasons—and with a deep sense of regret, in truth, because I do not believe that our position is very much removed from that of the Government—I think that I have no option other than to test the opinion of the House.
2.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alderdice, L.

Chadlington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chan, L.

Avebury, L.

Chorley, L.

Barker, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biffen, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Blatch, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bowness, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bradshaw, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dholakia, L.

Byford, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller]

Dundee, E.

1434

Dykes, L.

Northbourne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northesk, E. [Teller]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northover, B.

Elton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Peel, E.

Fowler, L.

Perry of Southwark. B.

Garden, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Greaves, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rees, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Hooson, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howe, E.

Roper, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hylton, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saatchi, L.

Jopling, L.

Seccombe, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lucas, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

McNally, L.

Taverne, L.

Maddock, B.

Tebbit, L.

Mar, C.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Marlesford, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Trenchard, V.

Methuen, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Walpole, L.

Montrose, D.

Wilcox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Naseby, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Noakes, B.

Windlesham, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Drayson, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dubs, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Elder, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ampthill, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Andrews, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Falkender, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Billingham, B.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Golding. B.

Blood, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brookman, L.

Greengross, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Christopher, L.

Harrison, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayman, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Henig, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Crawley, B.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Hoyle, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Dixon, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

1435

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Richard, L.

Joffe, L.

Rogan, L.

Jordan, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Judd, L.

Rosser, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Laming, L.

Sandwich, E.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Sawyer, L.

Lipsey, L.

Sheldon, L.

Listowel, E.

Simon, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Slim, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Thornton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Triesman, L.

Mitchell, L.

Truscott, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Uddin, B.

Moser, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Ouseley, L.

Warner, L.

Parekh, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Weatherill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whitaker, B.

Prosser, B.

Whitty, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Rea, L.

[*See col. 1442]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.1 p.m.
Clause 4 [Inquiries initiated by Commissioner]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 5, leave out "and Wales"
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, I move this amendment for the purpose of replying to the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, when we discussed the first group.
She suggested that the amendments that are grouped together in my name and the names of others were defective. If that is so I will not press them to a vote. We will no doubt—both here and in another place—look very carefully at these amendments and at the observations made by the noble Baroness.
She indicated that there was still work going on to resolve the particular issue that has developed between the powers and functions of the Welsh commissioner and the English commissioner. Helpfully, she said that the Welsh commissioner would be the first stop for children in Wales on all issues, devolved or non-devolved. I welcome that.
She also said that the work is considering where the Welsh commissioner should report. I had a feeling that she was suggesting that the English commissioner in non-devolved matters would act as a valve or barrier or conduit between the findings of the Welsh commissioner and the government departments with which he is concerned. A specific example would be the Home Office, where most of the issues are non-devolved. I hope that that is not the situation. We have urged that the Bill should be used to extend the powers
1436
of the commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that they can investigate, review and report on all matters, regardless of whether they are devolved or non-devolved.
As I have said at earlier stages of the Bill, we should not get tied up in the devolved/non-devolved division. It is nothing to do with the powers of the Welsh commissioner. The Welsh commissioner can act independently if Parliament says that he can, whatever the position between the National Assembly for Wales and Westminster.
If work is continuing along these lines, I ask that these principles be borne in mind. They are, after all, principles to which all parties in the National Assembly ascribe, including the Labour Party, which presumably has some communication with the Labour Government at Westminster. I beg to move.
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, the noble Lord has taken slight advantage of the House at Third Reading. I stand by what I said. I will not pursue it.
Lord Thomas of GresfordMy Lords, as I have indicated, I do not seek to press this to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Other inquiries held by Commissioner]:
Baroness Howe of Idlicotemoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 22, leave out "direct" and insert "request"
The noble Baroness saidMy Lords the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has the necessary independence of action: to replace in the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to "direct" the commissioner to carry out a formal inquiry with a power to "request".
Your Lordships will, I am sure, welcome and pay tribute to the Government for the addition of what is now Clause 4 of the Bill. At Report stage the Government conceded very positively that the commissioner must be able to carry out formal inquiries on his or her own initiative. The requirement in Clause 4 to consult the Secretary of State is reasonable. But the Government have resisted removing the power of Ministers to "direct" the commissioner to carry out an inquiry under Clause 5, despite very strong criticism from children and young people, from children's organisations and from noble Lords in all parts of the House.
The supporters of the amendment—there is considerable support from all sides of the House as well as from many children's organisations—argue that ministerial direction in this context is a fundamental violation of independence. Unlike my amendment at Report stage, I am not proposing the deletion of the whole clause—that would probably not be proper—but merely to substitute the word "direction" with "request". My hope remains that in the fullness of time the Government will recognise that Clause 5 is unnecessary and inappropriate.

1437
We all of course hope for a close and constructive relationship between the commissioner and Ministers. Within such a relationship—and given the existence of Clause 4—it is plainly possible for the government of the day to encourage the commissioner, both informally and formally, to carry out formal inquiries which are in line with the office's general function.
So in effect the only purpose now of Clause 5 is to enable the Secretary of State to force the commissioner to undertake a formal inquiry when it is not perceived by the commissioner to be a priority in the light of the general function of the office.
The commissioner will inevitably have limited resources and it seems wrong that a Minister should be able in this way to impose on the office one or more very substantial inquiries when these may not, in the eyes of the commissioner, form an appropriate and necessary priority. Even if, as Ministers have suggested, additional funds come with such a direction—which can by no means regarded as a certainty—the demands on the commissioner's own time, on human resources, would be enormous.
The power of the Secretary of State to "direct" the commissioner in this way was highlighted as of particular concern in the letter sent by the president of the European Network of Ombudspeople for Children to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is plainly incompatible with the standards adopted by the UN General Assembly for independent human rights institutions and with the standards developed by ENOC. None of the ombudsman-like offices established for children across the UK and Europe can be directed in this way.
The Government have made much of the views of children being one of the foundations for the Bill and the design of the commissioner. Those of us who have met children and young people to discuss the proposal for a commissioner will know that their greatest concern is that the commissioner should be a powerful and independent champion. Clause 5—symbolically and in fact—contradicts that necessary independence. This power to direct the commissioner has been of particular concern to the many organisations that have come together to campaign for a powerful and independent commissioner which the Government also want.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept what is proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I vehemently support this amendment. In the months during which we have been considering the Bill in your Lordships' House—many of whose measures are very welcome many of us have talked to hundreds of young people in various contexts. The common factor in relation to the commissioner's powers and functions that I have heard from right across the board is that young people want him or her to be powerful and independent of government. So if we are genuinely to listen to children, it is fundamental that the commissioner should be as independent of Government as the other
1438
commissioners in the UK and other parts of Europe who do their job in the interests of children so very well. It really is a vital part of the changes and improvements that we are trying to make to the powers and functions of the commissioner. I urge your Lordships to support the amendment.
Baroness DavidMy Lords, throughout all the stages of the Bill, I have very strongly supported making the commissioner entirely independent. I therefore support the amendment. It is not appropriate for Ministers to be able to direct an independent champion for children. It is as simple as that.
The Government, who deserve huge credit for bringing forward the proposal for a commissioner for England's children, accepted on Report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, that the commissioner must be able to initiate formal inquiries, and added Clause 4 to the Bill. That shows that we have a listening Minister, and I hope that she will also be listening to this amendment.
Clause 4, reasonably enough, requires the commissioner to consult the Secretary of State before initiating an inquiry. The only possible reason for keeping Clause 5 as well as Clause 4 must be to enable the Minister to force the commissioner, against his or her will, to carry out an inquiry in circumstances in which the commissioner has decided it should not be a priority. We must all hope for a positive and collaborative relationship between the commissioner and Ministers, and there will be ample room for Ministers to propose an inquiry. But the relationship must be one of respect for the essential independence of such an office.
The ultimate decision on whether to carry out an inquiry, which would take up a huge amount of the officer's time and resources, must be the commissioner's. The Government have ample powers to establish independent inquiries in other ways. The power of direction is in direct conflict with the concept of an independent commissioner, and we should send the Bill to the other place without it.
Lord NorthbourneMy Lords, as a matter of clarification, can the Minister say whether the cost of an inquiry required by the Secretary of State would be met by the Secretary of State?
Earl HoweMy Lords, I do not think I can add to the case that has been very well made already, but it strikes me that the power of direction in this clause looks even more out of place now than it did when the Bill first reached us.
It is not just that the power of direction fetters the commissioner's independence—of course it does, and I am only one of many who thinks that that is wrong and inappropriate—it is that a power of direction really seems pretty pointless now that the commissioner is able to undertake formal inquiries on his own initiative. Are we really to imagine that the commissioner would refuse a request from the Secretary of State to instigate an

1439
inquiry? If a request came from that quarter, and there was money to go with it, I cannot envisage the commissioner ignoring it.
Apart from that, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, Ministers already have all kinds of powers in other statutes to set up official inquiries if they choose to do so. Why create a power of direction in this Bill so as to force the Children's Commissioner to take up large amounts of his time doing the Government's bidding? If the matter were that pertinent to his remit, he would be doing it anyway.
I put it to the Minister that the existence of the power looks wrong. I really hope that she will think again about it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord LamingMy Lords, can the Minister give some reassurance on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne? I recognise the arguments that have been well advanced in the House in favour of the amendment. Nobody wishes to have the position of the commissioner compromised in any way. However, it was my hope that in establishing the post of commissioner, one of the benefits would be to avoid further inquiries of the kind and scale of the Victoria Climbié inquiry.
The reality is that when a case such as that comes along, it captures the concern—indeed, the horror—of the nation. The Secretaries of State—there was more than one, in this case—had not only to report to Parliament but to indicate to Parliament that they would take action. They established, under the authority of Parliament, an inquiry. The power of the inquiry meant that there was no fixed budget—the cost of the additional burden of having an inquiry was met 100 per cent.
I recognise the point that we can continue having inquiries of this kind. However, I hope that the Minister might be able to indicate whether the ability of the Secretary of State to give a direction in what would be exceptional circumstances would not only meet the concerns of Parliament and the public in matters of the kind to which I have referred, but, importantly, would also guarantee that a commissioner taking on an important and costly task of this kind would have that guarantee of additional funding. In other words, it would not weaken the commissioner's position to pursue other matters.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, in responding to Amendment No. 9, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 10 would remove from Clause 5(5)(a) the words "amend the report" and replace them with the words,
make such amendments to the report as are necessary to protect the identity of the child.
The amendment would make it clear beyond any doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may amend a report solely for the purpose of protecting a child's identity, and for no other reason. This has always been the Government's intention, as I
1440
have made clear during previous debates in your Lordships' House. None the less, noble Lords expressed concern that the existing wording was not tight enough and could allow the Secretary of State to make more wide-ranging amendments. I am happy to remove any such possibility, however remote.
On Amendment No. 9, I understand everything that noble Lords have said, and the wish to ensure that the commissioner is independent. It is for that reason that we introduced Clause 4, to give the commissioner the autonomy to launch inquiries. I stress that Clause 5, as it stands, does not cut across those autonomous powers.
We hope, and I think that noble Lords would expect, that any such direction power would be used very rarely, if at all, and only as a result of a serious failure in services which the rest of the Bill is aiming to prevent. But there could be such a case. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, raised the case of Victoria Climbié, which could well have been a case where the issue was so serious that it was only appropriate for the commissioner to inquire into it. Setting up the office of Children's Commissioner is an important step. There may be very exceptional circumstances in which the decision will rest with the commissioner.
We do not envisage forcing the commissioner to do something against his or her will. Of course there would be discussion, debate and dialogue before any such direction was issued.
As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, when Parliament and the public express horror and concern, as they rightly did over what happened to Victoria Climbié, it is important that the Government are seen to respond on behalf of us all in a strong and measured way. The issuing of a direction is, at least in part for me, symbolic and signifies real gravity. The Secretary of State has given the amendment considerable thought. The word "direct" reflects the gravity and the weight with which the Secretary of State would have wished the inquiry to be undertaken.
I also believe that it is right that the Secretary of State should ensure that there is sufficient money, staff and expertise to carry out such an inquiry. I believe that the essential requirements for conducting such an inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, would testify from his own experiences, are linked to the direction. Indeed, those resources would generally be beyond the commissioner's standard resources. That is why we have left it in. There is no desire to move away from independence; we want to give it serious gravitas in those exceptional circumstances and to ensure that such matters are properly resourced. With that clarification, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, I thank the Minister for what she has said. I am still quite concerned about a number of issues. As regards the Victoria Climbié case, I cannot imagine any children's commissioner refusing to undertake such an inquiry and for an inquiry simply to be requested would certainly suffice in that respect. I do not regard the word "direct" as being essential for that.

1441
Of course, I am glad to hear that without any doubt whatever the funds will follow any request or direction that is made. That is an important reassurance. However, I return to the vitally important issue of the independence of the English Children's Commissioner and the parity of independence with the other commissioners of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
3.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Alderdice, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas, L.

Avebury, L.

Lyell, L.

Barker, B.

McNally, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Maddock, B.

Biffen, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bradshaw, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Methuen, L.

Byford, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Chadlington, L.

Naseby, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Noakes, B.

Chan, L.

Northbourne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northover, B.

Courtown, E.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Peel, E.

David, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dundee, E.

Redesdale, L.

Dykes, L.

Rees, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Elton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Roper, L.

Ferrers, E.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Fookes, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Fowler, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Garden, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Slim, V.

Goodhart, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Greaves, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Stern, B.

Hamwee, B.

Stewartby, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Taverne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Tebbit, L.

Higgins, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howe, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Trenchard, V.

Howe of Idlicote, B. [TellerM]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hylton, L.

Walmsley, B. [Teller]

King of Bridgwater, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kingsland, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

1442

Williamson of Horton, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside. L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Council)

Joffe, L.

Andrews, B.

Jordan, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ashton of Upholland. B.

Laird, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Laming, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lipsey, L.

Billingham, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bledisloe, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Borrie, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Brookman, L.

Marsh, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Christopher, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Moser, L.

Crawley, B.

Ouseley, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prosser, B.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Drayson, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rogan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rosser, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sawyer, L.

Filkin, L.

Sheldon, L.

Fitt, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Golding, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Triesman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Truscott, L.

Greengross, B.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Turnberg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Walpole, L.

Hayman, B.

Warner, L.

Henig, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitty, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Winston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hoyle, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.32 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo)My Lords, I have to announce a correction to the figures for the first Division. The number voting "Not content" should have read 121 and not 122.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 34, leave out "amend the report" and insert "make such amendments to the report as are necessary to protect the identity of the child"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"FURTHER ACTION FOLLOWING REPORT BY COMMISSIONER

Where the Children's Commissioner has made a report which contains a recommendation as to action to be taken by a relevant body, the Commissioner may by notice require that body to provide the Commissioner within three months of the date of the notice with—

such information as will enable the Children's Commissioner to determine whether the body has complied with the recommendation or will be complying with it; or

a statement of the body's reason for not complying with the recommendation.

A notice under subsection (1) shall include a statement that a failure by the body to respond within the period mentioned in that paragraph may be published in such manner as the Children's Commissioner considers appropriate.

If, on receipt of a response from the body, the Children's Commissioner considers that—

the action taken or proposed to be taken by the body to comply with the recommendation is inadequate; or

the body's reasons for not complying with the recommendation is inadequate,

the Commissioner may send to the body concerned a further notice setting out the inadequacy and requiring the body to reconsider the matter and respond within one month of the date of the notice.

A notice under subsection (3) shall include a statement that a failure by the body—

to provide what the Children's Commissioner considers to be a satisfactory response; or

to provide any response within the period mentioned in that subsection,

may be published in such manner as the Children's Commissioner considers appropriate.

The Children's Commissioner shall maintain a register containing details of—

recommendations (together with the reasons for them) contained in reports;

action taken by the Children's Commissioner under subsections (1) and (3); and

the results of any such action.

Any register maintained under subsection (5) shall be open to inspection by any person at all reasonable times at the offices of the Children's Commissioner and the Commissioner may make arrangements for copies of the register to be available for inspection in such other place or places or by such other means as he considers appropriate.

The Children's Commissioner shall publish those arrangements in such a way as to bring them to the attention of persons likely to be interested."

The noble Baroness saidMy Lords, at present there is no requirement on bodies to which the commissioner addresses recommendations to make any kind of response. This new clause enables the commissioner to require a response to his or her recommendations and
1444
to publicise any failure to respond. There are, of course, similar provisions in legislation establishing commissioners in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
Responding to the amendment on Report, the Minister said:
I appreciate that it is important to look at what happens beyond, and to ensure that things are acted upon. As drafted the amendment would apply to all adult reports, annual reports and any reports of inquiry. There is no disagreement on the principle of what to do.
I am not sure whether I agree with the bureaucratic process proposed. Although I recognise that it reflects some of the work on the Northern Ireland commissioner—I do not want to suggest that that was a bureaucratic process—it goes a little further than required".—[Official Report, 17/6/04; cols. 947–8.]
The Minister went on to suggest that Parliament and regulatory bodies could follow up the commissioner's recommendations. I am afraid that that misses the point, which is to give the commissioner added authority and ensure that recommendations are taken seriously. Constitutionally independent, unelected commissioners cannot overturn government decisions, but it is reasonable to place formal requirements on such bodies to respond and to provide a process for recording and publicising failure to respond appropriately. Similar provisions apply for the Local Government Commissioner, so why not for the Children's Commissioner?
Another example of a response obligation can be found in the Patients' Forums (Functions) Regulations 2003, which, in paragraph 8, place a duty on the NHS trusts and primary care trusts to respond to reports or recommendations made by a forum and provide for further action where there is no satisfactory response. Although I humorously commented on Report that I was hurt that the Minister should suggest that our solution was bureaucratic, I have tabled the amendment again today in the hope that, given her generally sympathetic remarks, she will be able to reassure the House that a less bureaucratic, but no less effective, solution will be proposed by the Government when the Bill goes to another place. I beg to move.
Earl HoweMy Lords, the main point that I wish emphasise in relation to the amendment was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; namely, that a requirement to respond to the commissioner's recommendations would give the commissioner a great deal more standing and authority. We had the same kind of debate while discussing patients' forums during the passage on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill two years ago. When a patients' forum sends a report to a hospital trust, the trust has to reply. The very existence of that duty invests the forum with a great deal more authority than it might otherwise have. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, its recommendations have to be taken seriously. There are further provisions in regulations in case the response received is not satisfactory. While the Minister may look at the amendment and say that it is bureaucratic, as she did

1445
last time, this is not actually an exercise in bureaucracy; it is an attempt to give the commissioner some added clout. That cannot be a misplaced aim.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 47, which stands in my name. It is bizarre that it has been grouped with another amendment with which it has nothing whatever in common. I shall therefore speak about an entirely different matter. The good news is that if the Minister is able to respond at all positively to it in her reply, I shall not move the amendment and so the House will have to listen to me only once.
I raised the issue that is covered by the amendment on Report and received strong support from across the House. Amendment No. 47 would strike a fair balance in relation to the operation of three fundamental rights: first, the right of the public to receive information and opinions published by the Children's Commissioner; secondly, the right of the individual to a good reputation protected against publications made in bad faith or with reckless disregard for the truth of the allegations; and thirdly, the individual's right of access to the courts to vindicate his reputation using defamation law where reports have been made that are unfair or irresponsible.
That balance and sense of proportion are required under the European Convention on Human Rights, as the Strasbourg court made clear in the Fayed case in which I acted as counsel. A fair balance is required also under English law. Thanks to the Human Rights Act 1998, the convention rights involved are part of our law. The questions before the House are twofold. First, what in principle is the nature and scope of the privilege to be accorded to the commissioner? Secondly, does the protection given in Schedule 1 (10) sweep too broadly?
Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 states:
For the purposes of the law of defamation—

(a) any statement made by the Children's Commissioner in a report published under this Part has absolute privilege; and

(b) any other statement made by the Children's Commissioner or a member of his staff for the purposes of this Part has qualified privilege".

Sub-paragraph (b) is not controversial, though I doubt whether it is necessary. It is well established at common law that, on grounds of public policy, defamation law gives protection to a person, such as the commissioner or his staff, acting in good faith and without an improper motive, who makes an untrue and defamatory statement about an individual in performing his public functions. At common law, the commissioner would have the defence of qualified privilege in communicating to the public information and opinions of legitimate public interest and concern. The defence is available even though the publication contains defamatory false statements, provided that the commissioner has not acted for an improper purpose, or with reckless disregard for the truth, or unfairly.
1446
Paragraph (b) makes it clear that this defence of qualified privilege applies to statements by the commissioner or her staff, and that is entirely unobjectionable. But, as it stands, paragraph (a) gives absolute privilege to any statement made by the commissioner in any report under Part 1. According to well established doctrine, absolute privilege applies and should apply only to occasions and reports of high public importance. Where absolute privilege applies, it operates as a complete immunity from libel proceedings, even if the commissioner was actuated by express malice. It completely denies the victim of a defamatory statement the right to vindicate his or her reputation through the legal process.
Because of the high public interest in the due administration of justice, absolute privilege applies, for example, to protect judges, advocates, jury members, witnesses, parties to legal proceedings and reports of court proceedings. It also applies to parliamentary reports and papers, to affairs of state and to some limited statutory instances, where public bodies or officers, such as the Civil Aviation Authority or the Financial Services Authority, perform quasi-judicial or law enforcement functions and are given absolute privilege. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has absolute privilege for her reports to Parliament and other matters relating to her investigations, as part of the protection for parliamentary proceedings and reports. My Amendment No. 47 reflects that position by applying absolute privilege to the commissioner's annual reports to Parliament under Clause 3.
However, paragraph (b) as it stands sweeps much more broadly. It confers an absolute immunity from defamation proceedings for any report made by the commissioner under any provision in Part 1. That includes a report under Clause 2(2)(d), a report under Clause 4(5)(a) or a report under Clause 5(3).
I submit that there is no objective and reasonable justification for such a far-reaching immunity. No such protection is given to the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality or the Disability Rights Commission, even though they have law enforcement powers that are not vested in the Children's Commissioner. Why should the commissioner be in this absolutely privileged position to harm personal reputations for improper reasons or recklessly with no possibility of legal redress for the victim? The commissioner's reports made under these provisions do not concern parliamentary proceedings, affairs of state, judicial or quasi-judicial functions or law enforcement functions. What we have here are reports on matters relating to the rights, views and interests of children (that is, subsection (2)(d)); or reports of the commissioner's recommendations following an inquiry into a case raising issues of public policy relevant to other children (that is, Clause 4(5)); or a report of an inquiry into an individual case (that is, Clause 5(3)).
By conferring an absolute immunity against defamation proceedings for any of those reports, Parliament would be removing an important incentive

1447
for the commissioner to seek to ensure that her or his reports under Part 1 are fair and accurate and not made recklessly or irresponsibly.
The only reason for including such a broad and absolute immunity is not one of principle; it involves matching the immunities conferred upon the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Commissioners. Section 25 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 extends absolute privilege to,
publication by the Commissioner or any matter which the Commissioner is required or authorised to publish,
under the order. Section 76(7) of the Care Standards Act 2000 provides that the,
publication of any matter by the Commissioner [for Wales] in a report is absolutely privileged.
Section 15(1) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003 confers absolute privilege not only on the commissioner but also on any of the commissioner's staff: first, in conducting an investigation under the Act; secondly, in communicating with any person for the purposes of such an investigation; or, thirdly, in a report published under the Scottish Act.
When those immunities were conferred for the three devolved commissioners, no one apparently considered whether they were compatible with the European convention or the Human Rights Act. There was an attempt to check but the main issue was not thought about; that appears to be the position. In my view, it is very strongly arguable that those immunities are not necessary and proportionate in the context of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and would not pass muster in the event of a legal challenge under the Human Rights Act or the convention.
That fact that unnecessary and disproportionate absolute immunities have been given to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish commissioners does not make the legislation compatible, or justify our following this model in the present Bill. I look forward to the Minister's explanation as to the justification for such a sweepingly broad absolute immunity.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, is yet to report on the Bill. It will do so when it leaves this House, and its report on this issue—I cannot say what the report will contain—may be influential one way or the other. As I said, speaking entirely for myself, I would be surprised if the absolute immunities would pass muster if challenged in the courts. Qualified privilege is surely sufficient, except for parliamentary proceedings and, as I have said, it will provide an important incentive for fair and responsible reporting by the commissioner. In other words, there is a lack of proportionality in this regard and the absolute immunity is not carefully tailored to the commissioners' wholly legitimate needs in performing his or her important public functions.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness DavidMy Lords, I return to Amendment No. 13, which I strongly support, as I have done at previous stages. It was good to hear the Minister say
1448
on Report that she accepted the principle. I hope that we will hear that acceptance of the principle turns into acceptance of the provision.
Recommendations from the commissioners in Wales and Northern Ireland must be taken seriously because of similar provisions in the legislation establishing their posts. Why not have a similar arrangement in England? The Minister also suggested that Parliament and government departments would need to ensure that commissioners' recommendations were taken seriously. But that is beside the point and assumes that they are on the same side as the commissioner, which inevitably they sometimes may not be. These are entirely appropriate powers for an independent champion for children and I hope that the Government will agree to them.
Lord EltonMy Lords, when the Minister replies to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will she please bear in mind the great vulnerability of workers in this field and the existing law? We must ensure that they have some remedy when there is a miscarriage of judgment by the reporting person.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 13, which appears to give some teeth to reports by the Children's Commissioner and will, I hope, ensure that his recommendations do not remain so much paper that is simply disregarded by all concerned. On those grounds, I hope that the amendment commends itself to the Government.
Lord LamingMy Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I have difficulties with the fact that Amendments Nos. 13 and 47 have been grouped together. They do not bear much relation to each other. I completely support Amendment No. 47, which was proposed very ably indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. As the House knows, at an earlier stage I raised doubts about giving absolute privilege to the commissioner. All that the noble Lord said simply reinforces my belief that giving absolute privilege should be done only in exceptional circumstances. The case has not been made at all for the commissioner for England.
Lord NorthbourneMy Lords, I want briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I listened with interest and alarm as he outlined the scenario. We already have sufficient problems with people—including parents—working with children who feel under threat of being sued for one reason or another. The commissioner's ability to make totally irresponsible statements—he may not do so, but he might—is yet another threat to those people who mean well and who want to work with children but who are becoming increasingly frightened of doing so.
Baroness Howarth of BrecklandMy Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is crucial that the commissioner receives responses to the recommendations that he or she makes.

1449
When we have a Minister like the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, where reasonableness seems to prevail, we forget that situations can become unreasonable. The statute or regulation should be clear about setting expectations for all situations.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I understand that the reason these two amendments are yoked together, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lester, put it, is that they address the broad issue—we can believe this or not—of the commissioner's authority and freedom to act in order to help achieve change. I hope that that has enlightened noble Lords.
Amendment No. 13 has found a great deal of support in the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, indicated, it is a replica of the amendment that was tabled on Report. I stand by what I said then: in principle, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness sought to do, but I feel the measure constituted an over-bureaucratic process. I am sorry to see it back for that reason alone.
I shall not reiterate all the points that I made at previous stages about the importance of the commissioner being able to use other means, not least publicity and embarrassment to ensure that people respond. However, I understand the issues that have been raised. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families has asked me to inform your Lordships that she is considering this issue. She will consider whether we need to make further provision regarding this matter and is minded to consider introducing an amendment in another place to take it forward. I shall endeavour to ensure that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate are kept in touch with her deliberations. It will be a different amendment as she does not want to go so far as the noble Baroness in terms of bureaucracy, although I know that that is not what the noble Baroness sought. I shall keep noble Lords informed on that matter. I do not have final confirmation of what the measure might look like, but it is her intention to introduce such a provision in another place. I hope that it will address noble Lords' concerns and that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 47 was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It would take away the protection of absolute privilege that we brought in. Noble Lords will remember that I introduced a government amendment in response to concerns raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who felt that the commissioner should be free to carry out his duties without the fear of having to spend time and resources defending himself in lawsuits. As noble Lords have indicated, irrespective of whether they supported the measure, we need to ensure balance regarding the way in which the different commissioners operate. Noble Lords have made it clear that they want to see that balance as regards other aspects of the Bill. However, the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Laming, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is not present, expressed reservations about that.
1450
We all want the commissioner to be independent and to act fairly in an inquiry. I believe that we are also searching for ways to ensure that the commissioner is not deterred from taking action due to fear of a defamation case. That is why we considered it important to grant absolute privilege to statements made by the commissioner in inquiry reports. We considered that that met a legitimate aim.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, cited the Fayed case in the European Court of Human Rights. I have a copy of the Fayed judgment. I wish to quote a tiny part of it:
The defence of privilege of immunity in defamation cases rests upon the idea that conduct which would otherwise be actionable escapes liability because the defendant is acting in furtherance of some interest of social importance which is entitled to protection even at the expense of uncompensated harm to the plaintiff's reputation. If the interest is one of paramount importance, considerations of policy may require that the defendant's immunity for false statements be absolute without regard to his purpose or motive for the reasonableness of his conduct".
Having said that, we are concerned—
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I am very grateful. I think I am also right in saying that they went on to say that that was a case where the Secretary of State had an absolute privilege when he damnified Mr Al Fayed—indeed, he was disqualified as a director. But did not the court also say that any restriction on the right of access to courts in a context of defamation had to be proportionate, had to meet the test of necessity and that it should not sweep too broadly?
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, indeed. The noble Lord will know that far better than I. It is always dangerous to quote a case in which any noble Lord is involved. My point in quoting that extract was not to detract from what the court said later but to extend our consideration of how best we ensure that the commissioner is able to carry out his functions. We are concerned by the anxiety expressed on the matter by a number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Lester. That convinces me that we need to reconsider the matter carefully.
Some noble Lords will be aware that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is consulting on proposals for conducting effective inquiries, including the level of protection needed by inquiry panels to enable them to act freely for the purposes of the inquiry. I understand that that consultation will close at the end of July. I want to consider the matter in relation to the outcome of that consultation. Yesterday, members of my department's legal team spoke to members of the legal team of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. They discussed what we might do following the consultation. We want to consider the outcome of the consultation, to consider further not least the Fayed case but also the other issues that have been raised and to make any necessary amendments when the Bill is debated in another place. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I thank noble Lords who supported the amendment. I also thank the Minister for her response.
I found one of her comments quite extraordinary. She suggested that in order to ensure that something happens as the result of recommendations that he or she makes, the commissioner might use publicity and embarrassment. In other areas of child protection, we do not believe that publicity and embarrassment are sufficient deterrents. We rely on the full weight of statute in those areas. Therefore, I particularly welcomed the Minister's reassurance that her colleague in another place will bring forward a measure to ensure that people have to respond appropriately to the commissioner's recommendations.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I should not want the noble Baroness to think for one moment that I was trying to suggest that publicity and embarrassment are sufficient deterrents in the area of child protection. I referred to those factors in terms of making agencies respond. The noble Baroness is absolutely right on that point.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I am very grateful for those comments. It can be a part of getting people to respond, but it is certainly not enough. That is why I await with great interest the measure that the Minister in another place will bring forward. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Relationship with other Commissioners]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy SpeakerMy Lords, before I call Amendment No. 15, I have to inform the House that if this amendment were to be agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 30, leave out from second "to" to end of line 31 and insert—

