Sitting of 10 June 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Miners' Compensation
    Adam Price: What response her Department has received from the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to her Department's letter on solicitors' charges to coal health claimants. [177750]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Union of Democratic Mineworkers has stated that its members are not charged. Non-members pay a deferred membership fee. I understand that the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers in south Wales makes similar charges and has pocketed more than £13 million, though that does not apply to NACODS elsewhere in the UK. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain that and ask the Plaid Cymru leader of NACODS to give that money back to the miners.
    Adam Price: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Thousands of former miners and their families have been ripped off by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers through its subsidiary company, Vendside. Why have officials in his Department, in statements to the press, defended a practice within the UDM that amounts to little less than corruption? Why do the Government continue to honour their agreement with the union when it is clearly to the detriment of so many people?
    Nigel Griffiths: The House will not take lessons from the hon. Member about corruption and creaming off money when the Plaid Cymru leader of NACODS in south Wales stands accused of creaming off more than £13 million for an organisation that has, I understand, about 40 members. What are they doing with the money? The agreement reached with other solicitors and representatives of miners has been longstanding and has generally delivered a considerable amount of compensation, amounting to the biggest public sector pay-out of compensation in history. It has generally
    386
    been delivered fairly; if it were not fair, I would be the first to criticise. The hon. Gentleman should make sure that he joins my colleagues and me in criticising NACODS in south Wales, but he will not, because of Plaid Cymru's deep involvement with it.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that for the Welsh nationalist MP to raise this matter, it is a case of the kettle calling the pot black? Will he also take into account the fact that there were problems with Vendside? It is true that some involved were directors of the firm. While it seems that we have caught the Welsh nationalist, Bleddyn Hancock, red-handed, does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that all the other areas are clean as well?
    Nigel Griffiths: I agree, of course, with my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on this issue. The Department of Trade and Industry looks into the propriety of the agreements and keeps them under review. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for their work in ensuring that this matter is continually at the forefront of debate. I know that hon. Members share a common commitment to ensure that every penny of compensation goes to sick miners, their widows and their families.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: I congratulate the Minister on his tough action against solicitors, including those associated with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. However, is he aware that in many cases solicitors are paying money back to claimants only when claimants have made a complaint? I urge the Minister to have an urgent meeting with the Law Society to press the organisation to ensure that all those solicitors who have taken money return it to claimants, irrespective of whether the individuals—some very elderly and frail—actually complain.
    Nigel Griffiths: I certainly join my hon. Friend in pressing the Law Society to ensure that those solicitors—a minority, I understand—who may have double charged, go through their list of clients and pay back any double payment. The Department of Trade and Industry has already paid several hundred millions of pounds in solicitors' fees. We covered their costs and we do not want to see a penny of compensation for miners and their widows coming out of the fund.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: If she will estimate the cost of the additional transmission network necessary to meet her target for renewable electricity generation. [177751]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): The transmission issues working group reported in June last year that the overall cost of connecting the additional 12 GW of renewable energy generation for the GB network will be about £2.1 billion. If shared just among domestic consumers, it would add around £10 per year to each customer's bill. A recent study by Mott MacDonald for the Carbon Trust and the DTI suggested that the cost would be in

    387
    a range from £1.4 billion up to an upper bound of £2.1 billion, some of that being required in any event for asset replacement.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is a huge extra subsidy to be paid for by the general electricity customer. When will the Government realise that the policy of vastly increasing wind-generated electricity is technically inefficient and will not solve an environmental problem? Indeed, it will create one by industrialising our rural upland and coastal areas. As we just heard, it will greatly increase electricity costs, which will create fuel poverty for individuals and add to business costs. Does that not show that the waffle that we get from the DTI about the need for businesses to remain competitive in international markets by keeping down their costs is completely hollow?
    Mr. Timms: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on every point. There is a need for investment in the transmission network, to facilitate much more distributed generation and to replace equipment that is now worn out. That investment will have to be paid for, of course, but the price is entirely affordable, especially given the environmental benefits of generation from wind and other renewables, and the advantages for security of supply.
    The right hon. Gentleman is also wrong about industrialisation, as he calls it. There will be a proper planning process for every wind farm planning application, to ensure that projects that go forward are not environmentally damaging in the way that he fears. However, I accept that we need to address urgently the challenge of climate change. We cannot simply go on burning oil, gas and coke as we have in the past. We need to develop new ways of generating electricity, and wind generation is the most cost effective of the renewable technologies available today. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support it.
    Miss Anne Begg: The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has a very narrow view of what constitutes renewable energy. As well as onshore wind generation, there is also offshore wind power and tidal power. In addition, people at the Robert Gordons university in Aberdeen are working on tidal race technology. However, regardless of what type of renewable energy is developed, the grid must be upgraded. I go to many conferences and meetings on this matter, and one of the biggest problems is the lack of grid in areas where it has traditionally been lacking. If a tidal race were to be placed in the Pentland firth, for example, the existing grid from Dounreay would still have to be upgraded. I therefore encourage the Minister to do all he can to ensure that that barrier to the development of renewable energy is removed, so that we can fulfil the renewables obligation.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are supporting a range of renewable technologies beyond wind, although wind is the most cost effective at present. I welcome the progress being made in upgrading the network. The first project likely to come forward will be the 220 km upgraded line from Beauly to Denny in Scotland. That is expected to cost £200
    388
    million and to be submitted for consent this autumn. With Ofgem, we have set up an industry-wide distributed generation co-ordinating group to ensure that the issues involved are addressed in a timely way.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) says, it is essential that we address all these matters and enable the grid upgrade to go ahead so as to allow the much more distributed profile of electricity generation that renewable and other developments will make possible in the future. No longer will we have the small number of huge power stations that have characterised the grid in the past. The profile is going to change.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will the Minister join me in congratulating his comrade, the hon. Member for Brighton. Kemptown (Dr. Turner), whose amendment No. 189 to the Energy Bill was accepted in Standing Committee? That success was due to the fact that the amendment won the support of all the Conservative members of the Committee, and of the two members from the minor parties. The amendment will make the Government's renewables targets less unachievable by making it more affordable for energy produced from renewable resources to connect to the grid. Why did the Government and the Minister oppose the amendment?
    Mr. Timms: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The arrangements that have applied since the Utilities Act 2000 came into force mean that the primary duty of the regulator is to protect the interests of consumers, through competition where appropriate. The Government believe that that is the right approach. We will return to the subject when the House looks at it again in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. O'Brien: Despite the Minister's somewhat pedestrian answer—and given his failure to dragoon Labour Back Benchers to support the Government in Committee—will he give an undertaking to the House that he will not seek to remove the amendment on Report? He has said that he wishes to revisit the matter. Will he seek to put something in its place that delivers the same outcome?
    Mr. Timms: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question before he posed it for a second time.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. John MacDougall: What measures her Department is taking to increase the UK's manufacturing industry productivity; and if she will make a statement. [177753]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are working with manufacturing industry, the trade unions and others in all the areas identified in the Government's manufacturing strategy, which is, of course, the first UK industrial strategy for more than 30 years, to help UK manufacturing industry to increase productivity. For example, the

    389
    manufacturing advisory service has already proved a real success, particularly with smaller manufacturers, generating a total value added of more than £53 million.
    Mr. MacDougall: Does the Secretary of State agree that prospects for UK manufacturing industry are improving?
    Ms Hewitt: I certainly do, and I warmly welcome the fact that all recent business surveys of manufacturing have been positive. The report by the Engineering Employers Federation on Tuesday showed the fastest rise in orders and output in British industry for seven years. That encouragement from the manufacturers themselves is confirmed by figures released yesterday by National Statistics, which show a much bigger than expected increase in output between March and April. That does not mean there are not challenges for manufacturing industry, but the industry is much more confident about the future.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If the prospects of British industry are so good, can the right hon. Lady explain why the United Kingdom's position in the international league of competitiveness has dropped dramatically? Why was the United Kingdom's rate of increase in productivity during the first five years of her Government half of what it had been during the last five years of Tory government? Is the answer not something to do with the huge extra tax and regulatory burden and the fact that British industry is paying an extra £7 billion a year in taxation?
    Ms Hewitt: I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. In spite of his personal commitment to manufacturing, his comments come ill from a member of the party whose Government wrecked a large part of British manufacturing, particularly in the recession of the early 1980s, but throughout nearly 20 years of neglecting, ignoring, talking down and doing their best to undermine it. Over the past seven years, we have seen a significant improvement in Britain's productivity position compared with those of Germany, in particular, and France and the United States. We will go on working with manufacturing to improve productivity, particularly through our investment in science and innovation, which the Conservative party completely neglected and underfunded during its years in government.
    Tony Cunningham: New Balance, a company in my constituency that makes running shoes, has hugely increased its productivity through investment in training and, in particular, in multi-skilling. So successful has it become that it has been granted the Queen's Award for Industry. Should we not learn from best practice?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I am delighted, through him, to add my congratulations to New Balance on its excellent achievement of the Queen's Award for Industry. That is a superb example of how wrong people are to say that there is no future for British manufacturing and that
    390
    everything will go off to low-wage countries. The truth is, even in a country with high wages and proud of it, if management and employees work closely together and invest in skills and in the right technology, Britain can continue to have some of the best manufacturers in the world.

    Rural Post Offices
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on Government support for rural post offices after April 2006. [177754]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit report on the future of the post office network recommended that Postcomm should advise the Government on the main policy options beyond 2006. We are considering that advice and will reach conclusions on the shape of the rural network after 2006 in time to allow a smooth transition from the current support arrangements.
    Mr. Carmichael: Can the Minister confirm that the advice given by Postcomm in a report last year included the possible closure of up to 1,600 rural post offices and a reduction in the support money currently available to them? Will he publish that advice in full so that Members and people in rural areas throughout the country can be made aware of the nature of the debate going on within government rather than being consulted in a few years' time on a decision that has already been taken?
    Mr. Timms: I can say only that we are looking at the range of options available. The advice was submitted in confidence, although a summary may well be published in due course. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it contains commercially sensitive data, so I cannot commit to full publication, He will recognise that we have provided strong support for the rural post office network, which has led to a significant fall in the number of rural closures. We want to build on the lessons learned as a result of that strong Government support.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When a post office is closed down, the Post Office usually explains where the alternative is and may suggest transport, such as bus routes or boat and helicopter routes for the Orkney and Shetland islands. However, problems can arise with the buses themselves. It is not just post offices that close; bus routes get closed down, too. Is the Department of Trade and Industry involved in assessing transport arrangements in rural areas and how they may develop in future, because that has a knock-on consequence in terms of whether people can handle the change?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have imposed an obligation on the Post Office that there should be no avoidable rural post office closures. There is a different arrangement for urban post offices. Where urban closures are proposed there is a requirement to look at the public transport and other arrangements that would allow people to access alternative branches. For rural areas, we said that

    391
    wherever possible there should be no closures of branches. The support that we are providing to allow that obligation to be delivered will last at least until 2006.
    Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that because business is collapsing underneath rural post offices, many of them see no future beyond 2006? Therefore, it is important that the Government publish an early indication of whether they wish to continue with the subsidy or what alternative business rural post offices can look forward to after that date. What are the Government doing about Tesco's plans, having taken over convenience stores, to close post offices in rural communities? Will he undertake that the Government will ensure that those communities continue to have access to a post office on their criteria, not Tesco's?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong to speak about post office business collapsing. We are making sure, through investment and rationalisation, that the Post Office can serve today's needs. We have invested £500 million in technology, which is unprecedented, to allow banking at every single post office branch in the country. Basic bank accounts are available from every high street bank and 20 million ordinary current accounts can now be accessed from every post office branch in the country. The Post Office is developing new products to build new markets. We are putting in place a business with a strong commercial future in both urban and rural areas, thus giving the prospect of a successful future for the thousands of people who work in post office branches.
    Where Tesco proposes a closure, the company has agreed to talk to the Post Office to ensure that if it is needed—it is not part of an urban reinvention arrangement—alternative arrangements can be made. I hope that will satisfactorily resolve the small number of instances in which that problem has arisen.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister recall that I contacted him about North Wootton post office in my constituency? It was categorised as an urban post office, yet it is opposite a village green, there are cows out the back and perhaps the odd pig or sheep, children ride by on their ponies and farmers go by on their tractors. Despite that, some sharp-suited bureaucrat from the Post Office characterised it as an urban post office. What is a rural post office? Will he tell the House whether the social network payment scheme will continue after 2006?
    Mr. Timms: The definition that the Post Office uses depends on the contiguous population in the area served: whether it is more or less than 10,000. That definition has been rigorously applied and I have no doubt that it was applied in the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I will check that a consistent definition has been used. We are looking at a range of options for the form of support that will be provided to the rural network beyond 2006. The current
    392
    arrangements, strongly supported by the Government, will last for almost a further two years, so we have plenty of time to make sure that once we have made the decision there is a smooth transition from the current arrangements to those that will apply after 2006.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Has the Minister noticed the many campaigns against the closure of individual post offices, including petitions backed by Members of Parliament? Does he agree that if a Member of Parliament voted for Government policy on 15 October 2002 to close one in three urban post offices, it would be the utmost hypocrisy for that Member to present a petition or campaign to keep open a post office?
    Mr. Timms: I do not agree, because—as Members on both sides recognise—the urban post office network is getting less business, so rationalisation is necessary. The Post Office has made proposals for closures area by area, but it is essential that a careful process of consultation take place on each proposal. Some of the closures initially proposed were not appropriate and should not—indeed, will not—go ahead. Members of Parliament can play a part in drawing attention to such inappropriate proposals and I would encourage them to do so.

    Small Businesses
    Ann Winterton: If she will introduce legislation regulating the activities of shadow directors in small businesses. [177756]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): The answer to the question is no: the activities of shadow directors are already regulated, as the hon. Lady knows. We would not want any unnecessary red tape.
    Ann Winterton: I welcome the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has recognised the problem of shadow directors. They are not illegal, but surely the public have the right to know who directs or runs a company. Fewer cases of abuse now exist, but is the Minister aware that some still persist in manipulating the system, virtually defrauding individuals and companies—more often than not
    smaller companies that can least bear the loss—that have provided goods and services? I have one such example in Congleton. Will the Minister undertake to look into the matter on behalf of my constituents to see what further action could be taken?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue of how directors operate in certain conditions, which causes concern to many people. She will know about the disqualification hotline, which has produced much information about people who act as directors inappropriately. For the information of hon. Members, its number is 0845 601 3546. If the hon. Lady gives me details of the individual case that she mentioned, I shall look into the matter as soon as possible.

    European Commission Cohesion Report
    Mr. Michael Moore: What assessment she has made of the European Commission's third cohesion report. [177757]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): The Government welcome proposals in the report to ensure a greater strategic focus for EU regional policy and the commitment to simplify the delivery mechanisms for structural funds projects. However, we have serious concerns about the proposals for the future size and focus of the structural funds, which fail to meet the objectives that we laid out in our consultation document of last year and our statements to Parliament following that consultation.
    Mr. Moore: The south of Scotland has an allocation of £50 million for the current European structural funds programme, which is vital for the restructuring of the fragile local economy, especially in the Scottish borders. How will the Minister reconcile the Commission's proposals in the document with the Government's plans and ensure that we continue to receive support after 2007?
    Jacqui Smith: The important point about the Commission's proposals in that plan is that no money is currently on the table, because time has not yet been agreement on the overall budget. There are now many member states, and the majority of net contributors have made clear their wish to ensure that the EU budget as a whole remains within 1 per cent. of EU gross income. No agreement has been reached about the total amount of money, nor are the data available that would be necessary to determine how any future funds would be distributed. There is no money on the table, but the Government have made it clear—in the guarantee in our document and in subsequent parliamentary statements—that we remain committed to regional policy. If our recommendations are accepted, we will ensure that we increase the resources necessary in the regions and the devolved Administrations to continue the focus on productivity and skills and make the necessary investment to ensure that they are successful.

    National Grid
    John Thurso: What plans she has to facilitate the connection to the national electricity grid at affordable prices of potential consumers living in remote areas. [177759]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I have no new plans to announce on this. There are no firm data on homes without mains electricity, although the proportion is thought to be less than 1 per cent. Certainly the vast majority of properties for which mains connection is cost-effective have already been connected. Properties without a grid connection tend to be in very remote locations without neighbours with whom connection costs could be shared, so there is a substantial cost barrier.
    John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I draw his attention to one of my constituents who lives relatively near the village of Lairg, but who is two miles away from the grid and would have to pay about £50,000 to be connected. Does the Minister recall that when the Hydro Board was set up, a statutory duty was laid on it to enable people in remote areas to be connected to the grid? In many rural areas in the United Kingdom, there are still homes for which connection to the grid is prohibitively expensive. As wind generation is being put in place in many such areas, will the Minister consider a scheme to lay a statutory obligation on wind generators to help the people who host the generating facilities to be connected?
    Mr. Timms: I am not familiar with the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. I draw to his attention the fact that there is a safeguard in the system: once a formal request for connection has been made, the person can seek a determination on the terms that are being offered from Ofgem. Ofgem is empowered to make a determination on the appropriateness of the charges and the terms. Whether that will be helpful in this particular case, I do not know.
    The hon. Gentleman raises the previous arrangements that applied in the north of Scotland, and he will welcome the steps that we are taking in the interests of electricity customers there. For example, in the Energy Bill, we are introducing a replacement for the hydro benefits scheme, which may well be of similar age to the one to which he referred, to protect customers from the impact of high distribution costs in that region. We are also replacing the common tariff obligation to ensure that rural customers in the north of Scotland are not discriminated against in favour of urban customers. That will be in the interests of quite a number of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    I am afraid that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the prospect of additional legislation to place obligations on parties in the way that he proposes, because in some instances the cost of connecting a remote location could be very high indeed. It would be unfair to expect other customers to subsidise what might be a costly arrangement.
    Lawrie Quinn: I know that my hon. Friend has visited my constituency on a personal basis, but he has generally been there in the summer. During the winter period, my constituents who live in remote locations in the North York Moors national park and along the coast in Scarborough and Whitby are vulnerable to loss of supply, often for many days, if not weeks, when power supply cables are blown down. Does he have any proposals to hold discussions, or does he keep under review with the electricity supply companies the quality and nature of the infrastructure that links such customers? The fact that supply cables are blown down and people are disconnected in winter often comes down to the need to reinforce the infrastructure; we need better security of supply.
    Mr. Timms: I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend's constituency and I always enjoy visiting it. He raises important issues, which were highlighted by the storms

    395
    of October 2002, when we saw serious disruption to the electricity supply in many parts of the country. A great deal of work has been done since then. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry carried out a valuable investigation that highlighted many of the issues. We have seen significant improvements in the procedures followed by the electricity distribution companies, and I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from that. I hope that my hon. Friend will see improvements, but if he feels that insufficient progress is being made, I will be happy to have a look at the issues in his constituency.

    World Trade Organisation
    Tony Baldry: What progress is being made on the World Trade Organisation negotiations. [177761]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): WTO Ministers are working towards securing the framework agreements on the major elements of the Doha development agenda by the end of July. That will enable negotiations to resume and to progress at a faster rate.
    Tony Baldry: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. If that happens, it will be very good news. There is a sense that the momentum has gone out of the process, although that may simply be because we have not heard much about it publicly. However, there is a suspicion that everything is being adjourned until after the American presidential elections, so it would help the House if the Secretary of State indicated where she thinks things are in relation to the discussions on agriculture, because there has been a lot of low-level snarling between the EU and the United States. Have the Singapore issues finally been dropped? Given all the promises made at Cancun, it would be helpful if she could assure the House that there is still the same momentum and that the same importance is accorded to the issues as at that time.
    Ms Hewitt: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being in the House to give me precisely that opportunity. Earlier this year, I shared his concern that the negotiations had run into the ground and that nothing would happen until after the end of this year, with the transition to a new United States Administration and a new European Commission. I am glad to say that those fears proved unfounded; both Commissioner Pascal Lamy and Ambassador Zoellick have made it very clear that they want to get the framework agreement in place before the end of July and that, because of those other factors, it must be in place before the end of July.
    The joint letter that Commissioners Lamy and Fischler sent on 9 May to all WTO members represented a significant step forward. It reassured, in particular, developing countries about the willingness of the European Union to negotiate an end date to all agricultural export subsidies, provided of course there is parallelism in the approach of other developed countries on equivalent support for agricultural exports. The
    396
    letter also made it clear that although we, and indeed most others, would like to proceed with negotiations on trade facilitation, the other Singapore issues can be dealt with differently and need not form part of the single undertaking or the round as a whole. Although the framework is not yet in place, the work being done in Geneva and the discussions between Ministers and negotiators around the world is leading all of us who are utterly committed to the Doha round to be more optimistic about the prospect of that interim agreement by the end of July.
    Mr. John Grogan: What measures is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage capacity-building among developing nations, so that when the talks resume they will be more equal partners in the negotiations?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The British Government, especially the Department for International Development, have been at the forefront of supporting, and indeed putting money into, capacity-building efforts, both directly with developing countries and through the WTO. That is one of the reasons—not the only one—why the voice of developing countries was so much stronger at the Cancun meeting last September, despite, all the other difficulties we experienced there, than it had been before. We shall continue that very important work.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: We know that trade is more important than aid in helping developing countries to develop, but has the Secretary of State considered why it is that under the Government British trade has run into such difficulties? Why did yesterday's trade figures show another decline—£3.7 billion? The trade deficit under the Labour Government is the worst since records began 300 years ago. Why is that?
    Ms Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have noticed that the downturn in economic growth in almost all our trading partners over some years has inevitably had an impact on UK exporters, nor that the British economy has been growing steadily every quarter for the last seven years and indeed is enjoying its longest period of uninterrupted growth for more than 200 years—I think that is what the Chancellor said most recently; the Financial Times suggested this week that it may be the longest in all human history—and because of that it is inevitable that at the moment we are importing significantly more than we are exporting. But with resumed growth, especially in the United States, and with very strong growth in China, India and other Asian countries, British companies exporting to those markets are doing extremely well. As and when growth resumes in our major continental trading partners, I have no doubt at all that that deficit will shrink again.

    Commission for Racial Equality
    Keith Vaz: What representations she has received on her proposals to abolish the Commission for Racial Equality. [177763]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): We have already received a number of responses to the White Paper "Fairness For All", which was published on 12 May and sets out our proposals for the creation of a commission for equality and human rights. The CEHR will draw together the work of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission to promote an inclusive vision of equality and human rights and to bring a coherent approach to supporting discrimination legislation, including that for the new strands of sexual orientation, religion, belief and age. We welcome debate on those proposals, which are open for consultation until 6 August.
    Keith Vaz: Nobody doubts the Government's commitment to racial equality, bearing in mind the fact that the Secretary of State herself represents with distinction the great multiracial city of Leicester. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions must be aware of widespread concerns in the community about the proposal to abolish the Commission for Racial Equality and incorporate it into a body in which other organisations will be involved. Will she reassert and reaffirm the Government's commitment to the race agenda in its entirety? Will she ask the Secretary of State whether she will be prepared to meet a delegation of Members of this House so that we can express the concerns that have been raised and so that there is a proper and appropriate dialogue with the ethnic minority community on such an important issue?
    Jacqui Smith: The proposal certainly does not represent the abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality. It will build the commission's work into that of a commission that will provide a stronger and more coherent voice on race equality and equality more generally. The organisation will better recognise the needs of employers and service providers and also recognise the full breadth of how we see ourselves. Importantly, with respect to race equality, it will enable a fuller range of powers to be used to tackle discrimination; up to this point, the Commission for Racial Equality has not been able to use such powers, unlike other equality commissions. Those powers include the ability to use conciliation services, a broader scope for named investigations and the ability to use binding agreements.
    Following consultations on the White Paper in various regions, I have agreed to meet the all-party groups on sex equality and on equalities. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be pleased to meet hon. Members to discuss how we may ensure that the new commission builds on existing commissions and creates something better both for people who are worried about race equality and all of us who want to develop an economy and society that are built on the talents of everyone and the inclusion of all in our communities.

    Doha Development Agenda
    Mr. David Borrow: What discussions she has had with the new Indian Government on the Doha development agenda. [177764]
    The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I look forward to my first meeting with the new Indian Commerce Minister, Mr. Kamal Nath, next week in Sao Paulo, where the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development meets. We hope to have the opportunity to discuss making progress on the Doha development agenda.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he join me in welcoming the statement at the G8 summit yesterday that was aimed at breaking the deadlock on the Doha agenda? During his discussions with the Indian Government as one of the key players in the Doha round, will he try to get greater movement from them? Does he agree that without a successful completion of the Doha agenda, the economies of the world's poorer countries will not prosper and that agreement is essential if those countries are to achieve their long-term economic goals?
    Mr. O'Brien: As has been said already, if the Doha agenda can be completed and we can achieve trade growth, it will lift more people out of poverty than all the aid budgets of all the western countries combined and multiplied by three. So that is the real ball game—the serious effort that we can make to alleviate world poverty. I believe that India will see yesterday's G8 statement as giving political momentum to the efforts to unblock the Doha round. It is clear that the United States and the EU are willing to put in the extra effort to make progress to secure the framework agreements by the end of July, after when, no doubt, the US will focus on its presidential elections and the EU on its new commissioners. But it is very positive that the G8 members agreed to discuss all forms of agricultural protection and agreed on the importance of special and differential treatment for developing countries to allow them to liberalise at their own pace. India will, no doubt, be very pleased with that.
    On the Singapore issues, the statement makes it clear that the G8 supports trade facilitation and implies that the remaining issues—investment, competition and transparency in Government procurement—should be dropped. I hope that that will be accepted by the G20 group of developing countries, which includes India in a very important role. I hope that we will get the movement that is sought.
    Mr. Peter Luff: India does indeed now enjoy a leadership role in the developing world, so I hope that the Minister will join me in welcoming the fact that the newly elected Indian Government appear to be as committed to privatisation, reform and liberal, open markets as their predecessor. In that context, does he agree that it would be wrong to demonise India for any problem in relation to the Doha round? Is not the real problem still the appalling record

    399
    on agricultural trade of the developed world, particularly America and the EU? Is that the real key to unlocking the Doha round?
    Mr. O'Brien: Getting a deal on agriculture is the key to unlocking the Doha round. We need to consider a wider agenda, but agriculture matters to India, for example, more than anything else. Certainly, that is what the Trade Minister in the previous Indian Administration told me when we met. If we can get that issue unblocked and make progress on non-agricultural access, we can, if everything goes well, get the broad frameworks for discussion agreed in about July. That will give us a period for the technocrats—the technicians—to consider the detail, so that after the various elections and the appointment of a new EU commissioner, we can hope to reach a political agreement early next year.

    Call Centres
    Roger Casale: If she will make a statement on changes in employment levels in the UK call centre sector in the last three years.[177765]
    The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The call centre industry is enormously important, and the recently published DTI study on the UK contact centre industry found that employment in the industry grew by nearly 15 per cent. from 2001 to 2003. It forecasts that the industry will continue to grow and could directly employ more than 1 million people by 2007.
    Roger Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Of course, call centres are a very competitive part of the British economy, but there are fears that jobs could be lost overseas. In that context, surely the best thing that the Government can do to help people in the call centre industry, as in other parts of the economy, is to continue to ensure that individuals working in those industries have the opportunity to get the skills that they need to adapt to change; that firms enjoy the most competitive fiscal environment in Europe, which we have under this Government; and, above all, that Britain continues to enjoy the growth in jobs and prosperity on which all our futures depend.
    Mr. O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend; he is exactly right. The flight of jobs overseas is not inevitable. The UK has an absolute advantage in a range of things, certainly including call centres, given its cultural fit with its customers and an enormous pool of contact centre expertise and knowledge. However, the industry must move up the value chain, competing on service quality and the value added, not on price. We are in the business not of trying to pay people low wages but of getting the quality up and making sure that we provide a better product. That will enable us to be competitive.
    My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government's record of getting the basis of our economy right and of providing the best period of growth and prosperity that this country appears to have ever known is the basis on which we can look forward with some optimism to the future not only of the call centre and contact centre industry, but the whole of our industry.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Equality and Human Rights Commission
    Vera Baird: If she will make a statement on progress towards a commission for equality and human rights. [177772]
    The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): We believe that a single commission for equality and human rights is the best way to contribute to our vision of a fair, prosperous and cohesive society. We published the White Paper "Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights" on 12 May, setting out details of the new commission. We will be consulting on it until 6 August.
    Vera Baird: I am very grateful for that reply. The White Paper is extremely welcome—in particular, for its expressed intention to take concrete steps towards implementing the Government's long-standing commitment on a gender duty. Does my right hon. Friend expect that, in due course, that gender duty will be included in the statute that will set up the commission?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. and learned Friend raises a very important point about public duties. Earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I outlined some of the new powers that the commission will have. It will have the important role of monitoring and ensuring that the public duties already existing for race are applied in respect of disability and gender. Frankly, the point at which we legislate for the gender duty depends on the progress that we can make in designing the duty to ensure that it makes a difference in developing better, more accessible and more responsive public services without a heavy bureaucratic burden.
    I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we have now significantly stepped up activity. The Equal Opportunities Commission is engaged in that design work, and officials from across government have met. I am very confident that we will make good progress.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Whatever the pros and cons of an overall equality commission involving disability, race and gender, the fact is that such a commission is off the ground and developing in Northern Ireland, because that was part of the Belfast agreement. What has been learned from developments in Northern Ireland?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. We need to learn not only from Northern Ireland but more broadly, not least because there were particular circumstances in Northern Ireland that necessitated the development of the approach taken there. Part of the reason for the consultation process and for the process that we engaged in up to the publication of the White Paper, which brought together a taskforce of stakeholders from business and the different equality groups to consider how best to set up the commission, was to

    401
    ensure that we learned the best lessons, that we took the best from the existing arrangements and that we came out at the end with something more effective than we have at the moment for embedding equality and diversity and for tackling discrimination where it exists.
    Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that when a single equality commission was first proposed, many disabled people were concerned that disability would lose some of its impact, especially because the Disability Rights Commission is still a relatively new commission. Many of these fears have been addressed with the guaranteed place for a disabled person on the board of the proposed commission for equality and human rights and the provision for a separate committee that would have policy-making powers. However, the concern remains that there will be less focus on disability, so can the Minister assure people in the disabled community that that will not happen and that work will go on to introduce a single equality Act? That is also important in underpinning the work of any single equality commission.
    Jacqui Smith: As I have spelt out in response to other questions, disability stakeholders have much to gain from an organisation that is able to provide a much better service to employers and to service providers. Because of the way in which we have set up a disability commission, which my hon. Friend mentioned, with specific expertise on some of the areas of disability legislation such as, in particular, the idea of reasonable adjustment, we shall ensure that that expertise is also fed into the commission. The benefits for disabled people of having a commission that will enable them to see also the different elements of their identity and the different challenges faced by, for example, a black disabled person or an older disabled person will ensure that we end up with something that is both more effective for disabled people across the piece as well as for all the other stakeholders for whom the commission will play a very important role.