" any matter falling within the remit of the Children's Commissioner for Wales under section 72B, 73 or 74 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) in relation to children to whom Part 5 of that Act applies;

any matter relating to children in Scotland which is not a reserved matter (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46)); or

any matter relating to children in Northern Ireland which is a transferred or reserved matter (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47))."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 34, leave out "(1)(a) to (c)" and insert "(3)(a) to (c)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Co-operation to improve well-being]:
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
() the provision of a secure and supportive home environment;"
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, these amendments relate to the list of five objectives that originally appeared in both Clause 2 and Clause 7 but now remain only in Clause 7(2). Because of the importance of the issues, I have to take a few minutes of the House's time to set out the background.
In Committee, there was an extensive debate on amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself, which would have included—alas, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is no longer in his place—the family or family life as an additional objective in this list.
here was very strong support from both sides of the House for there being some reference to the importance of family life at this point in the Bill, as shown at cols. 1089–96 of the Official Report for 4 May. The noble Baroness rejected all that pressure on the grounds that the five objectives were cast in stone because they were derived from the wishes of children, as expressed during the consultations that the Government held before publicising the Bill.
4 p.m.
I have carefully studied the reports of those consultations, and of the research project by the Children and Young People's Unit. In those consultations, children were not asked directly whether the quality of their family life was important to them or had a high priority in their lives. However, out of the nine questions that they were asked, two—questions 4 and 7—related to families. The children's replies show clearly what a high priority they place on families and family life and support. The research project carried out by the CYPU also strongly and repeatedly confirmed the high priority placed by child and adult consultees on the value of family life. The question is why those aspects of children's replies were ignored by the Government when they drafted the five objectives that we find in Clause 7(2).
In a recent letter to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which was copied to me, the noble Baroness explained that after careful consideration the Government had decided to write the Bill in terms of objectives rather than processes. I entirely support that decision. However, it emphasises the importance of getting the objectives right. That is particularly the case because, no fewer than twice in her reply in Committee, she described the five objectives as the definition of well-being. We all know that, when a list is included in legislation, the courts assume that things left out are excluded. The list is therefore very important. It defines, for the purposes of the law, the well-being of

1453
children. It would be serious if stability, security and home life were excluded from the definition of children's well-being. It would be even more serious if emotional well-being were excluded.
In the noble Baroness's letter to the noble Earl, she tells us that the Government regard family life as part of the process, rather than as an objective or good in itself. The reality is that family life is both a process and an objective. The quality of family life is an objective in itself, because it affects not only the child's future chances in life, but also its happiness and well-being while it is a child.
I am guessing, but I believe that the Government are so reluctant to include a reference to family life among the objectives of the Bill for a political reason. They are rightly reluctant to seem to suggest interference in private family life. I respect that concern, although I believe that supporting family life need not be intrusive, provided that it is based on listening to what families, children and parents want rather than imposing solutions on them. I respect the Government's concerns, and have therefore crafted the two amendments. They go some way towards addressing two of the most important aspects of a child's well-being that family life normally delivers. Neither mentions "family" or "family life". I hope that the noble Baroness will be grateful for that change in the direction of my amendment.
Amendment No. 18 would introduce the additional objective of,
the provision of a secure and supportive home environment.
That is a key good for all children, especially young children, so should be one of the objectives that defines the welfare of children in the Bill. Amendment No. 19 would add "emotional" well-being to the list of well-beings in Clause 7(2)(e). It may be the most important well-being of all for children. It affects their current life as children, their ability to relate to others, and their prospects for the future. To say that it should be excluded because it is simply part of the process is as absurd as saying that health should be excluded because it is also part of the process, which it is. Emotional well-being is a good in itself for children, and should be included in the definition of targets for children's well-being in the Bill.
I have had a great deal of support from both sides of the House for the amendment, and I regard it as particularly important. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, I support the amendment. I have already mentioned the report, Aim High: Stay Real, which clearly underlines the importance that children give to a secure and happy home environment. The amendment is a way of emphasising that in the Bill. I differ slightly from my noble friend in not thinking that the motives of the noble Baroness are political. If they are, it is with only a small "p". There is recognition of the importance of family.
Lord NorthbourneMy Lords, I accept the small "p".
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, it is important to get the two matters into the list in the Bill of what a
1454
child would aim to have for itself. I emphasise emotional as well as social and economic well-being. It would give much greater weight to everything that needs to be rounded for children to come through into adulthood successfully.
The one real area that, sadly, illustrates the importance of what we are trying to achieve here is that which concerns the most deprived children and also looked-after children—an area that I am sure we shall come to in a later amendment. Again and again, there is evidence of a disturbed background and a lack of emotional well-being. As a result of that, again and again other aspects of the "wished-for" inclusion that the Government and all of us in this House would like to see fail. Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord ChanMy Lords, I also support my noble friend's amendment. I remind noble Lords that the Government have invested a great deal of resources in, for example, Sure Start. That particularly important investment provides a secure and supportive home environment. Therefore, it seems a pity not to mention it clearly here. As we begin to see the benefits of the Sure Start programme, we see that it also strengthens the emotional well-being of children. Therefore, I should have thought that it would be an advantage if all that were spelt out on the face of the Bill.
Lord EltonMy Lords, having followed the debate on this matter only at a distance through circumstances beyond my control, I speak with great diffidence and briefly. However, the omission of the mention of "family" from a Bill of this kind and from a part of the Bill of such critical importance is little short of astonishing. Therefore, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said about the desirability of its inclusion.
It is not possible to argue that what he is advocating is a process and that it should be excluded on that basis because education, which is included, is also—I believe unarguably—a process. Therefore, that argument fails.
The purpose of putting the "family", or the "supportive home environment", as it is now being expressed, on the face of the Bill is not merely to emphasise its overall importance; surely it is also to prevent the pursuit of other objectives at the expense of that objective. If that objective is excluded, other objectives will take precedence over it and it will be possible to pursue physical health or recreation in a way that militates against a supportive and secure home environment.
I would say much the same about "emotional well-being". If we are trying to describe what we wish to achieve for a child, and that is how the Minister recently described these paragraphs, the description must surely include the most secure home life possible and the most secure emotional well-being possible. Therefore, it is difficult to see on what grounds the noble Baroness will

1455
try to resist the amendments. I shall listen with great interest and, if she does so, I shall be disposed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, through the Lobby.
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, from these Benches I give our support to the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. In earlier discussions on the same issue, the Minister made it clear that in the list in Clause 7(2) the Government were trying to distil the results of the consultations that took place with children about what they felt was good about their well-being. Certainly, one issue that came out of those consultations was a sense of security. It seems that an attempt has been made to capture that within the context of this subsection by the use of the words,
protection from harm and neglect,
and,
social and economic well-being.
But neither really captures the sense of security within the family or the sense of a secure environment. I believe that that is the great advantage of including within the list the wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
For exactly the same reason, I think that adding the word "emotional" to "social and economic well-being" so that it reads,
emotional, social and economic well-being,
has a great deal to be said for it. I think that it reflects what the children wanted, and I urge the Minister to be persuaded by these arguments.
Lord LucasMy Lords, it is unarguable that "home environment" and "emotional well-being" are vitally important for the well-being of children and, indeed, they come first in the list that a child will put if asked these questions in a straightforward way. Surely the difficulty arises from the question: are they things that the authorities should be promoting or things in which they should be involving themselves? I think that that was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. What else is Sure Start?
I do not know how the noble Baroness spends her Wednesday evenings, but I would thoroughly recommend that she watches "Supernanny", which is a most extraordinary programme on Channel 4. It starts off with total chaos in a household, and with a little intervention, all is happiness and peace, which is just technique. It is astonishing to see the transformation. That is just the kind of parenting education which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has been advocating for many years, and which should be provided by local authorities.
We live in such isolated little families now that we have no access to those sort of skills. We do not even know that they exist. We think that what we are doing is the best that can be done. The provision of that sort of resource by authorities should be central to what they do. That is, to my mind, what the noble Lord's amendments would achieve.
4.15 p.m.
Lord DearingMy Lords, I had not intended to take part in the debates on the Bill and apologise for intervening at this late stage. However, the emotional wellbeing of a child is so central that I felt compelled to raise my voice in support of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The ability of a child to love and to accept love, to have compassion and empathy and to cope with anger and fear is absolutely central to the development of that human being, especially for looked-after children who face so many handicaps. I think that it is right that we should press this issue. I have not referred to home life, but it is in the framework of the home that those emotions are nourished and developed.
Earl HoweMy Lords, the arguments in favour of the amendments have been extremely well put and I shall be brief, but I want to support them very warmly. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his Amendment No. 19, has encapsulated a very important concept that is not encapsulated elsewhere in the subsection.
Emotional well-being is surely quite distinct from mental health and social well-being. It is different from protection from harm and neglect, which is a negative, not a positive, concept. If there has to be a choice between the noble Lord's two amendments, Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, I prefer Amendment No. 19, first, because it is neater and, secondly, because it is an outcome which does not in any way presuppose any kind of official intrusion into the home. That is not, I am sure, what the noble Lord wants to see but it could be thought to be a consequence of making the provision of a secure and supportive home environment a specific target for local authorities and their partners. With that mild caveat, I hope that the Minister will be receptive to these amendments.
Lord LamingMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, deserves the congratulations of the House on the way in which he has concentrated our minds on the importance of family in the well-being of children. The difficulty that I suspect many of us have—this certainly applies to me—is that when I read a draft Bill I read into it things which I assume everyone else reads into it, and obviously that may not be right. So, when I think of something which improves the well-being of children, I automatically think of the family, because the family is the basis from which the well-being of children springs. Therefore, I assume things that perhaps, given the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I would have been better not to have assumed.
It seems to me that the House is in support of the thrust of the amendments. I am sure that we all agree, first, on the importance of the family and, secondly, on the importance of wellbeing of children.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing these important debates. I shall begin by

1457
saying a few words about Amendment No. 18. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I start from a slightly different viewpoint. In seeking to do everything we have done around the Bill we have tried to involve children in the most appropriate way. Clearly, for some noble Lords that has not been enough. However, we really do feel that we have tried to base a lot of our work on what we believe is the right approach, having talked to children and those involved with children, in different ways.
I understand that the noble Lord wants to see a new outcome; that is, the provision of a secure and supportive home environment. I reiterate what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, really on my behalf, that there is no political motivation in this, not even with a small "p". It matters hugely that children have the kind of secure environment, preferably with their family but if not, provided by those who can, that enables them to be nurtured and to grow. Everyone involved in the Government, and even in your Lordships' House, would support that. The question is, where do you put the provision? As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he re-examines this clause he will see that we have inserted the issue of family life and parents and carers precisely because the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others appropriately took me to task at an earlier stage for its omission. The provision has now been included. We have, I hope, as the noble Lord indicated, moved some way in that direction.
I cannot accept Amendment No. 18 because of the way in which it raises various issues. There are real difficulties when one tries to focus services on the territory of family life, in a clause that is actually about the activities that we expect statutory agencies to undertake. We want the children's services authority and its partners to ensure they are addressing all aspects of children's well-being. That is partly why the five outcomes are there to help them do it; not on their own, but as a really big chunk of what we expect them to do.
Our previous amendment ensures that the bodies must take proper account of the importance of parents and carers. I am not sure that the noble Lord would want us to go further and suggest that the co-operation arrangements and activities of services should encroach on and—dare I say it—possibly interfere with what happens in a child's life. The way the amendment is phrased runs the risk of being misinterpreted in the sense of how we expect our services to offer such provision. For that reason—and that reason alone; it is not a political reason regarding family life—I am resisting the amendment.
When thinking about a secure family environment, it is important to ensure that provision is made in the right place. This amendment would not put it in the right place. That does not mean that we do not recognise that a stable family life is one of the underpinning features of how children develop and grow and are nurtured. That is why, when we think about looked-after children, the word "stability" has become such an important part of the PSA target. My
1458
right honourable friend the Secretary of State feels very passionately about stability, which for some children is so badly lacking.
We have no will to move away from that. However, I fear that, by making this amendment in the proposed place, we would run the risk of asking our services to look at family life more carefully, but in a way that the noble Lord does not want. I have, however, listened very carefully. I shall therefore ignore my speaking note and accept Amendment No. 19.
Lord NorthbourneMy Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness for her reply. I accept the points that she makes on Amendment No. 18. The difficulty is always to try to craft support and Acts for families in such a way that they do not encroach or interfere, but rather are related to listening. responding and empowering. However, in view of what the noble Baroness has said about Amendment No. 19, I am very happy to seek to withdraw Amendment No. 18. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 10, at beginning insert "emotional,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 12, after "England" insert "and its relevant partners"
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, I shall be very brief. Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 32 would respectively extend the application of Clause 7(3), which is the Government's amendment about paying attention to the family and to parents, to three other groups: to the relevant partners of a children's services authority as well as to the authority itself; to the bodies which will be responsible for making arrangements for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children under Clause 8; and to any person or body carrying out an inspection or making a report under Clause 16 of the Bill. This is another group of amendments which relates to the concept that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If Clause 7(3) is desirable in relation to a children's services authority, why is it not also important that it should apply with equal force to those other bodies concerned with the well being of children in the Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, in the briefest possible way, I support the amendments. I do not think that we need say any more than that, because we have had these arguments out so many times. They are all important, and if they apply to one group or authority with those responsibilities, they should apply across the board. I hope that we do not need a debate and we can accept what is proposed.
Earl HoweMy Lords, on Amendment No. 22, I sympathise totally with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. However, it is important

1459
that where a child is at risk of harm from his own parents or carers, nothing in the wording of the Bill should get in the way of the local authority being able to take the action that it needs to take to remove a child from harm's way.
I do not know whether the amendment poses that sort of a risk, but expressed as it is, I am a little concerned that it might. I am prepared to stand corrected. I want the noble Lord to know how much I support the general thrust of Amendment No. 22, particularly as it relates to the promotion, as opposed to the safeguarding, of children's welfare.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, on Amendment No. 20, the noble Lord sought clarification that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. I reassure him that that is the case. The duty to have regard to the importance of parents is placed on the children's services authority because that is the body required to make arrangements for co-operation. The relevant partners are under a duty to co-operate in the making of those arrangements. Therefore, they are covered by what is already in the Bill. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has indicated the problem that we have with Amendment No. 22. It would make the duty to have regard to the importance of parents equal to, but completely separate from, the duty they already have to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in exercising the normal functions. Amendment No. 22 would weaken rather than strengthen the duty, and it dilutes the focus of Clause 8. I am sure that is not the noble Lord's intention. It really matters that we have a single, stand alone duty in relation to safeguarding. It emphasises to the agencies involved the crucial importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. That is why I do not wish to accept the amendment, because it is too important to risk diluting.
Amendment No. 32 is unnecessary. The job of the inspectorate is to inspect the provision of services. We do not want—and we do not think that the noble Lord wants—the inspectorate to be inspecting the contribution of parents to their children's well being by intruding on their privacy and their domestic premises. We cannot work out how to fulfil such a duty other than by inspection activity, and I am sure that the noble Lord is not seeking that. The new arrangements for the inspection of children's services will ensure that the views of parents and carers on services will be taken into account. It is covered in the Every Child Matters: Inspecting Services for Children and Young People discussion paper. One of the principles of the framework for inspections will be that inspections should seek the views of children and young people, and that their perspective on services will be taken as part of the evidence of the availability, quality and impact of provision.
The discussion paper explicitly states that the consultation with children, young people, their parents and carers will be a key part of the process of
1460
joint area reviews. On the basis that it is unnecessary, and it would lead to something that the noble Lord does not want, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord NorthbourneMy Lords, all three of the answers were satisfactory and convincing. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 8 [Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No 21:
Page 7, line 20, at end insert—
( ) a regional office of the National Asylum Support Service;
( ) the centre manager of an immigration removal centre;
( ) the Chief Immigration Officer at a port of entry;"
The noble Earl saidMy Lords, the arguments for this amendment have been well rehearsed at earlier stages and I shall not weary the House by repeating them at length. We have what appears to many, including me, a giant lacuna in the Bill. In the Green Paper Every Child Matters refugee children are specifically mentioned as being children in the greatest need, yet the agencies which are charged with looking after them are excluded from the duty in Clause 8 to safeguard and promote children's welfare. I have read what the Minister said about the amendment on Report. I still find the omission incomprehensible. Why on earth should refugee children be denied the same rights and protection as other children in the UK? The Minister argued that,
a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children could severely compromise our ability to maintain an effective asylum system and strong immigration control.—[Official Report, 17/6/04; col. 996.]
She went on to argue that in undertaking its primary functions it would be unavoidable that the IND would do things that would be judged as inconsistent with a duty to safeguard and promote welfare.
We need to unpack this a bit. The first point is that Clause 8 is not an absolute duty, but simply requires agencies to make arrangements to have regard to the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare in the discharge of their functions.
As the Minister said on Report,
We have been very careful in the way in which we have worded this clause: we do not put a duty on agencies that would make them unable to fulfil their primary functions.—[Official Report, 17/6/04; col. 995.]
Nobody would argue that the primary function of the Immigration Service is not to ensure effective immigration control, just as nobody would dispute that the primary function of the police is to ensure public order and prevent crime. Yet the chief officer of police is included in the new duty in Clause 8(1)(g).

1461
We might do well to look at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill which state:
This duty is intended to ensure that agencies are conscious of the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare in the course of exercising their normal functions.
The Government have failed to explain how this duty would interfere with the normal functions of the agencies listed in the amendment.
It is important to look at the wording of the amendment because it does not ask that the whole of the IND service be included in the duty, only the relevant bodies and personnel who come into contact directly with children at key points in the system.
Perhaps I may say a few words about detention. On Report the Minister restated the concerns of the Immigration Service that the amendment,
would provide another basis for exploiting the appellate and judicial review systems by arguing that the detention of asylum-seeking families with children is not compatible with safeguarding children or promoting their welfare.—[Official Report, 20/5/04: col. 977.]
It is a little hard to reconcile the Minister's position with the recent assertion by her noble friend Lord Bassam in debates on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants Etc.) Bill. When resisting an amendment to ensure that assessments of children's needs while in detention are undertaken the noble Lord argued:
I hope that noble Lords are reassured that the current provision for the care and welfare of children detained in immigration removal centres is of a very high standard. We will never be complacent about the issue, and we will ensure that we are aware of the need to maintain—and, where necessary, improve—the standard of care for children.—[Official Report, 18/5/04; col. 748]
Despite the noble Lord's assertions, we still have reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons on inspections of five immigration removal centres in 2002. Those reports have been mentioned at earlier stages of the Bill. They highlight the inappropriateness of detaining children and concerns about their treatment.
Similar concerns about the treatment of children in Prison Service establishments has led to their inclusion under the new duty in Clause 8, so we have to ask why a different approach is being taken here. We need to remember that detention is without limit of time. In fact it can be for prolonged periods. Recent figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in debates indicate that between March and April 2004, 323 people were taken into detention, 63 of whom were held for more than a week. The Refugee Children's Consortium considers the measures for ministerial authorisation referenced by the Minister on Report to be woefully inadequate. One particular case illustrates that: the Konan case. Miss Konan, who fled the Ivory Coast, was detained for more than six months with her young child. The period of detention was subsequently ruled to be unlawful for all but the initial two-week period, despite repeated authorisation by the Minister.
1462
If the Minister considers it appropriate to detain children and that the care for children in detention is of a high quality, will she explain why those directly responsible for the care of children should not fall under the duty in the Bill? I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of WorcesterMy Lords, I have to say that I find it quite difficult to speak in a suitably measured way about what I see as quite unwarranted resistance to the terms of the noble Earl's amendment. I am assuming, of course, that the Minister will continue to resist the proposal, as has been the case at earlier stages. I hope that she will not and thus prove me wrong. The reason I find it difficult to express myself in a measured way is that a clause and debate of this kind puts to the test the ultimate purpose of the Bill.
It is my feeling that putting children first cannot apply only when it is naturally convenient to do so and does not interfere with obligations and duties. The test of the Government putting children first and of the nation putting children first arises precisely at the point at which it is rather inconvenient and difficult. "Inconvenient and difficult" means when there is the possibility—I do not hear the noble Earl denying it—that it could get in the way of our current arrangements for dealing with the children of asylum seekers.
By any stretch of the imagination, the children of asylum seekers are the most vulnerable children among children because they are in a position where their very existence as people entitled to be here is in question. It is precisely because of that high level of vulnerability that I find it really does put the will of this House and of the nation to the test when we are invited to believe that we have a duty that must be placed above our care for those children. I urge the Government to understand that, for many of us, an issue of this kind poses ultimate questions about the seriousness of our intentions.
This is an excellent, really important and courageous Bill. However, it places upon us the requirement that we take its purpose seriously precisely at the point when it is difficult to do so. I urge the Minister to allow the amendment to proceed. If she will not, I seriously urge noble Lords to register their wish that it should.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, the arguments in favour of the amendment have been well put and I will not repeat them all. However, in supporting the amendment I would like to repeat two short points. First, this is a modest measure. The duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children is a modest one. As it says in the Explanatory Notes:
This duty is intended to ensure that agencies are conscious of the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare in the course of exercising their normal functions.

1463
Is it too much to ask that when agencies are involved with children they are conscious of the need to safeguard them? It is a very modest measure indeed.
Secondly, the Minister said on Report that
a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children could severely compromise our ability to maintain an effective asylum system and strong immigration control.—[Official Report, 17/6/04; col. 996.]
If that is the case, there is something wrong with the way in which refugee children are being treated, and it must be addressed.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explained the amendment so well and went into all the necessary detail so that it is difficult to add anything of substance to what he said. However, I supported him on a previous occasion and I support him again today. If he is minded to divide the House I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, I, too, would like to support this important amendment. It is clear that this particular group of children need the protection and understanding of all the agencies. They are undergoing a particularly stressful process. Their well-being, in that now well-used phrase, is almost certain to be under extreme pressure. I hope that we will be able to accept what is proposed.
Baroness Howarth of BrecklandMy Lords, I would like to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for not being here for the whole of his speech. I rise to support the amendment. I have in the past spoken to the Minister about the position of these children. I did so in relation to the Asylum Bill and the concerns carry through into this Bill. One thing that has been said to me—not by the Minister—is that unless we carry out actions like this, we will not send a message to the other end of the supply chain. I find that an abhorrent concept—that children should be involved in sending such messages.
I have said this before. We used to say this about children in bed and breakfast hotels. We used to say that because their parents deserved to be treated in a certain way because of the consequences of their rent arrears and their fecklessness—not that I necessarily agree with that, but this was the argument—the children should be placed in bed and breakfasts. The Government have worked enormously hard to ensure that those children are now more appropriately—maybe not perfectly, but more appropriately—accommodated.
This group of children are still children. I recognise the difficulty in relation to the policies that the Minister is under an obligation to support and that she may well be in difficulties in terms of her party's policy. However, were the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to divide the House I would certainly vote for the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, as always when we discuss this issue, I recognise the strength of feeling and the passion with which noble Lords—not least the right reverend Prelate—have spoken. I
1464
recognise and understand completely that we are referring to a very vulnerable group of children, to whom we have a responsibility. I have never said—it would be completely wrong to suggest it—that our services do not have a role to play in safeguarding the welfare of children. The question is: how do we make sure that that happens appropriately; and what are the consequences of what we might do in a particular Bill for those services on the ground?
Noble Lords will recognise—certainly it is my experience—that the Immigration Service and NASS encounter many children in extremely difficult circumstances and are aware of the need to ensure that such children are referred to the proper agencies and receive support. I said on Report I shall not repeat it—that arrangements have been established to ensure that such concerns are dealt with as swiftly as possible. I can assure noble Lords that both organisations understand their responsibilities and are strongly supportive of the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare.
I shall not take up your Lordships' time by again going through the measures that I and Ministers from the Home Office have indicated before; I do not believe that there is a contradiction in where my noble friend Lord Bassam and I stand on this issue. We are both of the view that children and their families need to be supported effectively and that there are real issues relating to asylum and immigration.
Throughout the different stages of the Bill, I have worked closely with colleagues, ministerial and official, in both departments to examine what the consequences would be if the amendment were to be made. I am completely of the view that there would be consequences for our asylum and immigration policy. Noble Lords may feel that that is OK, that it is appropriate and that it is what they want to happen, but we are sure that the amendment would have an impact on what we would be able to do in terms of removals and the ability of people to use the Bill for judicial review. It is for those reasons—and those reasons alone—that I cannot accept the amendment. That in no way suggests that we think there are not duties and responsibilities which rest with the services; indeed, I have outlined them. I worry that sometimes we take the view that our services are not mindful of children and families in the work they do, whereas I think they do an amazing job with them in often quite difficult and tragic circumstances. But, ultimately, we have an asylum and immigration policy designed to support people in the best possible way—and that includes removing families on occasion and resettling them. It could be argued that that is appropriate and in the best interests of the children. Refusal of the right to stay on occasion could also be in their best interests.
It is because we believe that the amendment would directly affect this policy that I urge the noble Earl to think carefully about pressing his amendment to a vote. I can reassure noble Lords that this is in no way counter to saying that this is not a responsibility we

1465
would wish to see for our services to treat these vulnerable children properly. Indeed, they already have one.
Earl HoweMy Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment. The right reverend Prelate was right to emphasise the high level of vulnerability of this group of refugee children. I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, particularly compelling.
I cannot counter the Minister's essential pragmatic point. It is a disappointing argument in the context of a Bill with such high principles, with which we all identify. She has repeated often that the Bill is intended to cover all children, without exception. It is an issue of principle on which it would be right for me to test the opinion of the House.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ampthill, L.

Joffe, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kingsland, L.

Barker, B.

Laird, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Laming, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Listowel, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Chadlington, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Colwyn, L.

McNally, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Maddock, B.

Cox, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Methuen, L.

Crathorne, L.

Neuberger, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Dholakia, L.

Northover, B.

Dundee, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dykes, L.

Parkinson, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Renton, L.

Fowler, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Garden, L.

Rogan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roper, L.

Greaves, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Greengross, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hamwee, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Higgins, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hooson, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hylton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

1466

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Weatherill, L.

Tope, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the

Howie of Troon, L.

Council)

Hoyle, L.

Andrews, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Judd, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bhatia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Borrie, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Brennan, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Brookman, L.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mitchell, L.

Carter, L.

Morgan, L.

Christopher, L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Cohen of Pimlico. B.

Prosser, B.

Crawley, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

David, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Richard, L.

Drayson, L.

Rooker, L.

Dubs, L.

Rosser, L.

Elder, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sheldon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B. [Teller]

Simon, V.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Filkin, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gale, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Golding, B.

Triesman, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Truscott, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turnberg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Warner, L.

Harrison, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Whitty, L.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Henig, B.

Winston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Information databases]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 39, leave out "or"
The noble Baroness saidMy Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 to 29, 31, 33, and 36 to 39. This group of

1467
government amendments relates to the information databases to be established under Clauses 9 and 24 and fulfils the commitment I signalled at Report stage to examine whether further reassurance could be given to noble Lords on a number of points.
Before turning to the amendments, I thank noble Lords for their contributions during our debates on information databases and for being willing to meet outside the Chamber to discuss a range of issues. The arguments that have been put forward have been serious and considered. I have listened to them carefully and recognised their force through government amendments and the announcement of public consultation on the key issues of recording concerns and the involvement of sensitive services.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 33 make a drafting correction to subsection (1) of Clauses 9 and 24. I made it clear that we wanted flexibility on whether databases would be established on a national, regional or local basis. As noble Lords have pointed out, it is important that we take such decisions carefully. Noble Lords know that we have commissioned independent advice. We have been advised that the wording of subsection (1) might preclude a combination of local, regional or national elements to the solution. Deleting the word "or" apparently retains the flexibility.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 36 put beyond doubt that the databases are not to contain case records. I have already given reassurances to that effect, but noble Lords expressed concern on Report that the wording of subsection (4)(h) would give the power for such details to be included in the future. We are clear that there must be flexibility to set out new data requirements in regulations, subject to approval of both Houses of Parliament, rather than in primary legislation. I hope that noble Lords will now be reassured that such flexibility may not be used to change the nature of the database from what we have set out, by turning it into a case record for the child.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 37 add to the list of matters that may in particular be covered by regulations the issue of how long information must or may be held on the database. I have agreed with noble Lords in earlier debates that we shall need to be clear about the standards governing the length of time that individual pieces of information and a child's record as a whole should be kept on the database. On Report, I indicated in response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I would bring forward an amendment reflecting his proposal that this matter should be set out on the face of the Bill as one to be covered in regulations. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his suggestion. I hope that I have succeeded.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 38 add to the list of matters that may in particular be covered by regulations the issue of procedures to ensure accuracy. I have agreed with noble Lords in earlier debates the importance of this matter too. For the databases to be effective tools, the information must be up-to-date and accurate. In Committee, I indicated in response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I would consider whether there was more that we could do to reassure noble
1468
Lords that we share their concern that information should be accurate. The amendment reflects the proposal of the noble Earl in Committee that this matter should be set out on the face of the Bill as one to be covered in regulations. Again, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his suggestion.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 39 provide that guidance or directions under subsection (13) may cover the provision of advice about existing rights under the Data Protection Act. As I have stressed to noble Lords in Committee and on Report, the databases will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. In response to points made on Report about appeal procedures by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I reiterated that we do not intend to create new arrangements of this kind, especially for these databases. But I undertook to consider what we might do to reassure noble Lords. I believe that it is very important that people are made aware of their rights under the Data Protection Act. The amendment, therefore, adds the provision of such advice to the list of matters that may in particular be covered by guidance and directions under Clauses 9 and 24. I hope that noble Lords are reassured by this. I beg to move.
Earl HoweMy Lords, first, I thank the Minister for tabling the Government's amendments to this clause, all of which I welcome greatly. She has responded positively to the specific concerns that I and other noble Lords raised at earlier stages.
On Amendment No. 31, it is good news that the rights of the citizen under the Data Protection Act are to be highlighted automatically. That will do much to dispel any idea that secret things are being said and done behind the back of citizens. I am not quite so sure about the extent to which the Data Protection Act allows someone to lodge a formal objection against something and to be certain that it will be dealt with fairly and promptly. The rights conferred by the Act appear to me to fall short of that, but perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to clarify them.
I am concerned that the power of the citizen for getting things done is actually quite limited. In this context, that could be very damaging because, if there is a practitioner's name or a flag of concern that is inaccurate or misleading, it might serve to disadvantage the person whom it concerns if a professional were to happen upon it.
I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 24 and 34. I do not expect the Minister to seize on them as the answer to her prayers, but they are intended as a helpful suggestion which I hope she will consider. It was the Minister who mentioned on Report that there was nothing in Clause 9 to allow the sex of a child to be entered on to a database. As she knows, I am very much a minimalist in my approach to these provisions, but I went away and realised that she had a point. Some names tell you clearly whether you are dealing with a boy or a girl, but other names do not, particularly non-English names. Knowing the gender

1469
of a child is an essential matter. That is why I felt that the Minister might consider including the word "gender" in the Bill.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, I too welcome the Government's amendments. Like many other noble Lords, I have pointed out repeatedly the deficiencies of what is now Clause 9. I take heart from the fact that the Minister has listened to a number of the points that have been made.
I welcome particularly the provisions about the Data Protection Act. I share the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about whether the Act is a satisfactory instrument by which individuals can seek redress. None the less, it is the law. As I have also said on many occasions, and as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, pointed out early on in his report, the lack of knowledge and understanding among professionals of their scope to share information under the Data Protection Act has had horrible consequences for children. It is therefore important that the Data Protection Act is firmly set in Clause 9.
We support Amendment No. 24. My notes on that state simply "Lindsay, Lesley, Daljit" and there they stop.
Unsurprisingly, I shall concentrate on Amendment No. 30. I am relieved that the Government tabled Amendment No. 28, which deals with the length of time that information should stay on the database. We have said at previous stages of the Bill that it appeared that once information or a flag was on the database, it would stay there until the child's whole record left that database, which would presumably be when the child reached the age of majority.
There is a strong case for including in the Bill annual reviews of data. Events happen through children's lives in the process of growing up that it may be right to have recorded at some point. Equally, it may be important in terms of that child's well being that the continued inclusion of information should be subject to review. There should be a mechanism by which practitioners are encouraged—I would perhaps say "forced"—to review the data that they hold on people.
I, too, shall give the Minister a mythical example. It involves an area containing a number of statutory agencies. Once a year, they might look at all the information they hold on children and, from that, identify the small number—it always is a comparatively small number—who are in receipt of multiple services from different agencies. We should bear in mind that a universal database is involved. It would be advantageous to them and the children to have to undertake an annual review of the information in the database. Much could flow from that, not least because it would enable authorities to see trends and patterns within individual agencies and to examine resources for children's welfare.
At a previous stage, the Minister held out great hope for the consultation that will take place on flags of concern. I remain deeply opposed to flags of concern, as she knows. I make no secret of the fact that my
1470
perspective involves protecting people who are wrongly adjudged to be worthy of inclusion on practitioners' databases as a cause for concern, and I seek to strengthen their rights. The annual review process would do so. Organisationally, that is a commendable part of good practice. I should prefer it if that provision were in the Bill and then consulted on; it should not emerge from a process of consultation.
Those of us who have argued most vigorously about Clauses 8 and 9 have been very generous to the Government in terms of the promise of forthcoming consultation. Perhaps we have been too generous. On reflection, noble Lords may conclude that we have set a bad precedent. As I said, we were faced with a clause whose drafting was unacceptable to begin with. It is marginally better as a result of additions and it is greatly improved by the noble Baroness's amendments, which we considered today. Such amendments should have been in the Bill in the first place because they contain absolute tenets of basic good practice. For all those reasons it would be advantageous to have an annual review and for that to be specified in the Bill rather than left to regulation.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I thank noble Lords for the welcome that they have given to the government amendments, albeit with the caveats mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the DfES lawyers prefer "sex".
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us what they think about the Bill?
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, there can now be a car sticker—with a Hansard reference no doubt—on this point. Despite the fact that the DfES lawyers prefer the word "sex", they are very happy to accept "gender". We are very pleased to accept Amendments Nos. 24 and 34.
The noble Earl asked me about the data protection principles. As I understand from reading the information that I have been given—I shall ensure that the noble Earl is given a copy—individuals apply in writing to find out what information is on the database. They can apply in writing to have something removed. Ultimately, the matter is for the courts to decide. I do not have available details of the process that the individual goes through in that regard. I shall, of course, write to the noble Earl to clarify that.
Baroness Howarth of BrecklandMy Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness but it has just occurred to me that there is a circular regarding access to records which may conflict with what we are discussing. We may need to consider that. I have tried to consult with my noble friend Lord Laming on that, but perhaps I should discuss it outside the Chamber as it might constitute an added complication.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I should be grateful to know about any added complications. I

1471
am sure that between them the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, will be able to track down the circular; in fact, I shall hold them to that, if I may.
On Amendment No. 30 the difference between the noble Baroness and myself is very small. I am not sure that an annual review is sufficient. It is important that a constant review is conducted of the information that is being held. People should be aware of what information is being held in terms of names, contact points and any flags of concern. We want to see something that is unnecessary removed immediately. We want to ensure that we make it clear that where it is obvious that a flag is no longer necessary it should be removed immediately. We want to ensure that regular reviews of the whole process take place. As I say, I am not certain that a year is the most appropriate length of time.
I know that the noble Baroness considers that the consultation exercise is perhaps a bit woolly—I do not know what word she might use—but it is important that we talk to professionals about their experience and consider the experience of the trailblazers. We need to consider carefully the detail of what will be included in guidance and regulations. My job is to ensure that I have put on the record that the regulations will cover the rules on deleting concerns after they have been addressed or when new information is obtained that states that the concern is ill-founded. Furthermore, the guidance and directions that we shall issue on the management and operation of the database should make it clear that one of the functions of anyone operating the database will be to monitor the use of the recording of concerns.
We want to discuss and take views on the regularity of formal reviews. However, we consider that it is important that where there is no need to have a flag of concern on the database—or whatever terminology we end up with as we are consulting on that—it should not sit there. The critical point is that information that is irrelevant should not sit there. I believe that we are all agreed on that. Our method of achieving that is through consultation, the regulations and the guidance. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that our objectives are not dissimilar to hers and that on that basis she will feel able not to press the amendment.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not believe that the consultation process is woolly. I do not believe that I have ever said that. I believe that the order of events is wrong in that Parliament ought to determine the principles and the main headlines and then consultation should take place rather than the other way round. However, perhaps the noble Baroness will accept that I was trying to be mindful of the advice of those who seem to prefer the word "sex". They also seem to prefer wording that is as loose as possible. I did not want to hold people to having constant reviews. It was a de minimis measure. However, I take the noble Baroness's point in that regard.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 6, after "address" insert ", gender
The noble Earl saidMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for accepting the amendment. Also, I signal my complete acquiescence if, in another place, the Government choose to change "gender" to "sex". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 18, leave out from "information" to end of line 19 and insert "which gives the reporter cause to suspect that the child in question is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm
The noble Baroness saidMy Lords, I return, for a reason, to debates that we had at an earlier stage of the Bill. I remain deeply sceptical about flags of concern and the basis for them. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks in another amendment in the group to express his concerns in a different way. The point that we have discussed before, but not to any great satisfaction, is what the threshold for a flag of concern will be. We are also concerned that there should be a common threshold across all those who enter information or flags of concern on to the database.
We have already discussed the phrase "cause for concern". I want to take the Minister to task for a particular point. She said:
We are looking through the consultation and the trailblazers' experience to see whether a record of the fact of the concern should be retained on the system until the whole record is deleted, or whether it should be removed after a defined period of time.
Because it is more multi-agency focused, our ambition is that the chances of such misplaced concern diminishes and we are clear that we want to issue the right guidance.—[Official Report, 5/7/04; col. 593.]
We take exactly the opposite view: it is precisely because of the multi-agency focus, and because there is therefore far greater scope for mistakes in information to be compounded, that there should be a common threshold.
The noble Baroness has argued that Section 17 of the Children Act, which is what the wording is taken from, sets the threshold too high. I have looked at that section and its definition of children who would come under its auspices. It talks about children in need and the standard of health or development, with "development" meaning,
physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development,
and "health" meaning "physical or mental health". When one compares that to this Bill's list of physical and mental health, protection from harm and neglect and so on, there is very little difference.
I return to a point that I made at an earlier stage. At the moment, children who have Section 17 needs as opposed to Section 47 needs still do not receive help from social services. Therefore, I do not see why, in seeking to establish the level for the flags of concern, Section 17 should not be it. I believe that it is better to build on something that has common currency and understanding among professionals who work with children than to go through what I imagine would be

1473
a long process of defining "cause for concern" with all the organisations that are going to work with children coming to a general understanding of it. That may not be in the best interests of children. As there is already an answer within Section 17 of the Children Act, I believe that we would be advised to use it in this context. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale)My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 25 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 26.
Earl HoweMy Lords, I was somewhat tentative in proposing Amendment No. 24. I should not have been, but I am even more tentative as regards Amendments Nos. 26 and 35, which are grouped here.
The Minister will know my worry, which I believe she shares—that is, that the expression "cause for concern" has inbuilt overtones of child protection which are inappropriate. We need an expression that is more value-neutral. I suggested "special attention" but there may be a better phrase.
However, the real reason that I am tentative is that I recognise that what appears on the face of the Bill is in many ways less important than what appears in the subsequent regulations and guidance. I believe we all know and understand the point that we are trying to reach, and it would be nice—even if it is not essential—for the face of the Bill to give precise expression to that. I hope that the Government will continue to reflect on that point when the Bill is debated in another place.
The worry that I have here is somewhat broader and, in some ways, it was reflected in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. We should not assume or take it as read that flags of concern are needed in the first place. I shall not go over all the arguments again but perhaps I may say one or two things.
If flags of concern denote low as well as high levels of concern, quite a lot of them will appear. If databases are intended to act as predictive screening tools, we need to remember that even the most accurate predictive screening techniques available have an unavoidable margin of inaccuracy. One cannot avoid that. Even a 5 per cent margin of inaccuracy in flags of concern will lead to a large number of children being wrongly singled out for attention. The implications of that for resources are a worry to me.
Secondly, if flags are to be generated as a result of a low threshold of concern—by which I mean lower than the threshold which applies when a child is at risk of significant harm—they are bound to lead to an expectation of receiving services. But we all know that the threshold for receiving services is quite high. In those circumstances, one has to ask what would be the point of setting the threshold for flags of concern at a relatively low level and, indeed, what would be the point of having them at all.
According to the report from Royal Holloway college, the best trailblazer pilots are those where concerns are not logged on the database. We have
1474
returned to the point that we covered previously—that is, that logging something on to a database can never be a substitute for making a professional judgment. It is people and not databases that make those judgments.
Therefore, I hope that, despite the appearance of being wedded to the notion of flags, Ministers will nevertheless allow themselves to keep an open mind on whether flags of concern are likely to be a help or a hindrance in achieving the end result of better outcomes for all children—a result that we all want to see.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their amendments. The noble Baroness talked about Section 17, but her amendment mirrors the wording of Section 47. Therefore, my immediate difficulty with it is that it is not about the threshold that the noble Baroness described; it is about child protection issues, which I do not think is where the noble Baroness was seeking to place it. So, although I reject the amendment because it takes us to a place that I do think the noble Baroness would want us to go, I believe that it is worth saying that.
5.30 p.m.
What we are all searching for is a system that enables us to get the professionals talking to each other; to note that there are professionals involved in the process and that they have some kind of concern—I will come to the phraseology in a moment—long before we are currently able to support children. The noble Earl talked about resource issues, and on those I could not agree more. I made quite a few presentations in the regions on the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, and saw how the graphs are skewed because of how resources are used to deal with crises long after those situations should have been recognised and sorted. That is a real tragedy, which is twofold. First, children do not get the support early enough to prevent a situation becoming a crisis. Secondly, we are not using resources effectively because sorting out crises can often be more difficult.
We want to start lower down the scale in terms of recognising that support might be needed, not to single out children in a negative way, but to recognise the services that work with children and ensure that they are given the support they need. We are all grappling with that to some degree. So I reject the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. Not only is the point covered in Section 47, but, even taking Section 17 into account, we are trying to start the identification earlier.
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I understand what he is seeking to do, and I am grateful to him for discussing it with me. He will not be surprised to hear that "special attention" contains issues, not least that you need a concern before giving special attention. So, in a sense, it slightly alters the threshold in any event.

1475
However, I hope that noble Lords will take comfort from the fact that all of the work that has gone into the Bill in deliberating on what we might do has been incredibly helpful to us. It has meant that we are looking carefully to consult properly and effectively. I specifically ensured that the trailblazers, who came to talk to noble Lords, were a representative group with differing views. As we begin to develop the phraseology, it is important that this is not seen as a substitute for action. The noble Earl is right, and the point has been made many times also by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I could not agree more that putting something on a database is not a substitute for doing something else. However, if you are trying to find who else you need to talk to or who else is involved with a family, it is critical to have at least an address. We would argue that it is important also to know who to go to first after a matter has been flagged up. The trailblazers have tried different systems. Some have decided not to do that at all.
There is much to be done. However, I would not want noble Lords to think for one moment that their concerns have not been reflected back to my ministerial colleagues or that we do not understand noble Lords' desire to avoid terminology that leads only to child protection or to people thinking that that is the issue. It would not be a preventive system if it failed to achieve what I have just set out.
We are concerned to ensure that public consultation involves practitioners and families—parents, children and young people—and that we learn from the trailblazers while continuing to talk to others who are considering issues about how one practitioner can signal to another their concerns that a child is not thriving in any sense of the word. We are concerned also with mechanisms to signal that concern.
We recognise that it is important to get this right for all the reasons that have been stated both in your Lordships' House and outside. We shall carefully consider thresholds and terminology. I very much look forward to bringing back to your Lordships' House the results of those deliberations, which I have already indicated I shall make available not only to noble Lords who have spoken but also in the Library of the House. I look forward to the opportunity to debate those issues.
On that basis I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, the luck of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has not rubbed off on this side of the House. I take heart from what the noble Baroness has said and we will be extremely vigilant when the regulations arrive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 27 to 29.
Page 8, line 20, after "description" insert ", not including medical records or other personal records,"
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
( ) as to the length of time for which information must or may be retained;
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
( ) as to procedures for ensuring the accuracy of information included in any such database;
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert—
( ) the giving of advice in relation to rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29);
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Joint area reviews]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Information databases: Wales]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 18, line 38, leave out "or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 19, line 6, after "address" insert ", gender"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 36 to 39:
Page 19, line 20, after "description" insert ", not including medical records or other personal records,"
Page 19, line 35, at end insert—
( ) as to the length of time for which information must or may be retained;
Page 19, line 35, at end insert—
( ) as to procedures for ensuring the accuracy of information included in any such database;
Page 20, line 29, at end insert—
( ) the giving of advice in relation to rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29);
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [Ascertaining children's wishes]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 31, line 38, after "wishes" insert "and feelings"
The noble Earl saidMy Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42. I was extremely appreciative that on Report the Minister tabled what is now Clause 45 to ensure that children's wishes will be taken account of whenever a local authority is considering providing services to a child.
I should like to press the Minister further. Ascertaining a child's wishes lies at the centre of good practice for all the reasons the Minister gave when introducing her amendment. Indeed, it is a concept that underpins a great deal of what is in the Bill. Wishes though are often only a part of what a child has to tell us. Young children and disabled children in

1477
particular may not be able to articulate their wishes in a measured and coherent way. Sometimes even older children will not be able to do so.
On the other hand, virtually all children will invariably be able to say how they feel. Feelings of anxiety, fear, anger, love, loathing and uncertainty in a child are quite different from a wish that a child may express for this or that particular thing. General feelings of this sort are often just as relevant in arriving at a decision on how a child might best be helped. It is no surprise that the conjunction of feelings with wishes features in a great deal of legislation relating to children. I think particularly of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, but there are a number of other important examples; for instance, Sections 1 and 22(4) of the Children Act 1989.
The reason for that is perfectly straightforward. In many situations it is simply not possible to reach a conclusion about what may be in a child's best interests until you find out what the child is feeling. This is far from being a semantic point; feelings and wishes are distinct, not only in ordinary language but in legal terms as well. I believe that it is right to add the word "feelings" into Clause 45 if we are going to do justice to the intention behind it.
I turn to the remaining amendment in this group. On Report, a number of noble Lords tried to press the Minister to carry forward the principle she very helpfully recognised in relation to Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to Section 47 of that Act. I should like to do so again because, unusually with the Minister, I was not and am not convinced by the arguments that she put forward for resisting the proposal, either when she spoke on Report or in her subsequent letter to me, for which I was very grateful.
In her letter, the Minister explained that she did not think it appropriate to create a statutory duty to seek the wishes of the child when a local authority is considering whether to take action to safeguard a child's welfare. She argued that the time to consult a child is not when a local authority is considering whether to take action, but after that when it is considering what action to take. At that point, one of three possible sections of the Act might apply, including Section 17, and in all of those situations ascertaining the child's wishes would be mandatory.
We need to be careful in discussions of this kind that the larger picture and the larger issues are not buried by somewhat rarefied arguments. If you ask most people why Victoria Climbié was not rescued by the authorities, I suspect one reason would feature more than any other, which was that no one actually spoke to her. Let us be clear: Victoria Climbié fell squarely into Section 47 territory. The bruises and burns on her body had been noticed, and a number of people were debating what ought to be done. When Victoria's carers were approached, the questioners were fobbed off, and no action of any kind was taken. Nearly all the high profile child death inquiries of the past few years concern children under the age of 10. One of the most consistent themes in inquiry reports is the complete invisibility of the child's wishes and feelings.
1478
It simply is not right to say that whenever a local authority goes through the Section 47 process and then decides to take action, Section 17 will be triggered or may already have been triggered. Frequently, an assessment under Section 17 is bypassed altogether. It is certainly bypassed in many instances when a child is thought to be seriously and imminently at risk. Even in that circumstance, are we really going to say that when a child is about to be removed from his family home, that child should not be part of the decision making? Of course we do not say that, other than in exceptional circumstances. All the literature emphasises how important it is that the child is spoken to, yet time and again when it really matters, that does not happen.
I know that the Minister is concerned that there should be some discretion open to a local authority. The amendment that I have tabled allows for the possibility that it may be impracticable to speak to a child, in which case there would be no legal obligation to do so. In most cases, where a child's welfare is in question, we ought to be saying that it should be a sine qua non for the child himself to be seen and listened to. That is not a change to the guidance; it is a strengthening of the guidance. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the issue. Out there, I simply do not think that it would be understood if an amendment such as this was not made. I beg to move.
Lord EltonMy Lords, I speak only in order that my silence will not be taken as anything other than absolute agreement with everything that my noble friend has said.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I have added my name to all three of the amendments in this group. The Minister gave us the impression that she feels that the guidance is working well, when we spoke about that on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, quoted research into the impact of the assessment framework introduced in 2000, and she said:
All the evidence suggests to us that the participation of children in that period has increased and is working well.—[Official Report, 24/5/04; col. 1059.]
Unfortunately, the research referred to and published last year only included the views of eight young people. The summary report noted,
Their views and experiences, however, mirror previous research findings and suggest that social workers continue to experience difficulty in ensuring children and young people fully participate in decisions that are likely to affect them.
The Minister also expressed concerns about situations in which a child might be in danger, and obviously we all support her in those concerns. She said:
Where there are urgent concerns we believe that the child's safety must remain the overriding and absolute consideration and social services, or whoever, need to act and act swiftly. We are concerned to ensure that that is paramount.—[Official Report, 22/6/04; col. 1223.]
Section 47 is not restricted to questions about the child's safety, but whether the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. Where the child's immediate safety is of concern, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just mentioned, the amendment does not prevent a local authority taking immediate action

1479
to protect it. As regards Section 17, the Minister also argued on Report that it was likely that many children in those situations would be found to meet the Children Act 1989 definition of children in need and that the amended Section 17 would be applied to them in any case when immediate safety issues have been addressed. Section 17 provides for the provision of services to children in need. A child protection investigation is the decision-making process that comes before the provision of any services to the child. So children will be covered by the Clause 45 amendment to Section 17 only if they are seen to be in need of services. It does not cover the child protection investigatory process itself before the services are provided or help children who are deemed not to be in need. For those reasons, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I have retabled the amendment.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, earlier today the Minister pleased the whole House by accepting Amendment No. 19 concerning the emotional well-being of children. Having done so, she will have uphill work in resisting the insertion of the words "and feelings" at this stage.
I draw attention to Amendment No. 42 and subsection (4)(c) which seems to be intended to make sure that proper weight is given to a particular child's wishes and feelings in the light of his age and understanding. That is important, otherwise quite wrong conclusions may be reached. I support the amendments.
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, I support the amendments and particularly Amendment No. 42. I have listened to what has been said and read the careful detail in the amendment, and I believe a case is more than made. It has been proved, alas, that there has been failure to record the kind of detailed information from children to obtain their feelings and reactions in private. That is crucial in coming to the right conclusion. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the proposals.
Lord LamingMy Lords, the problem I have with Amendment No. 42 is that prior to undertaking the Victoria Climbié inquiry I would have thought that this was the core of good practice and that every authority would have ascertained the wishes and feelings of the child in the circumstances and having access to the child unless, as the amendment says, that proves to be neither practicable nor urgent.
The Victoria Climbié inquiry had quite a devastating impact on me because I found it incomprehensible that a child could be referred to so many different services with clear indications of deliberate harm. Not only was the child not properly seen and discussed but she was placed under police protection without having been seen. Then the police protection order was removed without the child being seen. The child was taken to hospital and the person who took her there was not even interviewed. So we have to face the reality of what happens out there sometimes.
1480
I live in the hope that that case was the exception rather than the rule, but having gone around the country, I have to say that my level of confidence is not altogether high. Anything that can be done to reinforce what I am sure every Member of the House recognises are basic elements of addressing children's needs in these circumstances must be supported.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, let me begin by talking about Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. I recognise that accepting amendments on the hoof may lead to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, taking me hostage somewhat for my own behaviour earlier on. That is probably the reason why I was warned against doing things like that. I shall have to face the music later.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, indicated, the amendments would add the words "and feelings" to new Section 17. I am grateful for the welcome given to the amendments that we have put forward on "wishes" which I believe the noble Earl, Lord Howe, remarked was one of the four or five most important issues of principle raised when we considered the Bill in Committee.
I understand absolutely the sentiments that lie behind the proposal, and I understand fully that there will be Section 17 cases where a child cannot, or cannot be expected to, articulate his or her wishes. If a child is too young, is suffering from a disturbance or is coming under pressure from a division of loyalties, it may be very difficult for that child to express his or her wishes. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, it is good practice and in accordance with the Framework for Assessment of Children in Need and their Families for an attempt to be made to ascertain a child's feelings.
We have also received legal opinion that is concerned to preserve the distinction between "wishes" and "feelings" as separate constructs, and to have them both expressed in Section 17. It would still be possible of course for a local authority in discharging its duties to consider to what extent it needs to ascertain a child's feelings, and to consider how to factor its conclusions into the decision-making process.
My concern, however, is that by accepting the amendments we would create an unplanned and unintentional inconsistency between Section 17 of the Children Act, which would refer to "wishes and feelings" and Section 20 of the Act, which requires a local authority to ascertain only a child's "wishes" about the accommodation provided for him.
Consistency between Section 20 and Section 17 is very important because they are sometimes considered together as alternative routes for assisting a child. They are both about providing services to children in need. Where a child or member of his family is provided with services under Section 17, which may include accommodation, he does not become a looked after child. By contrast, where the child is provided with accommodation under Section 20, he does become looked after.

1481
If we require feelings as well as wishes to be considered under Section 17, it seems to suggest that more investigation of the child's state of mind is required about providing services like home help, cash for beds or school uniforms than is required under Section 20. That is clearly not right.
It is clear to me, therefore, that we must consider carefully any changes to Section 17 because of their implications for Section 20. As noble Lords know, the words "wishes" and "feelings" have very different meanings legally. "Wishes" are what a child wants, or says he wants, while "feelings" are more complex—they are emotions which are not necessarily about what the child wants. At present, the Children Act 1989 refers only to the need to ascertain "feelings" in relation to the decisions made by a court or by local authorities in exercise of their corporate parenting role, but not in relation to specific issues around the provision of particular services.
We need to ensure that we do not upset the balance in the Children Act, which is an effective piece of legislation that has stood the test of time. So I am asking the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment on the basis that we will consider the issue it raises and bring it back in the Commons. We want to do two things: first, we want to find out why in 1989 the Act referred to "wishes" and not "wishes and feelings" because we do not know; and, secondly, we want to ensure that Section 17 and Section 20 do the same. I hope, on that basis, the noble Earl will feel comfortable about withdrawing his amendment. We just have not had time to establish the exact circumstances and we do not want to have two pieces of legislation in the same Bill that do not equate to the same thing.
I turn to Amendment No. 42, which would amend Section 47. Only last week I spent a considerable time talking to representatives of children's organisations who are concerned about this.
I have also spent a significant amount of time talking to our legal team about this, because I know how strongly noble Lords feel about it. Noble Lords know that under Section 47, a local authority is required to make inquiries where there is reason to believe that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, in order to ascertain whether it is necessary to take action.
Clearly the child concerned should be involved in the decision about what action is taken, and this is made clear in Government guidance. In any case, any action as a result of Section 47 inquiries is likely to be taken under local authority powers in Sections 17, 31 or 20 of the Children Act 1989.
I will not go into all the detail, although I have it all here, but under Section 17 there is a requirement that the child's wishes be taken into account. Under Section 31, a child's wishes and feelings are crucial to any decision that is taken. Under Section 20, a looked-after child's wishes and feelings would have to enter into every decision. We have covered the issue in those three different areas.
1482
I have looked carefully at Section 47 and we are certain that this is a potential difficulty for us. Section 47 covers a range of circumstances where we believe that social services and others might—as I said on Report—have to take action without ascertaining the child's wishes and feelings. I recognise that the amendment is not the same as the original provision, which required the child's views to be ascertained unless sufficient information has already been obtained about the child's circumstances, wishes and feelings, and not just about the child.
It may well still be the case that social services or others might take action to secure the child's safety without having any information about their wishes and feelings. We believe strongly—I rarely feel as strongly as I do about these issues—that we have to be clear on this. They must be able to act immediately in these circumstances. I take the point about the tragedy of Victoria Climbié, but she was a Section 17 child before she was a Section 47 child. That was such a dreadful example of systemic failure that nobody asked her at any point. There are lots of points in the process at which she would be asked under the amendments and changes that have already been raised. It is important that we are clear what allowing the amendment to Section 47 would do.
The other example that I discussed with the legal team concerned some of the work being done by the social services as a result of the Government guidance Achieving Best Evidence—for example, as concerns sexual abuse cases. People oeed to take enormous care about interviewing children before the instigation of proceedings which may be criminal proceedings. I should like to give noble Lords an example, although I rarely do so as examples are always difficult. If there were a family of four girls and there was clear evidence of abuse of three of them by a family member, we would argue—I am sure that noble Lords would all agree—that we should take action to secure the safety of the fourth child without interviewing that child about their wishes and feelings in advance.
When legal proceedings are possible great care has to be taken that any interviews are not inappropriate. They must be done at the right time, in a way that does not traumatise the child and by well trained people who know exactly what to do, particularly where criminal proceedings are involved.
I know that those two examples are in extremis, but they are real examples that would be covered by the amendment. That is why we should not pass the amendment. I accept that in all the other parts—Sections 17, 20 and 31—the issue is important, and I also agree that wherever possible it is still important that we do this in advance and that we certainly do it once a child is removed from danger. However, the amendment would affect the two specific cases I have described and I urge great caution because I believe that that could lead to something that no noble Lord wants.
My final point is about the phrase "in writing". We do not believe that it is sensible to put that provision on the face of the Bill. Most social services

1483
departments are moving to electronic recording systems for recording the child's wishes and such a system would not count as writing. Also, social workers and others involved with children might be visually impaired and would not record a child's wishes in writing. We should not put that kind of absolute requirement on the face of the Bill.
I hope that with what I have said about wishes and feelings and my undertaking to take that back, and the strength of my feelings about Amendment No. 42, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
6 p.m.
Earl HoweMy Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. As regards Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, I hope the Minister will forgive me for saying that the explanation she gave for resisting them might to many people seem technical and legalistic. But, having said that, I welcome her assurance that she will take steps to investigate the apparent disparity in the Children Act and ensure that the issue will be debated in another place when the Bill reaches there.
I understand that one possible reason for the disparity is that under Section 20 of the Children Act a child automatically becomes looked after, and under Section 22(4) the scope of that provision relates to all looked after children. There is a point to that difference because Section 22(4) refers to "wishes and feelings".
As to Amendment No. 42, I am still troubled that, in an active process of inquiry involving social workers going around and talking to as many relevant people as possible about a child before reaching a conclusion, the one person lying at the centre of the whole exercise will not be consulted. I return to what I said earlier about how critical it is in the vast majority of cases to ensure that children are involved in decisions about whether or not action is taken. Seeing them and listening to them may result in a very different outcome from the one that the professionals would otherwise have in mind. The amendment allows for the discretion referred to in the examples given by the noble Baroness because it contains the words "reasonably practicable".
Perhaps I can press the Minister to go as far as she did with Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. Even if she cannot accept the amendment as it stands—I recognise that the requirement to record in writing a child's wishes may be a defect, but it is a point of detail—more important is the point of principle. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for supporting that point of principle. If the noble Baroness is able to say to me that she and her colleagues will look again at the principle of putting something on the face of the Bill, with the exceptions and with the discretion that she feels appropriate—I understand the examples that she gave
1484
in hard cases—I will know better what to do with the amendment. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask the Minister to comment on that.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, we have no difficulty with the principle behind what the noble Earl, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to do. As far as possible, we want children always to have their wishes, feelings and views taken into account. The difficulty is that if we translate that into law on the face of the Bill we have to take care that there is not an unintended consequence.
I am more than happy to take the matter away, look at it again and pass the views expressed back to my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Children. I merely add the caveat that we were not able to find a suitable vehicle with which to do this, but we shall look again with great pleasure.
Earl HoweMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. In the circumstances, I do not believe that I can ask her to do more. It would not be appropriate to press the amendment in this form. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
The Earl of Listowelmoved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY IN RELATION TO PUPILS WHO ARE IN PUBLIC CARE
The governing body of a community, foundation or voluntary school or a maintained nursery school shall secure that the teachers in the school are aware of the importance of identifying, and providing for, those registered pupils who are in public care."
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her earlier assurance that there will be an amendment relating to the commissioner's responsibility for children in care and care leavers. That matter requires more thought at the current stage. I take comfort from the fact that, although young offenders will not be included in his remit, at least he will be able to look at the 30 to 40 per cent of young offenders who come out of care and decide to make a report about their experiences.
My amendment would put a duty on the governing body of a school to ensure that the teachers in the school were aware of the importance of identifying and providing for registered pupils in public care. The role of the designated teacher was established in the guidance published in 2000. It is the designated teacher's duty to liaise with the local authority and support other teachers in the school. I would like to quote from the guidance. On page iii, it states:
Primary legislation will be needed to place complementary duties on LEAs and schools, and to give statutory force to paragraph 5.34.
Paragraph 5.34 states:
To summarise, schools should designate a teacher to act as a resource and advocate for children and young people in public care
The Government made a commitment at that time to put the role of the designated teacher into statute: that commitment has not yet been fulfilled. The point