    Women's Entrepreneurship
    Ms Meg Munn: What progress has been made on the strategic framework for women's entrepreneurship launched in May 2003; and if she will make a statement. [177773]
    The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I am glad to say that all nine English regions and all 45 business link operators have set targets to increase the number of women starting their own businesses, and to ensure that they give them proper support to do so. In the past year, according to the labour force survey, the number of self-employed women in the UK has risen. The total number of businesses started and run by women now amounts to almost 1 million.
    Ms Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The other evening I attended the launch of the British Chambers of Commerce report entitled "Achieving the Vision: Female Entrepreneurship" with
    402
    my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality. I met many truly inspirational women who were being very successful in their businesses.
    How do we get that enthusiasm and obvious real experience of running businesses across to other women who might want to start up a business? Secondly, what more can my right hon. Friend do—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only firstly.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting point. Like her and my right hon. Friend, I welcome the report that the British Chambers of Commerce, in association with the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, published a couple of days ago. It shows that although the United Kingdom still has a lower level of business start-up among women than many other developed economies, things are improving. In 2003, women were more than twice as likely to see good opportunities for themselves to start a business compared with 2001. One of the best things that we can do is to continue supporting organisations such as Prowess—the women's entrepreneurship network—that are helping to bring together women
    who have already successfully started a business with other women who might have an interest in doing so. That is one of the most successful ways of inspiring other women and giving them confidence, as a result of practical support, to move into self-employment and entrepreneurship.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said and I share her praise of the British Chambers of Commerce, but does she not realise that women entrepreneurs, like all other entrepreneurs, are completely fed up with the red tape of Labour's nanny state? What they really want and need is choice, freedom and flexibility in their businesses and in their working lives, which is, of course, what a Conservative Government will give them.
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady knows that this Government made pioneering steps to give women in employment much greater choice and control over their working hours and introduced far better rights for both paid and unpaid maternity and parental leave—things that I recall the Conservative party opposed.
    I remind the hon. Lady that according to the most recent surveys undertaken by Barclays bank, in 2003 no fewer than 465,000 new businesses were set up in Britain. That is an increase of 19 per cent. over the previous year. The Government have presided over the most successful record of economic growth, with nearly 2 million more people in employment. I am delighted to say that we are also supporting and encouraging far more people to enter into self-employment and to set up the new businesses that will generate more new jobs in future.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the north-west women entrepreneurs can play a vital role in improving the economy? In call centres, it has been shown that they have done extremely well in that role.
    Ms Hewitt: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to Questions to the Minister for Women.

    403
    He is absolutely right—together with the regional development agency, employers and unions in the north-west, we are funding a further project to ensure that our call centres remain competitive in the north-west and continue to create good jobs for my hon. Friend's constituents and other people in the region.
    Sandra Gidley: I welcome that improvement, but the Minister is probably aware that New Business recently pointed out that there are still significant barriers to overcome and stressed the important link with vocational training. The Equal Opportunities Commission recently highlighted the skills gap or divide and suggested that encouraging women to take up modern apprenticeships was a way forward. Has the Minister seen the Learn Direct website? The first picture one sees is a young man saying "Do you want to work with cars", followed by a chunky male chef and a hunky male fitness instructor. The unwritten question is clearly "Do you want to be a man?" Will she take a look at such sites and work with organisations to devise suitable strategies so that
    404
    women are not immediately put off when they first access a website to try to find out more about the scheme?
    Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend obviously enjoyed that website.
    Ms Hewitt: With that encouragement, I shall go straight back to my internet connection and take a close look at the Learn Direct website. I assure the hon. Lady that we are working closely with the Equal Opportunities Commission, Learn Direct, the Learning and Skills Council and so on to encourage far more women to come into a well-paid and interesting range of jobs, including plumbing and engineering, which are not only highly paid but, unfortunately, male-dominated. By doing so not only can we make it much easier for women to take up well-paid jobs and set up extremely successful businesses but we can help to close the skills gap. I shall certainly, make sure that Learn Direct is properly on board for that project, and shows women the full range of careers and business opportunities available to them.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JUNE—Second Reading of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords ].
TUESDAY 15—Opposition half-day [10th Allotted Day] (Part Two). There will be a half-day debate entitled "The Failure of the Government's Transport Policy" on an Opposition motion, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to the financial perspective and to the structural and cohesion funds.
WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE—A debate on European affairs
on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 17 JUNE—Second Reading of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords ].
FRIDAY 18 JUNE—Private Members Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 21 JUNE—Second Reading of the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords ].
TUESDAY 22 JUNE—Opposition day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 24 JUNE—Estimates, [3rd Allotted Day]. Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee
FRIDAY 25 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Can he give us any news about when the debates promised by the Foreign Secretary on Zimbabwe and Iraq will take place?
I pay tribute to the electoral registration officers who are working hard today, and in difficult circumstances this year, to ensure that the elections take place. The Leader of the House will know of the widespread concern in the House and the country about the fraud, intimidation and sheer incompetence that has marred the postal ballot for the European elections. Police are apparently investigating a raft of complaints, which range from heads of families filling in ballot papers for the whole family; ballot papers being collected door-to-door by Labour party officials in breach of guidelines from the Electoral Commission; a candidate alleged to have collected ballot papers for an entire family and claiming that he had done nothing wrong; one in seven people not receiving a ballot paper at all while others received more than one; and an employer threatening to sack staff unless they voted Labour. The Leader of the House was warned in advance that this was folly, particularly with so little time to prepare. We need an urgent statement setting out how the Government intend to address what is being called the fistful of ballots fiasco and how many legal challenges are likely to follow. Before he says that more people have voted,
406
will he admit that the effect of electoral fraud is always that there are more votes in the ballot box? But we want them to be genuine.
May we have two statements about false figures put out by the Government? First, can we expect an oral statement of apology and correction from the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces? He told us he had not received reports from international bodies about abuse in Iraq, but then he was forced to change his tune. He told us that there were only 33 cases of brutality being investigated, but it now turns out that there were 75. Is it not wrong to correct such information in a written statement? Should he not come to the House and face the music?
Secondly, a senior Home Office official told Swansea Crown court yesterday that immigration could be six times higher than official figures and that there were no serious removal arrangements for illegal immigrants. May we have an urgent statement on the true position and an explanation of why Ministers have not been frank with the House? Like the country, we have been let down by Labour.
Mr. Hain: On the question of the debates on Zimbabwe and Iraq, it is intended to have a debate on Zimbabwe within the next few weeks. As soon as I am able to give a date to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, I will do so. We have made it clear that that is the Government's intention. On Iraq, when the time is right, yes, there will be a debate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and I am sure he and the whole House will welcome it, the United Nations Security Council resolution was unanimously adopted, providing for the transfer of sovereignty to a new Iraqi Administration. They will take office at the end of the month and there will thereafter be an opportunity to assess the success of the Government's policy on Iraq, which has been to ensure that Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussein and that the Iraqis can take control of their own destiny, which Saddam's murderous and dictatorial rule had prevented them from doing.
On postal voting, I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to electoral registration officers. Yes, a series of allegations has been made and that is being investigated, in some cases by the police. If any fraud is discovered, it will be dealt with in the appropriate way. As a politician, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the case that elections under the previous system were perfectly in order in every respect. He knows from Northern Ireland, for example, that there was a regular slogan, "Vote early, vote often". He knows that there were other instances of postal vote fraud and electoral fraud. Indeed—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the House reply.
Mr. Hain: Where there are instances of malpractice or possibly fraud, they should be dealt with harshly. There is no question about that. However, the idea that all elections in the past have been run perfectly and that unscrupulous individuals or politicians did not seek to exploit them is an illusion. I remember more than 30 years ago a Liberal by-election organiser saying proudly that he had voted in every Liberal by-election. I remember many cases of people alleging various kinds

407
of fraud in postal votes. In some ways, it is easier to go into a polling station and impersonate someone when one does not have to sign and have that signature witnessed than it could be under a postal votes procedure.
Fourteen million people have been given the opportunity to vote from the comfort of their homes in the biggest exercise in spreading democratic opportunity anywhere in Britain—and probably anywhere in the world—in a series of pilots that we need to assess. We also need to find out whether any mistakes or procedures need to be rectified. I should have thought that every good democrat would welcome the possibility that turnout will be significantly up on the 1999 European elections. What are the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats afraid of? Are they afraid of a high turnout? That is the issue; they are afraid of a high turnout. Although we must put right any malpractice, the increase in democratic participation is welcome. The Electoral Commission says that there is no reason to believe that the pilot schemes have
"resulted in an increase in the incidence of electoral offences."
On the armed forces, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) knows that the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence has set out the facts, corrected the record and explained what happened. Amnesty International welcomes that statement and the increased investigations as a result of the verification exercise conducted by the Royal Military Police and the Ministry of Defence. The record of investigations has been corrected and no attempt has been made to hide that correction. The synthetic anger of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is just that—synthetic.
An immigration official has made an allegation. The truth is that asylum applications have halved in recent months under this Government's policy of cracking down on illegal human trafficking. The number of returnees—removal—has doubled, which shows that the Government's successful policies are enabling us to take control of that worldwide phenonmenon. When we introduced those policies, the Conservatives often opposed them in this House and, in particular, in the House of Lords.
Malcolm Bruce: In the light of the changeover, does the Leader of the House think that the time for a debate on Iraq rapidly approaches? We must understand both the future deployment of British troops and the engagement of British agencies.
The Leader of the House's reply on postal votes suggests that a debate is required. He was anxious to debate the matter himself, so he should accept that a debate is required.
The Government should consider calling a full-day debate on the environment. Such debates have mostly been left to Liberal Democrats and Back Benchers. The Government claim that the environment is a major feature of their policy, so they should call a debate to explain how they intend to meet their own targets.
In advance of next week's formation of the all-party group on deafness, will the Leader of the House ask the Department for Work and Pensions to make a statement to the House on Government action to
408
promote the recognition of sign language? The Council of Europe has apparently asked the Government to organise such work—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) is on the Front Bench, and I appreciate her involvement. I understand that the Government will hold a conference on the matter in conjunction with the Council of Europe and it would be helpful if a statement were made to the House and further information were given about what I hope is a positive Government initiative.
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government will indicate their policy on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of corruption in British business worldwide, because French inspectors will carry out the peer review in this country during the next few weeks. The Government have indicated that they favour legislation to implement the UN charter on corruption, but they have not said when that will happen and have not introduced any draft proposals. Will the Government come to the House soon and explain the exact policy to be implemented to deal with our obligations to stamp out corruption?
Mr. Hain: On deafness and sign language, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Gentleman, who pays close attention to and raises that matter in the House. I will certainly draw his point to the attention of the Secretary of State and examine the extent to which we can meet his wishes.
On the OECD review of corruption in business, the hon. Gentleman knows and probably applauds the fact that British business is renowned internationally for being relatively, if not entirely, free of corruption compared with other businesses worldwide. Nevertheless, the issue must be dealt with and the Secretary of State is e twinning it closely.
The environment is regularly debated in both Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions and other debates. The Secretary of State will obviously want to consider the opportunities to hold a wider debate, but the hon. Gentleman can apply for one in the normal way.
I have indicated that a time will come when it will be proper for the House to debate Iraq and the Government are considering that point. However, the United Nations Security Council has just agreed a resolution and the transfer of power is only weeks away. The House will have an opportunity to take stock of the policy and we are bearing that point in mind.
Let me return to the subject of postal votes. The Government will assess the whole experiment and the results will be reported to the House. It was an experiment—legislation was introduced to allow pilots in four English regions. What is exciting is that 14 million voters have been given an opportunity to vote from the comfort of their own homes, and more and more are doing so. It appears that 2 million more are voting in this way than voted under the old system in 1999.

409
I must emphasise that the number of complaints and instances of malpractice is tiny compared with that figure of 14 million—the number of people voting from the safety and comfort of their own homes, or having the opportunity to do so. According to the Electoral Commission, there have been few cases of fraud or malpractice; and, incidentally, allegations have been made about every party in that regard.
I stress that there will be a proper assessment. That was the whole point of introducing pilots rather than setting new legislation in concrete. We wanted to see what lessons could be learned. I find it interesting that it is the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who want to deny people that opportunity to vote from the comfort of their own homes, when it could result in a higher turnout and therefore a better quality of democracy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among a few complaints received by some Labour Members is one about the requirement for a witness to signatures in the postal ballot pilot scheme? Is it true that that requirement was included because the Tories and the Liberals ganged up to force people signing to obtain a witness?
The Leader of the House has given us the agenda for the next 10 days. That takes us almost to July. Will he confirm that at some point in July he will announce the introduction of a fox hunting ban? Time is running out.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about postal voting. There was a Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Good."] Ah! There we have the platform for the next general election: a Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition, with the Liberal Democrats moving to the right as they have done consistently over recent months. Those two parties united in insisting on a witness to the signatures, which has caused some complications.
Mr. Eric Forth: Why?
Mr. Hain: Anyone who has filled in the forms knows that to be the case. We will obviously want to review the exact circumstances, and any lessons to be learned.
As I have already made clear to my hon. Friend, who has played an honourable role in regard to the fox hunting issue for many years, the Government intend to resolve the matter. I have nothing to add to that and I have no timing announcements to make at this stage.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: On Monday evening the Deputy Leader of the House gave me, and the House as a whole, a firm assurance that two Procedure Committee reports would be debated on the Floor of the House before the summer recess. They are the report on Sessional Orders and resolutions—which is widely supported not only by Members but, if I may say so, by you, Mr. Speaker, and the House authorities—and the report on procedures for debate, private Members' Bills and the role of the Speaker. Will the Leader of the House confirm that they will both be debated here before the recess?
410
May I also support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the shadow Leader of the House, in requesting a debate on Zimbabwe—again, before the summer recess? The situation in that country continues to deteriorate. The dictator, Mr. Mugabe, has apparently announced that all land in Zimbabwe will be nationalised and we are deeply worried about those developments. May we please have a debate at an early date?
Mr. Hain: On the question of Zimbabwe—the hon. Gentleman has consistently raised it and properly so, given the dreadful state of that country under Robert Mugabe's regime—we intend to have a debate within the next few weeks. As soon as I am able to announce the date, I will do so. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman encouragement. The Deputy Leader of the House has made the situation clear regarding the two reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There is no question but that they will have to be debated because they involve issues that are very important to the House.
Mr. Eric Joyce: My right hon. Friend might be aware that the majority of Scots—broad-minded lot that we are—will be supporting England during the European championships. We are more broad-minded than the Scottish premier league, which, it seems, is about to deny Inverness Caledonian Thistle access to the premier league, even though it won the Scottish first division. Indeed, it did the same to Falkirk FC last year. Will he find time for a debate on this important subject, given that this looks suspiciously like uncompetitive practices by the Scottish premier league?
Mr. Hain: I am very concerned to hear about that. The Scottish Parliament is commissioning an inquiry into Scottish football, and I am sure that close notice will be taken of my hon. Friend's points. As a Welsh MP, may I join him and other Scots Members of Parliament in wishing England all the best for the European championships? I hope that the England team will be putting crosses into the box on Sunday, just as voters will be putting crosses into the box for Labour in the European elections.
Mr. Michael Jack: My postbag tells me that aerospace workers in my constituency continue to be worried at the lack of an agreement to tranche 2 of the Eurofighter programme. May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on exactly what is going on and why no decision has been reached? A year ago, an agreement was signed that enabled the RAF to take into service the first aircraft in tranche 1. We have now had a year for this matter to be resolved and there is considerable anxiety among the aerospace workers. I hope that an early statement will put their minds at rest.
Mr. Hain: I know that the Secretary of State for Defence is very mindful of the right hon. Gentleman's constituency interests in this respect, which he raises properly and with persuasion. As he knows, Defence questions will take place on Monday week-21 June—so he will be able to question the Secretary of State then.
Mr. Tony McWalter: One cannot help thinking that the rather thin programme that the Leader of the House has announced gives the Government scope to be imaginative. Perhaps he might think about having a debate on the 40,000 civil servants who form part of the slimming down operation. One rumour going around is that a slimmed-down Department commissioning Government contracts will, as a result, have less scope to place contracts with small businesses. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that that would be a most lamentable consequence of such a decision.
Mr. Hain: I am deeply pained by my hon. Friend's suggestion that it is a thin business programme; it is full of meat and important business—apart from the Opposition debates, of course. On civil servant numbers, he will doubtless want to endorse the Government's strategy of focusing public money on front-line services and of using the advantages of new technology and modern efficiency measures, many of which operate in the private sector, to reduce back-room staff and to allow individuals to transfer their skills and to take up other job opportunities, or to take early retirement if they so wish. I am sure that there is no intention that small businesses should lose out, and I would be very disturbed to discover that that was the consequence. Indeed, contracts to businesses large, medium or small should be applied on a uniform basis, according to whether or not they are competitive.
Mr. Eric Forth: Given the recently expressed worries about obesity, is the Leader of the House concerned that he is effectively preventing 14 million people even from walking to their local polling stations? He did say a moment ago that a full assessment is going to be made of the postal voting fiasco, and he mentioned a report back to the House. Will he give us an absolute undertaking that there will be a proper debate in this House on postal voting, and that such voting will not be extended—or, indeed, continued—until both Houses of Parliament express their full satisfaction with every detail of the postal voting regime? We cannot have this going ahead with people being unable to trust the process, and we cannot regard an increase in turnout, if it is based on fraud, as acceptable.
Mr. Hain: I strongly dispute the idea that an increase in turnout would be based on fraud. The instances of malpractice are tiny in comparison with giving 14 million people the chance to vote from the comfort of their homes. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, as a parliamentary champion, would be the first in line to say that he is very worried about the consistent decrease in election turnouts since the second world war. If, as previous pilots have shown, turnout has been increased—I am sure that, by the end of today, we will know that it has increased—more people will have participated in democracy, and more people participating makes our democratic system much more legitimate. That should be seen in perspective and set against the small number of instances of malpractice that have been uncovered, and which involved officials and members of all parties.
On the right hon. Gentleman's substantive point, he knows that this legislation applies to today alone and expires after that. It is pilot legislation, and there will of
412
course be an opportunity to debate it fully in the House after the Government, the Electoral Commission and others have made a proper assessment. There is no intention to bounce anybody into this. The intention was to improve the quality of our democracy and its legitimacy by increasing turnout. If the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are content with the remorseless decline in turnout, that says something about their view of democracy.
Ms Meg Munn: May I add my voice to the demand for a debate on the real benefits of all-postal ballots? Not only were they welcomed by many of my constituents on the doorstep, many of whom would otherwise have been unable to vote, the 41 per cent turnout reported in Sheffield on Wednesday constituted a significant increase that demonstrates that the Opposition's claims are completely false.
Mr. Hain: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I was in Sheffield last Thursday campaigning in the elections, and the turnout is very encouraging. It is only the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats who are frightened of democracy and the ballot box. Labour is proud to be a party that wants more and more people to vote, regardless of which party they vote for, although we would of course prefer that they voted Labour. Many will have the opportunity to do so as a result of the extra postal votes.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Could time be made available for a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to explain to the House what it is doing actively to support the case of Kenny Richey, the Scotsman on death row in Ohio, and in particular why it has yet to get around to lodging an amicus brief? There is a new urgency in Mr. Richey's case, as the campaign suffered a severe setback yesterday when the Ohio supreme court refused to rule on a point of law referred to it by the sixth circuit court of appeal.
We no longer have, an automatic right to lodge an amicus brief, but of course application can be made to the court to do so. If the FCO were to take that opportunity, it would send the clear signal that people in this country are not prepared to sit back and see the execution of one of our citizens, whose case has been described by Amnesty International as one of the most compelling cases of it innocence that it has come across.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made the point very eloquently and with passion, and I know that the Foreign Secretary will want to take close note of it. Because of the urgency of the situation, I shall ensure that the Foreign Secretary's office is notified as soon as possible.
Keith Vaz: May we have a debate on the use of school facilities after school hours? A constituent of mine, Mr. Rahman, wants to teach the Koran to Muslim children within the mainstream setting of a primary school after school hours, but he has not been allowed access to Northfield House primary school. He is asking not for a separate school but to be able to use such facilities to give something to the local community that our mainstream education system does

413
not provide. May we have a debate on this issue, which affects not just the Muslim community but other communities that might want to teach their religion in such settings?
Mr. Hain: I know that it is very, important, both for the Muslim community itself and for the wider community, to ensure that young people have the opportunity to learn about the Koran and the Muslim faith in a proper environment. I know that many imams have also strongly taken that view so it is a matter that I am sure the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Home Secretary will want to examine closely, bearing in mind the important point that my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the way in which the Government are mortgaging the country's future through the abuse of the private finance initiative? Would the Chancellor or the Exchequer wind up such a debate by explaining how in this financial year he is going to sign off 75 PFIs at a cost of £7.7 billion, which did not appear in the Budget statement or the documents attached thereto? Could the Chancellor also explain at the end of such a debate, how the £40 billion worth of PFIs already approved since 1997 will be financed without increases in taxation?
Mr. Hain: The point of the private finance initiative is to ensure that the private sector, including private sector capital and expertise, is brought in to enable us to construct many more new hospitals, schools and other public sector projects than were ever contemplated under the Conservatives or would have been possible had we relied entirely on the public purse to generate that finance. That is the point. We keep the procedures under constant review, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that there are more new hospitals being built, more new schools opened, and more new construction projects going ahead as a result of this extra facility.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I return to the allegations of cheating and stealing votes? If the Electoral Commission finds that the election has been seriously contaminated, will there be an opportunity for a rethink on the decision already taken to have all-postal voting in the regional referendums to set up assemblies, which are coming up in October'?
Mr. Hain: I make the same point to my hon. Friend as I did to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a good democrat, would want more people in his constituency to have the opportunity to vote today and in the forthcoming regional assembly elections. We need as high a turnout as possible in all our elections, particularly in referendums. That is self-evidently desirable.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I assure the Leader of the House that Conservative Members want all their constituents to have the opportunity to vote, but we want each to have the opportunity to cast his or her own vote, not other people's votes en masse on their behalf. Does he accept that, when he accuses us of
414
being insufficiently democratic, the sort of democracy that he may be talking about is the democracy of the former German Democratic Republic, which used to have turnouts of 98 per cent. in elections? Will the Leader of the House deal with the fact that a journalist reported last Sunday that he was able individually to obtain 36 postal votes? Of course the turnout will go up if he chooses to use those 36 votes, and if he had not disclosed them, he could have used them.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman's comparison with the German situation is, frankly, insulting drivel. On the question of postal votes, he is making a case against such votes under the old system. He is making a case against postal votes of any kind at all, ever. That is what he is saying. We know that there were instances of fraud under the previous system. We know that that is the case. That is why extra procedures were put in place. The concerted attempt by the Conservatives—the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, included—to derail the opportunity for at least 2 million more people than before to vote from the comfort of their own homes means that the Conservatives are scared of democracy. They are scared of a high turnout, and the question is why.
Mr. Clive Betts: May I add to the calls for a full debate on all-postal ballots after today's elections so that we can have the opportunity to comment on the efficient and effective way in which the ballots have been distributed in places such as Sheffield? In many parts of the country, again including Sheffield, there have not been widespread allegations of fraud or malpractice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already pointed out, the one point of confusion causing concern on the doorstep is the requirement for a witness statement. That was brought in at the last minute on the insistence of the Tories and the Lib Dems and against the advice of the Electoral Commission, which said that it would add nothing to ballot security. It could lead to thousands of ballot papers being disqualified, which shows that Government Members should be congratulated on enhancing democracy and that Opposition Members should accept the responsibility for the adverse consequences for democracy of their actions.
Mr. Hain: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Arguably, if there were any opportunities for malpractice, they would be increased by the need to have the witness statement. That is precisely what we argued, supported by the Electoral Commission, against the wrecking tactics of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition on this matter.
Mr. Graham Brady: As late as yesterday, the borough of Trafford reissued 483 ballot papers. For most of the people concerned, postal voting is simply out of the question. Will the Government assess how many tens of thousands of people in the northern regions and the east midlands will be deprived of the right to vote by the Government's postal vote shambles? I also ask the Government to reflect on the real evidence about turnout in postal voting. My borough has had previous

415
pilots for postal voting. A couple of years ago, the turnout in the borough of Trafford went up from 35 per cent. to 52 per cent. The indications are that, this year, it has come down again to closer to 40 per cent. Could it be that people vote when the system is new, but when it settles down, the turnout decreases, or is it that combining the ballot with the European elections has depressed interest in the local elections?
Mr. Hain: There is a whole series of questions there. It is possible that after the novelty of postal voting has worn off, the turnout may decline. Who knows? That is exactly why we want to assess how the scheme has gone and what lessons can be learned. It is also why the legislation was time limited to a series of pilots. I am advised that in Trafford, the hon. Gentleman's area, where a pilot was conducted a year or so ago, the Conservatives actually benefited from it. That shows just how broad-minded the Labour Government are in favouring democracy over party interest and in wanting a high turnout rather than a low turnout, disengagement, apathy and alienation, from which the right wing has always benefited in politics across the world. Fundamentally, Labour is on the side of democracy and the Conservatives have always, historically, been opposed to the extension of democracy.
Mr. Harry Barnes: And now for something completely different. Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1259 on the treatment of victims of crime?
[That this House recognises that the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are expected to act under the provisions of the Victims Charter in providing explanations to those claiming to be victims of crimes whenever it is decided that these bodies will not instigate criminal charges or will drop or reduce such charges; is deeply concerned that Government departments and agencies invariably avoid giving such explanations by claiming legal professional privilege under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in similar cases where they are legislatively responsible for exercising the prosecuting role; believes that such blanket exemptions from acting on the provisions of the Victims Charter should be ended forthwith and that all of those who have been denied explanations for non-prosecutions by Government departments and agencies since the update of the Victims Charter in 1996 should retrospectively be supplied with these; and further believes that relevant Government amendments to the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 should urgently be placed before this House to ensure that this matter can be rectified in law.]
If the police or the Crown Prosecution Service do not follow up a prosecution on behalf of the victim, they are obliged by the victim's charter, as amended in 1996, to provide an explanation as to why not. If a Government Department with the responsibility for prosecution refuses to do so, it uses legal and professional privilege in order to escape that responsibility. If the code of practice on access to Government information was adjusted, it would end that anomaly. It would also save
416
the House's time if that were done quickly; otherwise, my alternative avenue is to table an amendment to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill on Monday.
Mr. Hain: I am not sure about that being something completely different. If someone's ballot paper has been stolen by a Liberal Democrat, he is a victim of crime. The issue that my hon. Friend has raised is a complicated one. We do not believe that there is a need to amend the legislation. Balancing public rights of access to information with the need to preserve confidentiality in certain circumstances requires careful judgment, and we are confident that the public interest in those areas is protected under existing law. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to make his case when the moment comes.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): I think that I ought to be asking for a debate on the Leader of the House's grasp of history and logic. In respect of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), he first ignored the fact that it was Benjamin Disraeli who piloted through one of the biggest expansions of the franchise in this country. Secondly, he said at one stage that postal voting had benefited the Conservatives and then that it always benefited the left. He simply could not make up his mind. Never mind, that is not what I want to ask for. What I want to ask for is an urgent debate on postal voting, which we need to inform the consideration of the pilot schemes by the Government and the Electoral Commission. The debate should come before the Government produce a report, not after. We are all in favour of increasing election turnouts. Declining turnouts are a terrifying wake-up call to politicians that we are failing to engage the people. Raising turnouts does not depend on gimmicks such as all-postal voting, text voting or e-voting. The secret is to re-engage with the public.
Mr. Hain: I can applaud the hon. Gentleman's sentiment. At least, a Conservative Member is saying for the first time that a higher turnout is desirable. That is a good thing, but in the modern age, people's lifestyles, aspirations and behaviour are very different from what they were the past. There has been a long decline in election turnouts, under Governments of all parties. It is right to look at all sorts of different ways to encourage turnout. In the future, that may involve the use of information technology or greater postal voting. All such possibilities should be considered, but the hon. Gentleman should know that the legislation specifically provides for an assessment of the pilots, so that the lessons can be learned for the future. That assessment will be carried out.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My question is more of the same, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has powerfully advocated the case for postal voting. We all want higher turnouts, so will he say when he intends to schedule a debate on the subject? We want the postal voting system to work properly, and with integrity. We also want it to be evaluated properly. My information is that in this election, for the first time ever, spoiled ballots will be counted as part of the turnout. There may be a case for

417
that but, if we are to evaluate properly increased turnouts as a result of postal voting, we need to be fully informed of the facts. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will say when a proper debate on this matter is likely to be forthcoming.
Mr. Hain: I am intrigued by the way in which Conservative Members are seeking to rubbish the results of these elections in advance, as though they have something to fear. That is very interesting indeed. As I have made clear all along, all the aspects of the new procedure, including the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, will be evaluated properly, by the Electoral Commission and other bodies. There is no intention to string that evaluation out, as we want to draw lessons for the future.
However, I want to return to the historical point made earlier. It was the labour movement that joined the Chartists in pressing for universal suffrage, and it was the labour and trade union movement that pressed for women's right to vote—against the consistent opposition of the Conservatives and right-wing forces. That is our history: the Opposition's history is very different.
Paul Holmes: Will the Leader of the House clarify his earlier comments about the reintroduction of the Hunting Bill? The Government have made various apparent commitments in that regard, but they chose their words very carefully—as the right hon. Gentleman did—by talking about "resolving" the issue. The House has repeatedly voted, by large majorities, to ban that cruel sport, and all legitimate opinion polls show that about 70 per cent. of the public agree that the sport is cruel and should be abolished. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced in the six weeks left before the summer recess? Will he confirm that the rules and procedures of the House, and the Parliament Act 1911, mean that the Bill could pass through the House in one day, if it is reintroduced before the summer recess? If the other place rejected it, could not the Bill still be law by the autumn of this year? Alternatively, when the Government talk about resolving the issue, does that mean letting it drift into the long grass until after the next general election?
Mr. Hain: The House of Lords sought to long-grass the matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by using the Tory-dominated hereditary vote. We are determined to resolve the matter, and we intend to do so.

Disability
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Maria Eagle.]
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): When he stood up in this House on 31 January 1992 to move the Second Reading of his Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, Lord Morris of Manchester—then the MP for Manchester, Wythenshawe, and previously the first ever Minister for Disabled People—posed two questions to the House. As he said, one was moral and the other practical. What sort of society did we want to create? What must we do to create that society?
As the current occupant of the ministerial office that Lord Morris pioneered, I still remind myself of those questions, because I believe that it is important not to lose sight of the main reason for the intensive continuing action in respect of disability civil rights on which this Government embarked from their early days in office.
The main reason for that action is that disabled people in Britain are still not equal. They still have to deal with social exclusion, discrimination and poorer life chances purely because they are disabled.
This is not a minor issue. After all, we are talking about the life chances of almost 10 million of our adult fellow citizens, and of at least 360,000 children. The Government believe that continued inequality and discrimination blight our society as much as the lives of disabled people. Creating a society that values disabled people, enables them to fulfil their potential in life and gives them the right to do so is still a challenge that we, as a society, have not fully met. However, it is one that we, as a Labour Government, are determined to make massive and irreversible progress towards meeting.
Let there be no doubt that that is our aim. The establishment of full civil rights for disabled people is one of the last great causes in the emancipation of people in our time. It is on a par with securing rights for women and ending discrimination on the grounds of race. The emancipation of disabled people is our aim and our vision, and I welcome very much the chance to debate disability civil rights for a full day, on a Government motion, here on the Floor of the House.
I am not the only one who welcomes this opportunity. The Disability Rights Commission, an excellent and effective advocate and champion for the rights of disabled people even though it is only four years old, in its briefing for today's debate said:
"The DRC is pleased that the Government have tabled time for a disability debate."
So the DRC is pleased, but the official Opposition have not welcomed this opportunity. Instead, they have written to me and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to complain. That is typical. In his letter, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) called the timing of the debate a decision of astounding insensitivity to those whom he calls in his letter "people with disabilities". He suggested that Ministers were effectively telling disabled people that they are at the bottom of the Government's list of priorities.