1485
was raised at the last stage of the Bill, but no answer was made. I hope that the Minister will explain what has become of that commitment.
The role of the designated teacher is important but, unfortunately, in the Government's report A better education for children in care, evidence about the impact that they have is mixed. Some schools allow non-contact time for designated teachers to liaise with other agencies and attend planning and review meetings. Elsewhere, designated teachers have few or no additional resources and can struggle to reconcile their different roles, particularly where they have to combine teaching and advocacy functions. There is an inconsistency in practice in this vital role.
Noble Lords who attended a meeting last week with practitioners and a researcher who has just published research after three years working in this area will have been impressed by the concern about the inconsistency in practice of designated teachers and personal education plans. This is a serious concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has expressed a concern that we must not single out one group of children in the Bill. It is a Bill for all children. But this is a special group of children, and it is allowable to single them out. Even so, I urge her to consider that the Government have made a commitment here already. I hope that she will be able to think about that matter. I welcome the sympathetic tone of the response given to a similar amendment in Committee. I recognise the difficulty with this matter.
The designated teacher—what a role it is! The designated teacher is told that a child is in foster care or a children's home; her job is to advise other teachers in the school of that information. That is such sensitive information. How would a child in care feel if it was not used sensitively? One of the concerns is that designated teachers should be senior teachers, but often they are not. They should be well trained, but often they are not. They should have time to meet with local authority representatives, but often they do not.
From my own small experience of assisting a teacher in a school, I remember a young man who kept on sticking his hand up every time a question was asked, and shouting out before any other child answered. It was very frustrating and annoying. Perhaps if it had continued, I would have grown increasingly frustrated and thought how to move the child out of my class. But I met the boy's family, and what came through at our meeting was quite clear. He had grown up without much contact with his father and was rather keen to get my attention, as one of the few men in the school. Later on he started making gifts to me, which was very charming.
It is so important to understand the other side of the equation. That is the role of the designated teacher—to ensure that there is good communication between the local authority and the school. It is a crucial role.
The number of exclusions of children in public care is 10 times higher than for other children. But for a child who has been in care briefly, the number of exclusions is 20 times higher. It is so important to intervene early to prevent such experiences.
1486
I draw noble Lords' attention to a recent report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, Juveniles in Custody. This is the first time a representative sample of the under-18 prisoner population has been systematically consulted concerning their treatment in England and Wales. Some 83 per cent of boys and 65 per cent of girls had been previously excluded from school. Furthermore, 37 per cent of boys and 43 per cent of girls had previously spent time in either a care or foster home, or both.
I shall not go into the Social Exclusion Unit report, as I recognise the time constraints upon us. I am very concerned, however, that the Government are moving in this direction. Over the last four or five years that performance targets for looked-after children have been issued, quite specific bench-marks have been set for how we will improve the educational attainment of those children. For instance, the proportion of those aged 16 who get qualifications equivalent to five GCSEs grade A to C should have risen, on average, by four percentage points each year since 2002. In all authorities, at least 15 per cent of young people in care achieve this level of qualification.
Just this week, a new performance target has been issued to narrow the gap in educational achievement between looked after children and that of their peers,
and improve their educational support and the stability of their lives so that by 2008, 80% of children under 16 who have been looked after for 2.5 years or more will have been living in the same placement for at least 2 years, or are placed for adoption.
That is a very laudable aim, which it is important to achieve. But I am reminded of what I used to come across when I visited children's homes. The staff would say that a child had so many problems that they could not expect that child to engage in school and would just look after him or her there. There is an awful lot of truth in that.
The Government have made a mistake in the past in terms of underestimating the difficulties that many of these children currently experience because of their past histories, and the instability in their lives. But it is not either-or, it is both-and. It is both providing the stability in their home environment and foster care environment and providing encouragement and support in school. In that regard I am very concerned that the Government are stepping back.
I am concerned to see the implementation take place of the tools that are so valuable. Placing a duty on the governors in this fashion would be the best way. We cannot make absolutely certain that it will happen, but it is the best way. I have spoken to many governors about this and they have been sympathetic on the matter. I have taken much advice from a governor of 18 years' experience, who is also a teacher.
We need to ensure that the educational experience of these children is the best. The Government should fulfil their commitment. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how they intend to achieve that. Such children are special, but their outcomes are appalling; we could do more to achieve better outcomes for them. The tools are there but we need to see that they are implemented. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, my name is attached to this amendment and Amendment No. 44 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. It is an alternative format for the same issue.
Briefly, I shall explain why we support one and propose the other amendment as a possible alternative. Section 21 of the Education Act 2002 requires each school governing body to conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement within the school. Governors already have a responsibility under Section 317 of the Education Act 1996 to make special educational provision available for students with special educational needs. That includes a duty to ensure that teachers in a school are aware of the importance of identifying and providing for pupils with special educational needs.
Recently governors have acquired a new duty under Section 175 of the Education Act 2002 which requires them to safeguard and to promote the welfare of children. Amendment No. 43, which we support, seeks to enhance that power in relation to children in public care because, as the noble Earl has explained, schools often fail to recognise their responsibilities to looked-after children under this section of the 2002 Education Act.
Amendment No. 44 goes one step further and asks that schools take account of the social needs of pupils by providing a non-inclusive list of social needs. An amendment similar to Amendment No. 43 was tabled at Report stage. The Minister correctly pointed out that children in public care come with a continuum of need and, therefore, the amendment could require schools to do something for children when at least some of them did not need such attention.
The Minister also pointed out that the Government's plans for individualised learning should meet the concerns that we expressed. She said that,

our concern is to ensure that we recognise that looked-after children in schools need additional support; that they get the support appropriate to their needs, not their category; and that we support all of our schools in developing, for their own governing bodies, the kind of policies appropriate to the population of children that they have.—[Official Report, 22/6/04; col. 1215.]
It is likely that children in public care who achieve the highest academic qualifications do so with a great deal of understanding and support from their schools. Most schools will attempt to provide that support without being told to. This amendment makes it clear that the few schools that do not do that will be told to do so.
The Minister also pointed out that it would be wrong to single out children in public care as in need of special attention. The amendment attempts to meet those concerns by including this non-inclusive list of social needs of which schools should take account. The Government claim to have brought together various support services to help children under the overall objective stated as follows in last week's five-year plan:
every child gets the best possible start in life—with integrated services focused on the needs of parents and children, not chopped up according to provider.
1488
Has Parliament, through legislation, backed that admirable objective? The amendment is needed to ensure that schools recognise all the needs, including the social needs of children. It would ask schools to recognise that a pupil's educational achievement can be affected not only by his special educational needs but by his special social needs.
Children often come to school frightened because they do not know when they are going to see their parents again. They come to school having just lost a beloved grandparent. They come to school from an overcrowded house. They come to school after having been in the country only a couple of weeks. Those children are not going to fulfil their potential. Schools can do much to help them, not least because they have more contact with the school than any other agency. Schools which are fully participating in the co-operation arrangements under Clause 7 will know how to get the additional services required to help those young people achieve and lead fulfilling lives. Those are the reasons why one or other of the two amendments is needed.
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Listowel is almost in the same category as my noble friend Lord Northbourne in his dedication to looking after children. Many of us in your Lordships' House would pay great tribute to him for that.
In addition to supporting his amendment, I have great sympathy also with the more broadly based Amendment No. 44. Although I understand fully the concerns that have been expressed about overloading the teachers and the governing bodies, in the specific case of looked-after children, an important extra point should be made. In such cases, the local authority is the corporate parent of such children. Whether the children are in residential care or are looked after by a foster parent, it is still the local authority which is the parent. Therefore, since the children spend a great deal of their time in the school environment, a special, extra duty should be placed on the governors of that school to see that teaching and support bring the best out of such children and unleash their real talents.
We should not forget the appalling figures. Twenty-seven per cent of looked-after children have special education needs, in contrast to only 3 per cent of all other children. Only one in 100 children goes on to university, whereas one in three of the rest of the child population does so. That is a clear indication of the need for extra support for the emotional well-being of children who are inevitably under stress because of a broken home background or whatever.
There is great support for the amendment from the Local Government Association. It regards the issue as vital. Alison King, who chairs the social affairs and health executive of the Local Government Association, supports the amendment and regards the whole issue as vital. Although I gather that the National Governors' Council was a little concerned about over-burdening governors, it too acknowledges that many governors perhaps did not know about the lack of achievement of looked-after children.

1489
For all those reasons, I hope that it will be possible to do rather more. I fully acknowledge that the Government have the issue very much in mind and have set a number of initiatives well under way. However, to extend the duty to governors would spread the burden a little and move the process more quickly on.
Lord NorthbourneMy Lords, I shall be brief. We should ask two questions: first, is it right to single out children in care? In spite of the seductive reasons for including all kinds of other children, it probably is right that they are a very special case. The other question is whether schools wish to have that job imposed on them. My point is that responsibility for children in care lies with local authorities. Yes, they should work through schools but, yes, they should jolly well pay for it.
Baroness Howarth of BrecklandMy Lords, I have a different view. I pay real tribute to my noble friend Lord Listowel, who spoke so well for children in care. I want to make three brief points. First, talking to the director of children's services in CSCI has made it clear that not all children want to be identified in school as being in public care. If we are ascertaining the wishes and feelings of children, we must listen. I am rather concerned that this is a blanket arrangement.
On assessments, it is crucial that when a child is in need, the local authority should take proper action—it should currently be doing that—to talk to the school about the child's needs and to ensure that the proper, designated teacher takes the appropriate action. I understand absolutely what my noble friend Lord Listowel said.
A real issue is involved with Amendment No. 44; that is, how one would specify which children would be brought forward. Procedures are already in place but I am unsure whether they are being properly carried out. Will the Minister consider whether there are other ways in which that could be done? I have tremendous sympathy with the general thrust of the proposal but I am concerned that it will gather in children who would prefer not to be gathered in.
Lord EltonMy Lords, proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment No. 44 returns us to asylum seekers. I still have difficulty accepting the most unfortunate decision that the House made on Amendment No. 21 on the inclusion of the children of asylum seekers in the protection of certain parts of the legislation. Anything that we can extend to them at a later stage is to be welcomed.
I also want to leave a thought in the Minister's mind for her journey to the other end of the corridor, although it may not be a complete remedy to what we have so far decided in this regard. The Minister is looking very puzzled. I hope that when she reads Hansard she will understand what I am driving at. The exclusion could be limited. The argument that she advanced against the proposal of my noble friend Lord Howe was that judicial review under the provisions could be used by the parents of children to
1490
delay orders for their own repatriation. I want her to consider the possibility of making such proceedings subordinate, if that is the right word, to repatriation proceedings so that they could not be used in that case.
I see from the Minister's face that there will be no reply to that from the Dispatch Box this evening. I am quite content for her to reply later. I wanted to utter a friendly word on the amendments and I will leave that thought with her.
Lord DearingMy Lords, when the Minister spoke on Report on this amendment, the logic that she adduced for not accepting it was persuasive; that is, that we must care for every child as an individual and not by category. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the fact that exclusion is 10 or 20 times more likely, and that 30 to 40 per cent of young offenders have been in care. We should also bear in mind the fact that the amendment seeks only to require governors to see that teachers are aware that such children are in their care. That is not asking a great deal. Given the damage that is done to their lives through insufficient care, there is a special case in this regard.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken on this matter. I agree with what noble Lords have said about the tenacity of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I believe that he and I have met 11 times outside the Chamber during the passage of the Bill to discuss this matter. I am enormously grateful for the amount of time that he has devoted to doing that.
The two amendments in this group try to address the needs of what we recognise is an extremely vulnerable group of children. The issue before us is twofold. First, is this the right way to tackle the matter? Secondly, is this the way to make a difference in those children's lives so that we can all go home and feel comfortable that we have achieved something? Alternatively, do we need to consider whether legislation is always the answer to some of the questions that have been raised? I argue that the way in which the Government approach the matter demonstrates our commitment to this very vulnerable group of children whose educational achievements and life chances constitute a scandal. What one puts on the face of legislation must constitute a crystal clear way of addressing the issue.
I shall not reiterate everything that I have said previously in the House or in discussions elsewhere. We take very seriously the report of the Social Exclusion Unit, which firmly stated that the critical relationship was with the corporate parent. The corporate parent needs to do what we hope every parent does for their child, which is to ensure that they get back-up and support in education. We all know that educational attainment and achievement are still too much determined by the kind of background that one has. If children do not have a supportive environment with opportunities to learn and to use computer equipment and so on, they can be

1491
disadvantaged. We believe it is critical that we make it absolutely clear where the responsibility lies and do not shirk it or shuffle it off elsewhere.
The noble Earl and I met with a group of young people who were either in care or leaving care. They mentioned the critical word that we have incorporated into our PSA target; namely, stability. What they really want is stability. Often that translated for the older ones into the kind of accommodation that they would obtain. As we have seen on some BBC programmes featuring looked-after children, stability for them constituted not carrying their possessions around in black plastic bags but having the stability that is their due. Stability is critical because without it children cannot acquire educational attainment. We can demonstrate that we have taken this issue extremely seriously.
I turn to Amendment No. 44 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I know that she did so in a helpful spirit. However, we are back to my favourite word of "list" which I have not used yet on this Third Reading. I know that the noble Baroness will recognise the difficulties that a list engenders. Immediately I thought of Traveller children who constitute a very particular group of children who need additional support. They often have instability in their lives and often do not get the support that is needed to help their educational attainment, not least because they travel. I think also of young carers—a group that we have discussed previously in your Lordships' House—who have an average age of 11. They desperately need support. However, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, will recognise, young carers often do not want to be recognised as such. They fear bullying and being asked questions about their parents, perhaps because the parent has a mental health problem.
I do not want any list ever to appear in a piece of legislation that might make a disadvantaged child less likely to get the attention and support of a school. The only way for them to get that attention and support is to make sure that every child matters and that every child in every class in every school is important. That is the critical line that I cannot cross because I consider that it is so important. It is also important that we recognise a school's capacity, that we ensure that we support schools effectively and that we seek to do things as efficiently as we possibly can.
The noble Earl referred to designated teachers. I accept absolutely what he said about there being more work to be done in that regard. We want to make sure that designated teachers work effectively but that does not mean that we do something else instead; it means that we ensure that we give them the necessary support. I agree with much of what the noble Earl said in that regard. He introduced me to the gentleman who had done the relevant research who had much to say about ensuring that the training that is given is pitched at the right level and that appropriate support is given.
I undertake to ensure that the guidance we send out on the duty to promote the educational attainment of children will reinforce the importance of giving
1492
governors and teachers the right kind of advice and training to support looked-after children. That guidance will go to local authorities.
We are pursuing the recommendation to provide guidance on the kind of questions that governors could raise with their schools about the education of looked-after children. We will link that guidance with the guidance on Clause 44. We are taking forward the recommendation on the Teacher Training Agency for best-practice materials to help the education of looked-after children, making sure that all teachers are aware of how the care system operates and understand the particular needs of children in care. That work will build on the existing teacher training guidance, which already makes it clear that teachers,
are expected to have a professional commitment to raising the educational achievement of all their pupils, whatever their background.
I agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about personalisation being critical. We believe that we have the position right. The corporate parent must take responsibility and do it properly. We will look at the guidance and do what I have undertaken to do. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of ListowelMy Lords, I thank the Minister for trying to assuage my concerns, and for spelling out how she will ensure that practice is reinforced in this area. That will clearly be helpful and improve what is being delivered currently.
My noble friend Lady Howarth raised a very important point about the sensitivity of the information and how children in care may not wish the school's people to know their background. When the department was working hard to develop the guidance, it thought about that issue carefully and came to its conclusions after a lot of consideration. The question is extremely difficult. I can tell her that an awful lot of thought has gone into preparing the guidance on the subject. A very careful balance has to be struck. The same is true of the information-sharing on the database. Partnership working between the school and the local authority is so sensitive and needs so much thought, but that thought was undertaken. The conclusion was that there should be a designated teacher, but a senior and well trained teacher. Unfortunately, that is not the case consistently enough. I recognise the significance of what she said, however.
I welcome what the Minister said, and will have to take it away; I detect that there might not be much progress if I sought to press the amendment. I absolutely agree with what she said about the corporate parent. It is the local authority, as my noble friend said, but there is a partnership also. We are discussing a Bill that enshrines new means to encourage partnership working. It is vital that schools and local authorities work together. One in four children is placed out of their local authority. It becomes very hard for the local authority to keep in touch with its child, so in practice what the school does is very important.

1493
I will continue to raise the issue with the Minister, and I am sure that she will continue to raise it with me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 52 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 33, line 29, after "means" insert ", subject to section 2(10),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Commencement]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 35, line 15, at end insert—
( ) section 49 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be very brief. These are technical provisions consequential on the agreement of an amendment in your Lordships' House on Report. Section 49 is the new clause on reasonable punishment. Amendment No. 46 proposes that the section come into force two months after Royal Assent, in accordance with the accepted convention. Amendment No. 49 reflects the new clause in the Long Title. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Children's Commissioner]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 48:
After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

CHILDREN'S SERVICES AUTHORITY: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT
Education Act 2002 (c. 32)
In section 21 of the Education Act 2002 (general responsibility for conduct of school), in subsection (3), after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
"(ia) children's services authority,"
The noble Baronesssaid: My Lords, I fear that I shall detain your Lordships a little while with this amendment because it is fairly substantive. It seeks, again, to deal with the issue of schools being a partner in co-operation under Clause 7. However, on this occasion, because we have suggested an amendment to Schedule 1 and because at Third Reading Schedule 1 comes at the very end of the Bill, we are now moving this amendment at the end of the Bill.
What we are suggesting here affects Section 21 of the Education Act 2002. That section enables regulations to be made which define the respective roles and responsibilities of local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers in relation to the conduct of the school either generally or in respect of particular matters. The Minister may remember that I have, from time to time, asked her when the draft
1494
regulations under this section are likely to be presented for consultation. By the look of it, she is waving them at me now. But that is a separate issue and I do not wish to pursue it at present.
The amendment would add the children's services authority to the list which includes the local education authority, governing body and head teacher. I admit that it is a further attempt to get schools bound into the co-operation arrangements provided under Clause 7 of this Bill.
Many of us were surprised, especially in view of the Government's wish to devolve local education responsibilities to individual schools, that schools are not mentioned explicitly in the Bill as having a duty to co-operate. Amendment No. 48 allows regulations to be made which will mutually define the roles of the children's services authority and the school governing body under the overriding principle that the conduct of the school shall be under the direction of the school governing body.
Perhaps all comment about school participation in the co-operation arrangements should be prefaced with the view that the vast majority—perhaps as many as 99 per cent—of schools will willingly participate in the arrangements. To use the words of the DfES Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners:
Every school—not just extended schools—should do their utmost to serve the needs of the whole child.
Indeed, the five-year strategy envisages a system of interlinked and interdependent schools, with children's services and education seen as part of one whole.
So far, the Minister has resisted amending Clause 7 to bring schools fully into the co-operation arrangements on the grounds that Clause 7 is about strategic partners and that schools, although important players in cooperation, are not strategic partners. In Committee, she said:
we do not believe that it is appropriate to expect every small primary school to be involved in detailed strategic decision making. That is the role of the local education authority, which is well placed to represent schools as a whole and, by keeping in contact with them, to ensure that their views are sought and passed back appropriately.—[Official Report. 20/5/04; col. 948.]
The Minister then went on to say that statutory guidance will make it clear that the children's services authority must engage with schools and colleges, including academies and city technology colleges. In turn, she suggested that the local education authority should issue tailored guidance which reflects the local arrangements that have been set up for co-operation. Earlier in the debate, she also pointed out that representative schools could be directly involved as relevant partners.
On Report, I moved Amendment No. 42, which asked that schools should take account of the guidance from the LEA in relation to the co-operation arrangements. The Minister rejected that amendment. She said that, as schools do not have a duty to participate in co-operation arrangements, they cannot be placed under a duty to take account of guidance

1495
about the co-operation arrangements. The Minister stated that the new framework enabled by the Bill provides for,
new inspections, area reviews, the new relationship we are seeking with schools and extended schools and our ambition to support … services and see the child in a broader way.—[Official Report, 17/6/04; col. 1002.]
The Minister reminded the House that schools are already judged by the extent and effectiveness of their partnership with others. In particular, inspectors must evaluate and report on the quality of links with local communities and other schools. She continued:
Using the framework of inspection and what we expect of schools without placing the burden—it would be resisted with good reason by this House—we can secure the cultural change and engage schools properly through the co-operation agenda.—[Official Report, 17/6/04; co1.1003]
6.45 p.m.
It would seem that a clear statement by Parliament that schools should participate in co-operation arrangements would be the simplest and most straightforward way of saying that schools should participate in co-operation arrangements. Schools which wish to become extended schools are most likely to want to participate in co-operation arrangements. Although the five-year plan has statements such as, "We want every secondary school to become an extended school", in reality that would mean, to paraphrase the plan, that they will provide some study support activities before and after school and at lunch times; let out rooms to enable community use of school facilities and encourage family learning.
That is not the sort of co-operation envisaged in the Bill. Indeed, these are not the services which are needed by students likely to fall through the gap. Services to support the hardest to reach young people are likely to be provided in the 240 "full service" extended schools, which we hope will be set up by 2006 as promised in the five-year plan. This amounts to barely more than 10 per cent of secondary schools and 1 per cent of the total number of schools.
The likelihood is that most children who need such services will not be attending such a school where the services they need are on site. The full co-operation of the home, non-extended school will be required if young people are to take advantage of the available services. If the schools do not want to co-operate, those children will continue to fall through the gap. It is for that reason that we should like to see the Bill amended and for it to be made clear that all schools should co-operate. Amending Schedule 1 in the way suggested would enable that to take place. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, we have had discussions on this both in Committee and on Report. I was grateful for her recap of what I said because it means that I do not have to repeat it.
It is the case that we want these arrangements to be strategic. This is about joint planning, joint commissioning, sharing resources and pooling
1496
budgets. That is why we have listed the relevant partners and placed them under a duty to co-operate with these arrangements at a strategic level because they are strategic level bodies.
However, as the noble Baroness indicated, I said that schools and other frontline delivery agents are central to the delivery of the outcomes for children and young people, and that children's services authorities and relevant partners will need to consider how schools and other providers can be effectively involved in the planning and delivery of services for children and young people.
Our approach to this is to make it clear in statutory guidance that schools should be involved in whatever way is most appropriate locally. That might be directly through a local partnership body or through existing collaborative and consultative mechanisms. We just do not believe that it is a matter for central prescription but rather something that should be left to local decision making as appropriate depending on the type of school, the way in which the schools are operated, and so forth.
I do not accept—I know that the noble Baroness did not say this but I feel that perhaps it is implied—that schools will be reluctant to engage with this. We can talk about extended schools. As she knows, I have a five-hour speech on extended schools ready at any point. I shall resist.
Schools have thought about how best to support not only the children within their own school community but the community at large, within their own resources; they have thought about the way in which they organise themselves to work collaboratively with other services and to recognise that children arrive with all the baggage from the day before, good or bad, and they have thought about how best to be able to support children in a broader way.
The information-sharing database and the common assessment framework will help to involve schools more appropriately. We are also considering other ways to encourage schools in effective partnership. This morning my right honourable friend Margaret Hodge made a speech to the inter-agency group, which looked at the way in which the inspection arrangements and the new arrangements we propose could perhaps be used to look at how schools contribute to the five outcomes that we have outlined as being important.
There are lots of different ways in which we want to involve schools. The difference is that we are not going the route of central prescription through legislation but rather allowing schools to do things collaboratively and recognising, as the noble Baroness does, that within the five-year strategy the ways in which schools might take on more functions, as, indeed, some schools already are by delegation from local authorities, gives us a really good opportunity to develop their role more fully.

1497
I hope the noble Baroness will see, if not this evening then as this rolls out, that the amendment is unnecessary. I completely agree with her that engaging schools is important. We just think that there is probably an easier and better way.
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, at this hour I certainly shall not press the amendment. I should like to leave two thoughts with the Minister. First, should not Section 21 of the Education Act 2002 be amended to take account of the existence of children's services authorities? Secondly, I would like her to ponder the changing role of schools within the community as envisaged by the Government. Many schools are being created as more independent and autonomous entities. It is very important that, as regards the Children Act and the setting up of children's services authorities, schools play a part.
When we argued the case, the Minister always argued, "Yes, but the local education authorities are there as the strategic partners. They are the corporate parents in relation to looked-after children and so on". In many cases, the local education authority is going to play a very small part, and sometimes no part whatever, in the government of the school. In such cases schools themselves will have to be brought in as partners. There is no mechanism within the Act for doing that. So I should like the Minister to ponder that as the Bill goes on to the other place and to think about whether it might not be appropriate.
We are suggesting a very minor change—one that the Government should, arguably, be making anyway. They have set up a new institution, the children's services authority, which should be accommodated within the framework of the Education Act 2002. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 49:
Line 6, after "panels," insert "the defence of reasonable punishment,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Student Fees (Amounts) (England) Regulations 2004
6.52 p.m.
Lord Triesmanrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 24 of the Act makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the basic and higher amounts which will apply from 2006–07. These regulations were
1498
made available in draft form during the passage of the Bill, so I believe that noble Lords will already be familiar with their content.
The regulations perform two functions. First, they set a basic and higher amount for the fees which may be charged to full-time undergraduate students. Secondly, they describe the courses to which lower limits apply in an academic year.
The process for agreeing the regulations is set out in Section 26 of the Act. In the case of a first set of regulations, the Act requires that the regulations are laid before and approved by each House. That is the purpose of today's debate.
Future increases in both the basic and higher amounts are restricted to inflation unless, in the case of the basic amount, approved by affirmative resolution, or, in the case of the higher amount, by an amendable resolution. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that that was one of the concessions we made during the passage of the Bill in order to strengthen the role of Parliament in this process and to reinforce our commitment that any debate on above-inflation rises in the higher amount should take place on the Floor of both Houses.
In any case, no such increases can take place before 2010 at the earliest. That, too, is written on the face of the Bill.
We have already spent a good deal of time discussing the principle of variability, and I am sure that noble Lords will not think it appropriate to go over that ground again this evening. The regulations simply set the fee levels that we discussed throughout the passage of the Bill and will apply to full-time, undergraduate courses from 2006–07. Only institutions with an agreed access plan will be able to charge up to the higher fee. Those without such a plan will be restricted to the basic fee. The framework for the sanctions regime, which will apply if an institution charges more than it should do, is set out in the Act. It was subject to considerable debate in your Lordships' House. That is in the condition of grant, which we intend to lay on the Higher Education Funding Council for England. We published a draft of the condition of grant when we debated the fees section of the Act in Committee. I hope that it goes without saying that we do not expect institutions to act in a way that would necessitate the use of those provisions, but as noble Lords will know, they offer important safeguards for students.
Ordinarily, the fee levels set out in Regulation 4 will apply: a basic amount of £1,200 and a higher amount of £3,000. There will be specific courses where a different basic and lower amount will apply, and those are set out in Regulation 5. Under that regulation, the basic and higher amounts are set at £600 and £1,500 respectively, half of the levels that would normally apply. Noble Lords will recognise that the courses listed in this section are essentially those for which students already pay half-rate fees under the current system. They include students on sandwich placements; students undertaking a year abroad; students on part-time ITT courses; and students whose final year lasts for 15 weeks or less.

1499
For those students, we are continuing the half-rate principle, but whereas the present institutions automatically charge the half-rate fee for those courses because that is the rule that has been set by the Government, in future they will have the discretion on what level to charge, up to those fee caps. They can charge very much less if they wish, and they will need to justify to their students charging at the level they propose for the year abroad and so on.
It is those regulations, backed by the Act's provisions, which give effect to our promise that fees will be no more than £3,000 in real terms. The regulations complete the set of undertakings about fees that we made when we took the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. As your Lordships will no doubt recall, there was some talk at the time that we would not stick to £3,000 as a cap. Fanciful figures of £10,000 and £15,000 were mentioned. Our intentions have always been clear, and these regulations deliver to the letter on the promises. Once made, the £3,000 cap cannot be lifted by more than inflation until 2010 at the earliest. That is due to Section 26 of the Act. By then, Parliament will have had the benefit of the report by the independent commission, which will report directly to Parliament in 2009 on the first three years of fee variability.
The content of these regulations and the principles that underlie them are already familiar to the House and have been subject to extremely painstaking and detailed debate. I remember it all with great affection. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)
Baroness SeccombeMy Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the regulations. One listens to the pledges in the regulations and considers the hollow pledge that was made in the manifesto of 2001:
We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them.
It is disappointing that the Government broke those manifesto commitments. We can only hope that the pledges that they have given this time will not be broken as soon.
In the 1998 Act, the Treasury, having introduced fees when it said it would not, kept the cash that it received. Since that time, government funding per student has fallen by 10 per cent. Now students are to be saddled with debts of around £30,000. But as the Minister said, we have debated these issues at great length in recent days. Now is not the time to revisit the matter as I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time by repeating myself.
I shall make a few points. I am glad that eventually the Government did climb down over gap year fees. It will certainly help 28,000 students and their families. I particularly wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, for all her efforts in achieving that.
1500
We are grateful for other changes as the Bill progressed, but obviously disappointed that there were not more. The removal of additionality from the Bill in another place was distressing, particularly as the Government failed to back up their arguments. But perhaps the most important problem that remains with the Bill is that it will not fill the funding gap. Who knows whether future students will be deterred by the huge increase in fees. The regulations cause me sadness and now we have to await the decision of the electorate.
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, when I studied economics there was a category of goods which were called regrettable necessities. I regard the regulations before us today as regrettable necessities. As the noble Lord made clear, we have debated at some length fairly recently the Act on which these regulations are based. I argued hard and passionately that there should be no basic or higher amount because from these Benches we wish to see no fees at all. I did not receive support from all sides of the House and certainly not from the Government Benches. We did not manage to change the Government's position. It is therefore a regrettable necessity that we now have these regulations before us. In so far as they are a true reflection of what we agreed within the Act, I have no quarrel with them whatever.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I believe that the Act opens up a new era for British students. We shall see young graduates burdened with very considerable amounts of debt. It will be very interesting to see the reaction of graduates. That is one of the issues that we debated; namely, the unintended consequences. My noble friend Lord Russell has just reminded me that we already have great problems in recruiting for courses in our chemistry departments, which are normally four-year degree courses. Therefore, a larger amount of debt is entailed. It is quite likely that some of the science departments will find themselves in considerable trouble when recruiting students from now on. We shall see.
I accept the Minister's statement that the Government will abide by their promise not to raise the fees until 2010. When they are raised they will come before this House, as these regulations have, for authorisation. We shall have a chance to debate them. Sums in the region of £10,000 and £15,000 were mentioned as regards the rise we might see in 2010. The Minister may remember that it was no less a person than the Rector of Imperial College who raised the possibility of fees in the region of £15,000 per student.
For the moment the higher amount will be £3,000, which we accept. We have no quarrel with the regulations although we do regret them.
Lord TriesmanMy Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments. Their speeches merit a short reply, not least the invitation to the electorate made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, to pass the final judgment on this matter. The manifesto commitment was made in response to a threat towards the end of the last Parliament that some universities

1501
wanted to charge up-front fees of up to £15,000 a year. Sir Richard Sykes may well have such an ambition, but he may feel that that has been somewhat limited by the legislation that has been before the House. I believed then and I believe now that such an unregulated system would be wholly wrong. That is why the commitments were made and unregulated fees are still prohibited by the legislation that has been passed. The £3,000 cap remains in place.
It is also worth reiterating an undertaking given in the debate on the Bill which I make in response to the comment of the noble Baroness about what was said and done in 1998. We believe that the increases that have been introduced in the recent spending reviews will cover a large proportion of the financial needs of the sector in the short term while, over the longer term, income from variable fees will provide additional funding worth around £1 billion per year. I want to make the further point that if, as we expect, the fees generate an extra £1 billion, that is what the universities will get, not a pound less. I could not put it more simply than that.
Earl RussellMy Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House how the Government decide which of the financial wants of universities they choose to classify as needs. What evidence do they use to reach that decision?
Lord TriesmanMy Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows the answer even before I say it. The funding councils in the various parts of the United Kingdom are explicit about what they believe are the needs of universities in their forward bids. The organisation Universities UK makes detailed observations, as do other bodies. They are charged with the good stewardship of the finances of universities and, generally speaking, they express the
1502
needs. Whether it is always possible to meet the full needs they describe is another matter, but in general we have tried to do so on their advice.
I turn to a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in describing some of the consequences. Of course these are early days and it is true that we will be reviewing the consequences. The data currently available cover only the impact of the level of fees thus far. Inevitably that is true. But I do not think that there are grounds for deep pessimism. The UCAS figures published only a couple of days ago have quite rightly received a little press attention, although perhaps not as much as they should. They show that the total number of applications in the most recent UCAS figures is up by 2.9 per cent. I shall not go through the whole list, but the noble Baroness mentioned chemistry in particular. Applications for chemistry courses have risen by 6.5 per cent over the year. I am encouraged by that because I want to see the sciences prosper as well as other subjects. People coming through in the sciences must be an encouraging sign for us all, irrespective of our approach to the Bill.
I think that I have responded to the main points made by the two noble Baronesses. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Traffic Management Bill
Bill returned from the Commons with certain Lords amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with a further Lords amendment disagreed to but with amendments proposed to the words so restored to the Bill; and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to; it was ordered that the Commons reasons and amendments be printed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Pensions Bill (Fourth Day)
  The Committee met at eleven of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
  Clause 85 [Procedure for issue and publication of codes of practice]:
  Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 167:
  Page 61, line 5, leave out subsections (5) to (8) and insert—

  (5) If the Regulator determines to proceed with a draft, he must send it to the Secretary of State who—

  (a) if he approves of it, must make the code of practice in the form of the draft, and

  (b) if he does not approve of it, must publish details of his reasons for withholding approval.

  (6) The power to make a code of practice under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument."

  The noble Lordsaid: At the end of our proceedings on Tuesday, I put the Minister on warning that I would make a faintly retrospective speech about Clause 84 and its relationship to Clause 85. She said that she would not complain too much. It is in Hansard.
  As the Committee will know, I have now spent just over one third of my life in this House sitting on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. For some reason, the committee is not subject to the three-year return, but I will not be asking the Minister why as I do not believe it is in her province.
  This series of amendments point out that it is bad statutory instrument practice for a quango to make legally binding codes of practice. I accept that the Bill does not propose this, but the Secretary of State confirms the codes of practice. I recall that on Second Reading the noble Baroness and I had a little exchange about the degree of the legally binding effect (col. 386). In effect, she said that obeying or not obeying the regulator's codes of practice would be taken into account in any legal proceedings under Clause 84(5), but no more than that.
  We can argue about the weakness of the Bill's provisions in this regard probably till the cows come home. But I would say that if the Secretary of State gets involved in the codes of practice that are laid before Parliament—albeit subject to negative resolution under the Bill, but affirmative under this proposal—they should be legally binding and not merely taken account of.
  Be that as it may, the current drafting in subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Clause 85 is extremely complicated. We have therefore sought to simplify it by using the
  GC 308
  formulation we already have in the Bill under Clause 301(1). It surely is not necessary to have subsection (7) in particular, which encapsulates part of the Statutory Instruments Act 1947. As subsection (8) again states, the obvious I would ask the Minister why it is necessary. It is, after all, practice that a statutory instrument is law until it is replaced by another one. I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)Clause 85 sets out the procedure for issue and publication of codes of practice. Before a code of practice, including a revised code of practice, can be issued by the regulator, a draft of the code must be published for consultation with persons whom it considers appropriate and anyone the Secretary of State identifies.
  Before a code of practice may be issued, the regulator must send it to the Secretary of State which, if it approves the code, will lay before Parliament or, if it disapproves, must publish details of its reasons for withholding consent. The normal procedure then applies associated with either negative or affirmative regulations.
  Amendment No. 344 would require each code of practice to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which we would resist because we believe it would create unnecessary delay and restrict the ability of the regulator to respond quickly to changes and address changes needed to its code of practice.
  However, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised a couple of different issues. On the negative/affirmative issue, perhaps I may put a proposition to him which on that point he might find helpful. It is that we do not move away from the negative procedure simply because some of the codes may be extremely technical and not appropriate to come to Parliament. Others may be general.
  I am happy—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, will find this helpful—that wherever a code of practice is being laid under negative procedure, I write to the two Opposition spokes people and place it in the Library so that they will know it is there. They will not then have to rely on their researchers to be informed that it exists.
  That would give ample opportunity to pray against it and make a judgment about whether it is appropriate to bring it on to the Floor of House. I would not wish to make all codes of practice affirmative because they will vary in their degrees of specificity and it might be a waste of the time of the House. If it would be helpful for me to give advance notice—indeed, I would be happy to send copies of each instrument—noble Lords can then decide whether they wish to pray against them. This might meet that objective. Let me pause for a moment and see whether that would be helpful.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayI shall obviously have to consider that. How far in advance would this be? What sort of timescale or notice would we get from these letters? What is the intention?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI have no idea. I am trying to find a way through a dilemma here. It is quite

  GC 309
  clear that some codes of practice, though not legally binding, can none the less be used evidentially—that was the phrase we used last time. It is therefore important, at least to start with, that people have an opportunity to scrutinise them. Some codes of practice may be sufficiently technical not to do so. When Secretary of State lays a code of practice before Parliament, there is normally up to 40 praying days against. When he lays it in the Library, I will undertake to notify noble Lords so that as a result there are 40 praying days in which to look at it. I do not know whether that would be helpful but it is a way of us doing the noble Lords' research work for them. It allows noble Lords to discriminate in a way that cannot be done if we make blanket negative or affirmative regs.
  Lord SkelmersdaleI shall respond to that as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, has done so. Personally, I would find that extremely helpful and I am sure that my successors will, too. I take it that this suggestion will be binding, but more on the department than the Minister of the day. As the noble Baroness will remember, in Opposition the research work available is next door to nil, although I have to accept that under recent arrangements it has got marginally better, but only marginally, in this House. All of us in Opposition are still extremely jealous of our MP colleagues and what they manage to achieve.
  I assume from what the Minister has just said that at the same time that the instrument is sent to the Clerks of the Joint Committee it would also be sent to the spokesmen of the day in this House. It would be the easiest way for everybody.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy concern is entirely for this House. What they do down the other end is a matter for arrangements down there. I was giving an undertaking. I have been in the situation myself and it is very difficult to monitor negative regs and keep apace of them, particularly in the DWP. I was trying to think my way through the dilemma by what I would have found useful. I am making the offer that when laying the instrument in the Library, I shall write to the noble Lords and do my best to ensure that a copy of the instrument is enclosed. That would make approximately 40 days' praying time available for the noble Lords to decide. It is important and the noble Lords will decide that perhaps one code in two, three or seven may be appropriate to be debated on the Floor of the House.
  As to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on whether codes of practice are legally binding, they are not, but they are evidential. The reason is that a code sets out the regulator's interpretation of good practice. Therefore, any person to whom a code is relevant—for example, a trustee taking action within a "reasonable time"—may take an alternative course of action as long as he complies with the law. In the event that the regulator was of the opinion that that trustee was not complying, the onus would fall on the trustee to show that, although he did not follow the code, he is still within the law. In other
  GC 310
  words, there may be a way to get to the terminal point that is not along the route laid out by the codes of practice. If the trustee can establish that, this procedure would be acceptable.
  It not legally binding because it would put in rigidity—at least as rigid as that on the face of the Bill. The last thing one wants is for a code of practice to have that degree of rigidity but it does carry strong evidential weight. The onus of proof is on the trustee to show that he has arrived at the objective by a somewhat different route, perhaps, than is acceptable to the code of practice. I am advised that that is the reason why it is not legally binding. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord SkelmersdaleNot yet, because the noble Baroness has not answered my third point, which concerned the complicated drafting of the clause compared with Clause 301(1).
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamOne area that I have difficulty describing, explaining or negotiating is drafting. Having had the pleasure of being Ministers, the noble Lord and the noble Lords, Lord Higgins, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Lucas, will know that what happens is that policy intent goes via parliamentary counsel. Parliamentary counsel determines the precise phraseology of clauses and it is the judgment of parliamentary counsel that this is the appropriate way to meet the objectives. So I cannot help the noble Lord any further.
  However, I am perfectly happy to ask our lawyers to write to him explaining why the clause has taken the form that it has. I can deal only with the policy intent and try to get parliamentary lawyers to explain why it has come back in the form that it has, rather than taking what would appear to be a more obvious route. I am sorry that I cannot help the noble Lord any further than that but, as I know that he has been in this position himself, I expect the utmost sympathy.
  Lord SkelmersdaleOf course I am sympathetic, but I was fishing for exactly the response that I received: an explanation from the draftsmen, or from lawyers in the department, of what I still regard as a curious and unnecessary form of drafting. However, I have responded to the very generous offer that the noble Baroness made to us about advance warning of negative resolutions. I am very pleased with that. Of course, codes of practice are the regulator's interpretation of good practice; I accept that. However, as the noble Baroness and I pointed out in opening the debate, they have the sanction of the Secretary of State, so they are a little more forceful, shall we say, then they would otherwise be. I shall continue to consider the matter, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 85 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord HigginsI shall speak briefly because my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale dealt in considerable detail and with expertise with the strangely drafted form of the clause. The trouble with giving parliamentary counsel instructions is that when you come months later to debate the Bill in Committee, you often find a clause that is totally incomprehensible and unrecognisable, so you wonder what on earth it is about until you realise that it is the thing that you originally gave instructions about.
  I have only two trivial points to make about the clause. It states:
  The Regulator must arrange for any code…to be published in the way,
  that appears to be appropriate.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamCould the noble Lord give me the line reference?
  Lord HigginsIt is line 30 on page 61. The question is how it is proposed that it should be published. It is obviously important that individual trustees, and so on, receive it. The Treasury seems to be being quite mean by normal Treasury standards in asking for a charge to be made. What sort of revenue are the Government expecting to receive from the Treasury charging for the code of practice to be issued? The Treasury really does not need to go that far in facilitating the operation of the Bill, which otherwise is in many ways worth while.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI am delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, encouraging us to spend money—I am sure that it is for a good cause. Under subsection (10), we expect publication to be valid whether it is by paper or the Web, so that people have access to it.
  Secondly, we do not expect that there will normally be a fee under subsection (11). But if a company requested 1,000 copies, one for each of its members, it would seem reasonable to consider a charge so that the provision was not at the expense of others. It is a matter of judgment, but normally there would be no problem with sending out a copy. If a company wanted every member to have a copy, as a result of which a very large amount of trees were involved, it would not be unreasonable to consider an appropriate fee—it would be non-profit-making, I am sure.
  11.15 a.m.
  Baroness Turner of CamdenI was interested in the reference to consultation in Clause 85. It states:
  Where the Regulator publishes a draft…it must consult—
  (a) such persons as it considers appropriate, and
  (b) any other persons the Secretary of State requires it to consult.
  Where would the list of people to consult come from and who would those people be? If a code of practice affects how trustees are expected to operate, it is necessary that trustees are consulted. As my noble friend is aware, an organisation of trustees from major companies has already been established. It has drafted its own code of trustees, which it put to the department. I would like to see such people consulted
  GC 312
  in connection with these codes. Can my noble friend give us any information on how such lists, if there are any, are compiled?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI am not sure whether we have lists as such. All that I would say is that I have never known a Bill that has involved so much consultation—on policy intent, the draft regulations and so on. The intention is to consult as widely but as appropriately as possible; for example, it might not be sensible to involve insolvency practitioners on an issue associated with how many staff there might be for the removal of the tracing service from OPRA to the Department for Work and Pensions, but it might be very appropriate to consult the union of the staff concerned, because their conditions of employment may change or a TUPE issue may be involved. All I can suggest to my noble friend is that this is one of those occasions where one says, "I am from the Government; please trust me".
  Lord Hunt of WirralI hesitate to follow that last remark, because I thought that that was one of the great untruths.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIt depends on who says it.
  Lord Hunt of WirralFrom the Minister's mouth, I would readily believe it, but from some other mouths I would not.
  On Clauses 84 and 85, I am aware not only of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Higgins but of the serious concern expressed by the Association of British Insurers (ABI). Its head of pensions and savings, Joanne Segars, has said that she and many members of the ABI are seriously concerned that there is a danger that the Bill as currently drafted, particularly Clause 85, will not provide for good pension scheme governance.
  I realise that we have debated some of these issues already. I hope that there will be time, before we resume after the Recess, for the Minister and her colleagues to discuss some of the issues involved with the representative organisation. It is in everybody's interest that we have good pension governance.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThat is absolutely right; I certainly promise to discuss the issues. I understand where people are coming from on this clause. Would noble Lords find it helpful if I asked our lawyers to provide a detailed description of the clause—the weight of its words, the cross-references and its import—and to ensure that it is circulated to everybody before Report? If noble Lords would find such a legal deconstruction helpful I am very happy to make that offer. It is absurd, if people of the experience and expertise of your Lordships are struggling with the clause, to expect people outside, who possibly do not have that expertise, to have easy access to it. It may be that, if we have any supplementary guidance and so on, we can ensure that it covers the description of the clause.

  GC 313
  Members of the Committee may find other clauses similarly opaque. Some of the difficulty, although not very much of it, is about cross-referencing back to previous pensions Acts. If and when—I hope that it will not be too long—we get a consolidation Act—we shall not face that problem. That could be next week or next decade. Who knows?
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayIt could not be next week.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamNo, I agree—that was a rash hypothesis. But if any other clauses fall into that category, Members of the Committee should let me know, and I shall be happy to extend the same offer.
  Clause 85 agreed to.
  Clause 86 [Revocation of codes of practice]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 86 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord HigginsI make only a very brief point. The final subsection, on page 61, refers without prejudice to Section 300, which is a very long section dealing with subordinate legislation and general provisions. The subsection says:
  Without prejudice to section 300, an order under this section may contain such savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
  I am not familiar with the expression "savings", and I have no idea what it means in this context.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI am sure that "savings" here does not mean cash. Let me add that to the letter that I shall write about Clause 85. Apparently "savings" carries a legal import here with which I am unfamiliar.
  Clause 86 agreed to.
  Clause 87 [The Regulator's procedure in relation to its regulatory functions]:
  [Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
  Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 170:
  Page 62, line 26, at end insert—
  "( ) power to issue a contribution notice under section 35;
  ( ) power to issue financial support directions under section 39;
  ( ) power to issue contribution notices where financial support directions not complied with under section 42;
  ( ) power to issue a restoration order where a transaction is at an undervalue under section 47;
  ( ) power to issue a contribution notice where a restoration order is not complied with under section 50"
  The noble Lordsaid: The amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, and is intended to be helpful—as, indeed, all our amendments are intended to be. Nowhere in the Bill does it appear that there is any requirement for the regulator to determine the code of procedure for the powers enumerated in the amendment. We are under the impression that that may be an oversight, and the amendment seeks to remedy it if that is the case.
  GC 314
  Currently the regulator's exercise of the powers is not within the scope of the pensions regulator tribunal in Clauses 91 and 93, and so not subject to any judicial oversight as to fact or law. The amendment seeks to put the matter right. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI see the point of the amendment, but I wonder whether it is at all necessary. It would add a number of functions to the list of regulatory functions of the regulator contained in Clause 87(2). The functions of the question are the powers that the regulator may exercise under the clauses that we debated very extensively and which cover moral hazard—Clauses 35 to 50.
  The list of regulatory functions in Clause 87(2)(c) includes the functions reserved to the Determinations Panel and listed in Schedule 2. That schedule already contains the powers that are the subject of Amendment No. 170. Members of the Committee will find them on page 245 of the Bill. Those powers are therefore already classed as regulatory functions. In other words, we do not disagree, but what the noble Lord is asking for is in one of the schedules that is tucked away in Volume II of the Bill, in Part 4. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord HigginsI am grateful for that response. Is it the case, however, that the regulator's exercise of the powers is not within the scope of the Pensions Regulator Tribunal, and so on, and not subject to any judicial oversight as to fact or law?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamNo, it certainly comes within the purview of the oversight of the pension tribunal.
  Lord HigginsWe will obviously need to do further homework and, if need be, come back at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 87 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Viscount TrenchardI have a point regarding Clause 87, which I found confusing. Subsection (1) states:
  The Regulator must determine the procedure that it proposes to follow in relation to the exercise of its regulatory functions.
  That includes, as the Minister pointed out, in subsection (2)(c), "the reserved regulatory functions" reserved to the Determinations Panel. But subsection (3) states:
  The Determinations Panel must determine the procedure to be followed,
  in respect of the exercise of those powers.
  The clause seems to state that the reserved regulatory functions are determined by both the regulator and, separately, the Determinations Panel. I am still confused about whether the Determinations Panel is or is not a part of the regulator. Clause 87 seems to state that they will both draw up their own procedures.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe noble Lord is right. The Determinations Panel is a subset of the regulator. That is why, under the functions listed, it is part of what the regulator does. But certain functions that the regulator does are reserved to the Determinations Panel.
  As the noble Viscount will know, there is no overlapping membership whatever. That is not only to meet ECHR requirements but also to overcome a difficulty that OPRA has experienced where there is a problem about appearing to be both judge and jury on one's own issue. It is because the Determinations Panel is part of the regulator. None the less, it will determine its own procedures within its own area of activities.
  Viscount TrenchardI thank the noble Baroness for her reply. But I am still unclear, in respect of the reserved regulatory functions, whether it is the regulator or the Determinations Panel which will determine the procedures to be followed.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe Determinations Panel is part of the regulator. I am obviously not making myself clear. The Determinations Panel will determine its procedures. The point is that because the Determinations Panel is a subset of the regulator, Clause 87(2) gives the comprehensive listing; subsection (3) gives a further specification or a development of the points made in subsection (2). I hope that that is helpful.
  Viscount TrenchardIn respect of this clause, that is helpful, but I shall have to refer back to our previous discussions about the difference between the regulator and the Determinations Panel. Would I be right in understanding that where it says "the regulator", one can understand the regulator including, if appropriate, the Determinations Panel?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe Determinations Panel is part of the regulator. Clause 87(3) specifies those functions that only the Determinations Panel may do. Equally, it may be that the regulator, minus the Determinations Panel, may send responsibilities across to the Determinations Panel—a one way delegation—in which case, again, the Determinations Panel would be responsible.
  Clause 87 agreed to.
  Clause 88 [Publication of procedure in relation to regulatory functions]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 88 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord HigginsAgain, this is a very detailed point, as indeed are all points on this section. The drafting gives rise to some confusion. I find somewhat puzzling that suddenly, under Clause 88(5),
  The Regulator must, without delay, give the Secretary of State a copy of any statement which it issues.
  Do I gather that the regulator will not have consulted the Secretary of State previously and that the statement will suddenly land on the Secretary of State's desk having all been decided? If the Secretary
  GC 316
  of State does not like it, what can he do about it? I shall leave to one side the fact that he has to give it to the Secretary of State rather than charge him.
  11.30 a.m.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe Secretary of State will certainly not be determining what the regulator will do. The regulator will not be consulting. The Secretary of State will receive the copy from the regulator. The regulator is at arm's length from the Secretary of State, which I am sure is what we would wish.
  Lord HigginsFine. The Secretary of State has no role in the matter at all. So why is he sent a copy?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIt is partly a courtesy and partly—I am trying to think of an example. There might be some annual report or the sort of information that the Secretary of State may wish to know, which may influence policy development within the department and so on. It is a courtesy. But the point is that we are seeking to protect the integrity and independence of the regulator at arm's length, so that he does not have to have the approval of the Secretary of State to exercise his functions appropriately.
  Lord HigginsI do find it odd.
  Clause 88 agreed to.
  Clauses 89 and 90 agreed to.
  Clause 91 [Special procedure: applicable cases]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 171:
  Page 66, line 13, at end insert—
  ( ) the power to make or extend a restraining order under section (Pension liberation: restraining orders):
  The noble Baronesssaid: This is a further consequential amendment resulting from the introduction of the new clauses to combat pensions liberation. Whenever we use the words "pensions liberation" it is in heavy inverted commas. Due to an administrative oversight the amendment was not moved in Committee on 8 July with other government amendments. It should have been and I failed to do so. So I would hope that I could move it formally. The matter is consequential and I am happy to explain at greater length, but I do not wish to take up the Committee's time unnecessarily. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 91 agreed to.
  Clauses 92 to 94 agreed to.
  Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 172:
  After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
  "SECTION 35 CLEARANCE

  If a person is in doubt whether an act or deliberate failure to act within the meaning of section 53(4) may be such that the Regulator would consider to constitute an act or deliberate failure to act in relation to which it would be appropriate to issue a contribution notice under section 35, that person may seek a ruling from the Regulator in the prescribed manner.

  The Regulator shall issue a ruling within the prescribed period.

  GC 317

  Any ruling issued by the Regulator under subsection (2) shall be binding and shall be admissible in evidence in any legal proceedings and if relevant must be taken into account in determining any question arising in the proceedings.

  The Secretary of State shall make regulations under this section relating to—

  the manner of seeking a ruling from the Regulator;

  the information to be provided to the Regulator;

  the requirement on the Regulator to keep all information provided confidential;

  periods within which the Regulator must respond to any request for a ruling, depending on its urgency;

  the manner of the Regulator's reply; and

  such other matters as the Secretary of State considers relevant."

  The noble Lordsaid: This is concerned with clearance. We are suggesting that:
  If a person is in doubt whether an act or deliberate failure to act within the meaning of Section 53(4) may be such that the Regulator would consider to constitute and act or deliberate failure to act in relation to
  that section for example,
  it would be appropriate to issue a contribution notice under section 35, that person may seek a ruling from the Regulator in the prescribed manner.
  Then the regulator can issue a ruling. I shall not burden the Committee with the remainder of the amendment. The Government indicated at Second Reading that they would look favourably on an amendment to introduce a clearance procedure. There would seem to be a clear need for such a clearance procedure in addition to the code of practice that we have been considering. It is intended that the code of practice would give sufficient guidance to a person considering a transaction to take a view on the likelihood of the regulator issuing a notice. This would, it is hoped, suffice for many transactions and ought to take away some of the workload from the regulator. None the less, there may be grey areas in relation to which it is desirable for the regulator to reach a rapid decision. In those circumstances, it would seem appropriate to have a clearance procedure. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamAs the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, indicated, during Second Reading and our discussions on the moral hazard issues, I have come to realise the increasing importance of the clearance procedure as a way to act as a sensitive discriminator between good-faith and non-good-faith activities which may affect pension funds.
  I gave the undertaking that we would be discussing the issue with the industry during the summer and to provide further clarification. The amendment suggests a statutory procedure, but I would be reluctant to have a statutory procedure which puts a lot of delays into the system and has to go through the parliamentary system, codes of practice or regulations.
  However, it is obvious that we need to make clear the way in which the mechanism will work. That is exactly what we need to discuss with the industry during the summer and I hope that as a result we will have a clearer outline of the scheme. It will not be
  GC 318
  enough to leave it to an informal telephone conversation—we must have a scheme which people know how to enter and be confident about their behaviour. We therefore must devise something with a shape to it and I hope that we will be able to do that before the Report stage.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayWe look forward to the result of these consultations over what will be a very busy summer for the noble Baroness.
  Lord HigginsI am grateful to the noble Baroness for that offer. There is one other point which ought to be considered in the same context; that the regulator should give a broad view as to why he has reached a particular decision so that if a transaction between, say, A and B falls through and then the same transaction arises between A and C, the group would not need to go through the whole clearance procedure a second time. Perhaps in the course of the discussions that can be taken into account.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIt would depend on the circumstances. You cannot give a planning permission in advance for all possible mergers and acquisitions to which a particular company may be exposed because their terms may differ considerably. While I take what the noble Lord says on board and will ensure that it is put into the considerations, it would be unwise to say to a particular company, "Now go ahead, whatever you want to do will be okay by us because you only have to go through the clearance procedure. This merger has now fallen through and for any other five, 10 or 15 you may dabble with that clearance still applies". I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intends.
  We need expert involvement in this area from the industry and most of us will be very busy over the summer.
  Lord HigginsI beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 95 [Powers to vary or revoke orders, notices or directions etc]:
  Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 173:
  Page 69, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lordsaid: This is a quickie from me but I am afraid that it might be a slow answer from the Minister. Clause 95(1) is about the regulator changing its mind—in the early days of its existence, OPRA's mind—except in the specific instances mentioned in subsection (2). They are: an order under Section 3(3) of the 1995 Act; Section 4(5) of the same Act; and Section 2(3) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act.
  Besides each of these, I have a note in my Bill, "Why can't it change its mind about these provisions?". Under Amendment No. 174, which leaves out