419
That is not the case. This debate shows that the Government are interested in the rights of disabled people, and highlights the priority that we attach to establishing and furthering those rights.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not today an appropriate day for this debate, given the elections that are taking place? In the past, disabled people have encountered considerable problems with access to polling stations. The postal ballot arrangement has the advantage that it means that there is no distinction between disabled people and other people. However, polling stations are still used in many areas, so the problem of securing proper and full access for disabled people remains. Does my hon. Friend agree that the right to proper access should be established in legislation?
Maria Eagle: I am glad to see my hon. Friend in his place, as he has a fine record of work in ensuring that disabled people can vote, despite the inaccessibility of polling stations and the difficulties encountered in getting to them. Also, he has a fine record as a Back Bencher who has pushed for disability civil rights more widely. Moreover, he was one of the hon. Members in charge of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and he fought a very hard and tough battle to get that on to the statute book, at a time in the mid-1990s when the climate was rather colder. I shall say a little more about that later in my speech.
I believe that today is a good day to have this debate, but I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point: many disabled people undoubtedly find postal ballots easier to access, although there are still issues in respect of those who have sensory impairment and who may need further assistance, which is available, in completing ballot forms. Postal balloting and higher awareness among politicians and others in society about the needs of disabled voters mean that we have an opportunity to make voting even easier for those who were excluded in the past.
Paul Holmes: Further to the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), will the Minister comment on the number of people who are blind and partially sighted who have complained that the reliance on all-postal ballots makes things more difficult for them? At a polling station, Braille templates are available but are not available at home.
Maria Eagle: There is an issue about accessibility to polling and proper arrangements for disabled people. In the end, the answer is not about whether we have all-postal ballots, but about making arrangements and adjustments to the process that maximise opportunities for disabled people to take part in our democratic process, whatever their impairment. I believe that some of the arrangements made for the elections being held around the country today will assist many disabled people, including those with sensory impairment, because people can get help in their homes, in one-stop shops or in places where people can deliver ballot papers. There are better arrangements now than there
420
have ever been for taking into account the needs of disabled people with all types of impairment when it comes to exercising their democratic rights. The disability discrimination Act will place obligations on people and organisations not to discriminate and it will extend further into public life and the political process.
Mr. Tim Boswell: The House will want to move on from consideration of elections only, but before we do, will the Minister reflect on the fact that of the mere dozen or so Members in the Chamber for this extremely important debate, no fewer than six, including me, are from the east midlands, which may be related to the fact that we have no proper election campaign and polling day and can therefore be here to debate the matter? Is that not an example of the effective discrimination that the postal arrangements have brought about?
Maria Eagle: Unusually, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says I often agree with much of what he says when he is in one of his reasonable modes, but I do not agree that the only determinant of whether a Member of the House can be here today is the type of balloting arrangements made for the elections, or even the fact of there being elections.
Tom Levitt: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), may I point out that the House will not have failed to notice that no fewer than five of the six east midlands Members present come from Derbyshire? That is because Derbyshire MPs, Derbyshire county council and the Derbyshire community rate disabled issues very highly and have campaigned on those issues for many years.
Maria Eagle: I am happy to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's record as a campaigner on issues affecting disabled people, but I do not think I should be drawn any further into precisely why anybody is here today. I know why I am here; others can speak for themselves.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wycombe, the Opposition spokesman, chose to write in the terms that he did. That was the latest in a long line of misjudgments and pieces of churlish opportunism, not by the hon. Gentleman personally, but by a Conservative party that seems to be making a habit of opportunism these days. Choosing this subject for debate in fact shows the high priority we attach to it, and we are determined to make yet more progress, in marked contrast to the Conservatives as shown by their record in office.
Mr. Paul Goodman: On the point of making progress, can the Minister guarantee that the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, which has just been considered by the Joint Committee, will be introduced by the Government as a full Bill in this Session?
Maria Eagle: I can guarantee that the Government are considering with the utmost seriousness the 75 recommendations made by the Joint Committee and that we will reply and set out our intentions, arising from those recommendations, as soon as possible, and certainly within the time scale set out by the Committee. Further than that I cannot go: the hon. Gentleman

421
tempts me to turn myself into a Government business manager or the author of the next Queen's Speech, knowing very well that I am not so elevated as to do either of those things. I assure the House that the Government made a manifesto commitment to introduce the measures set out in the draft Bill during this Parliament, and we consider ourselves fully on course to meet it.
Lord Morris's second question was what we would have to do to create the society set out in his vision. To free disabled people to fulfil their potential in life, we need a framework of comprehensive legal rights, outlawing discrimination and promoting equality. We have to couple that with a comprehensive package of practical assistance to enable disabled people to overcome the barriers that they face in all areas of life and society, and we have to take tho rest of society with us, for only by changing attitudes to disabled people in our society among the non-disabled community will we truly meet in full our vision of achieving equality. Civil rights legislation provides an indispensable framework—a first step—to the transformation of the life chances of disabled people, but though necessary, it is not sufficient.
Vera Baird: My hon. Friend has spoken of the Disability Rights Commission and its excellent work, and I fully agree with her. When she turns to the question of driving the culture forward and of public opinion understanding disability and dealing with it properly, does she have high hopes, as I do, of the commission for equality and human rights announced in a recent White Paper, which will have a special configuration for disabled people's representation, which should give them a great deal of optimism? Does she share my view that that will be a huge help in driving the culture forward?
Maria Eagle: Yes, I do, and so does the Disability Rights Commission, which has welcomed the plans in the White Paper for a commission on equality and human rights. Indeed, the DRC has made it clear that that will be an exciting opportunity to put human rights at the centre of Government activity, which we would all welcome. There is much to be gained from having the commission as a single body, but as yet we have only a White Paper, and we will see what reaction it brings from the rest of the country in due course.
We need practical assistance to remove barriers for disabled people and to transform attitudes in the rest of society if we truly wish to meet our objectives. In employment, for example, there are now more disabled people in employment than ever before—three quarters of a million more than in 1998, some 150,000 of whom were helped by the mainstream new deals and others who were helped by various specialist disability employment programmes.
For the first time, there has been a narrowing of the gap between the employment levels of disabled people and non-disabled people of more than 5 per cent., although it must be admitted that the gap is still too wide. We are implementing the first ever widespread, tailor-made programmes to help people on sickness and incapacity benefits back into work, and we have specialist programmes such as the new deal for disabled people. We have trebled the number of people helped by
422
such programmes as access to work and workstep, which provide specific assistance to particular disabled people in work.
We should compare that with the record of the Conservative party, which, during its time in office, trebled the number of people on incapacity benefits and did nothing whatever to help those who were on those benefits, instead simply leaving them to rot, condemning them to a life on benefit. What is the Conservatives' policy now? They would abolish the new deals that have enabled us to cut unemployment to its lowest in 30 years and led to almost 2 million more people being in work. They would slash public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product, or by £35 billion according to the shadow Chancellor—a policy that would undoubtedly hit vulnerable disabled people harder than anyone else. How characteristic all that is of the Conservatives: they wrote disabled people off in the past, and they are set to do it again if they are given the chance.
Recently, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to training as investing in what he called the "empty vessels of these unemployed people" as a waste of public money. That was reported in The Independent on Sunday on 30 May. If that is what he thinks, we can guess where he will be looking for cuts in public spending—disabled people will be the first to feel the effects.
Mr. Goodman: On sensitive language about people with disabilities, did the Minister read the recent article by John Pring in disabilitynow entitled "Anger at Blair bungle"? The Prime Minister was apparently heckled in Downing street by Rachel Hurst, director of Disability Awareness in Action, for repeatedly using the phrase "the disabled." Disabilitynow reports:
"that Disabled People's Minister Maria Eagle was visibly 'squirming' at the PM's repeated blunder."
Maria Eagle: From somebody who is still referring to disabled people as people with disabilities, that is the pot calling the kettle black. Language is undoubtedly important, but the most important issue is the intention behind it. Those who do not deal daily—the hon. Gentleman does—with disabled people should not be condemned out of hand for misuse of language. It should be pointed out to them and then we should hope that the use of language will improve. In the spirit of that stricture, perhaps he would like to reread the letter that he wrote to me and remember that the current correct term according to the disability lobby and disabled people's organisations is disabled people rather than people with disabilities.
Mr. Goodman: On that point, is the Minister aware that there are differences of view among groups that represent disabled people? Some prefer one term, some prefer another. Some argue that the term "disabled people" implies that disabled people, to use the Minister's preferred phrase, are in some sense incapable of functioning fully and properly.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that I was trying to make: we should not get too hung up about language. Our intentions and how we deal with people should be looked at carefully. That is undoubtedly the case.

423
I began my remarks with a reference to Lord Morris of Manchester not by accident, but as a way of acknowledging his remarkable record, characteristic as it is of the great championing of disability civil rights by Labour parliamentarians. When the history of the legal, social, political and practical emancipation of disabled people is written, he will surely merit an honourable mention in it along with disabled campaigners themselves, not only because he was the first Minister for Disabled People—a post to which he was appointed by Harold Wilson and in which he served with distinction until 1979—but because of his unrelenting pressure for and advocacy of disability civil rights over an extended period and long before he was a Minister. He was responsible for the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was passed as a private Member's Bill. Long after he ceased being a Minister, as chief Opposition spokesman for disabled people from 1979 to 1992 and even thereafter as a Back Bencher, he tried repeatedly to get civil rights legislation on to the statute book. I pay tribute today to his parliamentary efforts, which continue in the other place. Along with my noble Friend Lord Ashley, whose efforts have also been of long-standing persistence and ferocity, he represents the true spirit of the Labour party carrying out its historic mission of making our society better for those who live in it and more equal for those who have been marginalised and oppressed.
Other colleagues on the Labour Benches also merit honourable mention in respect of disability civil rights, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who is in his place, my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Tom Cox) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who have fine records on fighting hard for disability civil rights in what was a cold climate.
Anybody looking back at the parliamentary battle for disability civil rights can only be struck by the fact that it has been led and won by Labour Members with the assistance of Back Benchers of all parties who were enlightened on the issue, but against the opposition—at times, outrageous opposition—of the Conservative party in government. That is not to say that there have not been perfectly decent Conservative Back-Bench Members who have fought alongside Labour Members. Nor is it to say that there have not been decent Ministers for Disabled People from the Opposition Benches. I single out in particular the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Tory Governments did not want disability civil rights. They spent 16 of their 18 years in office fighting against them, whatever the private views of individual Ministers, until the political damage being done to them was so severe that to stave off further embarrassment they were dragged kicking and screaming to put partial and inadequate legislation on the statute book. That was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In doing so, they killed off for the third year in succession the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which some of my hon. Friends had fought for year after year.
424
It has taken a Labour Government to make the Disability Discrimination Act work. It had gaping holes and omissions. Although the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks improved it a little during its passage, he was clearly operating in a climate of disapproval within Government. His room for manoeuvre was limited. The resulting legislation was certainly inferior to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill being promoted by my hon. Friends, with the support of disabled people and their organisations.
Mr. Goodman: Will the Minister confirm that a Conservative Government at least introduced the Bill which became an Act, and that many people in the world of disability believe that if an anti-discrimination Bill is not brought in this Session there will be no Bill from this Government before the election and they will not have succeeded in bringing in an Act?
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman forgets the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act 2001 and the regulations that become operative on 1 October and massively extend the DDA.
Mr. Goodman: They are part of the 1995 Act.
Maria Eagle: A section of it is, but much of it implements the European directive on anti-discrimination, so it is much wider than just regulation making.
The regulations that implement the anti-discrimination directive on employment go much wider than the provisions of the DDA. The only reason why that could be done by regulation and did not require an Act of Parliament, although the changes are extensive, including bringing 1 million new employers and 7 million new jobs within the scope of the legislation and extending it to excluded occupations, was because the regulation derived from a European directive, and regulation-making powers under the accession treaties are wider. The extent of the measures being implemented by those regulations would normally require an Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that our 2001 manifesto commitment is not going to be fulfilled. We are on course to fulfil it and I have every intention of ensuring that we do.
Miss Anne Begg: I am aware that my hon. Friend was not in Parliament during the 18 long, cold years of the Tory reign, and it is true that one Act went on to the statute book during that time, but has she done any research to find out whether the Tory Government of the day gave any debating time—a whole day debate or an Adjournment debate—to the issue of disability?
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I tried to find that out, but discovered that the way in which Hansard can be searched online does not allow it. I looked at many copies of Hansard when researching the previous attempts to legislate on civil rights and I did not find any debate held in Government time in those years. I cannot say for certain that no such debate occurred, but many hon. Friends were here

425
during those 18 long, cold years and took a particular interest in this subject. They might be able to remember any debates on the issue.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I shall try to help. Those years were very cold, but Labour Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—tried to keep everybody warm on a Friday by introducing Bills on civil rights, year after year. We used to have a difficult time getting them through. Perhaps the most vivid illustration of how the Tories operated was one Friday when we managed to get the Bill on disability on the agenda, but the then Minister was not present. The Tories filibustered on the other matters to kill the Bill. The Minister arrived and a Tory Back Bencher moved amendments that had been given to her by the Minister. She was brought into disrepute for doing so, but the result was that they talked out the Bill again. We saw the first inklings of a change of heart in my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who was then a Tory Back Bencher. He joined forces with us on that occasion and later became a Labour Member of Parliament. Those were the cold days indeed, and they continued year after year. Let us not have any Tory romantic mythology about their wonderful association with the disabled. They kicked them into the gutter.
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes some interesting points.
Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend the Minister lists the comparisons between the two parties. I understand that the 1995 Act introduced the right to access to goods and services, which was intended to take effect from 2007. It was this Government who brought that date forward to October this year. Why the Tories chose 2007, nobody knows. Nobody asked for it to be delayed that long and even the Federation of Small Businesses has welcomed the new introduction date.
Maria Eagle: I am about to contribute my theory on why the 1995 Act was largely uncommenced when we took office, if my hon. Friend will bear with me. It happened because the Conservative Government had no intention of making the Act effective, but simply wanted to stave off the criticism of their hostility to effective disability civil rights legislation, at a time when their majority was crumbling and the demand for action was growing.
The 1995 Act sat on the statute book doing little. In 1997, when we took office, disabled people only had two effective civil rights after 18 years of Tory government and at least 14 attempts to bring forward legislation. One of those attempts was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. Those two rights were the right not to be directly discriminated against in employment if working for a firm that employed 20 or more people and the right to not be directly discriminated against in the provision of services. The first right excluded 94 per cent. of employers from the obligation not to discriminate, and both rights outlawed only the most direct and blatant acts of outrageous abuse and discrimination.
Mr. Boswell: The Minister has taken a more political tone than I had anticipated. Can she tell the House how many cases have gone before employment tribunals as a result of the 1995 Act in each year since it was implemented?
Maria Eagle: I am afraid that I do not have the figures in my head, but the number of cases has built up year on year, and the resulting case law is tremendously helpful.
Miss Begg: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. One reason why the 1995 Act was so ineffectual was that the Conservative Government refused point blank to set up a disability rights commission, so no body existed to take cases to tribunal. This Government set up the DRC and that is why cases have started to go before the tribunal. If it were not for the DRC, disabled people would still not have the representation that they deserve.
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right, and I hope that it is not too political for the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) to say so.
The Tories' record was a meagre return on 18 years of effort by disabled people and their supporters in this place fighting for the rights that the rest of us take for granted. However, it was fully in line with the ideological view of the Tory government. I exempt some of their Back Benchers from that charge, but the Tories in government consistently opposed legislating for civil rights.
It need not have been that way, because in 1979, as Minister with responsibility for disabled people, Lord Morris established the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, chaired by Peter Large. It reported in 1982 and concluded that civil rights legislation was a necessary part of tackling the discrimination faced by disabled people. The report presented a massive opportunity for the Tory Government, early in their time in office, to lead the world in emancipating disabled people. Unfortunately, they failed. The report was shelved and nothing was done.
In 1982, Lord Ashley, then MP for Stoke-on-Trent, South introduced a ten-minute Bill, the Disablement (Prohibition of Unjustified Discrimination) Bill. It was not supported by the Government. In 1983, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby introduced a similar Bill. The Government killed it, as they repeatedly did every effort to legislate for civil rights for disabled people. They failed to act because of their ideological opposition to such legislation.
By 1990, the rest of the world had forged ahead of us. As President George Bush senior signed the Americans With Disabilities Act into law, he said the following to the US business community:
"You have in your hands the key to the success of this Act, for you can unlock a splendid resource of untapped human potential that, when freed, will enrich us all. Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down."
Those are fine sentiments, but what were the Tory Government here saying at the time? I shall remind the House. Their view was expressed in a consultation document published in June 1990, "Employment and

427
Training for People with Disabilities". It was a comprehensive statement of the Tories' position at the time, and it states:
"An anti-discrimination law would be too complex to draft and uncertain in its application. There is a danger that faced with a law uncertain in its application, employers would become more reluctant to hire people with disabilities. The relationship of people with disabilities with employers may be damaged and the task of persuasion made harder. Some kind of enforcement agency (perhaps like the Commission for Racial Equality) would probably be needed, involving substantial cost. Anti-discrimination legislation, therefore, is unlikely to be effective in achieving policy objectives and might be counter productive by making a constructive approach by employers less likely."
In other words, civil rights were seen as inconvenient and costly burdens on business. Who was the author? It was the then Secretary of State for Employment and now Leader of the Conservative Party, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I doubt that his views have changed. Indeed, only yesterday he emphasised the importance of tax cuts above all other Tory priorities.
The ideologically driven dismissal of the value of civil rights legislation was not merely characteristic of the Thatcher Governments and illustrative of the current Leader of the Opposition's antipathy to legislation, but it was unfortunately the view of the Major Government. There began in 1991–92 what can only be described as a four-year battle for civil rights that redoubled the ferocity of previous fights and during which hand-to-hand fighting on private Member's Bill Fridays—mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—led to heavy Tory casualties. Some hon. Members—two in particular who are in their places—will recall precisely what happened. I watched it fascinated, as an interested member of the public, because it was before I was elected. It was both dramatic and illustrative of the length to which the Conservative party was prepared to go to stop disabled people having civil rights.
The sequence of events was, characteristically, set in motion by Lord Morris who had the good fortune to come high in the ballot in that Session. He introduced the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. After widespread cross-party support, although not from the then Minister, Nick Scott, it was talked out on Second Reading by Robert Hayward, the then Tory Member for Kingswood, after he had give the House an undertaking not to talk it out. That sequence of events led to his making a personal statement to apologise for misleading the House about his intentions. At the subsequent general election, he was punished severely and, on a good night for the Tories, was defeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, who has become a great champion for disability civil rights—not surprisingly.
Mr. Hayward was not the only Tory Member who had to apologise for misleading the House during those battles. In the 1993–94 session, both the Minister, Nick Scott, and Olga Maitland, then Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam, famously had to do so when caught misleading the House about the authorship of 80 or so beautifully written amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill that had been tabled at the last minute for Report. They had in fact been drafted by the
428
Government to wreck the civil rights legislation, despite assurances on the Floor of the House that they were all the work of Olga Maitland. That fact was ferreted out after tenacious parliamentary detective work by some of my hon. Friends. Eventually, following a complaint to Madam Speaker, she was strongly rebuked for her conduct. The Minister himself had to make a personal statement and apologise for misleading the House.
That blatant Tory sabotage originating in the heart of Government, but not encompassing all Back Benchers, did not amount to the "benevolent neutrality" with which the Minister claimed in 1992 to view the Bill. In fact, it represented active, hostile Tory Government determination to scupper any progress towards disability civil rights.
A careful examination of the record makes revealing and fascinating reading and would be great source material for a good thriller or perhaps, more accurately, a whodunnit. But the point that I seek to illustrate is that Tory Governments consistently opposed civil rights legislation for ideological reasons and those who were prominent in doing so still run the Tory party today, not least the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. In stark contrast, Labour parliamentarians, starting with Lord Morris have led the parliamentary part of this fight from the start, and in conjunction with disability campaigners and supportive Back Benchers from all parties, have made huge breakthroughs. But it could have been done years before it was if it had not been for the hostility of those Governments.
On coming to office, we decided to turn the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 into something more like the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and we have done so by strengthening, widening and deepening it and by setting about actually implementing its provisions instead of leaving them sitting uncommenced on the statute book. As a result, disability rights have been transformed from their parlous condition in 1997 and by the end of this Parliament will be comprehensive, fulfilling a major Labour manifesto commitment.
Indeed by 1 October, 70 per cent. of the measures recommended by the disability rights taskforce, which was established in 1997 to advise us on how best to establish civil rights will be fully implemented. The draft Disability Discrimination Bill secures the rest, going beyond our commitments in some spheres. That builds on the achievements of our first term, when we set about plugging the gaps in the DDA—turning it into a more comprehensive piece of legislation and fully commencing its operation in the large areas where that had not happened.
Mr. Barnes: I accept everything that my hon. Friend is saying, and I thank her for her comments about my involvement in some of the earlier developments. Is there not still an overlapping problem with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in that it is based on a medical definition, whereas the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was based on a social definition and was directed towards the discriminator? Although we have gone along with it and are going further with the measures that she has described, a further breakthrough might be needed to bring fully to fruition the measures in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bills?
Maria Eagle: I accept my hon. Friend's point about the definition. For legislation throughout the world, definitions have been one of the most difficult things to get right. A distinction has often been made between a medical model, which defines disabled people in terms of their impairments, and a social model, which looks at what barriers society puts up, the removal of which would give disabled people their rights.
It is absolutely the case that the DDA relies on a more medical model. Aspects of it might be seen as taking a social approach, but it depends on a largely medical model. The Joint Committee report makes some suggestions about further improving the definitions, but nobody across the world has come up with a perfect definition that is workable in legislation. It is hard to do. That is not to say that we cannot make progress towards it, but at a time when we are extending the coverage of the legislation to more than 1 million new employers, for example, now perhaps is not the best time to set about making significant changes to the definition. It is important that those on whom obligations are placed have a pretty certain view of who might be covered by them.
Mr. Goodman: The phrase "civil rights", which the Minister has used several times in the course of her speech, is usually associated with the social model. Will she confirm that the Government's Bill is indeed based on the 1995 Act, which, as she says, is largely founded on the medical model?
Maria Eagle: It is not useful in this field to tear everything up and start from scratch.
Mr. Goodman: So it is not civil rights.
Maria Eagle: Well, it is civil rights. I do not know what kind of dictionary the hon. Gentleman has, but it is clearly not the same as mine. We are talking about making real differences to people's lives and the way to do that is not to get too hung up on precisely how one describes the differences between a social and a medical model but to get on with giving people real rights that they can enforce.
Thanks to this Government, we now have an admirably functioning Disability Rights Commission, which not only acts as a champion for disabled people and supports court cases to end discrimination, but is also trusted by business to provide good-quality advice about how they can improve as employers and service providers and meet the needs of their disabled customers and employees. Indeed, some 40 per cent. of the calls that it takes on its helpline are from business organisations, which underlines how important it is that those with obligations under the legislation see the sense of the legal requirement that it imposes and have confidence in the DRC to give advice about what they need to do to improve.
We have also extended the DDA to education, which was surely one of the most disgraceful omissions from the original Act. How can we hope to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people if we do not remove the barriers that they face in getting a good education? From the nursery to the university, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is creating
430
more opportunities for disabled children and adults and I believe that in the long term its provisions will be among the most influential in transforming the life chances of our disabled fellow citizens. By next year, it too, will be fully operational.
The DDA is being extended in October to cover 7 million more jobs, with the final abolition of the small firms exemption from its employment provisions and its extension to previously excluded occupations. It will help 600,000 disabled people who already work in those jobs directly by giving them rights not to be discriminated against on the ground of their disability that they do not currently enjoy. It also brings 1 million smaller employers into full coverage—a fact that has been welcomed by employers' organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Employers Forum on Disability and generally supported by small business organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses.
The draft Disability Discrimination Bill published this year has been widely welcomed, not only by the DRC but by organisations of and for disabled people. The DRC calls it "an exciting Bill," and also says that
"current activity is vast in the field of Disability Rights".
What a contrast to the record of the Conservative party. The draft Bill will widen coverage of the DDA and its anti-discrimination obligations to include councillors, larger private clubs, including political parties, and more people with HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis. It will deepen coverage by extending the anti-discrimination obligations to all the functions of public authorities that are currently excluded and it will also extend to some aspects of landlord and tenant law. It will restrict the transport exemption from part III obligations and specify end dates for full accessibility of existing public transport vehicles and thus effectively end the transport exemption.
It will strengthen coverage by introducing a duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, something particularly welcomed by the DRC, which calls it
"A major shift of emphasis"—
to
"tackling systematic barriers rather than relying on a post-hoc system of redress."
In future, that will provide excellent opportunities for removing some of the current problems before they can even arise—at least, I hope so. Once enacted, which I hope will be soon, the new measure will be a landmark piece of legislation, further consolidating the progress of disability civil rights as well as completing in full our manifesto commitment.
All that is a means to an end: more life chances for disabled people, equality in practice not just in theory. While we have been getting on with improving civil rights legislation, there has been steady progress across Government. There have been major improvements in part M of the building regulations, for example, and the incorporation of lifetime home standards to require an even better standard from registered social landlords under the guidance of the Housing Corporation. The next few years should see real improvements in the accessibility of homes.

431
In transport, we have already done much, although it has to be admitted that, in some instances, our existing transport infrastructure presents significant challenges. We have improved accessibility to public transport vehicles. All new buses and trains have to be accessible and the draft Bill will make provisions to end transport exclusion and set dates by which existing vehicles will have to be accessible. The obligation to make reasonable adjustment to the physical features of the infrastructure, such as stations, will come in on 1 October. Again, we have to deal with a historical legacy of inaccessibility, but that is being tackled consistently across the sector. Awareness is much higher among operators and those responsible for running our public transport services.
Access to education is improving. The schools access initiative and programmes such as the disabled students allowance are giving money to disabled people to enable them to access education. As the legislation places obligations on education providers to meet the needs of disabled people, we shall see even more improvements over time. As well as the disabled students allowance, the learner support funds are helping in the further education sector. Disabled people are a priority group for support. We are seeing real improvements that matter to disabled people and their lives.
All those important initiatives are taking place across Government in all spheres and will have practical effects. As the DRC said in its briefing, current activity is vast in the field of disability rights. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will have brought about the biggest ever improvement in civil rights for disabled people in this country, as a foundation on which to build real improvements in life chances for more than 10 million of our fellow citizens who are disabled. It is a record that I am proud to commend to the House.
2.3 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: It is a privilege to be speaking from the Dispatch Box for the first time in a debate on disability. I pay tribute to the many organisations in my constituency that do so much for and, more important, with people with disabilities, and to all the organisations that do similar work nationally. Their advice, experience and wisdom are invaluable to me.
According to the Library, the last opportunity we had to participate in a general debate on disability-related matters was on the Third Reading of the Disability Rights Commission Bill on 30 June 1999—almost five years ago. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar opportunity will not arise for some time—I will not say "for another five years", although of course I could—and perhaps not until after the next general
election.
Talking of elections, I wonder whether anything strikes you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as significant about the timing of today's debate—it certainly struck the Minister, who was extraordinarily defensive. I suspect that she is somewhat embarrassed. I am sure that it will not have escaped your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that European elections, the London mayoral election and many local elections are being held today. If the Government's business managers had
432
deliberately chosen the one day in this Parliament on which Members were most likely to have inescapable commitments that would necessitate their absence from Westminster, it would be today. So this is the day that the Government have set aside for what may be the only major debate on disability in Government time in this Parliament. The Minister knows that many Members on both sides of the House—including, doubtless, many Labour Members—wanted to be here today but cannot be.
Today is almost certainly the worst possible day of this Parliament on which to hold a debate on disabled people.
Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to organisations working for and with disabled people, but not of disabled people. I am sure that he would want to correct that omission, but it is an interesting omission none the less. The House would take a little more seriously his concerns about timing and the arrangements for the debate if he did not have one of the worst attendance records at meetings of the Joint Committee over recent months. As he was unable to attend those meetings, perhaps it would have been better for the Conservatives to be properly represented by someone who could have spared the time to attend.
Mr. Goodman: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the meetings of the Joint Committee and I am sorry that he felt he had to make that remark. Representations have been made to me from senior organisations in the world of disability expressing serious reservations about the timing of the debate. I believe that they have also written to the Minister.
There are elections today—the day the Government have set aside for what may be the only major debate on disability in Government time in this Parliament. Many Labour Members who wanted to be in the Chamber are absent. It would be easy for me to say that that represents the Department's view of where people with disabilities stand in the Government's list of priorities, but I will resist that temptation. I believe that the intentions of the Department are admirable, and I believe that, despite a speech of astonishing negativity and backward-lookingness, the Minister is dedicated. I suspect that the blame for the crass timing of this debate lies, fair and square, with the Government's business managers.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not making the point that the Department's view is that disabled people are at the bottom of its list of priorities, but in his letter to me complaining about the timing of the debate he says:
"Ministers are effectively telling disabled people that they are bottom of the Government's list of priorities."
Mr. Goodman: Now the hon. Lady is claiming that she is the only Minister in the Government. It is perfectly clear that I was referring to the Government's business managers who are—in case she has missed the point—Ministers, unless she would care to correct me. I believe that the blame lies fair and square with them and judging from the fact that the Minister held up my letter

433
at the beginning of the debate—for which I am extremely grateful—I suspect that she is severely embarrassed by the timing.
Of course, ultimately it is not my judgment that matters, nor is it the Minister's; it is not even that of the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt). The view that ultimately matters is that of people with disabilities themselves, and they will make their own judgment.
I want to consider three policy pillars in relation to disability: first, the duties contained in part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which come into effect this autumn; secondly, the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, about which the Minister was remarkably unforthcoming—I shall come to that in a moment—and the recent report of the Joint Committee on that Bill; and, lastly, the possible impact of the Government's proposed commission for equality and human rights on disabled people.
First, however, as would surely be right in the kind of wide-ranging debate I had hoped we would have—it has not happened so far—I want to consider not only the dry legislative dimension, but to look more fully and, I hope, warmly at the human dimension: at people with disabilities themselves, and at their lives.
The challenges are daunting. If someone is born a member of an ethnic minority, they will always be a member of that ethnic minority, whatever other choices they make. If someone is born a man or a woman, they will usually remain, under law, a man or a woman. I will leave aside the debate about sexuality and orientation because it is complex. But what is certain is that disability is even more complex.
People can be born with a disability, such as cerebral palsy, that will remain a disability through life. People can be born with a disability, such as some forms of sight impairment, and lose it. People can be born without a disability and acquire one, such as blindness. People can be born without a disability, acquire one and lose it again. For example, I had cancer earlier in this Parliament, and the doctors tell me that I am now free of it. I have been fortunate—I had it in a mild form—and millions of people, and their families and friends, have endured far worse. I mention the experience only as an illustration of the complexity of the debate about disability.
Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Is not disability discrimination very odd? Other forms of discrimination should not take place, but we may perhaps understand how they may emerge: men may be biased against women, or racial discrimination may occur because people belong to different groups. However, given that people can move in and out of disability or acquire disabilities later in life, disability discrimination is like exercising a form of discrimination that is against oneself or the group to which one belongs. That is quite an odd form of discrimination. If those factors were spelt out, perhaps people would be much more sensitive to them and not discriminate against disabled people.
Mr. Goodman: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is a great expert in these matters. He made a sound point earlier about civil rights that perhaps the Minister did not fully appreciate. What he says is right: disability
434
discrimination is peculiarly complex, if only because it is so often invisible, which is one of the points that he has just made.
Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the remediation or criticism of, for example, an employer's or service provider's attitude to disability is also a complex matter? It is a matter not simply of whether discrimination takes place, but of whether the adjustments made to meet that situation are reasonable or appropriate.
Mr. Goodman: My hon. Friend, who has a very fine track record in these matters, is of course right.
Bert Massie, the chairman of the DRC, recently made a point to the largely non-disabled members of the Joint Committee on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. He told them, brutally but cheerfully—I roughly paraphrase—that it is a case of join us, or die young. That is a sobering thought. If there is a third way between those two choices, Bert certainly did not mention it. So at one end of the life cycle, more and more people are living longer and acquiring disabilities as they do so. Between 2005 and 2020, 13,000 more people each year are expected to require residential care than currently receive it—a 25 per cent. increase. At the other end of the life cycle, more and more children who would not have survived for long after birth 20 years ago, perhaps even 10 years ago, now survive and have, in consequence, special educational, health and employment needs. Between the very old and the very young, there is a more health-conscious and disability-conscious work force, and as the population ages that work force will age too.
All that has over-arching implications for the Government, families and the private and voluntary sectors—for society itself. Older people need specialist equipment and care. I have just received a letter from the Bucks Association for Blind and Partially Sighted People, urging me to urge the Government today to ensure that the keypads provided in post offices follow Royal National Institute of the Blind guidelines. Children need teachers who are trained to assess and deal with special needs. Workers need help with rehabilitation, transport and retraining.
Above all, perhaps, people with disabilities will no longer be content, if they ever were, to be the passive recipients of help: to be, in short, dependent on the state or other people. Increasingly, they want to be active shapers of their own destinies—to be independent and, as we say in these enlightened times, empowered. They often want to be viewed not just as people with disabilities, but as people with unique skills and talents. I suspect that that has always been true. The focus on rights that are to be claimed assertively, even aggressively, is more modern.
Rights are, of course, a good thing. Some of us, however, will have been struck when observing the recent D-day coverage by the contrast between, on the one hand, the reticent, modest, dutiful, responsibility-focused bearing of the now-old soldiers, sailors and airmen who risked their lives and were often gravely injured—and thus disabled—in the fight for freedom and, on the other, the more rights-focused modern generation. That comparison is not necessarily in all senses to our advantage.

435
I was present, as I expect the Minister was also—I am slightly surprised that she did not mention this in her journey through times past—at the recent launch of Scope's thought-provoking "Time to Get Equal" campaign, which the leaders of all the main parties support. I was struck, as others will have been, by its assertive central message: "disablism"—as Tony Manwaring, Scope's chief executive and others put it—should be, and eventually will be, as unacceptable as racism or sexism. My first reaction on hearing that was to wonder, given the number of "isms" that are already in circulation, whether another is strictly necessary, but that response should surely be questioned.
It is true—indeed, it is a truism—that public opinion will not move any faster than it is prepared to move. This is why, for example, I am cautious about the overenthusiastic promotion of the social model of disability. I gather from the Minister's remarks today that she is cautious about that, too.
Miss Begg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although public opinion will not be changed only by legislation, by introducing civil rights legislation, the Government have been successful in changing public opinion for the better much faster than would have been the case if the legislation had not existed?
Mr. Goodman: I am not sure whether, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out earlier, legislation that is partly based on the medical model is exactly the same as civil rights legislation. However, the hon. Lady—I thought she would intervene at some point and she has not disappointed me—is right in the sense that the 1995 Act and the draft Bill contain elements of the social model, as she would concede, given that they acknowledge the need to break down barriers.
I am wary—I believe that the DRC and Ministers are, too—of a possible backlash from business in particular and voters in general against definitions that might seem to fly in the face of common sense or of the casual assumption that all the 9.8 million people with disabilities in Britain believe that their identity is defined by their particular disability and will speak, lobby and vote accordingly. None the less, the argument that there is discrimination worldwide and in Britain against people with disabilities is incontestable.
I am grateful to Rachel Hurst of Disability Awareness in Action for sending me what that organisation accurately describes as a "catalogue of horror", largely based on incidents abroad. I quote one stark example from, as the report terms it, Palestine:
"A disabled woman was raped by a gang of youths. She was subsequently murdered by her brother to alleviate the 'shame on her family'."
In general, of course, we do better in Britain. There has been some progress under Governments of all parties, and it would be churlish not to recognise the commitment of Ministers—I am determined not to follow the somewhat negative tone set by the Minister—or to dismiss the work of the Government, but the challenges identified by Rachel Hurst and others remain.
In 2003, 13 per cent. of non-disabled people aged between 16 and 24 had no qualifications; the figure for
436
disabled people was 24 per cent. Some 81 per cent. of non-disabled people of working age are employed; the figure for disabled people is 49 per cent. Some 22 per cent. of non-disabled people are fearful of using public transport; the figure for disabled people is 40 per cent. "Mind the Gap", a Leonard Cheshire social exclusion report, explores the issue in some detail. A recent Health Committee report found that up to 500,000 elderly people have been abused, often by their relatives. The NSPCC's report, "It doesn't happen to disabled people" suggested that children with disabilities
"are more vulnerable to abuse than non-disabled children".
I have a final figure People with learning disabilities are 58 times more likely to die before the age of 50 than other citizens.
It is in the light of these stark contrasts that I turn to the first of the two anti-discrimination measures that I want to consider this afternoon, namely the duties contained in part Ill of the 1995 Act, which will come into effect this October. As the Minister reminded us, it was a Conservative Government and a Conservative Minister—my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), whom she at least credited by name—who introduced that Act, the first ever Government-hacked anti-discrimination measure in Britain relating to disability. We naturally take pride in it.
Vera Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Goodman: I will be very happy to give way, but perhaps the hon. an I learned Lady will express her hope that the Bill that will succeed the Act that I have just mentioned will be introduced this Session.
Vera Baird: I shall make my own intervention if it is all the same to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman has made a great point of saying how complex and difficult it is to understand disability discrimination. It is not obviously blatant and straightforward. Can he therefore explain why the 1995 Act, which he has trumpeted so much, did not outlaw indirect discrimination at all?
Mr. Goodman: I will accept lectures from Government Members about the Act when they introduce their own Bill in such a way that it is likely to come into force in this Parliament. May I make it clear that I believe that the 1995 Act was right for the time? Events move on and one has to consider them in the light of time. However, I shall not say anything at the Dispatch Box today that indicates any shame at the 1995 Act. It is a great shame that the hon. and learned Lady has nothing to say in praise of it.
From 1 October, service providers will have to make changes to the physical features of their premises. Firms employing fewer than 15 people will no longer be exempt from the employment provisions of that Act, and disability in relation to occupational pension schemes will become unlawful. The Minister will be aware that, according to a survey carried out by her Department, only 3 per cent. of employers whose businesses are currently exempt from the provisions of the 1995 Act know that their exemption is due to be

437
lifted. Furthermore, very few of these employers were aware of legislation giving rights to employees or knew that they were currently exempt.
Less than half the service providers who were aware of the 1995 Act were also aware of the forthcoming change. Furthermore, a survey carried out late last year by the Federation of Small Businesses, which asked FSB members whether they had made reasonable adjustments to their premises to fulfil the legal requirement that all businesses make reasonable adjustments to their premises to enable disabled access, found that more than 50 per cent. of those polled at that time were non-compliant.
According to new research by Unum Provident, the important disability insurer:
"One million small businesses will have to make adjustments to their workplaces or else"
face
"possible law suits costing tens of thousands of pounds from customers or industrial tribunals from staff."
Joanna Hindle, the corporate services director from Unum Provident, has said:
"Overall, the lack of awareness by small business owners on the potential impact of changes to the DDA is a cause for concern."
Last month, I wrote to the Minister—she has evidently received many letters from me—asking what proportion of business and service providers the Department expected to be aware of and compliant with the part III provisions of the 1995 Act by 1 October, and asking what level of awareness and compliance the Department believed to be acceptable. The Minister duly replied, stating:
"There is a need further to raise awareness of DDA duties among businesses, especially small businesses".
Indeed there is, but—surprise, surprise—the Minister would not be drawn on what levels of awareness and compliance the Department believes to be acceptable, let alone expects. The reason for this, I suspect, is simple. The Department cannot decide what levels of awareness and compliance it should accept and does not have a clue what levels of awareness and compliance it should expect.
Tom Levitt: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the considerable amount of advertising from the Department for Work and Pensions on this subject that has appeared in local newspapers across the country? With 113 days to go, what efforts is he making to help the businesses in his constituency to ensure that they comply with the Act?
Mr. Goodman: I am telling every one that I can about it. Although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Department is making efforts, the figures that I have just quoted show that it is being singularly unsuccessful. I wish him as much luck in his constituency when he tells businesses about the forthcoming provisions of the Act as I hope that I will have in mine.
Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman is rather out of step with the main disability organisation on this point. The briefing for this debate from the Disability Rights
438
Commission starts off loudly and in large letters, saying that it
"congratulates the Government on the publicity campaign that it has launched to raise awareness".
Although the Government have not yet been able to achieve 100 per cent. awareness, I would be very pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman thinks is a measurable acceptable level of awareness and whether he thinks such a thing can conceivably exist. He is missing the boat; everybody is pleased with the effort that the Department for Work and Pensions has put in. It certainly trumps introducing legislation but not putting it into effect. That is all the Tories did.
Mr. Goodman: Everyone is not pleased. I have just expressed the serious concerns of one important organisation. I am puzzled that Labour Members still seem to be living in a world—perhaps they cannot escape from it—in which we are still in government. We are always being asked what we would do and what position we would be in now. The Labour party has been in power for seven years and it cannot happily continue this journey down memory lane without taking some responsibility for its own actions and responsibilities.
The present position is deeply worrying. I spoke earlier about some of the dangers of a backlash from business and voters against anti-discrimination legislation. Here is another example. There is a danger—I will put it no higher than that—that, come October, complaints, justified or, as I suspect, probably unjustified, from small businesses and service providers about unreasonable and sudden demands being made on them by the 1995 Act will start rolling in, and not to the Department but to the media. I have, for my sins, worked in the media, and I know that this is precisely the way in which backlashes begin. So if all this happens—which I devoutly hope it will not—do not let the Minister say that we did not warn her.
I now want to move from the 1995 Act to the present draft Disability Discrimination Bill and to the report issued by the Joint Committee. The official Opposition support the Bill in principle, and we believe that the Committee has issued an excellent report. It would indeed be hard for me to say anything else since I was, of course, a member of the Joint Committee, and I will be checking the claim made by the hon. Member for High Peak very carefully after the debate. I do not commend the report simply out of good manners; I strongly believe that the Committee was able to reach, under the chairmanship of Lord Carter, a consensus on several thorny and potentially divisive issues.
Perhaps the most eye-catching recommendations were in relation to the definition of disability, to mental health and to trains. On the definition, the Committee recommended that all progressive conditions currently covered by the 1995 Act, when they begin to have an effect, should be included from the point of diagnosis. On mental health, it recommended the removal of the requirement that mental illnesses must be clinically well recognised, and recommended that the requirement should instead be that medical evidence must establish the effect of the condition on that person. On transport, it recommended that 2017, with limited exemptions, should be the end date by which trains should be

439
accessible. The report said:
"There is no justification for further delay".
The official Opposition support the Bill, they commend the report and they believe that the Bill should be introduced as soon as possible. This view is shared, as far as we know, by the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) is nodding. I believe that the view is shared by the other minor parties. It is also widely held outside the House by organisations that work with and for—for the convenience of the hon. Member for High Peak—people with disabilities, and of course disabled people themselves. So we know where nearly everyone stands, with one significant exception. We still do not know, despite the Minister's trip down memory lane today, where the Government stand.
Maria Eagle: I thought that I had made it clear—the hon. Gentleman may not have heard—that we have a manifesto commitment to introduce legislation that represents the remaining 30 per cent. of our manifesto commitments during this Parliament, and we are on course to do so.
Mr. Goodman: I heard that. The point is that many organisations that work with and for all disabled people believe that the next election is likely to be next summer. Any Bill that is introduced in the Queen's Speech this autumn, therefore, is likely to fall before it can pass through both Houses and gain Royal Assent. The Minister said last October, and she made the point again just now, that the final step towards meeting the Labour party's manifesto commitment will be when a disability Bill is passed in this Parliament. We assume that that is a pledge, and I think that the Minister has confirmed that it was. However, only if the Bill is introduced in this Session can the fulfilment of the pledge be guaranteed.
The Minister will know that disabled people and organisations that represent them want such a Bill to be introduced in this Session. I was going to ask the hon. Lady again if she would guarantee that a Bill would be brought before the House during the Session. It seems clear from what she has said, however, that it will not be. Bearing in mind the timing of the debate and the nature of part of it, perhaps I should not be surprised.
I move on to the last of my three pieces of legal architecture that especially affect disabled people, which is the Government's proposed commission for equality and human rights. People with disabilities have special needs and requirements. It can be argued that other groups such as ethnic minorities also have special needs and requirements. However, the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating on equal terms in modern Britain—this was the point bounced round the Chamber by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire and me—are formidable. We regard the proposed abolition of the Disability Rights Commission and its incorporation into the new commission with concern and believe that at the least any new commission must have a special place and role for disabled people.
Before touching on some principles for reform, I shall refer to poverty, prosperity, work and disabled people. Since 1997, the number of people claiming incapacity
440
benefit and severe disablement allowance has risen by about 39,000. With incapacity benefit, we are more or less where we were in 1997. The number came down, which was good. It then increased, which was not so good. Since 1999, the number has risen by 133,000. Where has the increase come from?
In January, in answer to a written question that I tabled, the Minister said that
"in recent years, people with mental health disorders are the only broad category of diagnosis not to see a reduction in the numbers claiming."
I tabled further questions about mental health disorders, asking broadly what the trend is in claims for depression, stress and anxiety. The results were startling. The Min ster's statement was that in such instances there had not been
"a reduction in the numbers claiming."—[Official Report, 27 January 2004; Vol. 417 c. 346W.]
That turned out to be somewhat economical with the truth. There has not been a reduction in the numbers claiming, but a whacking great increase in those numbers, with people claiming for longer. The total number of mental health claimants has risen by 718,000 since 1997. That is a 39 per cent. increase. That number represents a quarter of all claims.
The average length of claims for men has risen from four to five years for mood disorders, and from five and a half to six years for neurotic stress-related disorders. The number of women claimants has risen in every year, reminding us that with disability, as with pensions, women—particularly elderly women—are especially menaced by poverty
The Government have recently introduced their incapacity benefit pilots, to which the Minister referred. We believe that they offer the prospect of the sort of tailor-made help for disabled people that we advanced in our incapacity fundholder proposal at the last election, although the pilots have not yet been evaluated. The Department described the results in February as encouraging, but more information about results would be welcome. I shall be happy to give way to the Minister if she is able to tell us whether more information is available or when that information will be available, or both.
Maria Eagle: Evaluation is not yet available because effectively the pilots started their work-focused interviews only during January. We are expecting some better information during the course of the pilots. The first available information should be coming through sometime in the summer or early autumn. We have undertaken to publish information when it becomes available.
Mr. Goodman: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. I think that we would all be a little happier if we could be guaranteed that the information will be available by the time that the House rises for the summer recess. We will not have full information or a full assessment until 2007.
We have been calling for some time for the Government to give extra help to people with disabilities who want to work. Five years ago, the Government launched the new deal for disabled people and began to means-test incapacity benefit. Four years ago, they

441
launched the ONE programme. Three years ago, they announced Jobcentre Plus. Two years ago, they promised a new welfare reform Bill to reduce the number of out-of-work disabled people. As we know, their numbers have risen, yet about 1.6 million people who currently draw incapacity benefit apparently say that they want to work. We all know that once someone has been on IB for a year, he or she is likely to be on it for eight years. This is a shaming waste of potential, talent and human capital.
Maria Eagle: I agree that people being unemployed when they can be in work with a bit of help is a waste of their talent and potential. Will the hon. Gentleman explain the record of the Conservative Government, who trebled the number of people on IB during their time in office from 700,000 to more than 2.6 million, and did nothing to help them?
Mr. Goodman: It is a travesty of what happened in our time in government to claim that we tried to do nothing to help people with disabilities. I am sorry that the Minister has chosen yet again to intervene on events that happened more than six years ago when she is responsible for the numbers of people on IB, which are rising. In relation to stress, anxiety and depression, they are completely out of control.
It is not only important to enable people with disabilities to find work and keep it. It is vital also to ensure that people without disabilities do not acquire disabilities that will make it impossible for them to find work or to keep work. More older workers are enduring problems with cognitive skills at work, for example, as they move towards retirement. Many younger workers are enduring problems with obesity, for example, as they move towards middle age. I shall set out some broad principles on a positive note that should, we believe, inform policy making in relation to disability in work.
First, it is clear that prevention is better than cure. A worker who changes his habits and becomes healthier as a result is less likely to acquire illness and disability. An employer who cares for his employees and offers them assessment, retraining and transport, especially as they grow older, is less likely to lose them to illness and disability. Needless to say, I am not an enthusiast for what is sometimes labelled the nanny state. However, the Government have a legitimate role in rewarding good employers and educating future workers.
Secondly, the tax, benefit and employment system must be made more simple and comprehensible. It could not possibly be less simple and comprehensible than it is now. It is curious that incapacity benefit works roughly as follows: the doctor and patient meet; the doctor confirms that the patient cannot do the work that he or she currently does; and the doctor does not have a dialogue with the patient in which both might seek to discover what work the patient might be able to do. That is partly because doctors are trained to diagnose patients, not to help them seek and find work, but consequences follow. The IB claimant may not find Jobcentre Plus advisers who can help him or her get back into work when they receive benefit. The claimant may be discouraged from leaving the benefit for fear of falling back into it at a lower rate, or he may not take up the 52-week rule option.
442
We acknowledge that bureaucracies in the assessment of eligibility for benefit want hard-and-fast rules. We recognise that public funds are not limitless and that short-term demand on the Treasury must be contained. None the less, there must be some way of transforming incapacity benefit, which is triggered by what people cannot do, into—I use a phrase that I think Joanna Hindle used in her evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee—a "capacity payment" that responds to what people can do and is less hedged about by difficulties involving eligibility, take-up, perverse incentives and complexity. That leads me to the third principle of a more active role for the voluntary and private sectors.
The concept of the incapacity fundholder, which we advanced at the last election and which the Government are now following in their own pilot model, was a way of seeking to create a capacity payment. It envisaged voluntary and private sector organisations working for people with disabilities to exercise a more active role in the administration and use of the benefit. I know from my constituency experience of the extra dimension that organisations like the Shaw Trust bring to helping people with disabilities to find and keep work. We want to draw on recommendations in the report by the Work and Pensions Committee on Jobcentre Plus on a more direct role for the voluntary and private sector and the marrying up of the administration and use of benefits to employment advice and help.
At the outset, I said that disabled people pose legislators and politicians with daunting challenges. While we are doubtless impressed by the scale of those challenges, we must not be deterred from facing up to them, including the main challenge of reforming a system that is increasingly hard to explore, prone to complexity and means-testing, and lacks joined-up thinking in its attempts to support and empower people with disabilities. The next Conservative Government will not be deterred from that task.
2.40 pm
Miss Anne Begg: I am delighted to be called to speak in our debate, although I am disappointed by the churlishness of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and his disquiet at its timing. Perhaps because he was elected only in 2001—although that cannot really be the excuse—he has forgotten the number of debates held on disability since 1997, when I was elected.
When I was elected to Parliament as the first Member permanently to use a wheelchair I was determined not to be a spokesperson for disabled people. I was determined not to be the disabled MP to whom everyone turned as the fount of all knowledge on disability matters; I hoped to make my mark on the House, and would do so as an MP who happened to have a disability. I have tried hard to follow that path, but inevitably I have been sucked into debates on disability because I have personal expertise on the issue. The hon. Gentleman said that we should listen to disabled people, so I hope he will listen to me. I did not want to be the fount of all knowledge on issues affecting disabled people because they are not a homogenous mass—they have different views, aspirations and expectations, and no single voice can represent them all—but, despite that view, I have participated in rather a lot of debates on disability in

443
Parliament. I served on the Committee considering the legislation that set up the Disability Rights Commission. I also served on the Committee that considered the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.
More recently, I served on the Committee considering the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept our suggestion, originally made by me, that we change its title to the draft disability anti-discrimination Bill. I have participated in a range of debates on disability in the Work and Pensions Committee and in the Chamber itself, so I do not know where on earth the hon. Gentleman has been. He is a fellow member of the Work and Pensions Committee, which he applauded and, indeed, he praised its research on getting disabled people into work.
It is therefore not unusual to discuss disability in the House, and quite a lot has been achieved since the Government came to power. Had I been an MP in previous years, I suspect that I would have spoken about disability but, instead of praising the Government of the time and encouraging them to go a little further, most of my contributions would have criticised the Tories in their failure to act at all. Like the Minister and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), I was struck by the briefing from the Disability Rights Commission, which says:
"Current activity is vast in the field of disabled rights."
That could not have been said before 1997 of the Conservative party, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member.
The hon. Gentleman was not sure that the Government were advocating true civil rights. When I was elected, I had campaigned on two issues for about 20 years—the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and the need for full, enforceable civil rights for disabled people, the subject of my first speech to the national Labour party conference. The Government have delivered on the first issue, and are about to deliver on the second. The Scottish Parliament is up and running, and has been through two elections. Once the Disability Discrimination Bill is on the statute book, we can probably say that we have achieved full, enforceable civil rights for disabled people.
Thanks to the establishment of the DRC, we have enforceable civil rights. If it had not been set up, any power under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 would have counted for nothing, because we needed a body to take disabled people's cases to tribunal and court. The DRC has done so, and has performed a valuable function by pushing the Government into legislating to fill the gaps in the 1995 Act, including bringing education and transport under the auspices of that measure and introducing regulations to ensure that silly restrictions such as the exemption for all small employers are removed. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said, the Government will also enforce obligations under part 3 of the Act in October this year, and will not postpone doing so for another three years.
Disabled people know when they have suffered discrimination, which is overt and happens daily. It is not an ethereal issue discussed by people in debating
444
chambers—it is real, and happens to all disabled people, who feel it very deeply, which is why they often react angrily in such situations. Every time that someone talks not to me but to the person who is with me, I feel that discrimination. Every time that I turn up at a restaurant or meeting place at which there is no wheelchair access, I feel it. Every time I try to get into a place of public entertainment and am told—not recently, luckily—that I am a fire hazard, I face it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that while that discrimination still takes place, I can now do something about much of it.
In 1973, when I applied to Aberdeen college to take a three-year diploma course so that I could become a primary teacher, I was told that I could not, but I had no legal recourse. I was discriminated against because of my disability, but I could do nothing about it. Three years later, in 1976, having gained a university degree, I returned to the college wanting to take a course to become a secondary teacher. I was refused, but there was nothing that I could do and I had no recourse to the law. Thanks to the Government, that could not happen to a young person trying to get into college today. In fact, the difficulties that I experienced getting into teaching are no longer experienced, and disabled people now have the right to challenge unfair decisions by faceless bureaucrats or, in my case, a college doctor. Powers are now in place giving us the right to challenge such decisions. However, they do not stop discrimination happening. This morning. for example, a taxi was hailed for me, but took off again when asked to wait as I was in a wheelchair. If I had been quick enough to get his number, however, I could have done something about it. That is the difference. As more and more case law is built up, and more and more people realise that it is unacceptable as well as unfair and discriminatory to make such judgments or take such actions against disabled people, the less it will happen.
It is important not just that we get the legislative framework correct, but that we use legislation to change attitudes. In my intervention on the hon. Gentleman I asked whether the changes in attitude would have happened without the legislation. Unfortunately, he did not answer the point that I raised, but the answer is that the changes in attitude would not have come about. Years before I was elected, I remember having a discussion with someone who believed it was a matter of education. If we had left it to education, we would not be where we are today. Legislation sets the framework and the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Because most people want to obey the law and not to fall foul of the law, it has acted as a driver to change attitudes and to make sure that incidents such as the one that I described that happened to me this morning become fewer and fewer.
Mr. Goodman: I am sorry to have upset the hon. Lady, which I try never to do. I make it clear that I believe legislation is essential, but it would be less churlish—to use the word that she has propelled into circulation—if she acknowledged that the 1995 Act introduced by a Conservative Government was one of the pieces of legislation that has made a difference.
Miss Begg: The 1995 Act was an opportunity missed. Much of what the Labour Government have put in place could have beer put in place at the time of the 1995

445
Act. The fact that that did not happen was due to the actions of the Tory Government at the time. I remember meeting Lady Olga Maitland a few months before I was elected. I was on a programme called "The Midnight Hour" that used to go out very late—funnily enough, considering its title—on BBC 2. I was a candidate for the election at the time and I was invited down from Scotland. I found myself sitting next to Lady Olga, and I came out of the programme with steam coming out of my ears. She was unrepentant, she was unapologetic for what she had done, and I found her the most patronising person I have ever met in my life.
I know the hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches today, and I know the hon. Gentleman very well. I know that they are honourable men and would not have taken the same attitude as Lady Olga Maitland did at the time. I am sure they were just as embarrassed by her actions as others would be. However, she was representative of the tone of the Government at the time. My hon. Friend the Minister was right to say that the 1995 Act came about because the Government were drawn kicking and screaming into passing some kind of legislation to try to dampen down the negative publicity that they were getting from the disabled lobby.
The disabled lobby at the time was angry about the 1995 Act, but it acknowledged, sometimes a little reluctantly, that at least it was a step. It could have been so much better, and we could have been so much further ahead in the delivery of civil rights had the Act had some teeth to it. For instance, had it provided for a DRC it would have been a much better Act and we could have been much further on in introducing the civil rights that we all want.
Mr. Barnes: One of the things that a number of us argued for during the discussions on the Disability Discrimination Bill in 1995 was the establishment of a disability rights commission. We always said that that would be the most important amendment to the measure. Despite the imperfections of the measure, the commission would begin to take action and help to transform it, as it has been doing since its establishment. There were odd little gains here and there as the amending procedure went through, but the big gain that we were after, which would not have given us a civil rights (disabled persons) Bill, would have been a measure with its own dynamic if the commission had been established.
Miss Begg: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He was there at the time; I was not. I was outside, but it was always my impression that that one body would have been a major advance in advising the Government on how they could have improved the 1995 Act.
A debate such as this is so wide and varied that it is difficult to know which parts of the topic of disability one should select for discussion. I have mentioned the fact that education is now covered by the DDA. I do not have time to go into that in more detail. The health service has been reformed to allow access for people with disabilities. There have been great advances in genetics as regards people with disabilities. Many issues are addressed by the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, such as access to housing and duties on local authorities.
446
I do not have time to go into as much detail as I would like on all those matters, so I shall concentrate on two areas that are not mutually exclusive—in fact, one is predicated on the other. The first is physical access, and the second is the inclusion of disabled people in society. As I said, one is predicated on the other, because without physical access to goods and services, disabled people cannot exercise their civil rights by being involved in society.
I am pleased to see that in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill aspects of transport that were missing from the DDA 1995 are covered. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to the recommendation by the Joint Committee that the end date, particularly for rail transport, should be 2017. Rail travel still poses enormous problems, particularly for people with mobility problems. I shall not give any more examples from my own experience—I have given them over the years and they are legion. There are still problems with regard to unmanned stations and inaccessible stations.
There are also difficulties if, for some reason, a rail operator cannot operate trains on a particular section of the track and so puts on replacement buses, possibly while essential repairs are taking place. Inevitably, those buses are not wheelchair-accessible. The Government are legislating to make sure that buses are wheelchair-accessible, and come 2017, hopefully, that problem will not arise and any bus provided to replace a train will be wheelchair-accessible. That is why we need a properly integrated transport policy.
Some operators still do not accept responsibility for getting disabled people on to trains. I was disappointed to hear on Thursday 6 May that in a case taken by the Disability Rights Commission on behalf of Keith Roads to Norwich county court, the judge found it unreasonable that Central Trains should be expected to pay the cost of an accessible taxi to enable Keith Roads to get to the platform to reach the train that he needed. I hope that such a judgment, which was a disappointment to the DRC a month ago, will be covered when the part of the legislation dealing with access to goods and services comes into force in October this year, and that it will be the responsibility of train operators to make sure that, if they offer a service, someone in a wheelchair is not prevented from accessing that service because the station is inaccessible or because of rail works around the station or on part of the rail line. From personal experience, I know how difficult it can be to negotiate payment for a taxi when an operator replaces its trains with an inaccessible replacement service.
On physical access, the obligations that will be implemented in October 2004 are the other issue and in this respect I agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Wycombe. Those obligations are a major step forward and disabled people believe that the rights that they will gain in October will make a huge difference. As he said, many employers and providers are still ignorant about their obligations, but it is unfair to criticise the DRC and the Government, because they have made the strongest possible efforts to let people know exactly what will happen.
Unfortunately, the issue has been marred by scare stories put out by employers and small businesses about their obligations. I say, "'unfortunately", but those

447
stories are some of the few occasions on which we have been able to obtain publicity. I have been able to comment on the issue in my local evening newspaper in Aberdeen only when I have been trundled out to reply to scare stories. If scare stories obtain the publicity that we need, they may perform a proper function. Unfortunately, misunderstanding exists about exactly what is involved and the costs. I am particularly concerned that the obligations will be used as an excuse for some shops either to close or to claim that they will close.
I pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Federation of Small Businesses, which could easily have taken a negative stance, by saying that its members were terrified of the implications of the legislation. Instead, it has gone out to try to educate its members about their responsibilities and obligations and to allay their fears by explaining that the obligations do not involve major structural changes, which some small businesses are worried about.
Physical access to goods and services is important if disabled people are to play their full part in society. There is no point in saying that disabled people should join political parties or become involved in civic society if they cannot get into buildings to access the meetings and, indeed, the demonstrations that are part and parcel of that work.
I have spoken a great deal in the House about the world of work, which is important if disabled people are to be truly included. Disabled people, and particularly those who are under retirement age, need access to employment. The Government have done sterling work in trying to ensure that those on incapacity benefit are given the chance to get into work. The new deal for disabled people has been implemented in some areas and the new pilots and the pathways to work have certainly turned around disabled people's attitudes on whether the opportunities are out there.
Younger disabled people expect to work. The difficult group is those who have been in work, and who have fallen out of it, perhaps through unemployment. On that issue, I blame the previous Government, under whom individuals were switched on to incapacity benefit after a couple of years or even a year of unemployment, not because they were any more disabled than they were when they left work, but because it was convenient and got them off the unemployment statistics. After 10 years of unemployment, people often suffer from mental illnesses such as stress or depression. It is harder to be without work when everyone else is in work. When employment is high and unemployment is low, those without work are subject to a personal and social cost. Those who were encouraged to go on to incapacity benefit in the years of high unemployment are not fiddling the system, because they are ill and genuinely believe that they cannot work.
It is hard to persuade the stock of people on incapacity benefit that opportunities and chances exist. Government initiatives such as the new deal for disabled people and the alterations to the rules on therapeutic earnings and permitted work have given people who believed that they would never work again the chance to try it out, which builds confidence in getting back into
448
the work force. Mental health problems are the main reason for increased numbers on incapacity benefit, and I shall return to that challenge in a moment.
The Government have risen to the challenge. Allowing disabled people the chance to work gives people dignity and involves them in society, which is difficult to achieve by other means. People often base their social lives and develop their social awareness in the world of work. If the Government are serious when they discuss social inclusion, they must consider work.
In conclusion, I shall look to the future. The Minister described where we are today and how we got here, but the Government face future challenges on disability. We may need to legislate to end genetic discrimination, which will increase. Genetic discrimination is beginning to happen, and it is a difficult area but if we seek full civil rights for disabled people, that gap must be plugged. The Government must also examine unfair insurance premiums, because some insurance companies still feel it perfectly legitimate to bump up premiums for disabled people.
Mental health problems are a big challenge and a growth area for the future. We have been successful at getting people with physical disabilities into work. Young people with physical disabilities or even learning disabilities who leave school and go to college expect to work in supported or open employment.
I am not convinced that we have the answer on the increasing numbers who will drop out of work because of mental health problems. A great deal remains to be done on occupational health and rehabilitation to ensure that people do not drop out of the workplace when they are first diagnosed with stress or mental health problems, and more should be done either to redeploy those people within their companies or to find them other work. As the hon. Member for Wycombe says, when someone is on incapacity benefit for more than a year, it is much harder to get them back into work.
In the Joint Committee considering the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, we had quite a discussion about whether we should push the Government further on the social model. We agreed with what the Minister has said today—that the definition of discrimination in the model is not as robust or well defined as it needs to be if the rest of our legislation is to hook on to it. There is much more to be done, but I think the definition would be easier if we had a single equality Act. I hope that that will be on the Government's agenda in the next Parliament. I also hope that one of the first jobs for the human rights and equal opportunities commission will be considering how such an Act might be drafted. Under a single equality Act it would not matter whether people were discriminated against because they were black, because they were gay, because they were old, because they were disabled or because they were women; all that would need to be proved would be the fact of discrimination, and it would become much easier to prove that in court.
The Government have already done a great deal. The Minister listed the things that they have done. Nevertheless, there will always be more to do, and expectations will always rise. I am sorry to say—I say it to the Minister, but I would say it to any Government of any colour—that no matter how much is done in the