  GC 319
  subsection (5)(a), if the regulator decides to revoke or vary, how can it not be a regulatory function to allow it to do so? It seems very strange indeed. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamAs the noble Lord suspected, the answer is slightly techie, but I am happy to place it on the record so that he can have a nice busy summer contemplating our exchanges in Hansard.
  Subject to specified exceptions, Clause 95 gives the regulator the power to vary or revoke any determination notice, direction or order that it issues in exercising its regulatory functions. This power enables the regulator to change any determination, if necessary; for example, in the light of new evidence or representations received. Obviously, that would be a desirable flexibility which I am sure would be welcome. Any variation or revocation cannot take effect before the date on which the variation or revocation is made.
  I suggest, therefore, that the amendments are unnecessary because subsection (2) as drafted requires trustees of occupational schemes to make a fresh application, for example, based on new evidence or new representations on cases where they disagree with the determination of the regulator—in particular, on an order under Section 3(3) of the Pensions Act 1995 revoking a prohibition order, an order under Section 4(5) of that Act revoking a suspension order, or a direction under Section 2(3) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 refusing to register a scheme under Section 2 of that Act or removing a scheme from the register of stakeholder pension schemes.
  Subsection (5)(a) enables the regulator to vary or revoke any determination order, notice or direction at any stage after the initial determination. We believe that that ensures the effective use of the regulator's resources.
  Viscount TrenchardIs Clause 95 also intended to cover occasions where the regulator may have determined not to exercise a regulatory function? Given information to that effect to somebody who sought the regulator's opinion, does it mean that the regulator may subsequently change its mind and decide to exercise a regulatory function whereas it had previously decided not to?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamNo. This is not about a simple change of mind; it is about new evidence coming forward as a result of which the grounds on which the original determination was made were inappropriate.
  Lord SkelmersdaleI am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall have to study her previous answer to my noble friend Lord Trenchard very carefully.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI have just been given an example of how it might work. If a trustee is suspended or prohibited, he can apply for that decision to be revoked, but there is an independent procedure for that and the application means that all directly
  GC 320
  affected parties can be involved. That is the sort of situation to which, I think, the noble Viscount referred.
  Viscount TrenchardI thank the noble Baroness but I fear that I have not made myself sufficiently clear. I was asking what happens if the regulator has been asked whether it will determine to exercise a regulatory function and decides not to. Subsequent to that clearance, is it entitled to vary its decision not to exercise a regulatory function?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI find that very hard to answer because it depends on the degree of significance of the altering circumstances—whether the closed procedure has been gone through and whether there is sufficient basis for the regulator to decide that its first decision was erroneous because it was based on, say, incomplete information. At the end of the day, the regulator must be able to make what it believes to be the correct decision. If the circumstances are such that it would be clearly incorrect to proceed on the all-clear process of the clearance procedure, the regulator must be in a position to say that new information has come to light and that it needs to reconsider its "good faith" clearance. It would be very difficult to be more precise than that, because I simply do not know under what circumstance that situation might arise. The presumption is that when all parties are acting in good faith, the clearance procedure would stick. When there was either subsequent evidence of lack of good faith or additional significant information, I would expect the regulator to be able to say that its original steer needed to be reviewed.
  11.45 a.m.
  Baroness NoakesThe point raised by my noble friend is important, and it will come back to what is in the clearance procedure. In that regard, I believe that I heard the Minister say that she did not anticipate a statutorily based clearance procedure, but one that was somehow dealt with in regulations. The more one thinks about the kind of situations that might arise, having something based wholly in regulations and not having any statutory force seems to me to create a significant problem for businesses that will need to deal with the regulator. It may not be an issue that we can debate any further today, but it seems to me that a statutory clearance procedure is what we shall need out of the summer's deliberations.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI am not persuaded by that argument, although I take the point of the need for as much certainty as possible in good faith in certain situations.
  If the regulator exercises a function, it may vary or revoke it. If it does not exercise a function, there is nothing to vary or revoke. In that sense, the regulator may revisit if it has already taken some action; if it has not taken action, it is still open to it to do so. I am not sure that we can take that matter much further, as we are dealing with an array of circumstances.
  GC 321
  Perhaps it would be helpful to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that if they have circumstances in mind in which it would be helpful to see how the clause would run, they may write to me. I would be very happy to put that into the summer discussions and come back with an answer. It would be helpful if the noble Viscount could produce two or three examples of his concerns, so I can see what they would look like. At the moment, it is very blue sky, and I do not know whether we are talking about a difficulty with an individual trustee or a serious problem with a merger and acquisition, such that 5,000 pensions are at risk. I do not know at what level the noble Viscount is concerned, so perhaps he could write to me.
  Viscount TrenchardI thank the Minister for her reply, and I shall write to her with an example of what I mean.
  Lord SkelmersdaleThat turned into quite a clause stand part debate—so I hope that with a bit of luck we can get away without having a clause stand part debate.
  I believe that the point that my noble friend Lord Trenchard was making was that it does not actually matter why or what the particular point is on which the regulator changes its mind, but that there should be transparency as to what is going on and what is allowed. I shall have to look very carefully at Hansard for the Minister's response to Amendment No. 174 because, after that discussion, I have forgotten it. I would not dream of asking her to repeat it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
  Clause 95 agreed to.
  Clause 96 [The Pensions Regulator Tribunal]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 96 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord HigginsThis is the lead clause with regard to the Pensions Regulator Tribunal. I am very happy to see the references throughout to the Lord Chancellor who, happily, after the events of 48 hours ago, remains. His continued existence was supported by a very large majority of the Chamber.
  The other thing that puzzles me about the provisions is that although we have a splendid clause dealing with the references to the tribunal, appeals on points of law, redetermination—and then the whole of Schedule 4, to which we shall come in a moment—nowhere in the Explanatory Notes does it actually say what the Pensions Regulatory Tribunal will be tribunalling about. There are a large number of references to references, but not what the references relate to or what kind of references will be made. I look in vain for any suggestion as to what they may be. No doubt there is a simple answer and we shall be told why this body is to exist.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamBasically, anyone who is discontented with the warnings of either the
  GC 322
  regulator or the Determinations Panel in particular may appeal on fact or in law to the Pensions Regulator Tribunal. I do not know whether that is enough of an answer. I have a long answer describing the functions, but we do not necessarily have to do the pay and rations stuff, which is basically the appeals procedure—and quite rightly so. It is analogous to and modelled on the Financial Services and Markets Appeals Tribunal (FINSMAT). It will probably be based with FINSMAT, using the same premises, support staff and tribunal members, although there may be some further appointments of members with pensions knowledge. The tribunal will also hear references from determinations made by the regulator or the Determinations Panel. It will be a court of appeal which will act on fact or law—and cases could be sent back to be reconsidered as appropriate.
  Lord HigginsI am grateful for that. I just did not understand why the Explanatory Notes might not have said that.
  Clause 96 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [The Pensions Regulator Tribunal]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 175:
  Page 253, line 24, after "State" insert "and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland"
  The noble Baronesssaid: I shall be brief. This is a technical amendment concerning the distribution of decisions made by the Pensions Regulator Tribunal. As drafted, paragraph 12 of Schedule 4, which lists the rules and procedures surrounding the decisions of the tribunal, requires that copies of those decisions must be sent to the Secretary of State. As the tribunal's remit extends to Northern Ireland, the amendment specifies that copies must also be sent to the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland. I am sure Members of the Committee will welcome the amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be agreed to?
  Lord HigginsI shall be brief. I am slightly puzzled that there are provisions in this schedule for the tribunal to be established and the Lord Chancellor to appoint a panel of persons acting as chairman of the tribunal. But at page 250 he also appoints a president. I am not clear what the relationship is between the president on the one hand and the panel of chairmen on the other. I had assumed that the tribunal would generally operate under one of the members of the panel of chairmen, and that he would preside. But it seems to be that occasionally—I am not clear when—the president will preside.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe president is the chair of the chairmen.
  Lord HigginsSo does he preside only over the panel?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamHe may also be a chairman in his own right. He will be the most senior of
  GC 323
  them. I shall give the noble Lord an example. Wearing another part of my departmental hat, I am responsible for the appeals functions of various matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has been president of the Council of Tribunals and it may well be that when one is discussing the Leggatt reforms, for example, with Judge Harris, it is important to have someone who is the chairman of the chairmen to speak for that body. That is the simple explanation. It may also be appropriate that that person also sits as a chairman in his or her own right.
  Lord BorrieThe Employment Appeal Tribunal, which has a lot of work, has a lot of chairmen—some of whom are women, of course—hearing cases in particular panels. But there is also a president, who gives more time to the whole panoply of operation and administration and is someone to whom government and others look when they want to ask questions about the Employment Appeal Tribunal generally.
  Lord HigginsI am most grateful for both explanations. The only other point that I have on the schedule relates to remuneration and allowances. I should have thought that normally one would specify levels of remuneration and how much someone was going to be paid, rather than leaving the matter completely open.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI have been heavily involved in appeals procedures, and I have never come across a specification. As an example, there might well be people on the disability panel who have very different levels of background, experience and so on. They may have very different time commitments. In such cases, the remuneration has always been determined by the Lord Chancellor, not in any public way. If the noble Lord has a particular question, I could probably find out and give him Privy Council terms. However, I do not believe that such details would normally be on the face of any document.
  Lord SkelmersdaleI hate to prolong the debate, but if and when the Government get their way and abolish the position of Lord Chancellor, given that this Bill represents a very legal operation, it would be unusual to say the least if it followed the formulation in the Constitutional Reform Bill and the references to Lord Chancellor read "Secretary of State" instead. I do not believe that that would be appropriate. Who is it intended shall replace the Lord Chancellor in this Bill?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamShould Parliament so decide, it will be whoever takes over the legal functions of the Lord Chancellor, which I would expect to be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. However, as I have already been teased on the subject twice this morning, I should not want to go beyond that, until we see the outcome of Parliament's decisions.
  Lord BorrieIs it not likely that the Commission for Judicial Appointments, on which there is much wider agreement than the matter of the office of Lord Chancellor, would take over the responsibility for
  GC 324
  appointments, with only a very modest intervention by the relevant Minister? In fact, only one name may be put forward by the Commission for Judicial Appointments, with simply a stamp of approval by the relevant Minister. That kind of arrangement would meet very widespread support, as it is intended for the courts generally, if it applied to tribunals of many kinds, including this one.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI am due to have discussions fairly soon with Judge Harris, who is responsible within our department for our tribunal system. I should be happy to explore the matter with him. When we know what Parliament's intent is, I shall be happy to expand on that. What my noble friend Lord Borrie said may be absolutely right, but because of the interface with the stakeholders in this case a more formal and elaborate input from the Secretary of State may be required. Frankly, I believe that that matter has yet to be worked out, and I need to take advice on it from Judge Harris, who will play a heavy role as we go through to the integrated appeal and tribunal service under the proposals.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clause 97 [References to the Tribunal]:
  Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 176:
  Page 70, line 20, at end insert—
  ( ) If a reference is made to the Tribunal under subsection (1), the Regulator shall issue a risk order under section 20.
  The noble Lordsaid: This is very simple and may for once need only a brief answer. We spent quite a long time discussing freezing orders and the circumstances surrounding the need for emergency stop orders—or "risk orders", as I tried to call them last week. Surely to goodness they should come into play while there is a case before the tribunal, otherwise all sorts of mischief could go on. That is what I am seeking to avoid, as should the Minister. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI politely disagree with the noble Lord, which is unusual because, even when we cannot meet all his concerns, I recognise why he raises them. I think that this is a mistake. The tribunal must direct the regulator to take any action that it considers necessary. We have discussed some of those already. The noble Lord's amendment would require the regulator to issue freezing notices against all cases referred to the tribunal under Clause 97(1). This is undesirable. A freezing order puts a pause button on the whole matter. Whether one wants to freeze a scheme at that time depends entirely upon what issues may be going to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.
  If the regulator thinks that it is appropriate in order to protect the interests of the generality of members of the scheme or that there is an immediate risk to the interests of the members of the scheme or its assets, a freezing order will come into play. There are ample powers to do so. But it is not necessary automatically to freeze a scheme because something is going up to the tribunal under Clause 97(1). That would be far too heavy-handed. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that where a freezing order is appropriate it
  GC 325
  will come into play. It may well come into play on many cases that go up to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal but will not necessarily do so.
  Noon
  Lord SkelmersdaleNow that the noble Baroness has made me think about it, I accept that it should not come into play automatically. But there will be cases where it will be necessary for it to come into play.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIn which case, it will do so.
  Lord SkelmersdaleBut where in the Bill does it say so?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamWe discussed previous clauses on the regulator and there is a power for it to issue a freeze. A freezing order may have a different function from an appeal going to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The Pensions Appeal Tribunal could hear an appeal about the role of particular trustees. That may be a perfectly proper issue to take to the tribunal, but it may not in any sense be jeopardising the scheme. If a freezing order is put on the scheme accruals are not allowed to build up, among other things. If there is no risk to the scheme, it would not be appropriate to impose a freezing order.
  Lord SkelmersdaleI have already accepted that that should not happen.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamBut the regulator has that power independently. If the noble Lord is asking me for the clause reference, I shall dig it out for him.
  Lord SkelmersdaleTell me later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 97 agreed to.
  Clauses 98 to 100 agreed to.
  Clause 101 [The Board of the Pension Protection Fund]:
  Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 177:
  Page 72, line 29, at end insert—
  "( ) In nominating or appointing the Chief Executive, chairman and members of the Board (including members of the Non-Executive Committee, as defined in section 106, and of its sub-committees), regard shall be had to their skills and experience (both as individuals and combined as a group) in view of the functions to be carried out and the requirement for knowledge and understanding under section 238(4).
  ( ) The affairs of the Board shall be conducted having appropriate regard where relevant to the principles set out in the Combined Code on Corporate Governance (as amended or replaced from time to time)."
  The noble Lordsaid: When we were discussing the very complicated issues of some of the earlier clauses in the sitting before last, we started with a broad survey of the situation, which was helpful in putting the matter in context.
  GC 326
  We now come to a very important part of the Bill, dealing with the question of the pension protection fund, the board, the arrangements for the levy and so on. The Committee will have noticed that there is a considerable number of government amendments. The Minister, in her typically helpful way, has written to many of us about this set of amendments. What concerns me is that increasingly—and not just on Department for Work and Pensions Bills—we seem to get large tranches of government amendments at relatively late stages of a Bill, after it has been through the House of Commons. It is very worrying.
  It is now only too apparent that the House of Commons is to a very large extent failing to scrutinise legislation because of the way in which Bills are programmed. It would also be particularly worrying if it is somehow assumed in departments that Bills will be cleared up in the Lords, even though the Commons has totally failed to deal with matters in detail. That would be very worrying. We were talking earlier about Ministers referring matters to draftsmen who then produce the form of the Bill. I get the impression that on that front as well we are getting drafting changes—indeed, very substantial changes—after the Bill is supposed to have been scrutinised in the Commons. While we are a revising Chamber, we are increasingly becoming almost the opposite. We are almost dealing with Bills in toto.
  In the noble Baroness's helpful letter, to which I referred, she pointed out that there are a large number of amendments but she assured us that they would represent only about 10 subject areas in total, mainly around the PPF. It might be helpful if she can let us know which groupings she envisages in dealing with these 10 areas so that we can try to focus on them in an orderly way.
  The only other general point that I wish to make is that we are receiving a lot of correspondence from various people involved in pension funds who are worried about the security of their pensions. Increasingly, it is difficult to work out in the structure of the Bill where particular groups of pensioners fall. Some people's companies have gone bust or, as mentioned earlier, are reneging on their promises. These people appear to fall before the date of the £400 million scheme that we were dealing with in Part 6. Then there will be those who are covered by that part who are past a certain date.
  Beyond that, there will be people who will fall within the scope of the pension protection fund. There are a series of problems relating to that. The £400 million Treasury subvention to help those in a particular time period who are suffering is obviously welcome. However, it seems likely that that will be far less than someone was likely to get under the pension protection fund and therefore companies will tend to defer taking any action about their pension funds until the pension protection fund comes into operation.
  It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some idea of what dates are covered by what provisions, and in particular, whether some of those people who are writing to us will get nothing under any of the provisions, which is particularly worrying.
  GC 327
  Having said that—I am hopelessly out of order but I thought it might be helpful to say it—I shall say a word or two about the amendment. The National Association of Pension Funds was particularly concerned that, when nominating the chief executive and others, regard should be had to their skills and to the way in which the board will be conducted, having appropriate regard to the principles set out in the combined code of practice on corporate governance. I think we are all anxious that that code of practice should be adhered to. The amendment seeks to make that explicit in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Turner of CamdenI shall speak to the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends, which is grouped. The amendment concerns the way in which representation will be accorded on the new and very important pensions protection fund board.
  Perhaps I may make a few remarks about what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said earlier. I also received a number of letters from people who are worried because they do not think that they will be covered. The dates are not right for some people and they will not be covered, even though some of them have been working for their companies for many years and have lost substantial amounts of money—in some cases, apparently, lost everything. Within the context of this Bill, we will have to debate those issues.
  However, we can do that under this amendment where we are talking about how the representation will take place on the board. Of course, we have had this discussion in connection with the regulator where we tabled a very similar amendment. As I said, we are anxious to ensure that the various interests are adequately represented on this very important board. We accept that employers have to be adequately represented, that there must be people who are technically qualified serving on the board and that we must have people who know about the management of occupational pension schemes.
  This amendment was suggested by my union. We are concerned that there should be representation of people who are employees and are, therefore, members of schemes. It is very important that their interests should be properly represented. As I said earlier, we had a discussion about the basis of representation when we were talking about the regulator. The arguments are very similar and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by repeating them. Simply, this is a very important board. It is essential that it has the respect of the people whose interests it has been established to safeguard. Therefore, although I cannot move the amendment because it is grouped, I am speaking to it.
  Lord BorrieFirst, in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Skelmersdale, I do not think that it is necessary—whether the proposal comes from an eminent body such as the NAPF or otherwise—to teach one's grandmother to suck eggs by saying that the members
  GC 328
  of the board must have appropriate skills and experience. That seems to be an over-the-top amendment, which is unnecessary.
  The second subsection of Amendment No. 177 calls for the affairs of the board to be,
  conducted having appropriate regard where relevant to the principles set out in the Combined Code on Corporate Governance.
  Earlier in our discussions in Committee, I was concerned about references in speeches made to a number of amendments to the combined code and to the Derek Higgs report on corporate governance.
  At that time, I had not checked my memory about it, but I have since. I am concerned not only about those speeches coming from the Opposition and what lay behind them, but also about paragraph 28 of the Explanatory Notes where the impression—which is quite wrong—is given that the combined code deals with the public sector.
  The Higgs report, is the latest of the series—Cadbury, Hampel, Greenbury and Turnball—concerning corporate governance in the private sector. I would be the first to admit that there are some similarities between the private and public sectors. If it is appropriate or relevant, certain ideas can be borrowed from one to the other.
  12.15 p.m.
  My noble friend the Minister mentioned at least one of these fundamental differences earlier in Committee; namely, accountability. But accountability of the private sector lies to the shareholders. Much of the combined code is concerned with how to make that more effective; how to get the big investors involved with the directors; how to ensure that the directors are executive, non-executive and of different levels of experience; and so forth. It is all concerned with accountability of the private-sector company. However, in the public sector, accountability is to Ministers and to Parliament by various appropriate methods. I am therefore a little concerned that we—the Explanatory Notes on the Bill, let alone what Opposition Members have said in Committee—have overdone the references to the combined code.
  Sir Derek Higgs made his report following consultation and receipt of evidence, exclusively dealing with the private sector. He was not supposed to go into the suitable accountability and governance in the public sector.
  I wanted to make those points because I have checked on matters about which I did not feel sufficiently confident to talk about at an earlier stage. But clearly it is relevant to Amendment No. 177. My noble friend Lady Turner will not expect me to repeat my arguments against her over-prescriptive requirements for membership of the board because I made those comments when we were discussing the regulator.
  Viscount TrenchardI want to make two points. First, I remain confused and unhappy about our definitions or terminology. When we are dealing with the regulator, it seems that the body corporate and its

  GC 329
  board are the same entity. However, I am not sure whether the pension protection fund and its board are also the same entity. That is confusing. There should be a difference between the board of a body corporate and the body corporate itself.
  Secondly, Clause 102(2) states:
  The chairman [of the board of the PPF] must not be appointed from the staff of the Board or be the chairman of the Regulator.
  So the implication is that the chairman of the board may be a member other than the chairman of the regulator or of the board of the regulator, as I would prefer it. However, subsection (5) states:
  No member of the Determinations Panel established by the Regulator…or member of the staff of the Regulator, is eligible for appointment as a member of the Board.
  Taking those two together, it still appears to me that a non-executive member of the board of the regulator, other than the chairman, is eligible to be the chairman of the board of the pension protection fund. Will the Minister say whether I am correct in that?
  Baroness NoakesPerhaps I may contribute briefly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said on the combined code being for the private sector and nothing to do with the public sector.
  The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Higgins is intended to be helpful. It is not intended to imply that whatever is good for the private sector has to be good for the public sector, because it does so where relevant. I want to give a couple of examples where reference to something like a code of corporate governance would be extremely helpful in setting the agenda for a body such as that we are now dealing with. One area is the requirement to have an audit committee. That is in the combined code. It is not in the Bill, and quite rightly so. Whenever one tries to draft provisions for something like an audit committee, one will always be behind the times and not reflecting best practice. The good thing about the combined code is that it is kept up to date. A second example of how these matters are kept live and moving on is the requirement to report on internal control—what we used to call Turnbull. A new working party has been set up to look at whether reporting on internal controls should be extended in the light of best practice, internationally and elsewhere.
  Those are two areas that would be entirely relevant to the governance of a body such as the one we are talking about today. The Combined Code on Corporate Governance gives very relevant guidance and, more importantly, it is kept up to date by the activities of those who are charged with ensuring that the governance frameworks are always relevant and up to date for commercial companies.
  I would never suggest that what applies in the context of the private sector automatically applies in the public sector but very good things are done under the guidance of the Combined Code on Corporate Governance, that, in other circumstances, have already been borrowed by public sector bodies. Amendments such as this give a permanent linkage mechanism so that, where relevant, these
  GC 330
  developments should be imported into the governance of the public sector body. If the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would see it in that light, he might look more kindly on the amendment proposed by my noble friend.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayStarting with the point taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. But, as we mentioned on the first day of the Committee, can I gently remind him that when he says "the Opposition", it was the Conservative Opposition that felt that. The other Opposition did not. The other Opposition was very much his way.
  As one listens to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, her pick and mix approach to the combined code does not really work. It does not help us to have that. I suspect that my friend and former colleague Sir Derek Higgs would also have reservations on it.
  More widely—and I hope I shall be only very briefly out of order—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the torrent of Government amendments. At times, I feel as if I have just staggered out of a rough sea on to a beach and, just as I am getting up, another great flood comes over me and wears me down again. It is hard work. I do not blame the noble Baroness, but it is not the best way to deal with complicated legislation.
  I ask the Committee's indulgence, but I cannot see why Amendment No. 181, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Barker, has not been grouped with these amendments. It deals with very much the same point of the composition of the board. I wonder if I could mention it, if not formally. It is a fairly modest amendment. I see in the current advertisement for non-executive directors of the pension protection fund that it is said that:
  Expertise in any one of the following areas would be an advantage: pension scheme management, investment management.
  That seems to be top of the DWP's own list. It is inconceivable that one could have a non-executive board of something as complicated as the PPF without having anyone as a non-executive who has direct—not necessarily immediate—experience of pension fund management or of advising on pension funds.
  The first paragraph of Amendment No. 177 is sensible. I broadly support it. On Amendments Nos. 178 and 179, moved in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and her colleagues, we have to some extent been around this track before. We have some sympathy with this, as long as it is clear that the categories overlap and are not mutually exclusive. In that situation, we would go with them.
  I do not support Amendment No. 180 because of its wording. One wants the business community to be consulted, but I do not like the phrase "representatives from the business community". That sounds slightly corporate. I support the intention but not the wording.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-FyldeI too have difficulty with the second paragraph of Amendment No. 177. We are talking about one body here but there are hundreds of bodies in the public sector. If one

  GC 331
  looks at them, one would find that they are required by the accounting government department to have an audit committee and various committees that consider good governance. Who decides what is "relevant to the principles"? The answer may be that the board itself decides. But the amendment leaves it open-ended.
  I support Amendments Nos. 178 and 179, to which I added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is right that we discussed the principles of this matter earlier, in a different area of the Bill. This is an even more important area because we are dealing with people's individual contributions and investments. I hope that my noble friend will take note. We will need to return to this matter on Report.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made a very swift move of foot in raising the issue of the sad letters that we are all getting about people who are caught in the abyss between what the Bill provides and issues that have arisen on which there are no clear answers at the moment. That is an issue that we must debate in the Bill. I was considering Clause 274 as the appropriate place but that can be decided. It is the single clause in Part 6 over which the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, chided my noble friend at Second Reading because it is so short. It is an area where we will have a debate on principles. We will need to do so.
  Lord LucasI support what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. I too turned to the Higgs report after our last debate. However, my argument is not what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said was made by the Opposition. My argument is that the Government have no business pleading Higgs in aid in the structure of this or the next part of the Bill. The concept of the non-executive committee that has matters reserved to it and that has to take its own decisions is not a Higgs structure. The Higgs report said over and over again that we are talking about a unitary board. Therefore, we cannot say, "This is good because it is Higgs". We must look at it in its own context and ask whether it is good for the regulator. It is not a Higgs structure.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThere must be some member of the Committee who has not yet spoken. I shall have to trespass on the indulgence of the Committee and make a speech that is far too long. I shall say what I propose to address and then noble Lords can say that I have left something out. Then I shall go on to my speech, which is also extremely long.
  I want to be as helpful as I can to the Committee so I shall make a general statement on the government amendments, as asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and where we are proposing to go with them. I am happy to do that. Secondly, there is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and endorsed by my noble friends, about how we see the timetable for different categories of members with pensions possibly at risk and how they fit into the PPF and the financial assistance scheme. I shall share with the Committee the information I have so far on that and where we have got to.
  Thirdly, there is a bundle of "shopping list" issues that revisit some of the issues about appropriate skills raised earlier by my noble friend, the CBI, the trade
  GC 332
  unions, the investment funds and so on. Fourthly, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made specific points about overlapping membership and the difference between a fund and a board. Fifthly, the wider discussion on Higgs and corporate governance was fascinating, but I think I can probably get away with ducking it. Finally, I may need to come back to fill in any points that have not been addressed so far in trying to set the context for the PPF. I think I have got it right.
  12.30 p.m.
  I shall start with a general statement about where we are with the amendments. I accept some of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about so many amendments being tabled in this House, which is the revising Chamber. But our dilemma is honourable. We could have deferred the Bill for another year and produced something that was polished, manicured, massaged and whatever other terms one wants to take from beauty salon treatments. We would have produced something conventionally that we could have sent first to the Commons and then this House could have looked at it line by line, clause by clause to see whether it had sufficient clarity and so on. Our dilemma, as my noble friend has emphasised today, is that people are seeing their pensions put at risk.
  We have a choice. We can seek to have the Bill in place and the pension protection fund up and running from, I hope, next April. That is in nine months' time. The price for that is that, inevitably, we are asking your Lordships to carry out a much more active and energetic role in accepting an array of amendments that have not had the opportunity to go to the Commons and scrutinise them for the first time.
  The Bill is being developed as it proceeds through the House. This is for two reasons. One is the sense of urgency that everybody shares. We have all received letters to that effect. The second is that when we are trying to respond to that sense of urgency we must involve a wide range of stakeholders outside the department, which is unusual for the DWP. Given those two pressures, we find ourselves in an honourable dilemma. I know that I will have the support of the Committee in seeking to get through it in as honourable a way as possible. We want to see, if Parliament agrees, the Bill in place to give people urgent protection. If that means that your Lordships are asked to go beyond what noble Lords would ordinarily do, then I am sure your Lordships will understand the reasons.
  The Bill also has moral hazards. Issues such as pensions liberation are coming up. I do not think that 12 months ago any of us would have recognised the need to address the issue of pensions liberation. In the past 12 months OPRA has put to us that there is a real problem here and a dilemma. It is extremely complicated to resolve it because whatever solution is put in place produces a further problem of appeal rights and so that has to be addressed.
  Therefore, there are three reasons why, in good faith, we are developing the Bill as it proceeds: the urgency of the situation for people whose pensions are

  GC 333
  at risk; the propriety, appropriateness and value of extensive consultation—which is unusual for my department, although the DTI and other departments are perhaps more accustomed to it—and the fact that things are coming out of the woodwork that we need to address because there may not be an opportunity to do so in another major Bill.
  In the main areas of Government amendments, there may sometimes be a list of 20 or 40 amendments because they are consequential. The first bundle is on insolvency practioners. Because insolvency practioners do not want to be involved in the appeal process, we need to produce a rectification process and an appeals process that produces determination in order to take that responsibility away from them. Solving the problem of insolvency practioners generates further problems to which we need a solution. The bundle of concerns expressed by insolvency practitioners about insolvency, to which we are responding, has a cascade effect. That explains some of the complexity of that bundle of amendments.
  Secondly, there is a bundle of amendments about pensions on divorce and the PPF. This is extremely complex. The problem is that it appears to be very simple. Lady Seear, Lady Young and others—among them three of my noble friends sitting in the Committee today and the Deputy Chairman of the Committee—were instrumental in persuading the House that pensions were a major part of matrimonial property and should be shared. Eventually, we put legislation through and at the moment that allows pensions to be shared for a clean break or to be earmarked, which is when a pension is being paid when divorce occurs. The problem is: what is the status of a pension that is at risk and is entering the pensions protection fund? Will the judge know about the possible resources that may be added to the depleted pension by virtue of the compensation effect of the PPF? We are asking the judge to take into account something that has not yet happened. That requires revisiting all the family law, divorce and pensions legislation that deals with pension protection, because it was not even contemplated that the pensions protection fund or financial assistance scheme might come into play. We all accept that it should. That is complex, wet towel stuff, but highly desirable, as I am sure we would all agree, because that is obviously a major asset for a couple going through the divorce process.
  Thirdly, there is a set of amendments about the scheme rules and distinguishing between scheme rules and rules of the scheme. Sensibly, we are clarifying the language. Rules of the scheme are the rules of the particular scheme, whereas scheme rules may also involve all the legislation that may override the rules of the scheme—for example, equality legislation, European legislation and so on.
  Fourthly, there is a complex set of issues associated with survivors' benefits in the PPF. We are still working through some of the implications of that: what happens to survivors' benefits when someone dies during the assessment period? Fifthly, there are
  GC 334
  issues about periods of short service in the PPF, transfer rights and deferred pensions. Sixthly, there are technical amendments to the PPF for clarification.
  Then there are a number of amendments concerning member-nominated trustees and pension representatives. As the Committee will know, the Government's intention is that there should be a minimum of one third member-nominated trustees. I know that that will be an issue of considerable concern to my noble friends; we will table amendments about that. Finally, we shall introduce amendments ensuring that the Bill is consistent with legislation on winding-up priority orders. As the Committee will know, the Secretary of State made a Statement in June 2003, I think, and, following yesterday's discussion in the Commons, we will need to ensure that that is appropriately incorporated in the legislation.
  I hope that that helps the Committee, before I turn to item No. 2 on my shopping list.
  Lord HigginsI thought that there were six items, rather than 10.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI have eight major items. I shall duck and weave and say that the rest are technical.
  The second issue was the timetable for the PPF. Again, if I may trespass on the Committee's time—I know that I am bending every rule in the book, but it seems helpful, given that we have now moved into Part 2, which is a matter of so much concern to so many people—I have a statement about where schemes are.
  Schemes will be eligible for entry into the pensions protection fund if the winding-up of a scheme takes place after the PPF is up and running. On current plans—returning to my opening remarks about our dilemmas on speed, and so on—that will be 6 April 2005. Thereafter, schemes may be eligible to come into the PPF. Schemes are eligible to come into the PPF only if the employer is insolvent and the scheme is funded to a level below the PPF benefits. If the employer is solvent, we would expect him to buy out the liabilities; if the scheme is funded to a sufficient level, it does not need to come into the PPF, because the PPF benefits are lower by definition.
  Those facts will be established during the assessment period, which is when a scheme is considered for entry to the PPF. The details of the financial assistance scheme will be developed through consultation with stakeholders, such as pension scheme trustees, trade unions and key business representatives. Our plan is to consult on such details in the autumn. We will work on them over the summer for the autumn. We have made clear that we are minded—I use that word deliberately—to frame eligibility to include schemes where the employer is insolvent and where the scheme in question commenced wind up after 1997. That is when the Pensions Act 1995 came into force. There is no connection with the change of government or anything like that; it is because that is the operative date for the 1995 Act. Of course, we shall take into

  GC 335
  account the position of schemes which started to wind up shortly before April 1997 before reaching a final conclusion. That is the reason for the date.
  So we are minded to include schemes where the employer is insolvent and where the scheme in question commenced wind up after 1997. In addition, we would expect the financial assistance scheme not to be more generous than the level of benefits offered by the PPF. It will be for trustees to make decisions about their fiduciary duty to act in the interests of scheme members. OPRA is also providing advice to schemes in wind up, but we would not encourage trustees or other professionals to stop progressing the affairs of their schemes in the usual way.
  It is worth adding that we changed the existing priority order through regulations that took effect on 10 May 2004. Those changes will ensure a fairer allocation of assets of schemes that will wind up before the PPF is in place. The Committee will remember that by moving pension indexation down the order, non-pensioners will receive a higher priority. Before those changes to winding-up procedures, voluntary contributions came right at the top, but pensions indexation came next and only what was left over could go to the rest of the scheme. We are now providing for 100 per cent for pensioners, 90 per cent for other members and then comes indexation, after voluntary contributions. That allows far more resources to be available for active members. As I said, that will improve the position for non-pensioners in schemes that wind up without sufficient assets.
  Although we will not be discussing the financial assistance scheme for a while, there has been discussion about the adequacy of the £400 million fund. I emphasise something that is sometimes overlooked when people talk about X or Y amount of shortfall. Often, that speculation in the press takes no account of people who are currently active members of the scheme. Before discussing the adequacy of the amount of money, it is worth emphasising that a high proportion of those affected are deferred pensioners. The sums of money involved are therefore small. The figures are in the House Library, but a high proportion of occupational pensioners are paid in respect of only a few years' service and so relatively low amounts. The average for those receiving occupational pensions is about £6,500 a year but, underneath that, half of all pensions in payment are worth less than £3,500; a quarter are worth less than £1,500; and only a small number receive a large amount.
  So people may talk about a 20, 30 or 40 per cent shortfall, but those may be shortfalls on very small sums because many pensions are deferred with only a modest sum due in due course. It is worth emphasising that, because I have read quite a lot of misleading representation about it.
  Thirdly, I return to what I called the shopping-list issue. I hope that the Committee will not think I am being condescending in calling it that. We discussed the matter fairly fully during our previous discussion on the board of the regulator. Whether the appropriate number is five or six, as provided for in my noble
  GC 336
  friend's amendment, or indeed seven or eight, I am sure that that will be the number of members appointed.
  However, I advise the Committee not to adopt the shopping list principle. If we read the required skills for the pensions protection fund board in the advert in the Times, they seem pretty comprehensive. But were we to limit those people by reference to a particular background, I was looking at the curricula vitae of the appointed chairman, Lawrence Churchill, and the appointed chief executive, Myra Kinghorn, and I am not sure that they would qualify. The chairman, Lawrence Churchill, comes from Zurich Financial Services and UNUM insurance scheme, which is a disability-based organisation. Myra Kinghorn's admirable expertise relates heavily to the Serious Fraud Office and compensation issues. That makes for a very useful and relevant portfolio of skills, but would not be caught by the shopping-list approach, as identified by the Committee. So I would hope that the Committee would agree that both the chairman and the Secretary of State will want to ensure the highest level of skill and the broadest reach of experience possible for the board and that all such people will be appointed in the appropriate way. I hope that we shall not try to specify, because we may then lose out on people with highly relevant CVs who have real expertise but who do not fit into the list.
  12.45 p.m.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked about overlapping membership. Someone could be a member of the regulator, a non-executive director of the regulator, although not a member of the Determinations Panel, and sit on the PPF. That is pretty unlikely; but it could be valuable and it is not ruled out. He then asked about the difference between the fund and the board. The PPF is the fund; the board is the organisation. However, I suspect that during the course of our discussion, we shall use the terms "fund", "board" and "PPF" almost interchangeably. I hope that the Committee will accept tolerance there, but there is a clear legal distinction.
  As I said, I shall duck the issue of Higgs and corporate governance. Where we think that either Higgs or the corporate governance code are relevant and set out best practice that is desirable to incorporate, we have done so. The separation between the chairman and chief executive is an obvious example. The financial services compensation scheme has adopted the code. We are not going all the way on that, but there is much of value there to take on board and that is what we are doing.
  Finally, I wonder in what detail the Committee would like me to address the amendments. I realise that I am trespassing on the Committee's time. I could read into the record what is an extensive speech setting out how the PPF will operate—its pay and rations and all the rest of it—but I do not want to trespass on the Committee's time if it feels that it understands that perfectly well by virtue of our preparatory briefing. I am in the Committee's hands. Perhaps the Committee

  GC 337
  would make clear to me what further information it would like at this stage and I shall seek to provide it, rather than read what, as I said, is an extensive speech that may be entirely superfluous if the Committee is well aware of the shape of the scheme.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayOn the last point, I do not know whether I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, as well, but I should be happy to have a look at the speech to see whether we want it read into the record. If the Minister is happy to do that, that would save time.
  On the more fundamental point and the important and helpful announcement that the Minister has just made, which will be followed with great interest by many people in the country, many of whom have been writing to us, I press her on the exact timing on the winding-up of schemes. As I heard her say it, the timetable for the PPF is that schemes will be eligible where winding-up of the scheme takes place—I think those were her words—after 6 April, 2005. Could she clarify further what "takes place" means, because winding-up involves quite a process. Exactly what does that mean?
  On the financial assistance scheme, could she again make clear whether wind-up must have been completed before 1997 or whether schemes must have entered wind-up? In particular, could she clarify what she means by schemes that were winding up shortly before? We need to be clear exactly on those points.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI will do my best. When referring to whether schemes can come in to the PPF, the question is when winding up commences—when schemes are commencing wind-up. We are trying to avoid the issue of the closing date itself. Secondly, on the financial assistance scheme, again the relevant term is "commences" and we are minded to link it to 1997. I suspect that we will not reach discussion of the financial assistance scheme before we rise for the Summer Recess. When we come to discuss it in Committee in September, I may be able to provide further information on that.
  Lord HigginsThere may be an opportunity when discussing later amendments, such as Amendment No. 182, to pick up some of the points that the noble Baroness was not sure whether to cover a moment ago. I understand the point about the shopping list. One problem is that we discussed the composition of the regulator and are now discussing the composition of the pensions protection fund. Inevitably, we tend to go over the same ground and it becomes pretty boring.
  The reason why we referred to Higgs is that it appears on page 8 at paragraph 28 of the Explanatory Notes. I have a lot of sympathy for the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He enumerated some of those who have presided over the various corporate governance proceedings. At one stage, it seemed to me that whenever someone took on that job, the company of which he was chairman
  GC 338
  immediately ran into serious problems. I will not be sordid enough to cite specific examples, but there we are.
  We will no doubt come in due course to the list of various subjects concerning the government amendments mentioned by the noble Baroness. The points that she made about winding up and various dates were helpful, although we may need to get the situation a little clearer than that, perhaps with reference to particular funds that have folded, about which we are receiving a number of letters.
  Finally, I am sure that we are all anxious to do everything we can to get the Bill right. That is our duty, and I am sure that all Members of the Committee will do all that they can to fulfil it. However, we would have felt a lot happier about the explanation that the Minister gave if the proceedings in the Commons had not been curtailed by way of a Programme Motion. That is the problem. There may be particular circumstances affecting the Bill, but the fact is that, time and time again, Bills come to this House that have not been adequately debated because the opposition parties in the Commons have not been allowed to do so, under the name of modernisation or some such expression.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe noble Lord will know this as well as I do. I have read some of those Committee proceedings from the other end of the corridor. I do not mean to be patronising, but I must say that, in my view, the Opposition did not always use the time available to scrutinise in a manner that I take for granted in your Lordships' House. Without getting into the balance between the Houses, I do not think that that was necessarily a problem of government. I know that my officials were poised to answer far more detailed questions than were ever put to them. The reason those questions were not put to them was not due to lack of time.
  Lord HigginsI do not accept that. Of course, a whole chunk of Part 6 appeared only at the very last moment and the Programme Motion was not adjusted to allow for that. If one knows that one does not have enough time to do the job properly, there is little point in trying to grind through the initial clauses, knowing that the rest of them will go totally undiscussed.
  However, I shall leave the matter there. The noble Baroness's remarks have been extremely helpful and the flexible approach that we have adopted under our Deputy Chairman of Committees will ensure that our subsequent proceedings go more rapidly and effectively than they would otherwise have done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 101 agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of CommitteesThe Committee now stands adjourned until half-past one o'clock.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 12.54 to 1.30 p.m.]
  [Amendments Nos. 178 to 180 not moved.]