449
context of disability, we shall always be coming back for more. The more civil rights we secure, the more we realise that further rights could be obtained.
Disability will not come to an end. If anything, many more disabled people will become much more active because of advances in medical science. More people will survive with more profound disabilities and more chronic conditions than has ever been the case in the past. I think Beveridge believed that with a national health service disability and ill health would disappear, but in fact those medical advances mean that people can operate despite being seriously ill. We have seen that in the House. Members suffering from cancer have managed to retain ministerial positions throughout their treatment, holding down demanding jobs that impose a good deal of pressure. More people can now be kept alive, doing more jobs more vigorously, than ever before. We are a growing part of society, and that will not go away. We will not go away either and we will go on reminding the Government of their obligations to us.
The Government have given us a voice. They have given us civil rights, and a mechanism through which we can express our dissatisfaction and challenge what we believe to be wrong. Now that we have that voice, unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—we are going to use it.
3.13 pm
Paul Holmes: As others have said, this is an important debate on an important subject. The criteria introduced by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are used by 9.8 million disabled people, and one family in four has a member with a disability. Moreover, in an ageing population, disability visits more and more of us: it is not just something that happens to other people.
I do not say this often, but I agree with the opening remarks of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). It is a shame that the debate is taking place on the day of the largest electoral event since the last general election and before the next. Inevitably, many Members, including some who are assiduous in campaigning and attending debates on disability issues, cannot therefore be here today. I remember speaking in a debate on valuing people, which also took place at the end of the week, to an almost empty Chamber. It is unfortunate that such important debates are sometimes sidelined.
The attitude to disability has changed considerably in the past 30, 40 or 50 years. It used to be thought that disabled people should stay at home, out of sight out of mind, or—even worse—that they should be confined to institutions where they could not get in other people's way. The attitude has changed for the better because of the improving legal framework. All credit for that should go to this Government in particular. The framework has improved as a result of education and training, cash investment and the adoption of more open social attitudes in general. I am very glad that I was born and grew up in the second half of the 20th century, and that my children were born, grew up and will live as citizens in the 21st century.
The myriad disability groups deserve huge praise for the advances of the last 30 or 40 years. Before I became the Liberal Democrat spokesman on disability in 2001,
450
I thought I knew quite a lot about disability. For some years, as a teacher in a very good comprehensive school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I taught a range of disabled children in a mainstream 11-to-18 setting. I taught children with Down's syndrome, fragile X syndrome, hearing and sight impairment, cerebral palsy and spina bifida.
Having been a political campaigner in Chesterfield for many years and having lived in the town for a quarter of a century, I have encountered many examples of disability arising from industrial histories and legacies—in particular, those of a coalfield community. Much of my case load, since I have been an MP and when I was a councillor, has related to people suffering from vibration white finger, pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and numerous other industrial diseases. I have worked with quite a few disability groups in Chesterfield that deal with such conditions. For some years my mother-in-law, who lives two streets away from me in Chesterfield, has been a regular user of the excellent services provided by another voluntary group, Shopmobility, which enable her to visit the town centre.
I thought, therefore, that I was fairly knowledgeable about such groups, but since 2001 I have discovered a vast array of others—far more than I knew existed. They provide two superb services. They give support, care and help to specific groups of disabled people; but more important in the long run, I think, are their expert campaigning and lobbying of Ministers, Members of both Houses and the press on the changes that are needed in society to improve the overall lot of people with disabilities, and social and legal provision for them. They certainly deserve a great deal of credit, and I shall mention a number of them in due course.
The Government also deserve credit. I do not want to intrude on the private historical squabbling—we have heard quite a bit of that today—between the Labour and Conservative parties about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which has been covered in some detail. To be charitable, the DDA was an important step forward, as were the subsequent extensions of it. The establishment of the Disability Rights Commission was very important, and the draft Disability Discrimination Bill—when it eventually becomes law—will be a significant step in filling the gaps in the DDA. The recognition of British sign language, the "Valuing People: Moving Forward Together" report and its initial implementation, the mental capacity Bill and even this week's announcement on the framework for partnership action by the Secretary of State for Health and the DRC are examples of major improvements for which the Government should be praised.
I very much support what the Government are doing in this regard, but we would not be doing our job today if we simply indulged in mutual praise and back-slapping—not that the previous speakers have done so—and talked about the good progress that is being made. In the light of previous debates, I am sure that the Minister would be very disappointed if I did not say that although much has been achieved, a great deal more remains to be done.
As I have said, attitudes and awareness have improved enormously compared with just 20 years ago, and certainly compared with 30 or 40 years ago.

451
However, there are still huge black holes in terms of training and of the approach of various people. Reference was made earlier to small and medium-sized enterprises' lack of awareness of what will be required of them this autumn, when the next extension of the DDA takes place. There was some argument about whether the Government should be blamed for not publicising these imminent changes sufficiently. According to a UnumProvident survey, 90,000 SMEs—69 per cent. of the total—are more or less totally unaware of what will be expected of them in a relatively few weeks' time. As some Members have pointed out, there has been a great deal of publicity in the past year or so, but perhaps it should have begun considerably earlier. Many of the changes that small businesses will have to make to meet the DDA's requirements would be quite simple to incorporate if made over a number of years. I am thinking, for example, of the routine refitting of a shop or office, which happens every so often anyway. Had the changes not appeared to be last-minute changes, they would not seem such an obstacle to small businesses once they finally do learn what is expected of them; most still do not really know what is expected of them.
Tom Levitt: Is it not true that regardless of such legislation being due to take effect in October, some £50 billion of disabled people's spending power is not being tapped into? It would be very wise for shops and other small businesses to take such measures anyway; indeed, they should have taken them a long time ago in their own interests.
Paul Holmes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that point applies to what I shall say later about what the Government need to do in certain areas. It is not "just" a question of the equal rights of disabled people; it is also a question of the self-interest of many shopkeepers, restaurant owners and other businesses. If they are not accessible, friendly and welcoming to disabled people, they are excluding themselves from a huge potential income. I imagine that Ryanair, for example, will not get too much custom from disabled people, following the recent case that showed it in quite a bad light.
There are lots of other examples that show that awareness and education are still lacking. A recent DRC report on website access showed that the vast majority of business and service industry websites are not accessible. There are historical problems in the railway industry, such as those associated with London's Victorian underground system. The industry has argued that making its rolling stock accessible to disabled people by 2035 is acceptable, but the Government have said that doing so by 2025 would be better. However, Leonard Cheshire, which is campaigning hard on this issue, has said that 2017 would be a far more reasonable date. Of course, even that is 13 years away.
We have heard about the progress that has been made with the introduction of accessible buses, but simply introducing them is not the end of the story. A constituent of mine—from his wheelchair, he is a very active campaigner—has contacted me several times about the problems that he has encountered. Stagecoach, which provides most of the local services, is
452
rightly very proud of the "kneeling" buses that they have introduced on a number of routes. However, the buses often will not kneel to let my constituent on. On one occasion, the excuse was given that because the bus was running late, the driver had to make up time and did not want to spend time operating the hydraulics to let on someone in a wheelchair. On another occasion, the excuse offered was that the driver in question had not been trained in how to use a kneeling bus. On a further occasion, the excuse was that the optics were grimy and would not operate the equipment. On three separate occasions, this one constituent was unable to access these wonderful kneeling buses, for reasons connected with training, operational practice and awareness among staff of the company.
I recently spoke at the Royal College of Nursing conference at Harrogate and talked to a group of nurses who worked on improving the access of the learning disabled to the health service. One of the nurses from Scotland provided an example of what happened two or three years ago in the NHS in Scotland. His brother-in-law, who had learning disabilities, was rushed into hospital. The nurse drove some miles to get to the hospital, and when he went in he saw his brother-in-law sat there white faced, with clenched teeth, sweating and obviously in pain, but unable to express what was wrong with him on account of his learning disabilities. The brother-in-law took the nurse to one side and told her that he was really in pain. Apparently, the nurse patted him on the shoulder and said, "Don't worry, they do not feel pain like we do." That took place in the health service only two or three years ago.
I also spoke recently at a care conference in Leicester, where one of the delegates talked about his experience within the last year of working in a residential care home in the south-west. He got into trouble because, while he was working there he took people with learning disabilities and people in wheelchairs down to the local pub in the evening for a couple of pints. That was viewed as unacceptable. We can congratulate ourselves on how much progress has been made, but there is an awful lot more to be done in respect of people's attitudes and awareness.
To conclude that subject, I should like to make a few comments about Ofcom. In respect of how access to telecommunications should be interpreted, Ofcom started out by saying that it would not insist on television companies subtitling live programmes because it could not technically be done. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People took me and other Members from here and the other place to visit a company in London that subtitles programmes. There we saw people sat at their computer screens subtitling live sports and news programmes and live debates with no problem at all. It is perfectly possible to do so, yet Ofcom had said that it was not prepared to press that requirement because it could not be done. Subsequently, Ofcom admitted that it could be done and that it had been wrong.
In that light, I would like the Minister to tell us whether she is aware of the basic technical errors that Ofcom made in its consultation on access to telecom services. Does she share the view of Lord McIntosh, who expressed his hope in the other place that Ofcom would accept the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Older and Disabled People? Does she

453
accept that access to television is a basic right and that the growing choice of channels and programmes offered by digital television should be equally available to all? Answers will be needed quickly, because Ofcom will soon report its requirements for the telecommunications industry on subtitling, access and so on.
Then there is the question of Government delay. I have already said that I support and praise the vast majority of what they have done, but in certain respects they are delaying and not moving fast enough. We have already mentioned the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. It was promised in the 2001 manifesto and disability groups were very disappointed that it did not appear in the Queen's Speech that year, or the subsequent year. It finally appeared in the Queen's Speech in 2003. Responses from the draft scrutiny are now being considered. Will it be timetabled to get through Parliament before the next general election destroys it? Had the Government given more priority to this issue and introduced the draft Bill last year or the year before, as they promised in the manifesto, the Bill would already be on the statute book. Clearly, the Government could have moved faster in some areas.
In her closing comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) referred to the need for a single equality Bill and asked the Government to look into how it could be drafted. The experiment has already been done. In the other place, Lord Lester, a leading civil rights lawyer, and others, produced a draft single equality Bill in order to clarify the complex mess of equality legislation across six different strands. At the moment, disabled people do not have the same equality rights as people in other discriminatory strands. That was taken through the other place and 247 Members of this House supported an early-day motion stating that a similar measure should be introduced here—but the Government ignored it completely. A draft Bill has been produced, debated and thoroughly gone through. About 40 per cent. of hon. Members supported it straight away, but there has been no sign of any action from the Government. Sarah Spencer, the chair of the equality and diversity forum, told the inaugural meeting of the all-party group on equalities on 20 April that there was a clear and urgent need for such a Bill.
I turn now to the possible establishment of a single commission. The DRC was originally critical of the proposal, although it has accepted some of the Government's reassurances. However, despite the Government's concessions, it remains concerned that a single commission could mean that disabled people will have no organisation to speak for them. It has said that, without a single equality Act, it will be difficult for disabled people to argue for the equal rights that they lack in the law as it stands.
A recent Age Concern campaign estimated that about 2 million people do not claim attendance allowance, even though they are entitled to it and need it. In answer to parliamentary questions, most recently last autumn, the Government said that the size of the problem was not known, and that it would be too difficult and expensive to determine it. They said that they would not mount a mass publicity campaign to encourage people
454
to take up the allowance because it was better to work through local authorities and welfare rights organisations.
Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not at all obvious who is eligible for extra-cost benefits such as attendance allowance, for which certain criteria must be met? The only way to find out is if people claim. It is much more difficult to estimate what take-up of attendance allowance ought to be than is the case with other benefits.
Paul Holmes: I accept that it can be difficult to produce reliable estimates of take-up. Attempts were made in 1996–97, but such estimates can be open to all sorts of interpretations.
The Government have said that they do not want to mount a mass awareness campaign but prefer to go through specialist groups. I spent a day with a Chesterfield borough council staff member whose job is to respond to information from bodies such as neighbourhood watch that an elderly person needs a door chain or window locks, for example. He is trained to ask that elderly person whether he or she has claimed pension credit, attendance allowance or some other benefit. He secures benefits worth hundreds of pounds in allowances for those elderly people, or even gets central heating installed for them. That is all well and good, yet cash resources are needed to pay the staff required even though local authorities are told that they must keep council tax down. I hope that the Government will make available resources to make that option work.
A campaign to secure a winter fuel allowance for disabled people was running for a long time before I entered Parliament. The Government refuse even to consider making that allowance available for disabled people, saying that people who are not of retirement age do not need it. However, I received an e-mail this week from a person aged 41 who is suffering from cancer and is confined to the house. That person suffered enormously from the cold as a result, a fact that many disability groups have been aware of for a long time. I cannot understand why the winter fuel allowance is not extended to people with medium and higher levels of disability.
The Government deserve praise for recognising British Sign Language, but what happens next? Finland's population is one-tenth the size of ours, but the country has 600 sign language interpreters. The UK has 400. There are not enough such interpreters available to profit from the recognition of BSL. With the roll-out of the new disability discrimination legislation, employers should make available access to such interpreters, when that is appropriate or necessary. What do the Government plan to do to ensure that more interpreters are trained and made available? They displayed good intentions when they recognised BSL, but they must put those good intentions into practice over the next two or three years.
In business questions earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon ( Malcolm Bruce) said that he had heard that the Government are to host an EU conference on how to support and introduce the use of sign language. Will the Minister give the House some details about that to clarify what is happening?

455
There are contradictions in Government policy. A Department may make a statement on a matter that is undermined by another Department. I used to be a teacher, and one example that comes to mind has to do with education. The Department for Education and Skills has said, on the one hand, that it is in favour of social inclusion, and that disabled children should have access to mainstream schools, and all types of school; but on the other hand there is the policy of testing. Our children are the most tested in the western world, from when they enter infant school to when they leave secondary school. League tables reflect their results, and schools live or die by the tables when it comes to the children they attract, the money they get and the performance-related pay of teachers, which depends on how successful teachers are in getting children through exams. I know all about that because in the first year of performance-related pay I filled in my own application to cross the professional threshold, and one of the main criteria is how the teacher's classes are doing in terms of academic performance.
All the statistics, including the Government figures every February and annual Ofsted reports, show that the schools that do best in the league tables of which the Government are so fond as they try to drive up standards are generally those with the lowest number of children with special educational needs. I could provide many anecdotal examples of schools in Derbyshire that are high in the league table but where the head will tell people their child would be better off at the school up the road because it is better suited to their needs.
On the one hand, then, the Government say they want social inclusion; on the other, they follow educational policies that work absolutely against it.
The Select Committee on Education and Skills, on which I serve, is nearing the end of its scrutiny of the draft School Transport Bill. Almost every witness before the Committee has said that most of it is pointless. Almost all the experiments in it to get children to walk to school or use buses and so on are already being done by various local authorities around the country, so there is no need for a Bill to set them out. The only thing that the Bill does that cannot be done now is that it would let local authorities ignore the ruling in the Education Act 1944 about free school transport, which is that children attending junior schools more than two miles from their home and children going to secondary schools more than three miles from home can get free transport. The largest part of local education authorities' transport budgets is that for SEN children.
I visited an excellent deaf unit at New Whittington primary school in my constituency three or four weeks ago, and one of the children comes from 15 to 20 miles away from somewhere in Derbyshire and gets in a taxi each morning to be taken there. A lot of people who have children with SEN who have to travel some distance to an appropriate setting are afraid that they will be charged under the experiments contained in the draft Bill. Again, on the one hand the Government have excellent policies on SEN children's inclusion in schools and the provision of specialist units like the deaf unit in Chesterfield, while on the other they are considering an
456
experiment that people fear will lead to children and parents being charged for access to the special provision that they need.
Then there is overall Government policy and its intentions. I am thinking of the new deal for the disabled and associated programmes. One problem of the new deal, often aired in the Chamber, is its emphasis on the quick fix, partly so that targets are hit as people are got into work and off long-term unemployment by recycling them through the new deal, but partly because of the philosophy, which has some degree of truth to it, that the longer someone is unemployed, the less likely they are to get back to work. In terms of people with disabilities, many of whom have never worked but want to get into work, and many of whom have not worked for many years, none of that is as applicable. Is it best to deal with such people by calling them for compulsory interviews with the threat of sanctions if they do not do as they are told? Or will that frighten people with learning disabilities? I attended a recent meeting in Chesterfield involving Phoenix, a good not-for-profit company that delivers part of the Government's programme in this area, and community psychiatric nurses who were there to learn about the condition management programme being piloted in Derbyshire. The nurses were worried that the people they work with would receive demands out of the blue, telling them that they had to attend interviews and would lose their benefits if they did not. Is that really the best way to deal with people with mental health problems and learning disabilities?
There are many good examples of how those people should be dealt with, but they are being handicapped, to some degree, by the strictures of the new deal approach. For example, the empower project being run by Chesterfield chamber of commerce works with disabled people, though not exclusively, and has found that even to get some people to a level at which they could think about applying for a job might take some weeks or months of basic life skills training before they could consider being placed in a job or a workplace. It is difficult but not impossible to match up such projects to the demands of the new deal. Phoenix, a not-for-profit company, has done innovative work in this area in order to deliver some Government programmes. The Government must respect the Shaw Trust because it is now the largest job broker for disabled people for the Government across the United Kingdom. In the next year it will work with 30,000 of the 1 million disabled adults who say that they would love to get back to work if they could be helped to overcome the obstacles in their way.
All those bodies and Unum, a private insurance company that works in this area, say that whatever the disability, more resources, more quality input and more time is needed to achieve a positive outcome than the new deal, in its initial stages, allows. The Government need to rethink their approach there.
Let me give one specific example. Recently I was talking to some advisers at the Chesterfield Jobcentre Plus who find that the return-to-work benefit is useful in some cases. They cited the example of a lady who had had a pressurised job as a personnel manager and had a nervous breakdown, but who wanted to get back to work. She could return partially without worrying too much about the loss of money because for one year she

457
got the return-to-work benefit. At the end of the year she would probably regain enough confidence to return full-time—she had gained some confidence in two or three month—and would not need further benefits. That would be a win-win situation for everyone; no problem.
Many disabled people would not be in that category. Some will never be able to work full time. Some will have disabilities that come and go, such as multiple sclerosis and ME, and may be able to work all this week but not next week. They express the fear that having struggled hard to gain access to disability benefits, if they return to work they will lose the benefits and face the problem of getting back on them. Would it not be a good idea to introduce a partial disability benefit, whereby some disabled people can sign up to work, say, 20 hours a week, but will get the relevant percentage of benefit for the rest of the week because they will never be able to work full time? That would offer such reassurance to people in those categories that it would be worth the risk, as they see it at the moment, of trying to get back into work.
Finally, there is the question of financial resources. There are resource issues in everything that we have talked about this afternoon. There are many examples and there is much research evidence from the various disability groups to back this up. The John Grooms report said that 300,000 wheelchair-accessible homes are needed now. Who is building them? Where is the money? What is happening? The Joseph Rowntree report recently said that care homes are short of £1 billion. The Shaw Trust points out that if we spend five times more on employment programmes for disabled people, we will reach the European average for the first time. That is a 500 per cent. increase.
The National Autistic Society says that 90 per cent. of short-break schemes for carers have waiting lists. Carers cannot get the breaks they need. Yet, if they reach breaking point, as outlined in the earlier Mencap report on the same theme last June, the state, taxpayers and everyone lose out. If the disabled person who is being cared for has to go into residential care, it is far more expensive and far less satisfactory for everyone. Last year's Mencap report pointed out that six out of the 10 families that the authors talked to had never had a carer's assessment, let alone got on a waiting list for a weekend break or a weekday break for carers.
This May, the Down's Syndrome Association pointed out that the Government's stated policy for more inclusion in education is failing in practice because of local education authority reluctance to provide sufficient resources. That brings us to arguments about whether the Government are giving LEAs enough money but they are spending it elsewhere, or whether the Government are not giving them enough in the first place. Those arguments were raised last year in the education funding debate, for example.
Money can be spent more efficiently. A couple of years ago I went to Leicester and looked at the organisation run by the Red Cross there. On behalf of Leicester city, Leicester county council and Rutland council, it operates the distribution, collection, cleaning and redistribution of the whole range of mobility aids. Because it operates on that scale with computerised inventories and so on, it has saved a lot of money. It gets the equipment back because it knows where the equipment has gone. Often hospitals and social services
458
do not know that. Because of the scale on which it works, it can also return equipment to a state in which it is fit to issue to someone else, rather than having to buy brand new equipment and losing it to somebody's outhouse. Money can be handled in better ways and some efficiency savings can be made, but I am dubious about the idea that all the funding can be provided from such savings.
As the population ages, we will have more disability. The older people are, the more they suffer from disabilities of various kinds. The more that we talk, legislate and create a framework of equal rights for disabled people, the more money will be required to make the rhetoric a reality. I hope that the Minister will accept my more critical comments in the helpful spirit in which I intend them. I support much of what the Government have done in the past few years, but much more remains to be done.
Several hon. Members rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It might be helpful if I point out to the House that no speech has yet been made in less than 32 minutes. Six hon. Members seek to catch my eye and I hope that everyone will bear that in mind, given the time available.
3.46 pm
Liz Blackman: I feel sure that I will be able to comply with your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate on disability. It is such a broad subject that I have decided to focus my remarks on the disability of autism. I am chair of the all-party group on the issue.
Autism is a communication disability. It affects not only communication, but social interaction and the ability to imagine. People who have autism often find it difficult to pick up social cues. They can also behave in extremely rigid and obsessive ways. It is a spectrum disorder, which means that any of those characteristics can be displayed to a greater or lesser extent. At the high functioning end, including Asperger's syndrome, it is often, rightly, called the hidden disability. Therein lie many of the problems. It is estimated to affect some 500,000 people in the UK, and there is disagreement on whether the number is increasing or we have become better at diagnosis. The cause of autism is unknown, but it is a lifelong disability.
It is fair to say that in the past few years our understanding and awareness of autism has increased significantly. Policymakers in government and parliamentarians certainly have a greater understanding, and that is the result of much work by the National Autistic Society and many other groups that campaign to raise awareness and improve services for people with autism. The media have also played their role in highlighting the disability.
Recently, and laudably, Vodafone has put £6 million into a partnership with the NAS to raise awareness. Hon. Members may have seen some of the advertisements in the press over the past few weeks, which cleverly portray—in a visual and striking way—what autism means to the individuals who have it, their families and the wider community.

459
The all-party group was formed in 2000 by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend knows much about autism, and I praise the Government for putting him in the Department of Health and giving him responsibility for autism, among his many other responsibilities. Under my hon. Friend's chairmanship of the group, a manifesto was launched last year. It has a 10-year time scale, although we will probably be able to move much more quickly than we had expected. This year, during autism awareness week, we celebrated the first anniversary of the manifesto. The week had a theme of planning for life. That was deliberate because, although it is fair to say that services and policy have moved forward, especially children's services, a whole raft of policy initiatives needs to be taken on adult services.
We still have a long way to go on children's services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, the job is never finished, as our expectations become higher and higher. However, many recent policy initiatives have been taken. They are encouraging, and they will make a difference. Services for children with autism are being used as an example in the disabled children's module of the children's national service framework, which aims to set national standards for what children and their families can expect. Early support pilot programmes funded by the DFES aim to improve the delivery of services to disabled children under three and their families, including children with autism. The special educational needs strategy that has recently been announced singles out autism as an exemplar, and there will be pilot work.
Children's trusts will be enormously important when they come on stream. They will create a statutory framework whereby different agencies can pool their budgets. We will then get a real improvement in multi-agency work not just for children with autism but children with other disabilities and all children. Those are extremely positive steps forward. We will reap the rewards of laying those foundations as they come to fruition. There is no doubt about that.
The picture is not quite so rosy when it comes to the point of transition for children with autistic spectrum disorders. There is a lot of confusion not only around the law but in practice. The transition planning framework for England and Wales is set out in the Education Act 1996, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. The SENDA code of practice makes it clear that there is a statutory obligation to prepare a multi-agency transition plan for year 9 pupils with a statement, but evidence collected from the National Autistic Society support programme for parents suggests that more than half of parents were not aware of the 14-plus transition review and what it should mean for their child. Too often, professionals have not turned up when the review has taken place.
Many children are not entitled to such a review because they do not have a statement, but there is a parallel transition process under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Education departments are required to notify social services of all 13 to 14-year-olds whom they consider
460
disabled. Social services are then required to co-ordinate multi-agency assessments to be linked to the transition and care planning for adults under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Understandably, the experience is poor for many families who find, first, that the processes are not integrated and, secondly, that the organisational structures prevent transfer of information.
Certainly, the Children Act 1989 will help. However, there has been some progress. Connexions has accepted responsibility for preparing a needs and provision assessment under section 40 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 for all children with special educational needs. That puts more pressure on training, and there is no legislative framework to insist that the different agencies—especially adult social services—co-operate.
The need for mult -agency co-ordination in transition planning is recognised in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", the SEN strategy "Removing barriers to achievement" and the forthcoming NSF. They all have transition themes. The Department for Education and Skills is committed to producing national transition standards and to working more closely with Connexions and learning and skills councils.
I want to focus on services for adults, where there is such a long way to go. Fifty per cent. of people with ASD live at home and only 12 per cent. are in some kind of paid employment, so the picture is much bleaker. The statutory framework falls away. Many young people and older adults fall between mental health teams and social services learning disability teams, coming into contact with one or the other only when they are in crisis. Despite the fact that the valuing people strategy signals access to those services, that does not yet happen as it should.
The Department of Health has published guidance on eligibility criteria for social care services that instructs local authorities to base such criteria on individuals presenting needs rather than on diagnosis. The guidance states that some councils declare that
"they do not help particular groups of individuals, such as those with higher functioning autism/Asperger syndrome, and make no attempt to assess needs as they should. This is unacceptable."
At the reception we held for autism awareness week, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet announced a new vision for adult social care. That is an opportunity to improve not only the statutory framework but the operation of the various services involved. The integration of health and social care records under the national care records service is not due to occur until 2010, but I hope that it can be speeded up with the onset of children's trusts.
Points have already been made about access to benefits, which is problematic for people with autism and their families. However, I praise the DWP for widely publicising information about benefits in different ways, including the free-phone benefit inquiry line. However, although it is easy to provide information, people with a communication or understanding disorder find it hard to process the information, so access is a real issue. Can the Minister tell us whether operators on the free phone benefit inquiry line can pick up a communication disorder? Do they have relevant training?

461
Disability living allowance is a key benefit for access to other benefits, yet it is hard to describe autism within the bounds of the current application form. I know that pilot work is under way on the redesign of the form, so can the Minister tell us how that is progressing? There is also a commitment to update the disability handbook. Can she tell us how that exercise is getting on?
As I said earlier, 12 per cent. of people with autism are in paid employment, but only 6 per cent. work full time. There are 332,000 people with ASD, of working age and 260,000 of them have an average or above-average IQ. The Government have a phenomenal record on employment, and my constituency bears testimony to that. However, there are specific groups of disabled people that are difficult to support and get into work. I am sure that the Minister will agree that more needs to be done to ensure that more than 6 per cent. of people with ASD are in full-time employment.
The National Autistic Society survey of adults with ASD found that the biggest barriers to work were worries about the social aspects of an employment environment and lack of support, and employers' negative perceptions, lack of understanding and unwillingness to make reasonable adjustments. However, there are brilliant examples of supported employment projects in the UK, not least of which is run by the NAS's employment service, Prospects, which the Department for Work and Pensions supported between 2000 and 2003 as an initial step toward gathering qualitative evidence on how best to support people with autism into employment. Several key features of the Prospects-supported employment programme are not surprising. Young people need help with job searching, interview preparation, finding out how to stay in a job and getting support in the job as and when that is necessary. The other key feature of a successful placement for people with ASD is the education and support of their employers. If we can get the two parts of the equation right, it will make a big difference.
I recently visited a fantastic scheme in Sheffield in which a charity has an arrangement with Meadowhall, which is a huge shopping outlet—anyone who lives anywhere near it will have visited or at least have driven past it. The same ingredients are present in the scheme. Some of the young people involved in the project gave a presentation because it was a year old, and both they and their employers spoke positively about their work experience. The employers made the point of saying how much progress they had made on understanding autism and the way in which they managed and got the best out of all their employees.
Where do we go from here to improve the figures and make the prospect of work for autistic people a reality? As I said, there are two sides to the equation. We must get both the support and supply sides right. I draw hon. Members' attention to a couple of innovative projects on which the NAS is currently embarking. In July, it will set up the Prospects provider training programme, which will be piloted in Glasgow. The service is aimed at disability employment services. Participants will make a payment for which they will gain Prospects' expertise. In time, the specialist service will become self-funding, so it will be possible to deliver it in more regions. When sufficient income has been generated, a co-ordinator for England and Wales will be recruited to roll out the scheme throughout the country.
462
On the employers' side, the employers with Prospects initiative will be set up. It will partner companies, with the aim of widening access. Companies that join the scheme will pay a contribution, actively try to find opportunities for paid employment and work experience, and encourage and support staff who wish to train as ASD supporters. However, the companies will get something back in return. They will benefit from access to an eager, reliable and accurate work force with a high level of availability., and many members of the work force will possess exceptional skills and abilities. The companies will receive good PR as socially responsible corporate organisations, and they will support a substantial yet ignored group, the needs of which are rapidly reaching public notice. Employees will have the opportunity to align with a cause of which many may have personal experience from their family and close friends. I hope that not only the DWP but the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments will take a close interest as those two projects unfold and do what they can to support them. That is a way forward.
Finally, the 1995 definition does not adequately cover the difficulties faced by people with ASD. The draft Disability Discrimination Bill will not remedy that, but it is encouraging that the Joint Committee recommends that the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 should be updated to address the social and communication impairments experienced by those with ASD. That is absolutely crucial to ensure that people with a communication and social interaction disorder are not discriminated against, whether in work or elsewhere. With that, as other hon. Members wish to speak, I will complete my speech.
4.6 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: To put it neutrally, it may be a consequence of the timing of this debate on the day of major elections, but the Minister started with a rebarbative speech. I do not intend to follow her in that. Perhaps I can give an alternative take from my own experience as a Minister, although not in the Minister's Department, at the time of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and, subsequently, as someone who has had—I choose these words advisedly—the pleasure of shadowing her in her current responsibilities for a number of years.
My take on the House's attitude to disability is that is it not one of Ministers against the rest. I understand that the Minister is subject to constraints: first, the parliamentary timetable and the business managers, a point to which allusion has been made already; and, secondly, the wider issues of resources and the impact of costs falling on the economy, which are entirely proper for Ministers to consider.
My concern is not that there is a lack of will among individual Ministers or the Government, let alone my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who spoke with such eloquence from the Conservative Front Bench. We all understand that there is a job to be done and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have made fascinating contributions about how that should be discharged. No doubt, there will be further such contributions.
My biggest worry is that, even when it is not election day, the hon. Members who engage in disability issues are relatively small in number. Of course, every hon.

463
Member has them in his or her constituency postbag, but it is difficult to achieve the national profile, and that, in turn, reflects itself in the way in which the Government treat the issue.
Over the years, we could make a perfectly plausible case for saying that, as in many areas of social advance, different Governments have made their own contributions at the appropriate time. In addition to those that have been mentioned, I am very pleased and, to some extent, proud to have been associated with the disability manifesto—the first of its kind—that the Conservative party produced for the last election, although we did not do as well as other parties in that election.
So the business moves on, and rightly so because, as has been said, if we round up the figures—certainly if we allow for more than one disability per person in many cases—more than 10 million of our citizens are directly involved as disabled people. We cannot touch on every issue of concern to them, so I shall endeavour to be selective.
I shall deal with the rights issue first. Although I did not agree with everything said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), I did agree with her that rights are important because they help not only to make safeguards for the individual, but to change attitudes and culture. I hope that, in turn, she acknowledges that those changes in attitude and culture now have to drive the agenda forward for very good reasons, as the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said.
I shall comment on the specific issues in an area in which initial concerns about a single commission for equality and human rights have been dispelled. We are getting there, but I wish to touch on one or two outstanding issues. The first is that I hope that the disability strand will continue to be adequately resourced. It is very complex—discrimination and remediation for discrimination are difficult issues. Expertise must not be lost.
Secondly, there are important interactions with the wider human rights agenda. For example, I understand that there is no proposal at the moment to enable the Disability Rights Commission or its successor to assist individuals in taking suits on human rights grounds. There is also a degree of uncertainty, and indeed anomaly, between the entitlements to avoid discrimination between the different strands, as the Minister will know.
One issue that I have mentioned in debates in the past has not been touched upon, but I feel strongly about it. It is what might be termed the functional unevenness in the enforcement of the agenda already mentioned. In the exchange in which I implied criticism of the Minister, I made the point that there was already a substantial employment tribunal load in relation to article 2 duties. That arose straight from the Conservative legislation. As matter of fact, that has not happened to anything like the same extent in relation to access to goods and services, because such cases would have to go through the courts rather than the tribunal system. There is also an anomaly in education. Tribunals cover the period up to the end of compulsory education, but access is through the courts in relation to discrimination post-16. Ministers must keep that issue under active review.
464
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that there is still a problem with the implications of the enforcement in October 2004 of provisions of the DDA. Equally, there was a dilemma for the Disability Rights Commission, with which, as I shall say now but have not said in the past, I have had very constructive relations. I regard it is as doing a balanced job. As I understand it, up until last year, it very much put forward the new education agenda to which I did not object. However, that meant that it had comparatively little time to go into what will happen in October. We all know that, in the real world, we probably need legislation in place before people focus on it. It is a question of how sensibly it is handled in the initial stage. Above all, small and medium-sized enterprises should not be put off from trying to do anything when the reasonable adjustments that they may be required to make are entirely modest and appropriate to the turnover of their business.
Miss Begg: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it will not be until October 2004 that some companies and businesses will take the legislation seriously. Once there is one prosecution under the new legislation, minds will be focused and we shall see quite a lot of action. Things will improve at that stage.
Mr. Boswell: I understand that point. Any regulatory body that has any sense is well advised to look to draw attention to one or. two notorious cases "pour encourager les autres" At the same time, such a body will not want, in practice, to seek to intervene in every single case of technical. infringement or a reputation for doing so. We have to lift the game of the whole sector and, as already has been made clear in the debate, many employers and service providers are involved.
I hope that I am being constructive when I say that the DRC, the Department and others working in conjunction with the Employers Forum on Disability should work closely with specialist trade associations to make sure that they push the new agenda forward.
Because of my new Front-Bench duties, I have been working with the Cinema Exhibitors Association recently. I have seen the third edition of the guidance on access to cinemas that it has circulated over a number of years to its members. Incidentally, the cinema is the No. 1 leisure activity of people with learning disabilities and a detailed, precise and thoroughly constructed code has been made available. It even prescribes things such as the optimal height of coat hooks for disabled people. Such practice is exemplary. I hope that other trade associations will follow suit.
I shall briefly consider the educational issues. I begin with the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), with her interest in autism. She made her points clearly and revealed one of the areas that concerns me most—the transitional phases between the different sectors. It is one thing for us to legislate, as we have done through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, the Disability Rights Commission and the law that will take effect in October, but things must happen in practice. There lies a real weakness.
We should start early in the process with diagnosis. We have the opportunity of doing that, with, for example, neonatal hearing impairments, but there are other conditions, such as the autistic spectrum, which has become much more apparent as an issue.

465
Apart from those specific areas of concern, we need to move the debate on from what, as a parent, one can understand is important for the family which is the enshrinement of legal rights in a statement. That is important and the issue will not go away. We should begin to move more towards considering active and holistic ways of implementing the programme that is appropriate for the individual chitd.
Liz Blackman: We had an intresting presentation from a local education authority whose name is Welsh and which I find difficult to pronounce—Rhondda Cynon Taff. It has co-located services round autism to the degree that, as I think the presenter said, there was practically no child within the authority who had a statement. That was not necessary because the provision was there.
Mr. Boswell: I am saying that we need an integrated approach for the child. The deficiencies are not always necessarily educational ones. It can be some other component that is missing. For example, I have encouraged or supported the obtaining of a statement for a visually impaired child. Suddenly it has been found that the school to which the child has been referred is out of the immediate area and that transport is not available, or there is a practical problem with transport. Every Member will be familiar with the endemic national shortage of speech therapists, for example. We need to try to bring things together and we may need one financing package to do it. However, it is certain that we need a common approach between the different agencies as they work together.
I move on to mental capacity, We clearly need to draw a distinction between mental health problems and learning difficulties. Much of what I have said in relation to special educational needs is applicable in that context. It is fair to say that many people with learning difficulties and disabilities subsequently get into difficulties with mental health problems because of the frustration and the other difficulties that they experience, but the two are entirely distinct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe was right to point out the many cases of stress and breakdown that feed into the incapacity benefit figures. With both learning disabilities and mental health problems, there is a need for adequate support services. I strongly endorse the remark of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) about the importance of housing. The people concerned need a safe environment in which to live and recover, but they also need advocacy. It is important that people should make their own choices if they are in a position to do so. Certainly their opinions should be canvassed, but at the same time it is important that they are not left friendless and exposed to an unfriendly bureaucracy, particularly when the implicit agenda of the various parts of that bureaucracy is to try to shift the budgetary burdens, with the result that nothing is done.
I want to make two points on mental health. First, a characteristic of mental health is that it is intermittent. Somebody can try and fail to return to work, with all the concerns that have been expressed about possible disqualification from the benefits system. Secondly, it is obviously a sensitive and susceptible matter—for example, in relation to any harsh treatment in a personal
466
capacity assessment, or even being called up for one. I am currently dealing with a constituency case in which that is under discussion.
Turning to the benefits system, the single biggest problem, to which the Prime Minister and others have referred, is the sheer number of people—2.7 million—on incapacity benefit. That is a high figure, but it is not unparalleled in other western countries. In the Netherlands, it is estimated that 10 per cent. of the adult population are on disability benefit. The benefits system still suffers from the remnants of the belief that someone is either on benefit or in work, making the position difficult for people who are recovering from an accident, mental illness or other condition. The Minister will tell me that the linking rules are much more relaxed, which I welcome, so I need only flag up the need to keep looking at other options, including the part-benefit, part-work solution mentioned by the hon. Member for Chesterfield, a tapered arrangement and an agreed contract on return to work including supporting benefit while it is being worked out.
In that area, even more than in special educational needs, the need to produce a single pot of money may be driven by the choice of the individual or their advocate. That should not be distorted by the need for insurance, and the mutual system should allow for a single budgetary pot, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, we examined at the last election and would draw on the direct payment of social benefits that has been successful for many people. At the moment, there is no congruence between benefit and the objective of return to work. They are more linked than they were, but they are still not perfectly aligned. The option of preferring to stay off work and on benefit is still a moral hazard, although I agree with Members who say that that is not how most people treat the system.
Turning briefly to active case management, agencies want to know who is not paying for such a service. The collective test should be what they should be doing for individuals to secure their position. I have an interest in the various concepts of case management that have been developed. First, case management should be professional and comprehensive; otherwise it would offer a wonderful opportunity for charlatans and well-intentioned people without the necessary portfolio of skills to manage cases and a pot of money for individuals. Secondly, case management does not necessarily mean advocacy or job brokerage, although they are related functions. We need a collective and flexible approach to achieve suitable solutions for individuals. Inevitably, the Government's notorious obsession with targets has encouraged disability employment advisers, for whom I have a considerable regard, to concentrate on shifting their case load to meet those targets. Challenging work tends to be left with the private sector and not-for-profit providers such as the Shaw Trust, which do a tremendous job. I agree with the Work and Pensions Committee, which recommended that the private sector should increasingly discharge those delicate, difficult and complex tasks.
Finally, I am pleased that a number of Members have mentioned employment, but little has been said about assistive technology. To some extent, technology has created problems for employment and continuing employability. People who might have been able to

467
continue successfully in employment now find themselves challenged by new technology. At the same time, technology has created huge opportunities for people to continue and sustain their employment, which they might not have been able to do without, for example, the use of information technology solutions.
There are two challenges. The first is getting people into employment in the first place, particularly when that has not been on the cards and they may even have been advised at school or elsewhere to anticipate that. The second is to defend the position of people in employment as their faculties decline with age or new technical challenges arise. For example, they may find it less easy to see or to operate in a noisy environment, and we must find ways of tackling that. Many employers, including typically the larger employers, are good at that. If anyone has not had a chance to visit Ford's MAGIC—mobility and general information centre—I recommend that they do. The centre advises on disability issues and is located in an exemplary building with a huge amount of investment in it.
Let us make no bones about it. Across employment generally, whatever rights we have passed in this place and whatever we may claim to have done, functional discrimination by outcome continues. It is not unique to this area. It is true of a number of other equality issues about which I also feel strongly. We may have talked the talk, we may have passed the law, but we have not achieved the outcomes that we sought to achieve. In some cases in the context of disability, as has been said, that relates to non-employment outcomes such as health.
There is still a strong loading against the survival of children with learning disabilities. Their mortality rates are much higher and their chances of surviving into a full adult life are lower than they would otherwise be. It is interesting that the greater survival rate that is coming through, which is thoroughly welcome, feeds into some of the problems that they have as adults, which would not have arisen had their survival rates been lower, as they were in the past.
Returning to employment, of the 2.7 million people with disabilities who are on benefit, a million or more want to work. The presumption is that we should be helping them into work. That is not just a matter of economics. It is a matter of human dignity, their position in society, their health because of motivation, their inclinations and their choice. There are enlightened employers who are prepared to contribute and there is good practice in the field. On the other hand, the public provision, including access to work, which incidentally was introduced by a Conservative Government, is still too bureaucratic and the whole system is not seen as friendly towards small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the most likely to create employment.
We need to tell employers, large or small, organised, aware or not aware of the issue, that it is good business for them to employ people with disabilities, who are an extremely reliable part of the labour force. It is sensible and will not cause large or unreasonable expense to make reasonable adjustments for them. The adjustments made to enhance access to work usually cost hundreds rather than thousands of pounds. It is also extremely good business, particularly for firms
468
whose work is customer-facing—retailers or providers of services—to be sensitive to the needs of disabled customers and their families, who might represent up to 40 per cent. of the adult population. They have real spending power, as has been mentioned. It is not good business for a supermarket chain to say that it does not want to do business with 10 million citizens because it cannot make the necessary adjustments. The track record suggests that, where businesses are sensitive to disabled employees and customers who may have a disability, the necessary adjustments usually benefit all employees and customers. Such changes are not a simple matter of cost or loss.
I have appeared on various platforms with organisations such as the Institute of Directors to make the excellent business case for employers to take disability issues seriously and sensitively. That business case happens to lie alongside an extremely strong social case, which has been eloquently expressed this afternoon. We should all do our utmost in this place to see that the whole world knows about the happy coincidence between the business case and the social case and is not put off by scare stories or exaggerated claims about expense. If we can encourage that view with incentives and inducements within the framework of rights and law, let us hope that something positive will be done, which is the outcome that we all want. The 10 million disabled people, and all those connected with them, will not ask us to do any less than that.
Mr. Goodman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) claimed that I had one of the worst attendance records among the members of the Joint Committee on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. I have checked the facts: I attended 10 out of 14 sittings, whereas, for example, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) attended nine out of 14 sittings. Is it in order for the hon. Member for High Peak to concede that neither nine sittings out of 14 nor 10 sittings out of 14 is not a shameful record, and that he was mistaken to introduce a personal observation for party political gain?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point on which the Chair can rule. The matter is for debate and, perhaps, for courtesies between the two hon. Members concerned.
4.32 pm
Tom Levitt: I have also checked the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I examined only the public sittings contained in volume two of the Joint Committee's report, and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) attended six of the nine sittings. It is true that some members of the Committee attended only five of the nine sittings, and I did not say that he had the worst attendance record. However, if one counts the contributions made by members of the Committee, it tells a story.
I have never known what it is like to be disabled. At one point in my life,I had my leg in plaster for a few months, but as a child I had no disabled friends or relatives, so, in a sense, disability never crossed my path. As I grew up, my sister and I used to play with a brother and sister from the family across the road. We were

469
good friends with the family, but it was only after I had left home that I realised that that family contained a third child. That child was from the same generation as the four of us who had played happily together, but the child was autistic, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). In all the years in which I lived across the road from that family, I never met that child. I hope that such shame about disability—the desire to hide away one's own child and not to make them count as a member of society—is long past, but unfortunately I am pretty sure that similar examples still occur, despite those events taking place some 30 or 40 years ago.
Many years later, I woke up to disability politics. At the Labour party conference in 1986 I was sitting at a table in a coffee bar when a young man came and sat opposite me with his sign language interpreter. In the course of the next hour and a half, he told me through his interpreter what his life was like.
He told me about the school where his hands were taped to the desk to stop him signing. He said his parents were told that signing was just a phase that he was going through, and that he would grow out of it.
That young man was fluent in sign language. Indeed, today he is one of its top exponents in the country. In those days, however, he was deprived of a common language even with his parents, who had sent him away to school to be looked after and educated believing, no doubt, that there were doing the right thing, although in fact they were adding to the apartheid that disabled people faced at the time.
The other startling thing about that young man is that there are 50,000 people like him in the country—50,000 people for whom British sign language is the first or only functioning language. That is one in every 1,000 people, yet it took me 32 years to meet one of them. That does not reveal how sheltered my life was; it reveals how sheltered theirs were.
I remember, many years later, having a conversation with a deaf friend on a train, partly in sign language. A number of people, including the guard, joined in, because they were deaf—in two cases—or because they had friends or family who were deaf. That was quite an eye-opener, which would not be noticed except by someone confronted with it. It taught me that describing someone as deaf tells people nothing about him or her. Does "deaf" mean "slightly hard of hearing"? Does it mean "hearing all right because of a hearing aid"? Or does it mean "having a completely different first language, living in a different culture"—and all that goes with being part of the sign language community?
We could go further, and ask what "disabled" means. Many places are "disabled accessible": we know that they are, because there is a little badge showing a wheelchair. As many speakers have pointed out today, however, use of a wheelchair does not denote a typical disability. Only a small proportion of those who are physically disabled employ wheelchairs. If we add the numbers with communication disabilities, sensory disabilities, mental impairment and learning disabilities, it becomes clear that the word "disabled" actually means nothing. What we are talking about are people—people with individual needs. They cannot even be thought of as being members of a few groups of disabled people, for there are many different groups. It is very
470
difficult for any Government to legislate for all their needs in one go, with the single exception of their right not to suffer discrimination at work, in terms of access to goods and services or in any other context.
My experiences prompted me to learn sign language, and to work for a while advising local authorities on how their services could be made more accessible to people with hearing impairments. I want to describe an incident involving a council, but I will not name it. In any case, the evidence is 10 years old and things may have changed. A deaf person showed me round the council offices. He took me into the council chamber, switched on his hearing aid and said "The loop system is working perfectly: I can hear exactly what is going on." I said, "But the room is empty." He said, "Yes. What I am listening to is the housing department reception desk 100 metres away." The loop system was so powerful at the housing benefit desk that it blotted out whatever was happening in the rest of the building.
We then went into a committee room, a rather grand room in which a whole wall consisted of windows facing the afternoon sun. The chairman's seat had its back to the windows, which meant that when the sun was shining in the afternoon no one in the room could lip-read what the chairman was saying. Many people who perhaps did not realise that they were lip-reading, although they knew that they were a little hard of hearing, were deprived of that extra tool to help them understand what was being said. So through thoughtlessness—through not asking hearing-impaired people how they should arrange the furniture in the room—they were being deprived of communication.
In the same committee room, the same man said, "And listen to this." He switched on the council chamber loop system, and when he then switched on the chamber lights both his hearing aids screamed. I could hear them screaming. The reason was that on the ceiling, right next to the microphones serving the loop system, were low-energy light bulbs. He said, "We're a green council, so we have low-energy light bulbs in this room. We have asked if they can be moved, but we have been told that doing so would be too expensive. Obviously, we have to have the lights on, so while they are on the loop system cannot operate in the council chamber."
That council had spent thousands of pounds thinking that it was doing the right thing: that it was enabling deaf people of various sorts to access its services, and enabling the functioning of the council. It was wrong. It wasted money, and through what can only be seen in retrospect as tokenism, it did what it thought was right without thinking it through or asking the right people. As a result, it got it horribly wrong. We have all seen such examples—the ramp that leads to the door that is too narrow—and these things have to be thought through and got right.
Such incidents have taught me that most of the barriers that disabled people face are created by people such as me: people who are temporarily non-disabled. The physical barriers that disabled people face are much less potent than the barriers of attitude and ignorance that they face every day of every week. That is why the concept of reasonable adjustment, which I acknowledge was introduced in the 1995 Act, is so important. It allows disabled people to access employment and it will

471
allow access to goods and services of all kinds. But what reasonable adjustment often requires is imagination rather than cash.
I acknowledge that the 1995 Act was a milestone—the first milestone on a very long journey. The hon. Member for Wycombe took great credit on behalf of the 1995 Act, but it took the then Conservative Government 16 years to get round to introducing it. Previous Labour Governments had already put into effect civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation in respect of gender and race, which we have built on since. We should not compare what we have done in seven years in government with the first 16 years of the previous Conservative Government. Rather, let us wait until we have been in power for 16 years—it is only nine years away—and then compare the Conservative and Labour records on access and rights for disabled people.
However, as others have pointed out, the 1995 Act had some huge gaps. There was no Disability Rights Commission, its time scales were too long and there were huge holes in terms of education and transport in particular. Through the disability rights task force and the other measures that were taken as soon as we entered office, we set about a legislative programme that in my view has been second to none. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), I served on the Committees that considered the Disability Rights Commission Bill and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. Indeed, I also worked on the 1998 Bill on welfare reform, which was very important in terms of opening the door to many of the measures that we are now talking about, such as helping people on incapacity benefit to get back into work.
In 2001, the "Towards Inclusion" report was published, and in January of that year we published our election manifesto. Now, we have the draft Disability Discrimination Bill and the Joint Committee's report on it. I had the great pleasure of serving on that Committee as well, and I attended all but one of its meetings. The Bill is very good, has various functions and plugs many holes. It is very popular among disabled people and their organisations. In particular, it addresses the huge hole of transport. While it cites the Leonard Cheshire recommendation of 2017 as the end date for the accessibility of trains, I hope that disabled carriages will be available on every train long before that. There is no reason why everything has to be end-loaded; every carriage of every train has to be accessible. I also welcome the Government's intention to speed up the reviews relating to disabled access to aviation and shipping.
As someone who has served in local government, I greatly welcome and endorse the recommendations to bring councillors within the remit of anti-discrimination legislation in respect of disability. Until now, a councillor who is not appointed to a committee because of perceived problems connected with disability has had no redress. When the Bill becomes law—I am sure that it will be before the next general election—that will no longer apply.
Mr. Goodman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the full Bill should be introduced in this Session to ensure that it does become law before the next general election?
Tom Levitt: I can say that it was part of the manifesto for this Session. Unless the business managers of the Opposition are going to seek huge periods of time in Committee, which they have been known to do, I see absolutely no reason why the Bill should not be passed before the next general election.
I was saying that the extension of the provisions to councillors—as it is to other office holders and public appointees—is welcome. It is also important that landlords—private, public and social—will be deprived of the right unreasonably to refuse the request of a tenant to have a property adapted for purposes of making it more accessible for their disability.
I hope that the Minister will also adopt the recommendations on volunteers. I acknowledge that it probably would not be practicable to have a blanket rule saying that every volunteer for every voluntary organisation should be covered by the legislation that applies to employees. Equally, however, there are circumstances in which a voluntary organisation may not use voluntary employees because of fears about liability if anything were to happen to them. Those are unreasonable fears, which should be addressed by a code of practice for the use of volunteers, who should be allowed in comparable employment circumstances to take their cases to some form of tribunal if they are discriminated against.
An issue that has not been mentioned is access to examinations. If schools and education more widely should be accessible, there is absolutely no reason why examination boards should be able to put a barrier at the end of people's educational careers. Change in that respect is welcome, and so are the measures on mental health. The Committee suggested that the time for mental health conditions to be assessed as qualifying under the 1995 Act be reduced from 12 to six months.
The Government were right to say that people suffering from MS, cancer and HIV should be protected against discrimination even before the symptoms are shown—namely, from the point of diagnosis. I hope that they will go one stage further and say that protection against discrimination should apply from the point of diagnosis to any condition covered by the 1995 Act. The reason for that is clear. Someone with MS, for example, could be deprived of promotion or employment because of the fact that certain symptoms might develop in the future, which is not a reasonable purpose for discriminating against a person. I hope that the Committee's report will be taken into account.
I turn now to the social model, which gave rise to many hours of enjoyable debate in Committee. The 1995 Act's concept of a reasonable adjustment was a move towards the social model. It acknowledges that often it is the environment that has to be adjusted so that disabled people can have access to employment or services.
The problem with the medical model is that it casts the disabled person as the problem. It regards disabled people as disabled first and people second. The solution to the problem of how people relate to their social, physical and attitudinal environments is often achieved by addressing the relevant environment, regardless of whether the diagnosis is a social or medical one.
I gave an example of that to the Committee, which I want to put on record now. The social model of disability holds that impairment becomes a disability

473
only when the environment makes it so. My example in support of that involves a one-legged person in the environment of an automatic car. If the person lacks a left leg, he or she is not considered disabled, as one needs only a right leg to drive an automatic car. However, if the person lacks a right leg, he or she is disabled, as the pedals of an automatic car are designed for right-foot use. Therefore, an equivalent impairment can be a disability, depending on the environment.
I hope that the Bill goes forward speedily. I see no reason why it should not.
Progress has been made in other areas, as other speakers have described, but one or two other matters remain to be addressed. At present, legislation only touches on the question of mental health. In constituencies such as my own, where unemployment levels are very low, the proportion of unemployed people who are unemployed because of—or for reasons associated with—a mental health problem is accordingly that much higher.
Another problem, to which the Minister referred earlier, has to do with building design. The part M regulations of 2003 are a help, as are the lifetime home regulations. In addition, local authorities administer the disability facilities grants. I hope that the Minister will assure me that all the different definitions involved will be governed by common criteria in the future. There must be no conflict in the intended purpose of the various regulatory schemes.
There is a problem with the toilet doors in Portcullis House to which I want to draw attention. Any hon. Member with arthritis will know that they are dreadfully difficult to open. I hope that, by 1 October, disabled-accessible doors will be attached to all the toilets in that building. Such doors will not need a person to be able to apply a strong grip to a handle that resembles a drinks can, but will be much more easy to use.
As other hon. Members have said, many disabled people would like to work but still lack the opportunity to do so. One way to address that is to tackle the problem of people who are forced to leave work through disability at a later stage in life. Cleary, more money is going into ensuring access to work, but such people must also be able to step down—that is, to move out of the work force gradually at the end of a career. Problems to do with pension and benefit rights would have to be worked out, but people who face early retirement through disability would be able to leave work with more dignity if they were able to phase their withdrawal.
The hon. Member for Wycombe mentioned the recent Scope "Absolutely Equal" campaign and the reception held last week. He expressed some concerns about the social model, but the Scope report said:
"The attitudes of non-disabled people to disabled people are often irrational. Attitudes can be based on feelings of embarrassment, pity, guilt, being patronising, and even revulsion that are difficult to get to the bottom of.
Such attitudes are inherently irrational; legislation must be inherently rational. There cannot be a one-to-one fit between those things, so I hope that the Government will consider the Joint Committee's recommendation to give public bodies an obligation to promote the rights of disabled people and awareness of disabled issues in exactly the way that they have acted on racial issues.
474
One last issue falls more within the field of the Department for International Development than that of the Department for Work and Pensions. Twice recently I have met disabled people in Africa—a group of children in Zambia and a group of families of disabled children in Tanzania. It is bad enough seeing what extreme and absolute poverty does to people, but disability further excludes people in those societies completely from any form of support—there are no benefits or social care and no support mechanisms whatever—and isolates them, condemning them to live in the worst of absolute poverty in an environment of absolute poverty. That really tears one's heart-strings.
Some good things are going on, however. I give a quick plug to the Leonard Cheshire organisation, which, in Tanzania, has set up a micro-finance bureau that gives grants of about £50 a time to families of disabled children so that they can set up in business. Such a business might sell eggs or firewood. People repay over a period, but those small amounts of money are sufficient to break down the barriers. If the business is eggs, the disabled child can sit in the compound with the chickens and alert someone if an animal comes along for the chickens or someone tries to steal them. That can produce systems that involve the families, getting them back into the economy. That gives them dignity, allowing them to have some pride in societies in which there is no support for them.
Let us not forget the plight of disabled people in developing countries. As a civilised society, we acknowledge the needs of others. Today's debate and the Bill to come relate to the needs of disabled people in this country, but we will be judged as a nation and community in the wider world by what we do for those least able to help themselves. We are giving people opportunities to help themselves, and they deserve that as a right.
4.58 pm
Mr. John Randall: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt). Perhaps I should apologise in advance of my remarks because I am sure, having heard the earlier exchanges about language and vocabulary, that I am bound to put my foot in it somewhere or other. I would not do so out of any desire to, but just out of sheer inadequacy.
As I listened to the Minister, I realised that, as someone sitting on the Conservative Benches, I am the spawn of Beelzebub. I thought that she was about to mention the "Slaughter of the First Born" Bill that some previous Conservative Government had brought in. But disability is far too important for party politics. We have had a good debate full of good speeches, and I always find when I attend these debates that I learn from them. As others wish to speak, I shall try to make my comments as brief as possible.
We have seen from the different speeches from different angles that the subject encompasses a broad area. First, I want to talk about people with disabilities taking part in sport. The Olympic bid by London is already having a good effect because part of that bid is to hold the Paralympics here. Anything that can raise the profile of the good that sport brings to people with disabilities is to be welcomed. The hon. Member for High Peak reminisced and I should like briefly to

475
remember a time when I was a rather slim, fresh-faced young boy. I remember at school listening to a former rugby international who had been involved in a crunching tackle, I think with an All Black, and had broken his neck. Suddenly from being at the height of his sporting prowess, he had ended up in a wheelchair. He told us boys about a charity called Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied. It made me realise how suddenly something could happen and that from being at the height of one's physical ability, one could be cut down. From then on my school had summer courses and I am pleased to say that many years later they still do.
As I was sitting here listening, another memory came to me. At school there was an option to join the cadet force, namely community service. To show the House how things have moved on—I recognise that this language is inappropriate—it was called the pansy brigade. In the course of that I visited an old mental asylum called Leavesden, which thankfully is gone. One of the saddest things that stays with me to this day was visiting the cemetery there and asking whose graves they were. I was told by the matron, as I think she was designated, that they were the graves of children with Down's syndrome who had been abandoned there, without family visiting. I thought that that was no way for any civilised country to exist and I sincerely hope that those days have long gone.
On the subject of sport, I should like to put in a plug for two organisations of which I have become aware. I do not play much part in them, but I pay my subs. One is the Wooden Spoon, a rugby charity that helps disabled and disadvantaged children. It tries to have a positive effect on disability in all its forms, whether caused by cancer, cystic fibrosis or autism. We are in the cricket season and a test match started today. Anybody who has the opportunity in the next few days to listen to that quintessential part of the English summer—"Test Match Special"—will undoubtedly hear talk of the Primary Club. It is a fundraising organisation that is open to all who have been out first ball in any form of cricket, ranging from in the garden and on the beach through to a test match. It is a particularly odd, rather English institution that happened by accident. In 1955 four slightly inebriated young bachelors, depressed by their performance with a bat, vowed to support a fund for blind cricketers. That same "Test Match Special", and particularly the late lamented Brian Johnston, gave it wide publicity, so that now it is a well-known, well-supported charity raising a great deal of money, particularly for blind sports children and young people. Those are just a few examples of the many charities that do so much good work in all our constituencies, and it is appropriate to pay tribute to them for that.
Hobbies are important to people, and my own passion has always been bird-watching. It is remarkable how many opportunities are now open to people with disabilities of all kinds to indulge in that hobby.
Members of Parliament are fortunate in having opportunities to find out about disability. We are lobbied by many different organisations and we also have the chance to hear good speakers in this place. In Uxbridge tomorrow, the three Hillingdon MPs will have one of our regular meetings with Hillingdon DASH, an organisation that promotes disability issues in the area.
476
As usual, Simon Harris and Angela Wegener will forcefully ensure that all three of us are aware of the exact concerns of people with disabilities in the area.
Sometimes such meetings reveal problems. I remember attending a meeting of wheelchair users in the Hillingdon civic centre when the fire alarm went. It was discovered that the only way out for wheelchair users was the lift, and of course the lifts are not supposed to be used if there is a fire. Fortunately, it was a false alarm on that occasion. As the hon. Gentleman said, we often do not realise the implications of certain situations for people with disabilities.
I can give another example. One of my constituents, Katrina Bijowski, has been very forceful in pointing out that the local authority does not seem to make much provision for children a with disabilities—not only those in wheelchairs, but those with a range of disabilities—when providing new, play areas. A few months ago, I attended the opening, of a new play area for which the local residents had raised the funding. They suddenly realised that they had not considered it properly, through a lack of awareness, and we must all work to make people more aware. To the credit of the Violet avenue residents association, it went back to the council to ensure that the appropriate facilities would be provided.
I have also discovered problems that people with disabilities can have with banking. Older people with disabilities cannot get out much and, because of the new legislation to combat money laundering, they find it more and more difficult to get a cheque cashed. That causes many problems. Barclays bank, to its credit, has looked into the problem and come up with a remedy. I am sure that all the other banks will want to look at that because—as has already been mentioned—it is not only ethically right but good business sense to cater for people with all sorts of disabilities. On Saturday, I was talking to someone from Barclays and was impressed by the efforts that it is putting into the issue—I am sure that it is the same with other banks. The bigger companies have taken those issues on board. It is more difficult for small and medium enterprises, but that does not mean that they should not take those issues just as seriously.
I had intended to talk about transport, as a member of the Transport Committee, and about our report, which has been tagged on to this debate. However, I am keen to listen to the other hon. Members who wish to contribute, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have already heard mention of Ryanair, so that is one company we have upset. Another is Brittany Ferries, which will not allow guide dogs on its boats. We raised that in the meeting with the Minister, but I have not heard what happened. If those issues have not been dealt with and those companies are listening, let me say to them, "For goodness sake, get your act together or the Government will have to take action."
When a member of one's family or oneself has a disability, one becomes aware of the problems. In my case, I have faced difficulties in taking my mother around. Actually, we have done very well. Two years ago I managed to take her around Istanbul in a wheelchair. I have to confess that I was not expecting great facilities for the disabled in Turkey, but it had got its act together in lots of ways, and the amount of help that we received was phenomenal.