  GC 339
  On Question, Whether Clause 102 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord HigginsI merely wish to share my own experience of returning rapidly to a meeting. As Treasury Minister I once appeared two minutes late at a Cabinet Committee meeting. Given that I had thought that the meeting would last about three hours, I was surprised that it had already concluded. The reason was that the spending department Ministers had agreed that all their expenditure was entirely justified when there was no Treasury Minister present. So I have never been late since.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamAnd what happened to the noble Lord's future?
  Lord HigginsThat explains everything.
  Clause 102 agreed to.
  Clause 103 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [The Board of the Pension Protection Fund]:
  [Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
  Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 182:
  Page 260, line 8, after "Fund" insert "comprising the actuarial valuation of each scheme for which the Board has responsibility"
  The noble Lordsaid: This amendment would insert,
  comprising the actuarial valuation of each scheme for which the Board has responsibility.
  It relates to a question that I asked the noble Baroness at Second Reading and which she almost answered in her great speech just before the break. It is designed to find out how the fund will operate. The shorthand that I used at Second Reading was: would there be some funds?
  Clearly, the board will take control of a number of pension schemes, most probably all with differing rules, although there is likely to be some overlap. As a result, it will have two choices: either to run all the schemes together—calling it a fund suggests that that might happen—and pay the beneficiaries only according to the rules of each scheme, or to run the schemes as they are handed to the fund, but somewhat better, using the fund money as back-up.
  In either event, dedicated officials and, presumably, board members would need to be involved—less in the case of the former but much more in the case of the latter. It would be helpful to know exactly how the fund will operate. I beg to move.
  Lord LucasReturning to the question of Mr Green and Marks & Spencer, some interesting things will happen when transferring schemes into the pension protection fund. Where a scheme belongs to a company that has gone bust, the actuarial valuation will be on the basis of an extremely conservative investment policy—basically, fixed interest. The pension protection fund has strong access to cash to deal with deficits should they arise as a result of investment performance. Therefore, if a scheme which has a decent number of members who are not in payment and have a long life expectancy is transferred
  GC 340
  into the fund, putting a chunk of equity as another higher yielding investment in the mix, the basis for actuarial valuation will change. As a result, a scheme with an actuarial deficit may have an actuarial surplus once it has joined the fund. That will be fun to deal with.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayMay I move Amendment No. 184, in my name?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIt is not in this group.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayPerhaps, then, I may offer my support to Amendment No. 182.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThis is an important amendment because it allows us to give some sense of what the fund is like. Perhaps I can add to my comments later if any Member of the Committee wishes to return to something.
  When a scheme enters the PPF, its assets and liabilities will be transferred to the pension protection fund. The amendment would mean that assets transferred from schemes to the fund must be monitored separately, so that an actuarial valuation of the assets from each individual scheme can be carried out as part of the annual reporting requirements.
  Perhaps I should explain what "being transferred to the PPF", or "entering the PPF" mean in practice, before moving on to the reasons why I must resist the amendment. Once all the criteria for entering the PPF have been met, the board must issue a transfer notice to the scheme trustees. As soon as the transfer notice has been received by the trustees, the scheme ceases to exist as a legal entity and the trustees are discharged of their pension obligations. The assets and liabilities of the scheme are immediately transferred to the pension protection fund and the board must pay compensation to the members of the former schemes—in effect, they become PPF members. The important point is that once a transfer notice has been issued, it cannot later be revoked or unpicked.
  When considering how the fund should work, we quickly eliminated the idea that the board should simply top up scheme assets. That would not provide the economies of scale that the PPF is designed to give. It would result in the board having to pay large amounts of compensation at once and therefore having to pass the costs immediately on to the levy-payers, instead of allowing them to smooth the costs over time.
  So we are introducing a fund which will be held for the payment of compensation. We have made no provision to track the assets from each former scheme; indeed, it would be almost impossible to do so without changing the entire nature of the PPF. The fund is intended to pay compensation at the same rate for each individual, irrespective of what proportion of the liabilities are being met by the assets that come with that scheme into the fund—100 per cent, 90 per cent and so on. The compensation is to be paid for by a combination of assets transferred from former schemes and receipts from the pension protection levies.

  GC 341
  Assets held in the fund will be invested in line with the statement of investment principles, which we will discuss separately.
  Tracking the assets of each former scheme would give very few advantages. For example, a comparison would be to require trustees to keep assets in the scheme relating to each individual member separate and to report regularly on the level of assets for every member. However, each member would receive the same level of pension regardless of the level of assets that they brought. So there is not much point in such an approach, if there is no precise connection between what you bring into the scheme in the form of assets and what gets paid out to you in the form of pensions. Whether a member brings in assets that can meet 80 per cent of the liabilities or that meet only 40 per cent—obviously, if it were much more than 80 to 90 per cent, one would be into a wind-up situation—is irrelevant to the payout to the individual members. There is a standard payout of 100 per cent for existing pensioners and 90 per cent for active members or deferred pensions.
  Lord HigginsI am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I have slight difficulty in understanding what she is saying. She has said several times that all members would get the same payout. Does she mean that members will all get the same amount, or that they would all get the same as they would have received if the previous scheme, now defunct, had gone bust? We need to define more clearly what is meant by "the same".
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIt means that when a member has joined the PPF, he will be entitled on retirement, if he is an active member, to 90 per cent of what he would have got under his old scheme. It relates to the length of service. There will also be standardised rules relating to civil partners, survivors and the like. I am trying to break any connection between the assets coming from a scheme and the payout to the members—subject to a £25,000 cap. It means, for example, that if a member would have been entitled to a £20,000 pension through his normal working life with a company, he will get 90 per cent of that in the PPF as opposed to the 100 per cent entitlement that he would have expected had he not joined the PPF.
  The rules of payments to survivors, dependents and so on will be constant for all members of the scheme as broadly as possible. Whatever rules applied in the old scheme will continue. If, for example, in the old scheme there was a payment not just for a spouse but for an unmarried partner, it will continue. Given the sex equality rules, the payment would also apply to same-sex or opposite-sex partners. If a member's old scheme did not have such a payment, he would not be entitled to it under the PPF. We are not seeking to make the PPF more advantageous than the schemes that members have left. The PPF has the same rules on proportion of payout, but some of the features of the old scheme will be replicated in the new one in so far as they may differ—in particular, payments for survivors.
  GC 342
  I was seeking to address the implied suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, which could be read into the amendment, that one would track assets in an attempt to keep some parity between what was paid in and what was paid out. One does not need to; it becomes a conglomerated fund and payments follow on the basis of the standard rules. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. If not, perhaps he can come back to me.
  Lord HigginsI was wondering at what stage it would be most appropriate to intervene.
  1.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamPerhaps I may finish this speech before addressing any further points.
  One further reason for not accepting the amendment is that it would restrict investment decisions because the board could be encouraged to make fewer changes in investment in order to reduce costs of tracking the impact of those changes to the assets of each scheme.
  Finally, the amendment could result in legal challenges where an individual is aware that the assets of "his scheme" are now higher than they were on entry to the PPF. Because of this knowledge, such an individual is more likely to try to challenge the PPF for a higher rate of compensation. It would be entirely unfair to give individuals in the same circumstances different levels of compensation according to how former assets have subsequently gone on to deliver. Entry to the PPF should be seen as a clean break—from that point onwards each individual is entitled to the same rate of compensation from the same fund. My only qualification is that the scheme should operate according to the rules of the original scheme so that members do not end up getting a better deal under the PPF, which would accentuate the moral hazard issues. That qualification and the £25,000 cap aside, I hope that I have met the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment, which is to probe how the fund would operate.
  Lord SkelmersdaleI am most grateful for that. Clearly, I did not understand how the fund would work. Can the noble Baroness say more about the "rules of the scheme" and the "scheme rules"? Before the break, she made a clear distinction between what those terms meant. If I understood her correctly, she said that most of the rules of the individual schemes would be met, subject to the 100 per cent and 90 per cent caps. She also said that some generic rules would be forced on all schemes. I was not entirely sure what she meant.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe noble Lord's last point comes up as a set of government amendments, although I am not sure where exactly those amendments arise. The reason for clarifying the language is that the rules of the scheme are those that apply to a particular scheme. The scheme may have only survivors' pensions for spouses—in which case it

  GC 343
  would also apply to civil partnerships—or it may not have rules for partners, for example. Those rules would continue.
  The point about the subsequent set of amendments is that the rules of the scheme may be—and, in certain circumstances, must be—overturned where they conflict with other legislation, such as the law on sexual orientation and some equality issues. The scheme rules are the broader set. They include the rules of the scheme as amended by, in the light of, or as adjusted by other appropriate government legislation. For example, regardless of the trustees' wishes they will not have the discretion to confine the scheme rules to partners of the opposite sex; in the light of the European directive, they must also apply to same-sex partners. That is where legislation would cut across the rules of the scheme.
  Lord SkelmersdaleThat is very helpful. As the noble Baroness has said, we shall subdivide this explanation into its constituent parts over the next few amendments. It would not therefore be helpful if I said any more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 183:
  Page 260, line 18, after "qualifications" insert "or experience, or a person approved by the Secretary of State,"
  The noble Baronesssaid: This group of amendments relates to the definition of "actuary" throughout the Bill. The changes are to achieve consistency across the Bill by ensuring that all relevant references to an actuary include actuaries of prescribed qualifications or experience, or a person approved by the Secretary of State. The persons approved by the Secretary of State are not mates who would quite like the job of actuary but are not qualified. That is not the purpose of the amendment. Most actuaries will fall within the prescribed qualifications laid down by the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries. However, they will also include European actuaries, as the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries are signatories to the Groupe Consultatif Agreement on the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications. Under that agreement, a full member of one European actuarial association can become a fellow of another European actuarial association following set procedures.
  In addition, the faculty and institute have signed mutual recognition agreements with other countries such as those based in Canada and Japan. However, where there is no mutual agreement in place, the person may instead seek approval from the Secretary of State to act as an actuary in the UK. So it is simply ensuring that reciprocal arrangements can be extended to countries other than those formally covered. I beg to move.
  Lord HigginsI am not clear why the provision was not in the Bill originally. What the noble Baroness says seems eminently reasonable, but we will need to think about it and consult outside, as actuarial bodies may have a view on the matter.
  GC 344
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Baymoved Amendment No. 184:
  Page 261, line 26, leave out paragraph 27 and insert—
  "Pension arrangements for the Board
  The Board shall make pension arrangements for its chairman and employees which shall be broadly comparable to those provided by companies included in the FTSE 100 Index for their employees receiving similar salaries."
  The noble Lordsaid: I apologise for my confusion earlier. I have learnt not to be a shrinking violet: when one has grouped amendments, do not withdraw the first one.
  Amendment No. 184 is a simple amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Barker. It arose as a result of clarification helpfully given at our first meeting with the Minister and officials before it emerged that it was intended that the chairman and staff of the PPF would have Civil Service-type benefits. We do not think that that is the right approach. Perhaps I can regard this as a "le patron mange ici" amendment. Where pension arrangements and remuneration are paid for by private sector schemes, it is right that they should know what the provisions are, and the relevant PPF staff should get benefits comparable to high-quality provision in the private sector.
  It is right that members should understand the challenges and the risks faced by private-sector schemes. I know that our civil servants here in particular are overworked, underpaid and do a great deal for this Committee and the country, but I am sure that no one will misunderstand me when I say that one aspect of their remuneration is now platinum-plated. The full, taxpayer-guaranteed, unlimited indexation scheme is now as rare as a vintage Rolls Royce in the private sector. It is definitely wrong that such an arrangement should be available to the board and staff of the PPF, if that is intended. There are perfectly good precedents—the Financial Services Authority does not work that way. I beg to move.
  Baroness NoakesI am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the majority of chairmen in the FTSE 100 are not members of a pension scheme. Does he intend by this amendment to ensure that the chairman has no pension?
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayNo, I do not. The noble Baroness is quite right. This came up in our earlier discussion. I do not seek to make the appointment pensionable or not. But if it is intended that it should be pensionable, then any pension should be funded as I have described. I take no view on whether it should be pensionable or not.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI do not think that the noble Lord will be surprised when I say that, not only do I not accept the principle of his amendment, but I am not sure that I sympathise with him at all. He seems to be saying that it should be part of the learning experience of those running the PPF that they should be exposed to a DC scheme, a non-Civil Service

  GC 345
  scheme or whatever he might think appropriate as part of getting them to understand the culture of the world in which they operate. This seems to be part of the context; I cannot think of any other decent reason for the amendment. The noble Lord is asking individuals, if it is a DC scheme, to take on the risk, or if it is a scheme without Crown guarantee or one that has different levels of contribution, to face other implications. I am not sure what scheme he would envisage that they join.
  Behind his amendment seems to be the thinking that as those running the PPF are dealing with other people's pensions, they should be exposed to the same risks. In a way that is like saying that one cannot be a surgeon unless one has been exposed several times to the operating theatre. I am not sure that I would accept the analogy that one would have had to have gone through it. There are also some practical reasons. It is partly about remuneration. I entirely accept that Civil Service pensions are a particularly attractive part of the remuneration package of anyone joining the Civil Service. We think that if we are seeking to recruit the 100 or so staff that the PPF may require, that is not unreasonable. In turn, pay levels reflect the quality of the pension. That has always been the case.
  Secondly, PPF will be a non-departmental public body. Allowing NDPBs to join the Civil Service pension scheme is quite customary. A wide range of bodies also appear in the Superannuation Act 1972, which enables staff of these bodies to receive a principal Civil Service pension. Bodies as diverse as the National Lottery Distribution Fund, the British Library, Culture Online, the Commission for Racial Equality, and the National Consumer Council are all examples of where employees can receive a Civil Service pension.
  I shall give an example nearer to home. We have agreed that one body whose staff may also receive Civil Service pensions and is easily comparable to the PPF is the regulator. Payments to the Minister for the Civil Service for regulator staff pensions will be covered by the grant in aid paid to the regulator from the Secretary of State for all administrative staff. The Secretary of State will recover the grant in aid as part of the general levy on pension schemes. It is almost exactly the same as for the PPF. It would also be anomalous for the PPF to offer a DB scheme without a Crown guarantee. If that is the alternative proposed by the noble Lord, such as that for the Arts Council, it would mean that the PPF would become part of the regime it was set up to protect, and would have to pay a levy to itself—even more so since it would be the normal levy-payers who would bear the cost through the administration levy.
  The argument that carries most weight with me is the last one I wish to use. We expect staff from the Department for Work and Pensions, the regulator and the PPF to be able to move between the three bodies. They do so now. Staff from OPRA, for example, have been seconded into the Civil Service to work on the Bill and at least one senior official sitting behind me, who has been extremely helpful in assistance with
  GC 346
  answering some of your Lordships' more detailed questions, was seconded from OPRA into the Civil Service for the period of the Bill. Whether she will stay with the Civil Service, return to the pension regulator, or whatever, I do not know. But that type of regular movement of staff between these bodies is extremely valuable and would be hindered if there were different terms and conditions of service and different pension schemes.
  I do not accept the underlying suggestion that the people running the PPF should be exposed to the same type of risks to which people entering the PPF have already been exposed. I do not believe that it is unusual at all. I do think that it is reflected in the total remuneration package with which we attract staff and it would also impede movement between the three bodies of the department, the regulator and the PPF. For all those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness NoakesThe Minister used the obscure argument of movement between the three bodies. But she then talked in terms of secondment, which is the one mechanism that is able to keep the terms and conditions of the host employer throughout that mobility. So it seems that that is not a killer argument.
  2 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI take the correction. I should have referred to when people actually leave one place and go to the other.
  Lord HigginsWill the staff of the board be on a contributory or non-contributory scheme?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIt is non-contributory, but I believe that I am right in saying that there is a contribution payment for dependents, which is a voluntary addition. It may be at 1.5 per cent. I am not sure about the details, but it is a largely non-contributory scheme.
  Lord HigginsBut the argument for it being a non-contributory scheme, as I understand it, has always been that the salary is adjusted appropriately and that therefore the thing equals out. Would it not be far better and perhaps create a useful precedent if it were a contributory scheme, and then pay the appropriate salary? It is a ludicrous anomaly in the Civil Service system that there is a non-contributory scheme, whereas even Members of Parliament actually contribute.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThis may be a matter for the Cabinet Office, which could presumably decide to review salaries and change the pension schemes accordingly. However, I encourage Members of the Committee not to trespass down that path today, as we shall make no difference to the levels or structure of Civil Service salaries or pensions, whatever we may say.
  Lord HigginsWould the staff in question all be existing members of the Civil Service?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamNot necessarily. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about secondment. She was absolutely right. Some of the staff may be currently working for OPRA and some may be newly recruited. We expect about 40 per cent of them to be professionals, such as actuaries and so on, who may have been recruited from the private sector. Others will be administrative staff, and others will have come from OPRA or possibly from the department, so there will be a mixture of staff.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayI regard that as one of the thinnest answers that I have ever heard a Minister give. First, the Minister did not address at all the point that I made, which I should have thought was pretty relevant, about the Financial Services Authority. That was simply ignored. I thank her for pointing out that at the moment there is no amendment to that effect as regards the regulator, and I assure her that I shall rectify that when we get to Report—so that deals with that argument. Indeed, I believe that the argument applies to both cases.
  As for the idea that the provisions are somehow simply a matter of carrying on as before and bringing over civil servants, the Minister gave the game away when she said that perhaps 40 per cent of the staff will be from the private sector, including "actuaries and so on".
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI said "professional". I did not say where they would come from. They may come from the private sector, and 40 per cent are likely to be professionals. My own department, for example, has professionals of the sort described.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayWell, I am delighted that her department has so many spare professionals and actuaries to switch across. But I should have thought that it would have been very important to have major recruitment from the private sector. None of those people will be on the sort of terms that we are discussing, nor would anyone expect them to be.
  I have still not heard the argument on the FSA and other parallels, although frankly it would be a lot more interesting than the case of the National Lottery. I quite accept that we are discussing an overall package, which should be in line with good private sector packages. It is ridiculous that civil servants should have these exceptionally generous pension arrangements and such low wages. It would be a good move in setting the provisions up to move towards a more rational structure.
  It was a travesty of my argument to say that we are doing what we are doing for educational purposes; we are just saying that the people running the schemes should not be insulated in a completely different cocoon right away from the experience that everyone else in the country has.
  Lord HigginsIt is also surely relevant to consider who is actually going to pay the pensions. As I understand it, that will not be the taxpayer but other pension funds.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayThat is absolutely right.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamPerhaps the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, should tell the Committee
  GC 348
  what sort of pension scheme he does think appropriate. It is no use simply referring to the FTSE and saying that such schemes are broadly comparable. What type of scheme does he have in mind? Either way, I put it to him that the salary plus pension equals a sum, and I should be very surprised if that total sum—which is what matters to the levy payers, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has said—will change, whether it is carved up with more pension and less salary, or more salary and less pension. Will the noble Lord say what sort of pension scheme he believes to be appropriate?
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayIn a way, the Minister has just made my case. The whole point is that the levy payers should know where they stand.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamThey will know where they stand in terms of the total remuneration package attached to each individual employee. The noble Lord has accepted that if one went for a different sort of pension scheme one would have to increase pay proportionately. Therefore, the total cost for the levy payers would remain the same. It is a zero sum game, under the noble Lord's own explanation.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayPerhaps the Minister would sit down and listen for a minute and let me finish the sentence. The whole point is that people do not know where they stand with the Civil Service pension scheme, because it has unlimited indexation over long periods. It is very difficult for them to know where they stand.
  The Minister has herself said several times in the House, and we would agree with her, that in private sector schemes the sum is probably around 15 per cent—perhaps 10 per cent from employers and 5 per cent from employees. That seems a perfectly reasonable way in which to do things, although I am not seeking to prescribe that today.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamA DB scheme, in other words.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayIt could be a DB scheme or a DC scheme—I am open on that. But so far I have not had any serious response to the points that I have made. I made the point, although not as clearly as I should have done, that the provisions are not being paid for by the taxpayer. It is being paid for by all the private sector pension schemes in this country, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should expect the staff of those administering the scheme to work on comparable terms of service to better private sector employers.
  To be frank, unless the Minister is prepared to think more clearly and address some of the serious points that I have made, her answer seems to me dismissive and unworthy, and I can assure her that I shall return to the matter on Report.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI shall try not to take umbrage at what the noble Lord has just said. I am sure he is aware of some of the schemes in the private

  GC 349
  sector. I can give an example of one scheme. To the best of my knowledge, the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is probably the major financial services player in Europe, has a non-contributory DB scheme. It is quite likely, or at any rate not impossible, that some of the professionals whom we may seek to employ may come from such an employer.
  I could produce examples of non-contributory schemes from companies in the FTSE 100; that is pretty common in the financial services industry. I am sure the noble Lord knows that perfectly well. They are at least as generous and in some cases more generous than the Civil Service scheme. They may not be so in all particulars; they may have different retirement ages and different assumptions for dependents. The Civil Service scheme is actually quite mean, in my view, on the matter of dependency. But it is not out of line with many of the best practice leaders, such as RBS, the major player in the private sector. Let us not assume that there is something over there called the Civil Service scheme which is platinum-plated, and that everyone else is living in a much more risky environment. That is not true.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayPerhaps the Minister should have a look at what the amendment actually says. It refers to,
  "pension arrangement … which shall be broadly comparable to those provided by companies included in the FTSE 100 Index"—
  and by that I mean the general range of them. She may be able to find one non-contributory DB scheme in the FTSE 100, but I challenge her to check up and find out how many FTSE 100 companies have non-contributory schemes open to new members. She will find that it is a handful only.
  This is a carefully worded amendment that aims at provision in line with general good practice in big private sector schemes. The Minister should concentrate on that, and not try to produce red herrings, such as the one she has just produced.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIt is not acceptable to say that I am producing red herrings when I have referred to the scheme, of which I have some knowledge, of the major financial player. That scheme, at least on paper, is probably more generous—apart from the retirement age, possibly—than that of the Civil Service.
  If the noble Lord seriously wants me to engage in this discussion, he must indicate to me what his scheme would look like. I have not yet heard that from him. I can guarantee that the FTSE 100 Index companies will have at least 10 different sort of schemes. What does he want me to do—to count the number of schemes, of members, or what? If he is serious about his amendment, while I accept that there is a proper issue behind it, he must indicate what such a scheme would look like. Then I can consider the matter. Simply saying that we should have a look at the top 100 companies, at all 10 different schemes, and work something out from that would not be appropriate. It
  GC 350
  is incumbent on the noble Lord in moving the amendment to describe what he has in mind and what he believes would be appropriate.
  Baroness NoakesIf the noble Lord's amendment were drafted in terms of new entrants, which it should be if he brings it back at Report, I could give the Minister a very clear answer. For new entrants, the usual scheme would be a defined benefit scheme with some employee contribution. I believe that that is what she will find as the emerging norm among all commercial companies, especially those in the FTSE 100 which have responsibilities to control costs on behalf of their shareholders.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayCan I please also ask the Minister about the FSA scheme, which I have now mentioned three times, and on which the Minister is completely ignoring the point?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI am very happy to respond on the FSA point. There is obviously a comparison issue. Each NDPB is set up according to its own individual circumstances. The Financial Services Authority compensation scheme, for example, amalgamated a number of existing compensation schemes. The fact that it was not created from a blank canvas will no doubt have affected its design. People came in from different schemes with different pension structures, as far as I am aware.
  In addition, the FSA in contrast to the PPF, is a company limited by guarantee and has different overall governance arrangements. Therefore, I do not believe that the comparison with the FSA is the close match that the noble Lord seems to suggest.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayI beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 185:
  Page 261, line 37, leave out "Neither the Board nor any" and insert—
  "( ) The Board shall be liable in damages.
  ( ) No"
  The noble Lordsaid: I am afraid that the gremlins in the Public Bill Office got at this amendment, too. There should of course be no brackets, and the words should be all on one line.
  What I am seeking to probe, although I know that the board is neither the servant nor the agent of the Crown, is whether it is a body corporate that stands freely on its own. I readily understand that it is bad practice for a board not to look after its employees and members and I would not expect them to be liable for damages, but I should be interested to know why the body corporate is not liable in that regard. I beg to move.
  Lord BorrieThe proposers of this amendment are quite happy that members and staff of the board or committees should be free from liability but not that

  GC 351
  the board should be so itself. However, the noble Lord has not referred to later parts of paragraph 28 of the schedule.
  If the board has acted in good faith, it should have the exemption from liability proposed there. The noble Lord will notice that, on page 262 of the Bill, the exemption does not apply if the board, or any of the individual members, have acted in bad faith. Subparagraph (5) is equally important in suggesting that the alternative dispute resolution procedure should be adopted, involving the ombudsman—whose position or role we have not yet discussed, but shall do under Clause 200 and subsequent clauses. That power to give compensation is what would be there in place of the common law right of damages, which would otherwise exist if it were not for the exemption.
  The exemption for the board acting in good faith seems perfectly reasonable. However, even when it acts in good faith, there should be the compensation powers for the ombudsman to impose if it thinks fit.
  Lord SkelmersdaleThe noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is misinformed. I have indeed read further down in the paragraph to which he refers.
  Lord BorrieI did not suggest that the noble Lord had not done so, but that he had simply not read it out to us.
  2.15 p.m.
  Lord SkelmersdaleThe noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has the text in front of him in the same way as the rest of us do. But sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) refer to the board as a whole rather than to individual members.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamIn a way, we shall be revisiting the same argument, debate or discussion that we had when we discussed the regulator and the liability for damages in that case. So I do not know whether I shall be taking the argument much further forward than I did in that case. However, I should be very happy to restate the arguments and to see whether—
  Lord SkelmersdaleIf the Minister is prepared to tell me that the situation is much the same and that the board is a body corporate, I shall be quite satisfied.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI can say yes to both questions.
  On one final point, to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, the provisions do not protect the board from maladministration and therefore damages awarded by the ombudsman.
  Lord SkelmersdaleIs that under sub-paragraph (5)?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamYes.
  Lord SkelmersdaleI thank the Minister for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  GC 352
  On Question, Whether Schedule 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord HigginsI want to clarify a little more, before we return to the matter on Report, one or two things that were said in the earlier debate. Am I right in thinking that the staff of the board will be civil servants?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamNo, they will not be civil servants.
  Lord HigginsWell then why are they getting the Civil Service pensions arrangements?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamBecause we believe that it is appropriate.
  Lord HigginsWhy does the Minister believe that it is appropriate?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamFor the reasons that I have just adduced to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, in the previous discussion.
  Lord HigginsI believe there to be room for genuine disagreement on this point, which we may need to return to. These people are not being paid by the taxpayer; they are being paid by a levy on other pension funds, many of which will have less favourable arrangements. As I understand it, what is proposed is that the staff of the board will have non-contributory inflation-proofed pensions. I rather doubt whether any of the members contributing to the levy will have had a non-contributory pension scheme.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayNot with unlimited indexation; no chance.
  Lord HigginsNo, therefore I think it very strange that board member staff should have privileges that those paying for it do not have. The Minister may need to add to the arguments that she has presented so far.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI do not know whether I can take the matter any further. The staff are not civil servants—it is a non-departmental public body. We propose that they have pensions analogous to those of the Civil Service, which indeed has the description that the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott and Lord Higgins, have given it. They are not unique; they are valuable; and the point that I was seeking to make was that although pensions are not the fourth pillar in negotiating pay packages, the total remuneration package includes pensions, pay, possibly relocation expenses, and what you will. My noble friend Lady Turner has negotiated such packages for many years, and will have a much better feel for it than I do.
  All I was saying was that if one accepts that there is a total remuneration package, how one slices it between pay and pension is a further matter. What matters to the levy payers is the total cost of the staff to the levy payers in running the levy. I suggest that, given pay and pension levels, if the conditions of the pension are reduced and made less attractive, people will be compensated accordingly in pay. One can argue