477
One of the problems is that the airlines cannot tell disabled passengers what the facilities will be like at the other end of the flight. It is fine at Heathrow, where there tend to be walkways for passengers to get on the aeroplane, but one has no idea what will be at the other end. The idea of possibly having to wait for a fork-lift truck at the other end begins to take the edge off the journey.
Again from personal experience, I know that disabled parking can be a problem. There is a lot of provision, and that is wonderful, but how can we get it through to people that they should not abuse it? There is nothing more annoying than to see an able-bodied person coming out of a supermarket, admittedly heavily laden, and going to a car in a disabled person's spot. However, I sound a cautionary note from my days in retail. A sales representative called on us and parked his car outside on a single yellow line. I saw a traffic warden so I said, "You had better watch out, there's a traffic warden coming." He said, "It's all right, I have got a disabled badge." I looked at him and said, "Are you sure? You do not look disabled." I was showing my ignorance. He lifted up his trouser leg and showed me where he had had half his leg shot away during the war. That is where I learned that disability is not always visible and we should not jump to conclusions.
When I first came into the House I promised myself that I would try to keep to the diktat that it is much better to listen than lecture, so I will conclude my remarks.
5.12 pm
Vera Baird: I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will forgive me if I lecture him for a minute. I did not regard it as appropriate for him to criticise my hon. Friend the Minister for her right and proper criticism of the Tories' lamentable failure to look after disability by ridiculing it and pretending it was funny. Truly, it was a fully deserved criticism.
If the hon. Gentleman dropped a clanger, as he feared he might in using the right language about disability, it was not, as he modestly suggested, due to his inadequacy because he is not inadequate. It was because he had insufficient respect for the disabled to be bothered to find out what language ought to be used to avoid causing offence.
I congratulate, au contraire, my hon. Friend the Minister on her role as an able prosecutor of the Conservatives for their lamentable failure to support the disabled. She has another career elsewhere, if she wants, at the Old Bailey. She prepared the indictment of their neglect perfectly. She marshalled the evidence with such skill and in such detail that it defied dispute when it was all set out. She argued her case perfectly and no jury would have had the slightest doubt that the Tories were guilty of an abysmal record on disability.
I listened to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), whose party's Work and Pensions spokesperson regards some of the unemployed—many of whom are disabled—as empty vessels into which it is a waste of time to pour training money. The only time that the hon. Member for Wycombe came near to setting out a Tory policy approach on disability was when he counselled caution that too assertive an
478
approach to disability rights would provoke a backlash. I begin to understand how the Tories justified to themselves the iniquitous failure to act on the disabled for 18 long years.
I think that, secretly, the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some respect from my, albeit brief, knowledge of him on the Work and Pensions Committee, is truly ashamed of that record. The way in which he complained about anyone on the Labour Benches who chose to look back—as well we might—led me to that conclusion. He should understand that people look at a party's history in office in order to foresee what it would do if it ever got into office again. His approach today, when he said that an assertive approach to disability rights was bound to provoke a backlash, will do nothing to dispel the concerns of disabled people that, if the Tory party ever came into office again, the past would simply repeat itself; unless they provoke a backlash a new Tory Government will do nothing for them.
I praised my hon. Friend the Minister for her forensic skills. I also join in the DRC's praise of her. It has issued a briefing that is almost embarrassing in its praise of the Government for the many things that they have done for disability, including the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, published at the end of last year, which will in due course fulfil the manifesto commitment to deliver basic rights for disabled people. The DRC speaks of an "exciting" Bill and congratulates my hon. Friend who has, as we all know, worked very hard to ensure that the Bill emerged. I echo that personal praise and I acknowledge, as I know she will, that she has experienced a supportive atmosphere in government within which to produce that excellent Bill.
The multitude of steps that the Government have taken to promote disability rights is good civil liberties policy for sure, and it is also good legal progress and excellent ideology. It is part of our inclusiveness approach. It is enabling disabled people to have a fuller life, with the civil liberties that we all enjoy and which, in the past, they have in truth been denied. Disabled people have been denied rights that we have enjoyed for many, many years without even considering them.
Supporting disabled people has another purpose. It is not about charity or benevolence at all but about bringing out of the shadows to which they have been confined many hugely talented people for whose active input society will be the better. Let us take a quick look around. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is not in the Chamber, but she makes the point, does she not? Look at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the leadership of the DRC. Look at Tanni Grey-Thompson, who is one of my Redcar constituents. Look on a more local scale, as I do, at the fine woman who has led the campaign to set up shopmobility in Redcar. Those are disabled people with multiple talents. They have often suffered hardship, so they are very determined.
Additionally, the experience of disability is itself a component of personality that the able bodied among us lack, but it needs to be present in society's thinking. Such people are exactly those who need to be brought out to become leaders in society. I very much regret the fact that they did not come forward because of the Tories' lack of interest in anyone who is not white, male, able bodied and already in business. It is clear that they still do not understand that principle at all.

479
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South pointed out that the Disability Rights Commission has facilitated access to tribunals in a way that was not possible before so that civil rights for the disabled can be furthered. Of course it has also had another purpose, which is to drive forward the culture to change public attitudes to disability and to speak with a very loud voice on behalf of complexly disabled people.
I welcome hugely the commission for equality and human rights, which will also have as one of its primary functions driving a culture of rights, with responsibilities, across all strands of equality. Once the legislation is passed, the commission will have the advantage of placing a positive duty on public authorities to promote the equality of disabled people, by tackling systemic barriers, rather than relying just on the post hoc system of redress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South is right: tribunals and rights are important, but they are a phenomenally clumsy way to go about establishing a change in culture. Taking a case to a court or tribunal in the hope that an individual victory will receive sufficient publicity to make a difference is a slow and very expensive way to make progress. It will be a major shift of emphasis to give a duty to public authorities to promote disability rights. I am pleased that the commission will also place a duty on them to promote gender equality.
It is clear that an individual who may be a woman and disabled or perhaps black and disabled, or who may come from any of the strands of disability, often cannot truly point to exactly what is the root of the discrimination. The responsibility ought not to lie on that person to say, "I think it is because I am disabled", or "I think it is because I am a woman." Truly, the public responsibility is to ensure equal rights across all strands of equalities.
Such a public duty will be a major tool for the new commission to use. I look forward to the public sector, with the encouragement of the commission, using the duty to promote equality in all its arrangements, not only internal but external ones. I look forward to its vigorous use in the commissioning role, so that the public sector can use contractual liability to impose on the private sector, where appropriate, a duty in contract after contract for public commission work also to guarantee disability equality as well as the other equalities.
There have been concerns that the DRC, as the newest of the three commissions, is likely to be the weakest and might be disadvantaged by the new unified commission. There seems to have been movement on those original concerns and the DRC has been reassured by the provisions that disability has been given in the new commission.
There will be a guaranteed place on the new commission board for a disabled person. There will be a dedicated disability committee, with decision-making powers in the key areas of work for disability rights covered by the DDA. Some 50 per cent. of the committee must be disabled and they will have a secure lifetime of five years on the committee. There will be transition commissioners to nurse the changeover and
480
oversee the transition. There is also a commitment to maintain the legal powers and functions of the existing commissions and a recognition that cases should be supported on a strategic basis, prioritising in favour of cases that raise big points of principle.
The commission also has a commitment to promote a human rights culture as well as an equality culture in Britain, and that was mentioned tangentially by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). That promotional remit, which is explicitly configured to include the conduct of inquiries and third-party interventions into human rights cases, is very important. General inquiries into cases in which there is evidence before the commission of systemic abuse of disabled people's rights, women's rights or black people's rights are key to rooting out such abuse,finding its causes and promoting its unacceptability. Third-party interventions can also be key.
The DRC has proposed since its early days in 2000 that its case funding go beyond disability issues to include stand-alone human rights issues, so it is regrettable that there is no commitment on that. The new commission will also be able to pursue human rights cases in its own right, as opposed to those that are linked to a strand of inequality. It will add, in a number of ways, to the help that the DRC gives to disabled people and the moves that it has made to change the culture.
I had intended to talk briefly about direct payments, but I shall not do so because I know that others still wish to speak. I therefore conclude by reflecting that, after 18 years in the cold desert of Toryism, as it has already been described, disabled people have seen in the past seven years an absolute transformation of their rights. They have seen the deliberate and Government-driven opening of doors hitherto closed to them. They have sensed what I hope must continue—a warming of our culture towards them. When I look at the record over the past seven years and look one final time at the record of the Tories on disabled people, I know plainly why the Opposition are so upset that this debate about disability is being broadcast on the Parliament Channel on election day.
5.27 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) in being worried about that element of the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) in which he talked about the fear of a backlash. The problem with the backlash argument is that it indicates that someone is saying that they are not biased, but that other people are biased and that we must therefore be careful about acting. I know that the views of others are important and that pressures need to be responded to, but the argument is sometimes used to do nothing.
The other thing I realise about the Conservatives is that if they ever get back into government, they are likely to revert type. In their reverting to type, we would face all the problems that my hon. and learned Friend described. However, I accept that the Conservatives have moved somewhat since those bitter days in the early and mid-1990s. They were driven to change by the time we considered the Bill that

481
established the Disability Rights Commission. They changed partly because half of them had gone from this place, but politics also changes responses and attitudes. The fact that society was moving meant that there was change. The other sign of change is the fact that the hon. Member for Wycombe gave general support to the report published by the Joint Committee on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. He suggested that the Bill would not be blocked at a later stage.
Things may alter and circumstances may change, but I want to say something about the period in which there was serious dispute.
The role of Lord Morris of Manchester was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. He pushed for civil rights for disabled people in the form of a Bill that came before us as a private Member's Bill in 1991–92. He was leading the way, but he was not alone. There were others such as Lord Ashley of Stoke and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who, in a ten-minute Bill and various amendments, developed the notion of civil rights for disabled people. The Bill was talked out, but a couple of years later my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) reintroduced it. It went through the House, initially without any great opposition from the Government. It was fine-tuned in Committee. It was not until it returned to the House for its remaining stages that there was what might be described as blood on the Floor of the House, when there were incidents involving Lady Olga Maitland and Nicholas Scott. It was that experience, and support outside the House for civil rights for disabled persons, that led the Government in the following year to introduce the Disability Discrimination Bill, as it was at that stage.
I picked up the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill at the same time and ran it in conflict with the Disability Discrimination Bill. I took it over in the form that it had reached with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, and added to it access to polling stations for disabled people. I included that in an earlier Bill on electoral registration, which did not get beyond Second Reading. I realised that it was not enough to have electoral registration rights for disabled people—they had to get into polling stations to exercise their right.
An illustration that there was some support from Conservative Members for the principle of civil rights for disabled persons—it came in little bits and pieces—was when the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill went into Committee. It was my moment of glory because it was my Bill. I could sit in the seat that a Minister usually occupies. The Opposition were, as it were, over the road. The Opposition were led by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). There was support from the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who then represented High Peak. There was also Tim Smith, whom we should not say much more about. Another Opposition Member attended one sitting of the Committee. When he failed to vote with the Conservatives and had trouble with, the Whips, he said, "I'm not coming again." I said that that was all right. All the other Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats sat with me and prominent Labour Members such as Lord Morris.
482
The Bill was blocked in Committee. When it returned to the Floor of the House, we had 32 minutes for its remaining stages and Third Reading. The Government had tabled 180 amendments. At that stage the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who was then representing a Bury constituency, led for the Government. All we could do was to have an argument about the situation during consideration of the first batch of amendments. I made sure that I resumed my place so that the hon. Gentleman was the one who talked out the Bill. I was not going to talk out my own Bill.
That process helped to shift and improve the Disability Discrimination Bill. Sponsors of my Bill included the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), the late James Kilfedder from Northern Ireland, and the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I could claim that I had wider support for my Bill than the Belfast agreement was eventually to have.
The principles in my Bill are dear to me and to others who fought for them, and centre on the distinction between the social model and the medical model, which was espoused by Lord Morris in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. However, that measure was passed a long time ago, and Lord Morris was moving the game on by anticipating a social definition dealing with the discriminator and the prevention of discrimination. I was taken with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) that a single but wide-ranging equality measure was needed to prevent discrimination and tackle the refusal to make available to some people facilities and opportunities that were available to others.
Mr. Goodman: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, despite some of the more extravagant claims of a great gulf between the parties, the 1995 Act was based partly on the medical model and partly on the social model, as are the draft Disability Discrimination Bill and the Committee's recommendations?
Mr. Barnes: I accept that the more progress we make using the medical model, the better and more reasonable the legislation will be. However, there is still a gap, so I look forward to legislation that allows us to close it. The Joint Committee shares that view, and in conclusion I wish to refer to its overview of the current agenda on pages 16 to 18 of its report. It discusses the potential of pre-legislative scrutiny, as the draft Bill is one of the first measures to undergo such a procedure. It is to the Committee's credit that it has produced a report, in which it says that there are still things that need to be done. For example, a clause outlawing discrimination against local councillors was not published in time, and the full text of various measures was not available. There was also a problem with delegated powers. There are therefore lessons to be learned, but the Committee has done some valuable work.
The Committee suggested that publications that particularly affect disabled people should be made available in appropriate alternative formats. When I introduced the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1994, People First, a body of people with learning difficulties who run things for themselves, produced it in

483
an accessible form for its members. I was proud that it was the first parliamentary measure to be produced in such a format. In its overview, the Committee also made a point that has been pressed home repeatedly by the hon. Member for Wycombe—the draft Disability Discrimination Bill should be introduced in the current Session. As a Back Bencher, I always want things to be done immediately. It is easy for Back Benchers to demand that the Government do things immediately, and it can make us popular with people outside. The Government, however, have a timetable and face the problem of adding things to it. Even if the Bill's introduction is knocked back to the next parliamentary Session, the fact that it has received pre-legislative scrutiny and has general support in the House should mean that it should not be difficult to enact. Heaven knows what today's election results will be and whether we will have a general election next year or whether that will take longer. I have a personal interest in that, as I am packing up at the next election, and do not know whether I have one year or two to go. Also, there are arguments for co-ordinating various measures, such as the draft Mental Incapacity Bill, to draw together all the details of the disability measures. That would provide the opportunity to return to the question of definition, so that by definition we get things right beyond peradventure.
5.40 pm
Maria Eagle: May I say what a fantastically varied, robust but—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady needs the leave of the House.
Maria Eagle: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that I moved the motion, I did not think I needed the leave of the House, but if I do, I shall seek it. [Interruption.] We will all check that later—not that I doubt your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in any way, shape or form.
With the leave of the House, may I say what a varied, at times robust but always fascinating debate we have had today? Putting aside issues of timing, which we discussed earlier, there is no doubt that today's debate has been valuable. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said that he always learns something from such debates. They inform and educate Members and anyone outside who bothers to read our proceedings when they are published in the Official Report.
I congratulate all the hon. Members who spoke in the debate on their contributions. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who speaks for the Opposition, suggested that letters of complaint about the timing of the debate may be coming my way. I assure him that the only letter so far received in my office was from him, but I shall watch out for any other complaints in the pipeline.
The hon. Gentleman raised three points, which I shall try to deal with. The first was the awareness of organisations such as service providers and smaller employers, upon which the October duties are placed. He quoted from research by my Department about the
484
general awareness of the obligations that are coming into force in October. He has written to me in that regard and I replied to him, but I shall give the House a little more information about the efforts of the Department and the DRC to raise awareness.
Since 1999 my Department, and its predecessors before the changes to the machinery of government, spent almost £13 million on awareness-raising measures, which included national advertising campaigns, some aimed specifically at small and medium-sized enterprises, and the "What have you got to offer?" and "Open to Change" campaigns aimed at those on whom the obligations are to be placed. The DRC has spent a further £3 million on awareness-raising leaflets and publications, in addition to its general work through its helpline and other advice-giving services to provide guidance when questions are asked.
We are doing a great deal. I appreciate that those who have not had any connection with similar legislation before—small employers and small businesses—have the lowest levels of awareness. My Department recently sent out a mailshot with further help and advice to 1 million small businesses and small service providers on whom the obligations will fall. Experience has shown that it is not until the law is about to change that hard-pressed small business people get round to thinking about what it means I hope that they will do so as soon as possible, and that advice will be readily available to them from the Government and the DRC, to help them avoid making some of the mistakes related to the House today by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and others in all parts of the House, who reported from their own experience how easy it is to get things wrong if brains are not engaged and if advice is not taken first. When I talk to organisations representing the businesses on which those obligations will be placed, I always advise them to put on their thinking-cap before they get their cheque book out, which is the best way to ensure that money is properly spent on adjustments that assist not only disabled people to access services, but businesses to secure part of the £50 billion that disabled people currently carry in their back pockets—inaccessible services often prevent disabled people from spending their money as they might wish. I hope that I have given the House more detail on increasing awareness, which the hon. Member for Wycombe and others advocated.
The hon. Member for Wycombe also discussed the specific recommendations on mental health and transport end dates made by the Joint Committee on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill; unsurprisingly, other hon. Members also expressed an interest in particular provisions. I am sure that hon. Members will not be particularly surprised that I shall limit my response to saying that the Government are currently considering all the Joint Committee's 75 recommendations.
My Department and I are considering some of those recommendations, while others are being considered across Government because they go wider than DWP responsibilities. All I can say is that we intend to reply within the time scale indicated by the Joint Committee. My personal view is that the Joint Committee produced

485
an excellent report that contains some interesting recommendations, and the House must hang on a little bit longer to see the Government response.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird)—whose contribution was even more robust than mine—is particularly concerned about, where the DRC fits into the commission for equality and human rights. The hon. Member for Wycombe said that he viewed the "abolition of the DRC" with concern, which is an interesting, but none the less welcome, advance on thinking that the DRC should not exist. Other hon. Members also mentioned the proposed commission.
I remind the House that the DRC' itself has something to say:
"The DRC welcomes the White Paper on a commission for equality and human rights and the broad aspiration to promote equality and human rights in Britain. The proposals on disability are an encouraging step in the right direction … The DRC very much welcomes the specific proposals on disability, which recognise through a number of concrete proposals on governance the distinctive arrangements that will be necessary on disability to secure the future legislative and policy agenda".
I hope that that reassures those who are concerned about the DRC.
Mr. Boswell: In the same breath, will the Minister acknowledge that the DRC has expressed some continuing concerns? Although I do not expect her to respond to them tonight, will she at least undertake to take them seriously?
Maria Eagle: I always take the DRC's concerns seriously and, as its sponsor Minister, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not. Although the DRC's welcome is not unequivocal, we would all have been suspicious if it had been.
Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend will remember that I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister who previously held the brief on the single equality body. Is she aware that comments and criticisms were taken on board as the idea was floated and matured? The final outcome is perhaps different from that anticipated at the beginning, and it is considerably better because of the relevant bodies' acclaim.
Maria Eagle: I certainly think it is important for a body that combines three existing commissions, while also dealing with strands not currently dealt with by commissions, to note the experience of those who are out there doing the job now. I believe that that has been done. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar has already listed the arrangements that have reassured the DRC, I shall not say more about them now.
The hon. Member for Wycombe mentioned the increasing number of people suffering from what he described as stress who are receiving incapacity benefit. There has undoubtedly been an increase in the number of claimants whose primary condition is a mental or behavioural disorder, which is a broader category than what we commonly think of as stress. The increase is attributable to a number of factors, including a wider acceptance in society of the impact of mental health conditions and a greater willingness on the part of clinicians and doctors to certify a mental incapacity.
486
The hon. Gentleman referred to an increase in the number of women claiming incapacity benefit. One reason for that is the fact that it is a contributory benefit, and for many years women did not have the work records that would enable them to claim it. It is not easy to work out what precisely is going on, but what is certain is that the Government are committed, through the new deal for disabled people and pathways into work—I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he liked the idea of those—to tailoring assistance to people whom all Governments have, in the past, left on benefit until they retired or died.
Mr. Goodman: I think that when the Minister reads the record she will find that I referred to stress, anxiety, depression and—I think this is what I said—similar conditions. I know that the information that she gave me, which is in the Library, lists the categories differently, but they overlap to a degree.
Maria Eagle: I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman distorted information that he was given in parliamentary answers.
It should be noted that 90 per cent. of the increase in the number of incapacity benefit claimants took place before the mid-1990s. We currently have the highest ever percentage of working-age people in jobs. The flow on to incapacity benefit has fallen by a third. There are 2 million more jobs in the economy, unemployment is at its lowest for 30 years and the number of claims for jobseeker's allowance has fallen by 700,000. The overall increase in incapacity benefit claims is 150,000. We are not, as is sometimes suggested by Opposition Members—I am not looking at the hon. Gentleman now, because I have not heard him say it in quite this way—trying to shift unemployed people on to incapacity benefit in order to hide the level of unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South told us of her personal experience of discrimination in education. That happened over some years; it was not an isolated example. I was struck by my hon. Friend's point that legislation sets the framework—that it sets boundaries beyond which behaviour is not considered acceptable in society, and is therefore an important driver for change. I strongly agree with that.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) delivered what was, for him, fairly full-blown praise of the Government. I welcomed it, because we do not always hear it; he is obviously in a good mood today. I was particularly pleased to hear him give credit to the Government for changed attitudes, which he rightly ascribed partly to the change in the legal framework. He also said that much remains to be done; I agree entirely. That observation chimed in a small way with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said about disabled people coming back with more demands. The day that any politician or Minister expects the demands to stop is the day that they have completely lost sight of the reality of what goes on in the world. So I was neither surprised nor upset to hear what they had to say about more needing to be done, because that is undoubtedly the case.
The hon. Gentleman made some very specific points, including some about British sign language, in which I have a particular interest. He asked what happens next

487
after recognition, and rightly pointed out that not enough interpreters are available. The Government recently announced £1.5 million of new money to support our statement recognising British sign language, and the intention is to increase the number of interpreters available. We consulted the deaf community, and their strongly held view was that more needs to be done to train tutors. With more tutors and greater support for tutors in reaching higher qualification levels, there will be many more opportunities down the line for interpreters to learn the craft and the language.
The deaf community also identified the importance of increasing awareness of the use of British sign language, and the £1.5 million to which I referred has been split about evenly in an effort to achieve the two objectives. The precise way in which that will be done was announced during deaf awareness week, and if the hon. Gentleman has not seen the details I can send them to him.
I was particularly interested in the example that the hon. Gentleman gave of the Red Cross. He rightly talked about the importance of spending money more effectively, rather than simply throwing ever-increasing sums at particular problems when organisational issues arise. He is absolutely right to say that we need to find better ways of getting results for disabled people. Experience in my current post has made it obvious that various Government Departments, local government authorities and other public authorities operate far too much in silos. They do not join up what they do nearly enough, and we must look to providing services for disabled people that are based much more on their particular needs, rather than on whether they fit into a particular local authority budget or Government scheme. Anybody who can come up with a good way of doing that is welcome to come to my office at any time to tell me about it, because it is the holy grail as far as providing better services is concerned.
488
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who chairs the all-party group on autism, made an excellent speech on the particular issues that impinge on those who have conditions on the autistic spectrum. She talked about the fact that communication impairment and social interaction impairment do not fit very well with some of our benefit systems, and about the disability living allowance and forms. In fact, the form is not the only problem with DLA. The care components and the way in which care and mobility are used as a proxy for disability do not necessarily work tremendously well for people with autistic spectrum disorder. Indeed, it is not just disabilities such as those that do not quite fit with DLA. At the moment, however, we have no plans to change the way in which DLA is assessed, and it would be wrong of me to say that we do, so such problems are not easily solved.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the disability handbook, and I can confirm that after consultation with the disability organisations that deal with autism, including the National Autistic Society, we are about to change the handbock's wording. I hope that that will assist my departmental officials in assessing benefit claims from people on the autistic spectrum.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made his usual thoughtful contribution, but unfortunately I do not have time to say much about it; and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak told the House about his own experience, particularly that relating to deafness.
We have had an excellent debate, which is worthy of re-reading some time tomorrow—perhaps next week is more likely—and I congratulate all who have taken part in it. There is no doubt about the fact that the Government are committed to improving, strengthening and deepening the rights of disabled people. It is only right that we do so, because 10 million of our fellow citizens rely on our doing so in order to take a proper part in life.
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Lewes-Uckfield Rail Link
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Cooker.]
6 pm
Norman Baker: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise yet again in the House the issue of the missing rail link between Lewes and Uckfield. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place and I am sorry that the Minister of State, Department for Transport is not here, but I know that he wanted to get back to his constituency to vote in the European elections. I wish that all members of the public took as much interest in the voting as he clearly does.
This debate has run for some considerable time. The Minister will know that, ironically, the Lewes-Uckfield line survived the Beeching cuts and was closed only to facilitate a road scheme in 1969. It was closed, I want to put on record, against the wishes of British Rail, which had been busy shutting railway lines up and down the country throughout that decade. Almost immediately after it closed, there was a vociferous campaign to reopen it, which has been going ever since. That is witnessed by the fact that the track bed between Lewes and Uckfield has significantly been protected in the structure plan and the local plans of the Lewes and Wealden district councils, and it is evinced by the fact that the campaign to re-open the line is not solely the responsibility of a small number of train enthusiasts, but is supported widely throughout the community.
The campaign is, for example, supported by Liberal Democrat-controlled Lewes district council and Conservative-controlled Wealden district council and East Sussex county council. Members of this House of all three parties support it—for example, myself as a Lib Dem, the Conservative hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), whom I see in his place tonight, and the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), among others. Indeed, it is difficult to find anyone at an elected level anywhere in East Sussex who opposes the re-opening of the line. Town councils, district councils and the county council, which has made it a priority in its transport works, support it. I know that the Government want to give due weight to local communities, so I ask the Minister to reflect on the strong feeling expressed in all quarters in favour of re-opening the line.
The line has come close to being re-opened on a couple of occasions since its demise There was a time in the 1980s when Chris Green, then working for the nationalised British Rail, pledged money to re-opening. Sadly, on that occasion, the county council was not interested, so the proposal fell. Even the much maligned Connex company, coming towards the end of its franchise, recognised the value of the line as a diversionary route to London and indicated as part of its proposals for franchise renewal that it would endorse its re-opening. For reasons that we all understand, Connex then lost its franchise.
It is deeply frustrating for Members who consistently supported the re-opening to encounter a situation that is like one of those Christmas cracker games in which a plastic container has four or five aluminium balls that have to be lined up and placed into all the holes at the same time. As soon as we get all the balls in bar one, one
490
pops out—a different one every time. All the balls are now in place at local level, with everyone supporting the proposal locally, but we now face something that the Minister will understand because of what he has inherited with Railtrack—a rail industry that is incapable of delivering such schemes. That is the problem that I want the Minister to try to help to overcome, or at least to move along in that direction.
There is no doubt that the campaign to re-open is strong, because it makes so much sense. I stress to the Minister that it is not based on sentimentality or some vision of steam trains winding their way between Lewes and Uckfield. It is based on solid, common-sense arguments that the Government support as part of their policy.
There is a very good environmental case for reopening the line. The A26 between Lewes and Uckfield is becoming more and more heavily trafficked. More people want to travel from Uckfield and Crowborough, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wealden, to work in Lewes and on the south coast, where there is a high level of employment for white-collar workers. Also, people want to go to Brighton and Hove. The Minister's colleagues in that area are keen to stress the importance of regeneration, and reinstating the link between Lewes and Uckfield would contribute to that.
The link is also important in terms of social inclusion, which is another matter that is high on the Government's agenda. Many people in the so-called rich south-east lack access to private transport, and the bus and rail networks are lifelines for them. The short gap—of only seven miles—between Lewes and Uckfield is like a key tooth missing from a mouth. Its absence stands out. It makes no sense, economically or otherwise, for the line from London Victoria to wind all the way down through Oxted to Uckfield, and stop just seven miles short of the Lewes junction. At Lewes, there are a great many more interchanges, and extending the line that far would make a great deal of sense in rail terms.
The proposal makes sense in other ways, too. The Minister will know from his Labour colleagues in Brighton and Hove that there is a severe problem with the train path capacity between Brighton and London. No more train paths are available because of the bottleneck at Haywards Heath and Balcombe. There is no way to get around the problem. It is inconceivable that a new viaduct and tunnel could be built at Balcombe, because of the cost involved. The alternative would be to improve the Arundel line, but that is a long diversion—the distance between Brighton and London is 80 miles.
From the strategic point of view, the simplest and cheapest way to provide extra capacity between the south coast and London would be to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield line and use that link as an alternative route. For my constituents, that would provide a daily, direct service from the major port of Newhaven and the major town of Seaford to London, without the need to change at Lewes. There are therefore a great many reasons why this proposal makes sense.