  GC 353
  about what will happen 20 or 30 years down the line—and I take the point about unlimited price indexation, and so on. None the less, the total sum for the levy payers should be approximately the same.
  There may be 100 staff, 40 of whom may be professionals, who may or may not have come from the Civil Service or bodies with similar conditions. I gave the example of the RBS, which remains open to new members—it did when I last checked. The conditions are at least as good as, if not better than, those of the Civil Service. Another 40 per cent of the staff may be working on the interface—senior level administrative staff—and another 20 per cent will be involved with aspects such as IT. They will come from different sectors and schemes.
  We regard the pension scheme as part of the remuneration package. We could argue about whether it should be sliced differently, but I doubt whether that would have any impact on the nature of the levy. If there is no such impact, we are brought back to the original point—that what other Members of the Committee have proposed is good for its own sake. I am not persuaded that it is.
  Baroness NoakesThe Minister's assertion that a package can be simply sliced one way or another is a nice economic theory and may form part of some of the negotiations around the pay packages. But the evidence from employers is that, because employees rarely value the pension that is provided at the cost of providing it, it is not simply a question of cutting up different parts of a package.
  The only way one can get to the position described by the Minister is with something close to a defined contribution scheme, whereby one can actually see that the parts are either pay or defined contribution. With a defined benefit scheme, especially those with very generous benefits such as unlimited indexation, all the evidence from the employers with whom I have been involved is that it does not have a commensurate value in the negotiation around pay. Therefore, it is not a zero sum game, as I believe the Minister was trying to say. It could be transparently a zero sum game in the context of a defined contribution scheme, but that is not what we are talking about.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI take that point. When we come on to the point about defined choice and retirement, one of our concerns is to bring that up on the agenda. But we are dealing with a group of people who will be educated in pension practice, because that is what they are being employed to do. They will have been involved in accountancy, law and so on, before they come into the job. The notion that they will not actually value that which they are seeking to protect by virtue of running the PPF does not seem likely to me.
  I take the noble Baroness's general point. She is absolutely right—and this is a problem that government as a whole deal with—that pensions are undervalued until people hit their 50s. However, I believe that this is one occupation and one NDPB to which that will not apply. It might apply to the Arts
  GC 354
  Council, but I should be very surprised indeed if it applied to the professionals being employed by the PPF.
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 104 [Board's functions]:
  [Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 104 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord HigginsThe clause relates to the functions of the board and a number of various functions are set out. I wish to clarify a couple of points.
  The Minister earlier helpfully described the way in which the board would operate, taking over eligible schemes, maintaining them and paying out the amounts that they would have received or an amount related to what they would have received, had the existing pension scheme not folded. I fully understand that the money all then goes into a single pot, but do the members whose scheme has been taken over and become an eligible scheme operated by the PPF go on making the same contributions as they would previously have been going to make? In effect, is the PPF making up the contribution that would have been made by the company if it had not gone bust?
  If that is so, are the liabilities of the PPF with regard to those particular people going to be assessed by an actuary, as they would have been if the original scheme had continued in existence? We need to be clear. On the one hand, we all realise that the money all goes into a single pot; on the other hand, the benefits remain the same or are related to the way in which they were previously paid. What is the situation with regard to the members of that scheme, now part of the PPF, paying contributions? Do they go on paying the contributions? Do they go on paying—I am saying this for a second time—the contributions they would previously have paid and does the PPF make up the payments which the employer would previously have made?
  The other point relates to a different matter; the board's functions. It is taking over the various schemes, many of which would have had actuaries, accountants, advisers or whoever, who may be on contract to the scheme that has folded. Does the PPF compensate those people?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI shall take advice on the second part of that question. On the first part, a scheme will enter the PPF only if the company is insolvent and the scheme is under-funded. If the company is solvent, but the scheme is under-funded, the company will be expected to make good as part of the winding up. If the company is insolvent, but the pension scheme is adequately funded, it can continue as a closed scheme or wind up under certain circumstances if that is desirable. Therefore, the schemes come into the PPF with an active member—say, James Smith aged 50 working for a steel widgets firm in the north—because the company has folded with it his job. Therefore, contributions continue and

  GC 355
  no increase in benefits will follow. He has effectively become a deferred pensioner. This is for people who are still of working age.
  Clearly, pensions in payment—those over retirement—continue in the usual way. Clearly, there is an issue about whether in the assessment period someone hits retirement or seeks to come into the scheme perhaps by manipulating ill-health rules. There are some issues around that which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would be right to pick me up on and press me as to how we will deal with them. They are complicated.
  I believe that I am right by definition, but I am not sure whether technically I am right. I am speaking in a lay person's language. Basically, at the point at which someone's scheme comes into the PPF, he has effectively become a deferred pensioner. In that sense, it would follow not dissimilar rules to any other deferred pension scheme which gets, so to speak, frozen but will have certain indexation rules applied to it. But no additional contributions are being made and therefore no benefits are being accrued over and beyond what a limited indexation might achieve. I do not know whether that helps the noble Lord.
  On the second question relating to compensation to professionals, there will be no compensation to trustees and so forth, in the same way as they are not compensated during a normal scheme wind-up. It is simply that their contracts of employment are terminated. I am sorry, did I speak too quickly? We do not expect any compensation to professionals, including trustees, in the same way as they do not receive compensation now when a normal scheme winds up; in other words, their contacts of employment are terminated.
  Clause 104 agreed to.
  Clause 105 agreed to.
  2.30 p.m.
  Clause 106 [The Non-Executive Committee]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 106 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord LucasWe come back to that which the noble Baroness would not answer before lunch. Personally, I can listen to the noble Baroness all day. Indeed, I have done so on many occasions during my days on the Front Bench—most enjoyable it was, too. I am not sure that that is entirely reciprocated, but there we are.
  We have dealt with the assertion that this provision is a Higgs structure; the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has demolished it comprehensively. We are dealing with a particular board structure that has to be justified in its own terms. The common British board is a unitary board where, although there may be functions that non-executive directors are supposed to undertake, they none the less undertake them as part of a unitary board.
  This would be a separate non-executive committee with its own responsibilities and decisions, which it would take separately from the board. The Government
  GC 356
  must justify why they have moved from our standard structure to this structure. What benefits flow from adopting this structure rather than the ordinary structure that we would expect in a body corporate?
  Towards the end of Clause 106(5) we get something that looks like the remuneration committee and the audit committee. I can understand why we have a separate committee with separate responsibilities. In paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5) we are looking at functions that belong to the responsibilities of the whole board. I do not see why sole responsibility for them is being delegated to a non-executive subcommittee. That damages the function of the board, which is why we do not do that in ordinary companies. Those functions are the responsibility of the board and need to be dealt with by the board.
  Non-executive directors have particular responsibility for considering matters, which they will often meet separately to discuss. None the less, the decisions and responsibilities rest with the board. A non-executive committee in an ordinary company does not take separate decisions on those matters or have defined responsibility as suggested in this clause. I want to know why this is being done. I do not expect to hear "because it's Higgs"—because it is not.
  Lord BorrieI am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has, for the second time, agreed with my earlier points about Higgs and the combined code. It helps to make the point that I seek now to pursue: we are dealing with a public sector body, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it must be justified on its own merits.
  In part of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, it seems as though he is torn between the combined code and that particular argument: he talks about moving away from the board structure with which we are all familiar in the private sector. Because this is the public sector, we do not need to consider how far it is different from, or how far we have moved away from, the private sector corporate structure. We need to consider whether this is a valuable way for this particular body to do business.
  The clear distinction, which is set out somewhere or other—I agree that there are a lot of words in Clause 106—is that it is the strategic direction of the board with which the non-executive committee are supposed to be concerned. That is the key function of the non-executive committee. That, together with calling to account the performance of the chief executive, seems a very suitable function for the non-executive committee. I shall say no more. I agreed with the basis of what the noble Lord said, but then he could not help himself in going back to the private sector structure, which we do not need to do in this regard.
  Lord HigginsI sympathise with my noble friend's point; it has been a thread through our discussions all day. What is proposed is much closer to a continental European structure. To some extent, in effect, it becomes a supervisory board; but, if I understand it correctly, it means that we will not have a specific remuneration committee or a specific audit committee.

  GC 357
  The whole thing comes under the non-executive committee. Given what is happening at Shell, I am not sure that this model is ideal. We need to consider why the Government have decided that this is the right approach.
  Baroness NoakesI never like to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I do not think that this is like a supervisory board on the continental model. That board sits above the board to which are accustomed, which does most of the business. Here, we have the board and a non-executive committee, which carries out functions. However, subsection (3) states:
  "The functions … are functions of the board".
  That is neither fish nor fowl, which is the cause of the problem.
  The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, says that we do not have to follow the private sector. Indeed, we do not, but the vast majority of public-sector bodiesߞand I mean the vast majority—have unitary boards. There are two or three examples, which started with the Bank of England, which have this curious non-executive committee structure.
  I have some knowledge of that structure because I was the first senior non-executive director of the non-executive committee of the Bank of England. That caused us huge problems because the non-executive directors were suddenly required to take on functions that were functions of the board but, in some senses, separately. We got around that by having technical meetings of the non-executive directors, which ratified things that were carried out in the main board from the perspective of the responsibilities laid on the non-executive directors.
  Reading the current report of the Bank of England, it has moved on to having the non-executive directors carrying out most of the functions of the board with executive members in attendance, which are determined by formal meetings of the whole board to ratify what has gone on. Neither arrangement is satisfactory because both arrangements are attempts to get around a slightly ludicrous separation between executive and non-executive in the context of a unitary board.
  Because of Clause 106(3), it seems to me that there is schizophrenia here. We want a unitary board so the functions are left to the board, but we also want to set up some kind of a divisive structure. This started to go wrong when the Bank of England Act set that up. There have been only a couple of other examples. Nowhere else in the public sector will one find such nonsense.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamFrom the way that this discussion is going, I do not know whether praying in aid Higgs would help or hinder me. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that this is not what Higgs says. My noble friend Lord Borrie said that this is not what Higgs says. And quite right, too, because that is not what Higgs refers to. I shall try another approach, which is to say that it is partly Higgs and it is a jolly
  GC 358
  good idea. Not for the first time, I think that I shall lose friends from all around the Committee. Perhaps I may set out our thinking.
  First, we believe that it is a unitary board. I completely defer to the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at the Bank of England. Needless to say, I have not shared that experience. I have no reason to think that she is not entirely accurate in her descriptions of some of the contrivances to avoid a structure that she believes is burdensome and an impediment to appropriate decision making.
  The intent is that we are dealing with a unitary board where there is a strategic role that is properly exercised by the non-executive directors, not quite in a Chagall-like way floating above the top of the board, but which would none the less be able to sit as a non-executive committee to discuss the strategic development of the PPF. But the non-executives also have a separate role. That was a feature of the Higgs review, which stated that non-executives should meet separately and have a clear role in contributing to strategy and to monitoring performance.
  Again, I cannot challenge the expertise of the noble Baroness, because it is not my expertise at all, but I am advised that ordinary companies are increasingly introducing opportunities for non-executive members of their boards to meet separately and to have a clearer, more independent role—although this may not be formally recognised in the same way as in the PPF.
  We can argue about blue-sky stuff such as whether it is more like Europe, more like Britain, whether there should be unitary boards and so on, but ultimately I do not know how the PPF's ability to function appropriately is compromised by these proposals. I can think of many ways in which the role of the PPF will be strengthened by them. Would noble Lords opposite kindly say why in practice this would hamper the good governance of the PPF? I have not heard a single reason. I have heard blue-skies theory on structures and all the rest—that is a changing field, but it is not mine. I have not heard any practical reason why this structure would hinder in any way.
  There are many reasons why it would help, particularly given the political sensitivity of such a fund, where one is asking the non-executive members to have a non-commercial role—I am using small letters in that sense; I am not implying any criticism. There is a degree of sensitivity and therefore a degree of background that we would be seeking from the non-executive directors, which would be much greater in its headspace above the ranks of executive directors than is often the case.
  In that sense, this separation of the non-executive directors into a non-executive committee, where appropriate, must surely be advisable. I have heard no reasons to persuade me that that is not the case, other than, "it isn't best practice".
  Baroness NoakesI do not wish to delay the Committee too much, as I am sure that we shall return to this matter again at Report. The problem is that the

  GC 359
  list of non-executive functions starts with strategy. That is quintessentially a function of the whole unitary board. Nothing in Higgs or the combined code says that non-executives go away separately to talk about strategy. They go away separately to talk about the way in which the chairman works—that is specified in the combined code—and, usually with the chairman, to talk about the performance of the chief executive. No one needs to set up in statute or write in the combined code that they should do those things, and no one says that they should have a separate committee for it.
  If the intention is, as we understand it, to have a unitary board, why do we have this artificial structure involving the non-executive committee? I tried to explain to the Minister that in the only example with which I have been familiar there has been a series of legal devices to operate as a unitary board but stay within the letter of the Bank of England Act. So if she says, "Is there any harm", I shall say, "No, the PPF will get around it", because it will organise the way that it carries on business as if this is not driving the way they have carried out their day-to-day business. I have not heard from the Minister why this structure helps the governance or the unitary structure to work. All that I can see is that it potentially harms the unitary structure unless the members of the PPF or the board work their way around it. That is not a sound basis for legislation.
  Lord HigginsThe Minister said that there will be a remuneration committee and an audit committee, in which case I am not clear whether, if we are specifying a non-executive committee, we are not also specifying them. Provided that there is a proper remuneration committee and a proper audit committee, I wonder increasingly whether we need Clause 106 at all. For the reasons given by my noble friend, it is arguable that we do not.
  2.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI do not think that I can help very much more. We think that such a committee will ensure a degree of independence and oversee the governance and strategy of the organisation, providing an independent review of the executive function of the board. As a result, we will get a wide of range skills and experience brought to the organisation.
  There is probably a degree of a difference of philosophy here. I am not sure that I shall be able to say very much that will change the minds of Members of the Committee. Obviously, as always, I shall read Hansard, but I have not heard anything gritty that I can get into: it has all been at a blue-sky level. I do not mean to be critical because my language, too, has been at a blue-sky level. Apart from the fact that at the Bank of England there was a need to get around it in some way, I have not heard anything to suggest that this provision is a bad thing. I have been given quite a lot of advice to suggest that there are many positive advantages.
  GC 360
  If noble Lords wish to write to me with further details about why this provision might be an impediment to the effective and appropriate running of this organisation, I am very happy to take that on board. But I have not had that grittiness today.
  Baroness NoakesPerhaps the noble Baroness can tell us the positive advantages. We did not hear those.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayOn listening to the debate, I do not think that it is right for the Minister to invite Peers who are probing to write to her. It is for the Minister to explain—this is blue-sky either way—to explain grittily why the provision is a good thing. The more I listen, the more I think that there is not much point for it.
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI have tried to set out that what we seek to do is to establish a non-executive committee within, if one likes, the unitary structure to overview the strategic functioning and working of the board. Given the nature of its sensitivities and so forth, there is an additional dimension that one might not normally expect of many commercial companies. It would be sensible and is congruent with the advice coming from Higgs et al. I am assured that this is increasingly the way in which many companies are going, and it seems a good way to proceed. But if it is not, it is for Members of the Committee who are saying that we should do something different to explain to me, if they would be so kind, why doing it differently would be better.
  Lord Lea of CrondallThis is an unnecessary philosophical discussion that has arisen—as if this must, on a priori grounds, be exactly like a Companies Act company. That is the sort of picture that is coming out. This is sui generis. All the reasons for this provision being set out as it is are based on the particular factors that have led to the whole board structure being created in the first place. The critics have not really taken the point that this is a rather special animal that must have rather special features. I think that time will demonstrate that is the case.
  Baroness NoakesPerhaps I may say to the noble Lord that this is a fairly ordinary NDPB. There is nothing very special about it in public sector organisational terms.
  Lord LucasCan the noble Baroness ask her officials to talk to their colleagues associated with the Bank of England board to find out their experience of this particular structure? It is an unusual structure in NDPBs. Perhaps we could have some feedback on whether they feel that the structure has been good.
  The crucial element is subsection (4), which one could not have in a public company and is not present in most NDPBs. One can have everything else, but subsection (4) kills it. What advantages or disadvantages does the Bank of England see to having that part of the structure? The rest seems to me to say, "Well, if they want to do it that way or not, fine". We take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that this is a public board and it can

  GC 361
  do things its own way. But we are introducing a set of tensions into this board through subsection (4). I do not see how those tensions are constructive.
  There is an example in the Bank of England where those tensions exist, at least in potential. Can we have some feedback as to why they are a good idea?
  Baroness Hollis of HeighamI am certainly willing to seek advice and a briefing on the effectiveness of the Bank of England. But in all the briefing that I have read, I have been led to believe that NDPBs, as they are now being developed by government, will proceed down this road unless there are very good reasons otherwise and that this is where best practice lies. Arguments about this not being quite British, and so forth, will not do. I need to be given stronger arguments than that about why this is not congruent with best practice which, for all the reasons I have suggested to Members of the Committee, it appears to be.
  As I say, underlying this is some philosophic reading of how companies should be structured in this company. I am very happy to find out whether the Bank of England believes that the structure produces practical problems of the sort described, whether they
  GC 362
  have been overcome, whether our structure would replicate those problems and whether we shall be able to overcome them. That could be a very useful activity. We shall find out what there is to be said on that.
  Certainly, as it stands, I have not heard any evidence to suggest that corralling the strategic functions to the non-executive committee is not an appropriate and proper way to behave. I cannot take the argument any further but, obviously, Members of the Committee will want to revisit this matter on Report.
  Clause 106 agreed to.
  Clause 107 [Investment of funds]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord HigginsThis is obviously a very important clause.
  Baroness CrawleyAs there is a Division in the House, this might be an appropriate time for the Committee to adjourn until Monday at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood)The Committee stands adjourned until Monday at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at nine minutes before three o'clock.

  Learning and Skills Council: Strategic Area Reviews
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the cost of strategic area reviews in 2003–04; and what will be the cost in 2004–05. [HL3636]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) was established in 2001 to plan and fund post-16 education and training. LSC-led strategic area reviews were introduced in April 2002 and are an integral part of this planning role. No extra funding was allocated to carry out these reviews and it is therefore not possible to dissaggregate their specific cost from the overall cost of the wide range of planning activities carried out by local LSCs.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  (a) how many and (b) what percentage of young people who received education maintenance allowances in each pilot area were studying in further education colleges; and [HL3637]

  How much of the funding allocation for the 2003 to 2006 spending review was allocated to the national roll-out of education maintenance allowance in: (a) schools (b) sixth-form colleges; and (c) further education colleges. [HL3638]

  Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
  Nationally, 36 per cent of 16 to 18 year-olds on full-time further education courses are studying in further education colleges. In the 56 EMA pilot areas 136 sixth-form colleges/colleges of further education were involved in EMA. A breakdown of how many students attending further education colleges received EMA in the pilot areas is not available.

  For the national scheme, the funding is made available to young people in full-time education whether they are studying in school, sixth-form college or further education college. The money is paid directly to the learner rather than via the institution, and the EMA budget is not split between institutions.

  Sixth Forms
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How much funding was provided by each local learning and skills council to school sixth forms in (a) 2002–03; and (b) 2003–04; and how many students each of these school sixth forms have on their rolls. [HL3640]

  Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
  The department allocates funds for the provision of education at school sixth forms to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Information about these allocations at local LSC level is not collected by the department. This is an operational matter and the responsibility of the LSC. Mark Haysom, the LSC's chief executive, will write to the noble Baroness with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Skipton Fund
  Lord Morris of Manchester
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 24 June (WA 151) concerning representations about the Skipton Fund sent to the Department of Health on behalf of the Haemophilia Society in Scotland, when they expect the department's response to be placed in the Library of the House; and whether it will also be copied to Members involved with the correspondence. [HL3517]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Department of Health (Lord Warner):
  The Department of Health's response has been forwarded to my noble friend and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Blue Flag Scheme
  Lord Fearn
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the Blue Flag scheme for clean English beaches is to continue. [HL3647]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty):
  The Blue Flag scheme will continue to operate in England. It is administered in the UK by ENCAMS (Keep Britain Tidy) on behalf of the FEE (Foundation for Environmental Education) and recognises beaches that are safe, clean and well managed.

  Cattle Tracing System
  Baroness Byford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What have been the costs of running the cattle tracing system and the animal movement licensing system for each of the years 2000 to 2003 and for 2004 to date. [HL3665]

  Lord Whitty:
  The direct running costs of the cattle tracing system (CTS) are set out in the table below:

  CTS (£ million)

  2000–01

  13.25

  2001–02

  14.24

  2002–03

  15.79

  2003–04

  15.39

  2004–05

  2.34 (to 31/05/04)

  14.90 (full year forecast)

  The animal movements licensing system (AMLS) was introduced in September 2001. Enforcement of the livestock movements rules and data input to AMLS by local authorities constitute the main cost of running the system. It is not possible to separate these costs precisely from each other, or from payments made to local authorities for other work relating to animal health. We estimate, however, that in 2002–03 this work cost approximately £3.8 million and in 2003–04 £3.0 million. Figures for 2004–05 are not yet available because invoices come into the department in arrears, but systems are now in place to provide a more precise breakdown of costs once invoices have been received.

  Baroness Byford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What impact the cattle tracing system will have on the employment levels of the British Cattle Movement Service; whether a target employment level has been set; and, if so, what that target is. [HL3668]

  Lord Whitty:
  The cattle tracing system (CTS) is being migrated to a new information platform in order to improve its reliability. The business case that supports the change did not seek to identify direct staff savings at the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) in Workington. However efficiency savings and the completion of short-term projects has enabled the BCMS to reduce the number of staff employed from 858, comprising 505 permanent and 353 agency staff, in November 2003 to 669, 492 permanent staff and 177 agency staff, in July 2004.

  A long-term target employment level has not been set as this will depend upon the uptake of direct reporting by customers to the database via the CTS website. However, numbers are expected to
  WA160
  decline further. Procedures are being put in place to extend the central database to cover the tracing of sheep, pigs and other farmed species but the impact of these changes on staff numbers has yet to be established.

  The BCMS also delivers call centre services across core Defra. It merged with the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) in April 2003 and is an integral part of the RPA's corporate structure.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Mapping
  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the initial budget for the mapping required to implement the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; and what is the latest estimate of the costs of such mapping. [HL3711]

  Lord Whitty:
  Mapping is one of the Countryside Agency's responsibilities under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The agency's estimate at the end of 2000 for its total costs in implementing the new right of access was £28 million over four years. At that stage, the regulations covering public consultation on the draft maps had not been framed, nor had decisions been taken about the regional commencement of the new right of access. In the event, publicity arrangements and the consultation exercise for the draft maps were much more extensive than originally envisaged. The agency received eight times its initial estimate of the number of public comments on the draft maps. This was welcome for the scrutiny it gave the draft maps, but had a major impact on the overall mapping costs.

  To the end of May 2004 the Countryside Agency has spent £30.19 million consisting of £0.75 million in 1999–2000; £0.92 million in 2000–01; £5.17 million in 2001–02; £8.30 million in 2002–03; £13.25 million in 2003–04; and £1.8 million to date in 2004–05. The agency expects to spend a further £14.9 million in the current financial year, and estimates expenditure of £8.9 million in 2005–06. These costs include the agency's work on mapping, public consultation, the appeals process, restrictions and exclusions administration, communications and public information and salary costs.

  Defra has also funded the Planning Inspectorate to deal with appeals against the inclusion of land on provisional maps and restriction appeals: £0.11 million in 2001–02; £0.84 million in 2002–03 and £1.20 million in 2003–04. The Planning Inspectorate expects to spend no more than £2 million in the current financial year.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): The annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service has today been published and laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Housing: Private Rented Sector Licensing
  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.

  My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will publish for public consultation on 16 July a paper on licensing in the private rented sector concerning the implementation of selective licensing.

  This paper seeks to explain the Government's proposals for licensing in the private rented sector which will be set in place by the Housing Bill, currently before Parliament. In particular, the paper explains the Government's proposals for selective licensing and sets out proposals for the secondary instruments required to implement these measures.

  The powers in the Bill and proposed secondary legislation will give local authorities scope to license properties in those areas where the private rented sector is associated with problems of low demand and/ or anti-social behaviour. Licensing will enable local authorities to:

  Ensure that landlords are fit and proper persons or employ agents who are.

  Ensure that the standards of tenancy relations management and property management employed by a landlord or agent are adequate.

  Impose conditions on licenses to achieve improvements in management where necessary.

  Identify landlords and support them in participating in work to regenerate rundown areas or to tackle problems of anti-social behaviour.

  Step in and manage properties where landlords refuse to meet the required criteria.

  The paper invites interested parties to comment on how these powers should be implemented in relation to selective licensing through the necessary secondary legislation.

  This consultation is being taken forward alongside the progress of the Bill through Parliament, not only to enable authorities to make an early start to tackling problems of low demand and anti-social behaviour once the Bill receives Royal Assent, but also to better inform the consideration of the Bill in Parliament.
  WS64
  Copies of the paper are being sent to a wide range of interested parties including local authorities, landlord and tenant organisations and others with an interest in this issue. The closing date for responses is 8 October 2004.

  Copies of the paper will also be made available in the Libraries of the House and will be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at www.odpm.gov.uk

  Controlled Drugs
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner):
  The fourth report of the Shipman inquiry, The regulation of controlled drugs in the community, Cm 6249, was published today, and copies have been place in the Library. This follows the publication of reports on the extent of Harold Shipman's activities, on the 1998 investigation by the Greater Manchester Police, and on death certification and the coroner system. The inquiry's final report on monitoring of medical practitioners, disciplinary systems, whistleblowing and complaints is now expected to be published later this year.

  The Government would again like to thank Dame Janet Smith for the meticulous care which has gone into the preparation of this report; for the sensitivity with which she has listened to the views of healthcare and law enforcement professionals at the inquiry's seminars; and for the skilful balance she has struck between the need to safeguard the legitimate use of controlled drugs for patient care and the need to protect the public from their misuse. We would also like to reiterate our sympathy to the relatives and friends of Shipman's victims.

  Dame Janet's report makes three major groups of recommendations. First, she advocates setting up an integrated and multidisciplinary inspectorate to monitor and audit the prescription, storage, distribution and disposal of controlled drugs. Secondly, the report recommends a number of restrictions on the prescribing of controlled drugs which would discourage or prevent health professionals prescribing in circumstances in which it could be considered to be unsafe or unwise for them to do so—prescribing for their own use or for that of their immediate families, prescribing outside the requirements of their normal clinical practice, or prescribing by professionals convicted of controlled drugs offences. Thirdly, the report proposes a series of measures to tighten up the handling and safekeeping of controlled drugs along each part of the supply chain from the supplier to the patient's home, and to provide a complete audit trail to account for the movement of controlled drugs at each stage, both in the National Health Service and in the private sector.

  These are very significant recommendations with fundamental implications for the use of controlled drugs in the NHS and elsewhere. We will need to study

  WS65
  them carefully and in consultation with existing inspectorates, patients, NHS and police organisations, and the healthcare professions. In particular, we will be seeking the views of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) which has already begun some valuable preparatory work on possible improvements to the present system and on the legislative changes that would be required. And we will need to wait for the recommendations in the inquiry's fifth report, on the general monitoring of general medical practitioners (GPs) and other health professionals, before we can reach final decisions on those issues on which there is a potential overlap between the two reports.

  In the mean while there is much valuable and important work already in hand. In addition to the work of the ACMD, the national prescribing centre has published preview guidance for NHS organisations and professionals summarising the legal requirements and best professional practice in the handling of controlled drugs. This work will be updated to take account of the inquiry's recommendations and issued as soon as possible. Finally, the NHS national programme for information technology will make a valuable contribution towards some of the additional safeguards proposed in the report, and we will need to consider carefully what can be delivered within the timescales of the programme.

  In welcoming the inquiry's second and third reports, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health emphasised the need to learn lessons from the mistakes of the past. Dame Janet's report acknowledges that no system for the regulation of controlled drugs can offer complete security against abuse from minds as devious as Shipman's, while allowing for their legitimate use by health professionals to ease suffering. But her report also makes clear that much more could be done to deter and detect improper use. We accept this conclusion. In acting on her report we are determined to ensure that all reasonable measures are taken to provide the robust safeguards which are needed and which the public can rightly expect.

  Thalidomide Trust: Tax Treatment of Payments
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My right honourable friend the Paymaster-General (Dawn Primarolo) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  The Treasury is today laying a statutory instrument which provides that payments by the Thalidomide Trust to the people affected by the drug Thalidomide will in future be exempt from income tax. This legislative change, on which the Government have consulted with the trust, will come into effect on 5 August 2004.

  Complaints, Redress and Tribunals
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin):
  I am placing today in the Library of the House copies of the White Paper Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals.

  The Government are committed to improving access to administrative justice and justice in the workplace. Central and local government make millions of decisions each year about the rights and obligations of individuals and where things go wrong the public have the right to expect swift resolution. Similarly, employees are entitled to fair and decent standards in the workplace and some means of redress where these standards are breached. Tribunals deal with about 1 million cases a year. They are one means of redress, but not the only means.

  This White Paper sets out the Government's vision for an improved and seamless system of dispute resolution. Sir Andrew Leggatt, in his report Tribunals for Users, identified how tribunals can offer a better service for users. We have already announced our intention to accept the central theme of that report and create within the Department for Constitutional Affairs a single tribunal service, bringing together most central government tribunals.

  But this White Paper goes a step further. The basis for the new organisation will be the largest tribunal organisations administered by central government, collectively responsible for more than 90 per cent of tribunal cases. But the organisation we are creating will be more than just a federation of existing tribunals. This will be a new organisation and a new type of organisation. It will have a remit to innovate, looking at alternative methods of resolving disputes and stimulating improved decision making so that the need for disputes does not arise. We intend that it will formally come into being in April 2006 but we are recruiting a chief executive now.

  This approach to proportionate dispute resolution is the first manifestation of the department's new strategy for helping users of the justice system to resolve issues without recourse to formal hearings.

  To help us to deliver this new approach we also intend to create a more unified and cohesive corps of tribunal panel members better equipped to deliver the service that users expect, while continuing to provide and enhance both their independence and their expertise. To provide the tribunal judiciary with leadership through this time of change and beyond into the new service we intend to create in statute the post of Senior President of Tribunals. The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has asked Lord Justice Robert Carnwath to act as Senior President designate in advance of legislation.

  We also believe that this new approach to administrative justice requires a new, more strategic organisation to oversee it so we plan to create an Administrative Justice Council, based on the existing Council on Tribunals which currently supervises the work of tribunals in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Wilton Park: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean):
  Wilton Park is an academically independent executive agency of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its annual report and accounts for 2003–04 were published today and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Highlights of the past year include:

  More conferences organised than ever before—49, including for the first time two held outside Europe.

  A record level of financial support from other organisations.

  Highest ever ratings by participants of the value of conferences.

  Wilton Park's performance against agreed targets for 2003–04 is shown below. The targets cover cost recovery, quality of conference programmes and standards of service, including for the current year.

  03—04 Target

  03—04 Performance

  04—05 Target

  Total income

  £3,732,000

  £3,635,000

  £3,987,000

  Excellent

  57%

  57.9%

  57%

  rating for

  programmes

  Excellent

  89%

  86.5%

  89%

  rating for

  administration

  University Research: Dual Support System
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville):
  The Government are setting out their overall strategy for the dual support system in the Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014, published as part of Spending Review 2004.
  WS68
  The key response to the consultation (available at http:// www.ost.gov.uk/policy/universityresearch.pdf) was that higher education institutions requested a further year for the implementation of the extensions to the TRAC accounting methodology. The Government accepted this, as I and the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson) announced in our letter to vice-chancellors of 24 November 2003. (http:// www.ost.gov.uk/research/higher-educ-letter.pdf).

  In the light of responses received and subsequent consultation with stakeholders, the Government have decided as follows:

  Research councils will pay a single percentage (as discussed in the investment framework) of full economic costs (FEC) for almost all types of grants for research projects and programmes. (Councils may announce special arrangements for certain types of grant, for example small travel grants, in due course). Research councils will include time spent by permanent academic staff, as calculated using the extended TRAC accounting methodology;

  Research students will continue to be excluded from the FEC regime for the time being. This will be revisited when TRAC has been successfully extended to teaching;

  The additional resources allocated in spending reviews for research councils to pay a greater proportion of the costs of research (£120 million from Spending Review 2002 and a further £80 million from 2007 08 allocated in SR04) will be allocated between research councils from 2006–07 in such a way as to preserve the current balance of research volume. Detailed modelling is currently under way; an announcement will be made when this has been completed.

  The guidance and checklist on the pricing of projects for non-research council funders has been slightly revised in the light of comments received; the updated version will be placed on OST's, HEFCE's and SHEFC's websites (www.ost.gov.uk, www.hefce.ac.uk, www.shefc.ac.uk).