491
The Minister will understand my concern that the Government office for the south-east has suggested that the proposal should not be brought forward as a priority, nor implemented as soon as possible. I think that both things should happen. In addition, GOSE has suggested that it should be deleted, on affordability grounds, from the draft regional transport strategy. No doubt GOSE officials will have told the Minister that they have been bombarded with objections to an idea that is ill-timed and ludicrous. I hope that further thought will be given to the matter.
I wrote to GOSE, and I am sure that other hon. Members have done the same. Unusually, the letter was passed by an official for reply by a Minister. Things are usually done the other way around. The Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to me on 13 May, and his comments concerned me. I was grateful that he should have written to me, and a ministerial reply to a letter to an official is always helpful, but he said that the benefits accruing from re-opening the Lewes-Uckfield line would be
"largely confined to the improvement of travel opportunities between the specific urban centres involved."
That is not true, for the reasons that I have given. Everyone who has looked at the matter in depth—including consultants used by the county council, and others—recognise the strategic value of the route.
The Minister added that the link
"would not achieve the objective of providing and alternative and competitive main railway corridor to London because of the topography of the route."
It is unclear why the Minister made that statement, which is not true either. The proposal involves the most easily adaptable alternative route. If, by the use of the word "topography", the Minister means that part of the line adjacent to Lewes had been built on, everyone knows that that is the case. It has been factored in for decades, ever since the line closed. There is an alternative: the existing Hamsey loop could be linked up very quickly, by means of a short stretch of new rail, to the existing Lewes-London line. It is not true, therefore, that the alteration could not be made, which is what I think the Minister intended that sentence to mean. I think that he has been badly briefed.
Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and congratulate him on securing this debate. Will he join me in congratulating the people involved in the Wealden line campaign for their work in keeping this matter under consideration? Does he understand why so many of my constituents are frustrated? They have to travel from Uckfield and Crowborough to Haywards Heath or Tonbridge Wells to use a train service, and are not able to use a line that runs through their home towns. Does he agree that the Strategic Rail Authority's priorities are misguided? It wants to build high-speed links between London and Edinburgh, when the real crisis in our rail system is in the overcrowded south-east? It takes an hour and a half to get from Uckfield to London by train—longer than it takes to go from London to Doncaster.
Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has campaigned strongly for the reopening of the line, and he, I and others all say the same thing about that in the same terms. I agree about the SRA's priorities: it has inherited a bad situation from Railtrack, but if I were the Government, I should be looking for 100 or so quick, cheap schemes that would bring real improvements to the railways. They have been diverted on to the west coast main line, and I can understand why, but they are putting all their eggs in one basket. A lot of improvements could come very quickly to the railways.
The hon. Gentleman leads me on to a press release from the Association of Community Rail Partnerships, published on 8 June. It said:
"Kim Howells applauded ACoRP's success in supporting small-scale projects which can bring real benefits to local communities".
The Minister of State was absolutely right there. That is where we can get good, quick hits, and I encourage the Government to do that. Indeed, I think they want to: their instincts on rail are right, but they have trouble with a rail system that will not lend itself to delivering objectives that they want to achieve. The press release added that the Minister of State
"hinted that supporters of community railways 'will be pleasantly surprised' by the outcome of the current Government Rail Review."
I hope that that is true. If so, it will give good heart to those who want schemes such as the Lewes-Uckfield reopening.
We have heard about costs, but the costs given by the SRA are outrageous and way out of line with estimates produced by consultants for the county council and others for a diesel connection—the line from Uckfield north is diesel—betweenUckfield and Lewes. The county's estimate is between £25 million and £40 million, not the £100 million plus that the SRA has offered. By the way, the SRA has never justified that figure. We have asked it time and again for evidence for it, but it has not been able to do so. It is a figure plucked out of the air. Yet the Minister for Housing and Planning is apparently relying on that figure and says that the scheme cannot be ruled in on grounds of affordability. We really must have some reason why £100 million has been suggested because I think that the figure is substantially less, and the county council is rightly working on lower figures.
The hon. Member for Wealden and I have discussed with the county council its innovative identification of how the extra housing that the Government require for the south-east, in so far as it relates to East Sussex, can be placed adjacent to the rail line between Uckfield and Oxted and Crowborough. I pay tribute to the former lead member, Tony Reid, for his work on that. By doing that, the Government could generate planning gain that would lead to a significant funding stream that would help reopen the line. The county council is doing its best to secure external funding, and that funding is needed only for the reopening. All the evidence shows that the line would be operationally profitable; there is no question about that. The question is simply whether the capital costs can be achieved.
I suggest that the Government's own policy should be to want the line reopened. That is consistent with their objectives. I understand why it is difficult because of the

493
mess the railway system is in, but I ask the Minister to help me find a way through that and to recognise the work that the county council is doing in finding private sector funding to help in an innovative way forward. The county council's brief to me says that in-depth studies carried out by Mott MacDonald, the consultants it employed, concluded that while the basic regional train service on the route would make a small annual operating profit, it would not cover the capital cost of reinstatement. The key area of work, therefore, is to investigate how the significant funding gap in the project can be bridged. It may be possible to use enhanced land values as a result of reinstatement of the railway to pay, in part, for the capital costs of construction.
That is an innovative way forward that the Minister ought to support. It is bang in line with the Government's philosophy. The rail industry itself is also supportive, and the SRA, which I have been castigating, has in fact offered staff resources to the county council to review the work carried out by an outside body. I have met SRA representatives, and the SRA is not antipathetic to the scheme. SouthCentral Trains—Southern, as we now must call it—has also indicated that it is in favour in principle and would operate the route gladly if it were reinstated. Most of the balls in my Christmas cracker game are in place, but what we do not have is co-ordination of the rail industry, which I hope the Minister can help to deliver.
The reinstatement of the Lewes-Uckfield line would be good for the environment, good for social mobility and social inclusion and good for the economy. It makes absolute sense. It is overwhelmingly supported by the communities in my patch and that of the hon. Member for Wealden, and elsewhere. It is supported by all the local councils and all the local Members. It is something that the Government, in their wish to get real services back on track, should support.
It is my ambition to be at the reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. It was the ambition of the hon. Gentleman's predecessor and I hope that he will still make it. I intend to continue to raise the matter until such time as I am there, hopefully to cut the ribbon, but at least to be there when the ribbon is cut. It would give me no greater pleasure than to be there when the Minister is there to cut the ribbon. I will be the first to congratulate him.
6.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for further discussion on the Lewes to Uckfield rail link. I must disappoint him instantly by saying that whether there is good news or otherwise for those interested in community rail partnerships in the rail review, we must wait and see. I do not anticipate commenting further on the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister of State at an Association of Community Rail Partnerships function the other day.
The hon. Gentleman and others have been pressing for the reinstatement of the link over a long period. He secured an Adjournment debate as long ago as 29 July 1998 and it was discussed further as part of another
494
Adjournment debate on 31 October 2001. Indeed, as I think he said, he and colleagues from Tonbridge and Malling, Wealden and Brighton, Kemptown along with representatives of East Sussex county council met Richard Bowker, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, on 5 June. So the Government and the SRA are well aware of the aspirations of hon. Members, local authorities and others.
Before responding to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I wish to touch on recent changes in the area and on performance. As he said, on 30 May the South Central train operator rebranded to the name Southern. That is a return to a respected and valued name—nothing new there necessarily—and underscores its commitment to improving services to East Sussex as a key element of its work. Southern is introducing modern and more reliable trains, improved station environments and better service. Over 700 new carriages will enter passenger service in the coming months up to 2005.
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the other improvements as a consequence of the introduction of Electrostars, Turbostars and other similar developments. On the Uckfield to London service, new Turbostars are entering service. They have air suspension, air conditioning, a state-of-the-art public information system and are fully accessible for disabled passengers. They have low emissions, are quiet and have fast acceleration. They are unrecognisable from the old "Thumper" trains that they are replacing. Other improvements include the upgrading of the power supply, which is long overdue, and the train protection and warning system.
Southern has shown an increase in performance in the last year with 80 per cent. of trains arriving within five minutes, compared with 77 per cent. for the previous year.
The Lewes to Uckfield proposals cannot be considered in isolation, but must be viewed in the wider context of the transport network in the region. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the SRA's current focus is to make the most efficient use of the existing network, making sure that capacity is used as effectively as possible. The route utilisation strategies being developed aim to improve capacity and performance, and reduce overcrowding by improvements to operating practices, better deployment of rolling stock and alterations to timetables.
The Brighton main line route utilisation strategy will go out to consultation in the summer and it will include proposals for improved services for Uckfield: a fast, all-day service between Uckfield and London Bridge. It will also consider improvements in services from Lewes to London using the Brighton main line.
The South East England regional assembly's draft regional transport strategy of January 2003 originally included the Lewes to Uckfield scheme as "proposed for investigation." Following an examination in public into the assembly's draft strategy, an independent panel recommended that the proposal be deleted on affordability grounds. However, the panel considered the scheme to be a longer-term possibility that could be revisited in preparing the regional spatial strategy, also referred to as the south-east plan.

495
The Secretary of State's first draft regional transport strategy deleted the scheme, as recommended by the panel. The consultation on the draft regional transport strategy ended on 21 May 2004 and I understand that many representations have been received for the reinstatement of the scheme. The final regional transport strategy will be published in the next few months.
In the longer term, the SRA will produce a series of regional planning assessments—RPAs—to identify possible network enhancements for detailed analysis and appraisal. Work on the southern RPA will begin this winter and the SRA will ensure that the emerging south-east plan is captured in this work. It is within that wider planning framework that proposals for a rail link between Lewes and Uckfield would be reviewed.
I would do nothing other than exhort the county council to carry on doing what it is doing. The current structures of the rail network and the rail system are cumbersome, hence the rail review. There are other substantial and appropriate dimensions to the spatial strategy, the transport strategy and other examinations of such issues on a regional basis, but it would be a sorry state of affairs if what we did after the rail review precluded some attempt at innovation at local level to fill the gaps in the network, above and beyond the regional, national and other strategies.
Any consideration would also need to address a number of complex operational issues, including the impact that services over the line would have on other parts of the network. For example, if trains between Uckfield and Brighton were introduced, there would be implications for capacity at Brighton, a station where competing demands on capacity are already heavy, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us.
Supporters of the Lewes to Uckfield link argue that it could be used as an alternative, diversionary route to London when there are engineering works or disruption on the Brighton main line. Laudable as that objective might be, it would be relevant only if the whole of the route from Hurst Green via Uckfield to Lewes were to be electrified, which would further increase the costs.
Norman Baker: I disagree with the Minister's last point. We now have new services direct from Uckfield to London that run with diesel engines. Southern has made a virtue of the fact that it can now run more services into Victoria from Uckfield, so there is nothing to stop such services continuing to Lewes.
Mr. McNulty: I do not dispute that, but electrification would be necessary to optimise the use of the route as a diversionary line if there were problems on the Brighton main line. I know that the SRA tends to opt for the all-singing, all-dancing, bells and whistles version and that is why the county council should continue to consider the proposal, but a diesel-only service would weaken the case for the route to play a diversionary role. The strategic benefits advanced by the line's proponents seem to ignore the single-track nature of large sections of the line and the need for that to be addressed if the line were to play a full diversionary role in all circumstances.
I am also aware of the historic issues of flooding along the River Ouse and the impact that that had on the line prior to its closure in the 1970s. The costs and potential
496
environmental impacts of satisfying track doubling, electrification and drainage should not be underestimated. I remind the House of the duty to avoid unnecessary blight and concern about how those potential issues would be delivered. I do not preclude examining the proposal further, but I offer those issues for consideration. Even if all those problems were solved, the line would be limited by the proposal by the Wealden line group that trains should run into Lewes via the Hamsey loop—that is, heading east at Lewes. The station layout there would constrain through running to Brighton and involve a shunt move to gain the Brighton line.
Another argument, which was put forward eloquently by the hon. Gentleman, is the potential to develop the port of Newhaven, so that the Lewes to Uckfield line would be part of a route to and from the port. That proposal can be considered as part of the SRA's regional study, which will look at all ports along the south coast.
The SRA's view is that the new rolling stock and other improvements that it will propose in the route utilisation strategy will provide a much enhanced service from both Lewes and Uckfield without the significant costs of providing infrastructure. For that reason, the SRA has not included the Lewes to Uckfield line in its strategic plan nor has it been part of the SRA's current thinking.
The SRA has said that it needs to be convinced of the operational viability, and the overall justification for the scheme and would expect the scheme's proponents to engage with the key rail industry players—the SRA, the train operating companies and Network Rail—to make the case for further work to develop a feasibility study. A lot of work needs to be done to establish the costs, potential usage and value for money of reinstating the link.
As the hon. Gentleman said, such studies, or tentative studies, have been done in the past and there has been a body of support for restoring the line since 1969. As ever—I am sure that if he intervened he would make the same point—if nothing has been done, studies need to be looked at again in the context of the circumstances that prevail five or 10 years after the last study. The matter perhaps needs to be looked at in more detail.
Given the issues relating to the likely capital costs of the scheme and the likely ongoing subsidy requirement—although I take the point about what the county council is trying to do—the SRA has concluded that further investigation of the reopening of this route is not a priority for it at the present time. However, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about finding other innovative ways to fill some of the smaller gaps.
Another scheme that has had its backers over the years is the restoration of the Bridge (Birchden Junction) to Tunbridge Wells (Grove Junction) link. It would provide another link in the network, but the SRA and others suggest that it would be of limited value on its own. I shall not rehearse the limited local value that the SRA currently puts on the scheme in terms of its being local rather than strategic. That is its view.
To sum up, the SRA is continuing to develop its plan to improve the existing network and services through its route development strategies and the consultation on the Brighton main line RUS will begin soon. In the longer term, there will be an opportunity for input into

497
the SRA's regional planning assessment, which will begin this winter, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes and perhaps the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) will make a full contribution to that process and the various transport strategies and other documents that are being published.
I recognise that I have not offered the hon. Gentleman much succour, but I exhort him, the hon. Member for Wealden and others to keep working with the county council—certainly on the ongoing subsidy and revenue cost side and perhaps also on the capital side. I am keenly aware that over the past 30 or 40 years our mindset and vision on rail has been on the multi-billion all-singing, all-dancing high-speed links that are going to change the world rather than more local innovative ways in which gaps in our network can be filled. Such schemes, whether for reasons of social exclusion, economic reasons or simply reasons of accessibility or interconnectivity, can solve problems far more readily than some of the big schemes.
498
While I exhort all south coast colleagues to keep on the case, I can offer no substantive sunny uplands in the next weeks and months, but I will watch the "Fill the gap" or "Close the link" campaign or whatever else it is called with real interest. I exhort the hon. Gentleman to carry on with colleagues, the SRA, the TOCs and the county council. I congratulate him again on the way in which he presented the case for what is clearly a significant local issue.
I congratulate the Lewes to Uckfield link on surviving Beeching, but clearly, given the substantial support for it now, perhaps this is one thing from the 1960s that will return. There is not much that I would say should return from the 1960s, having lived through it as a child rather than a teenager, but perhaps the Lewes to Uckfield link will. If it does, I will happily be there to help cut the ribbon, as the hon. Gentleman offered, but until then he should keep up the pressure to secure the link.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Six o'clock.

TREASURY

  Citizen Information Project
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the Citizen Information Project will cover the whole of the UK; [177795]

  (2) whether an independent statutory body will be established to administer the Citizen Information Project; [177796]

  (3) what security measures are planned for the Citizen Information Project; [177797]

  (4) how identity will be verified of individuals wishing to update information held on the Citizen Information Project; [177798]

  (5) whether audit trails will he used on the Citizen Information Project as a means of checking security; and who will be responsible for checking this; [177799]

  (6) what assessments have been made of the (a) size, (b) cost of setting up and (c) the time necessary to set up the Citizen Information Project; [177840]

  (7) what adjustments have hem made to the Citizen Information Project since the Cabinet agreement to establish a national identity database; [177841]

  (8) what the purpose is of the Citizen Information Project. [177842]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the General Registrar for England and Wales, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 10 June 2004:

  The Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on the Citizen Information Project (CIP). I have been asked to reply in his absence. (177799, 177840, 177841, 177842, 177795, 177796, 177797 and 177798)

  The objective of CIP is to create, for the public sector, the prime source of address and other core contact information relating to people usually resident in the UK. The feasibility study, conducted in 2003, indicated that the creation of a UK-wide population register could lead to cost and efficiency savings for the public sector.

  With regard to the specific points you raise in relation to security, identity verification, governance and logistics of its potential setting up, all of these points are being considered during the project definition stage, which is currently running. It is scheduled to run until June 2005 at which point the Office for National Statistics will report back to Ministers with proposals for how CIP could be taken forward. Therefore, no decisions have been taken yet on the form in which it would develop but the latest thinking can be found in the evidence supplied by the Registrar General to the Home Affairs Committee on 27 April 2004.
  486W
  The CIP project team continues to work closely with all relevant government departments and to ensure that the project takes account of developments elsewhere.

  Historic Houses (Pre-owned Assets Tax)
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has commissioned on the effect upon historic houses of the tax on pre-owned assets. [176462]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Owners of historic houses will not be affected unless they have engaged in tax avoidance of the sort targeted by the Government's proposals. If they have, they will have the option—under the proposals set out in the Finance Bill—to bring their property back within the scope of inheritance tax. And that in turn opens the way to claims in due course to the heritage exemption from inheritance tax, if the property is of suitable quality and the necessary commitment is made to provide public access.

  Child Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he intends not to extend tax credits for employing nannies providing child care to parents who use grandparents and other family members to look after their children. [178356]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government announced, on the 17 May, their proposals for consultation on the new Childcare Approval Scheme which will extend the types of good quality child care for which families can get financial support, such as the child care element of the working tax credit. The results of the consultation and the details of the scheme will be made known in due course.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future role of HM Customs and Excise at UK sea and airports after its investigation and intelligence work is brought under the control of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. [177155]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise's expertise in working at the borders to protect national security, collect revenue, facilitate trade and prevent smuggling will continue to play a vital role in the new integrated revenue department, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

  Revenue from customs and excise duties, which raise almost £17 billion each year, are heavily dependent upon the protection afforded at the border. Equally important is the economic imperative to ensure that international trade is facilitated in a way that ensures the UK remains a good place to do business.

  The nature of indirect taxes makes them more vulnerable to attack by fraudsters than direct taxes. Customs has developed strategies for countering such attacks which depend heavily upon their expertise in frontiers work, investigation, and disruption.

  For these reasons HMRC will maintain its frontier role while working with the other agencies that undertake controls at UK borders. Following the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency,

  487W
  HMRC will continue to deliver Customs' full range of import and export controls at the UK's frontiers, retaining intelligence resources to support the enforcement of prohibitions and restrictions.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) estimated and (b) outturn set-up costs of the Financial Services Authority were, expressed in (i) capital expenditure and (ii) revenue expenditure terms;.[175267]

  (2) how set-up costs of the Financial Services Authority were accounted for in the public finances;. [175268]

  (3) what the overall outturn revenue expenditure of the Financial Services Authority was in each year since its establishment;. [175269]

  (4) if he will list those bodies whose responsibilities were taken on by the Financial Services Authority as successor; and what the outturn revenue expenditure for each of those bodies was in the final three years of their operation. [175270]

  Ruth Kelly
  For the purposes of this response, 1 December 2001 ("N2") has been taken as the date the Financial Services Authority (FSA) was established, when the FSA was granted its full powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The FSA's financial year ends on 31 March.

  £

  Name of body and/or relevant responsibility of body

  Outturn expenditure for 1999–2000

  Outturn expenditure for 2000–01

  Outturn expenditure for April 2001–02

  Total

  Investment Management Regulatory Organisation (IMRO)

  18.6

  16.6

  11.7

  46.9

  Personal Investment Authority (PIA)

  44.0

  39.9

  27.1

  111.0

  Securities and Futures Authority (SFA)

  32.8

  33.0

  21.2

  87.0

  Securities and Investments Boards (SIB) (Supervision of banks)1

  50.2

  50.8

  35.3

  136.3

  Securities and Investments Board (SIB) (other regulatory responsibilities)

  15.3

  15.6

  13.7

  44.6

  HM Treasury Insurance Directors2

  12.8

  5.6

  11.4

  39.8

  Registry of Friendly Societies (RFS) (including the Building Societies Commission (BSC) and Friendly Societies Commission (FSC))

  7.8

  8.2

  38.4

  16

  1Supervision of banks transferred from the Bank of England to the Securities and Investments Board (SIB) on 1 June 1998.

  2Figures for FSA service charge to HM Treasury.

  3Budget forecast for full financial year 2001–02. The Registry of Friendly Societies (RFS) was wound up in December 2001.

  HIPC Process
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to assist those countries which are predicted to exit the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries process with unsustainable debt. [177419]

  John Healey
  The UK fully supports the cancellation of debt of the world's poorest countries through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. The UK was instrumental in securing international agreement to enhance the original Initiative in 1999, to ensure that as much debt relief as possible is granted to as many countries as possible. The UK continues to be a champion of the HIPC Initiative. We have provided commitments of £2.3 billion of debt relief to eligible countries and have pledged a total of US$474 million through multilateral institutions to support the Initiative further. The UK goes even further than is
  488W
  Estimated set-up running costs of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) were £14 million (FSA's annual reports for financial years 1999–00 and 2000–01). Outturn set-up running costs, relating to the new organisational structure of the FSA, were £13.2 million. A further £1.8 million was incurred in relation to the transfer of the UK Listing Authority function from the London Stock Exchange, which was not included in the original estimate. These costs were recovered from FSA fee-payers during the three years including and following N2 and so were not accounted for in the public finances.

  In 1998–99, the FSA also incurred capital expenditure of approximately £37 million, to prepare the FSA's new premises in Canary Wharf, London. Annual depreciation is also being included in the amount charged to FSA fee-payers and is not accounted for in the public finances.

  The overall outturn expenditure of the FSA since it was established (N2) was £69.1 million in the remainder of 2001—02, and £203.1 million in 2002–03. In addition, a £2 million deficit reduction contribution was made in 2002–03 to finance the FSA's pension scheme shortfall. The responsibilities of the bodies the FSA took on as successor, and the outturn expenditure of these bodies for the three financial years of their operation up to and including N2, shown in the table as follows. In addition, the FSA took responsibility for the UK Listing Authority function from the London Stock Exchange on 1 May 2000. Between 1 May 2000 and N2, FSA outturn expenditure in relation to this function was £17.7 million.

  required under the Initiative, and is committed to providing 100 per cent. debt relief to eligible HIPC countries.

  The HIPC Initiative is delivering real benefits to participating countries. it is providing over $70 billion of debt relief to the 27 counties which have reached Decision Point. It is helping increase annual social expenditure in countries receiving debt relief. Total social spending has increased by around $4 billion since 1999—equivalent to 2.7 per cent. of GDP. On average, health and education spending account for 65 per cent. of the use of HIPC debt relief.

  However, there are countries forecast to exit the Initiative with debt-to-export ratios above the HIPC target of 150 per cent. because of factors beyond their control. The UK continues to push for additional relief to be granted to these countries at Completion Point

  489W
  ("topping up" relief). We successfully campaigned for Niger and Ethiopia to receive such additional relief, resulting in over $800 million in additional relief for two of the world's poorest countries.

  The UK also continues to lobby for a change in the topping up methodology to maximise the quantum of topping up relief. At present, the additional bilateral assistance (ABA) granted by some countries—including the G7—is included when calculating the amount of additional relief to be provided at Completion Point. We are pressing for this ABA to be excluded from this calculation, which could increase the quantum of debt relief delivered to HIPCs by around $1 billion.

  We are also working closely with the IMF and World Bank as they finalise a new debt sustainability framework, which will govern all lending decisions for low-income countries, including those that have participated in HIPC. When operational, this framework will ensure that sufficient official finance is provided in the right blend of grants and highly concessional lending to aid future development without threatening long-term debt sustainability prospects.

  However, all low-income countries will need additional aid to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This is why the UK has proposed the International Finance Facility (IFF), which could provide the much-needed substantial increase in aid—in the form of grants, concessional loans, or further debt—needed to attain the MDGs without threatening the long-term debt sustainability of the world's poorest countries.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Stoke-on-Trent, North qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [177635]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All income tax payers benefit from the 10p starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates that there are about 3,000 state retirement pension age taxpayers in the Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency in 2000–01 and 2001–02. Estimates should be treated with caution because of sampling variation. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale qualified for the 10 pence rate of income tax in each year since its introduction; and what percent age were(a) women and (b) of Asian origin. [178544]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All income tax payers benefit from the 10 pence starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI) estimates that there are around 5,000 state retirement pension age tax payers in the Rochdale constituency in 2001–02. The sample size of pensioners living in the Rochdale constituency is relatively small compared to other constituencies so a reliable estimate cannot be given for 2000–01. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.
  490W
  The sample size of women pensioners living in the Rochdale consistuency is too small to provide a reliable estimate in any year. Information on ethnic origin is not available on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Estimates should be treated with caution because of sampling variation.

  Large Business Office
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) full and (b) part-time staff have been employed by the Large Business Office in each year since 1997. [174938]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures for 1999—2000 onwards are:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1999–2000

  636

  44

  680

  2000–01

  675

  44

  719

  2001–02

  707

  79

  786

  2002–03

  742

  92

  834

  2003—04

  763

  91

  854

  It may be possible to ascertain figures for earlier years, but these are not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total gross national insurance contributions by(a) employers, (b) employees and (c) the self-employed as a proportion of GDP for 2007–08. [177883]

  John Healey
  Estimates are given in the table.

  Group

  Contribution classes

  Gross NICs as a proportion of money GDP in 2007–08 (UK) (per cent.)

  (a) employers

  1 (secondary), 1A, 1B

  4.5

  (b) employees

  1 (primary), 3

  3.0

  (c) self-employed

  2,4

  0.3

  Total

  All

  7.7

  Gross National Insurance contributions are estimated by Government Actuary's Department. Estimates of money GDP in 2007—08 are published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2004.

  Population (UK)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total projected population of the UK is for each of the next 10 years. [177909]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government Actuary's latest national population projections, based on the estimated population at the middle of 2002, are available from the GAD website at: http://www.gad.gov.uk/Population/index.asp?v = Principal&y = 2002&subYear = Continue

  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been paid to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in each of the last five years. [177599]
  491W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The Treasury does not keep central records of payments by Government to particular organisations. However, the Treasury itself has paid the following sums to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in the following of the last five years:

  £

  1999–2000

  210

  2000–01

  160

  2003–04

  890

  Sefton
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on population levels in Sefton over the last 10 years. [177838]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mrs. Curtis-Thomas, dated 10 June 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning the population levels in Sefton over the last 10 years. I am replying in his absence. (177838)

  The total population for Sefton has decreased steadily from 292,400 in mid-1992 to 281, 700 in mid-2002. This represents a decrease of 3.4 per cent. Changes in population can be attributed to a combination of 'natural change' and 'migration and other changes'. In most years it is 'natural change' that is the most important factor for Sefton, with an excess of deaths over births. Over the 10 years as a whole, natural change accounted for 71 per cent. of the decrease. Figures for each year can be found in the attached table.

  Mid-1992 to mid-2000 population estimates are interim revised population estimates. They are subject to revision.

  Total population and population change for Sefton (1992 to 2002)

  Population at start

  Natural change

  Migration and other changes1

  Population at end

  1991–92

  292,900

  -100

  -400

  292,400

  1992–93

  292,400

  -500

  -300

  291,600

  1993–94

  291,600

  -700

  -1,200

  289,700

  1994–95

  289,700

  -600

  -900

  288,300

  1995–96

  288,300

  -700

  -800

  286,700

  1996–97

  286,700

  -700

  -0

  285,900

  1997–98

  285,900

  -700

  -500

  284,700

  1998–99

  284,700

  -900

  -0

  283,800

  1999–2000

  283,800

  -900

  300

  283,200

  2000–01

  283,200

  -900

  600

  282,900

  2001–02

  282,900

  -1000

  -200

  281,700

  1"Migration and other changes" encompasses net migration, Armed Forces, Foreign Armed Forces Dependents, School Boarders, Prisoners, Asylum Seekers and Visitor Switches, an adjustment to reconcile differences between Censuses and an adjustment for any possible boundary changes.

  Note:

  Figures may not add exactly due to rounding.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  492W

  Taxation (Wales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised through taxes in Wales in each of the last 10 years. [177351]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following table from the ONS 2002 publication of household income shows estimates of income taxes, council taxes and vehicle taxes paid by households in Wales and the United Kingdom for the period 1995 to 1999. These figures were produced by ONS for the estimation of sub-national gross disposable household income and were published in March 2002.

  Estimate of taxes paid by households1

  £million

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Wales

  3.062

  3,036

  3,068

  3,384

  3,743

  United Kingdom

  86,527

  87,932

  89,734

  106,069

  113,455

  1Taxes paid by households and non-profit institutions serving households

  No corresponding information is available on taxes paid by organisations although an estimate of the VAT paid was given in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 613W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total costs of grants to Arm's Length Management Organisations, and the amount paid to each, has been since 1999. [176757]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Revenue Account Subsidy paid to local authorities which have set up qualifying Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) to manage and improve their housing stock includes an allowance to support borrowing by the local authorities for capital expenditure by their ALMOs. This allowance was first paid in 2002–03. The sums paid to each qualifying local authority in 2002–03 and 2003–04 are tabled as follows:

  ALMO allowance (£)

  Local authority

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Round 1 ALMOs

  Ashfield

  1,012,603

  2,400,000

  Derby

  1,312,164

  3,110,000

  Hounslow

  1,179,452

  3,500.000

  Kirklees

  1,917,808

  6,250,000

  Rochdale

  835,397

  2,420,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,353,288

  4,450,000

  Westminster

  745,260

  2,030,000

  Wigan

  1,788,932

  5,830,000

  Round 2 ALMOs

  Barnsley

  —

  1,856,885

  Blyth Valley

  —

  1,329,235

  Bolton

  —

  2,619,654

  Brent

  —

  2,342,213

  Carrick

  —

  109,098

  Cheltenham

  —

  422,131

  Hillingdon

  —

  86,175

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  1,580,334

  Leeds—North East

  —

  447,072

  493W

  ALMO allowance (£)

  Local authority

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Leeds—West

  —

  778,210

  Oldham

  —

  3,033,211

  Total

  10,114,904

  44,594,218

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the evidence he has collated on the benefits that arise from(a) separating housing management from housing strategy and (b) the financial effect of the separation. [177007]

  Keith Hill
  The Audit Commission's Best Value Inspection Reports indicate that stock owning local authorities primarily see their housing role as that of a landlord. This reduces their focus on strategic housing functions. In explaining why they had published best practice on how local authorities that had transferred their stock deliver their strategic housing using role, the Audit Commission said that:"Having set up a housing association to run its rented homes, a council is able to concentrate on area-based regeneration, including private sector housing. In other areas, councils have used stock transfer as an opportunity o work more effectively with planning services to provide more affordable housing and more mixed-tenure developments".

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have information of the financial effects of the separation of strategic and landlord services.

  LSVT

  Authority

  Date of transfer

  Private investment (£ million)

  Manchester CC (Colshaw Farm)

  14 February 2000

  30.00

  North Devon DC

  21 February 2000

  70.00

  LB Hackney*Stamford Hill

  6 March 2000

  35.00

  LB Hackney*Pembury Estate

  6 March 2000

  33.90

  Burnley BC

  8 March 2000

  45.00

  Manchester CC Sale Estate

  20 March 2000

  23.00

  Weymouth and Portland C

  20 March 2000

  55.00

  Huntingdon DC

  20 March 2000

  95.00

  Elmbridge BC

  27 March 2000

  93.00

  Test Valley BC

  27 March 2000

  111.00

  Wyre Forest DC

  27 March 2000

  80.00

  Manchester CC Whitefield Estate

  27 March 2000

  20.00

  LB Tower Hamlets*THCH

  27 March 2000

  45.00

  Tameside

  27 March 2000

  213.00

  MBC

  LB Richmond

  17 July 2000

  173.00

  Coventry CC

  22 September 2000

  240.00

  Fylde BC

  2 October 2000

  30.00

  Chester CC

  27 November 2000

  90.00

  Horsham DC

  11 December 2000

  100.00

  LB Tower Hamlets*Poplar I

  12 February 2001

  33.00

  East Northamptonshire DC

  19 February 2001

  60.00

  Torbay BC

  19 February 2001

  50.00

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  23 February 2001

  50.00

  Calderdale MBC

  6 March 2001

  112.00

  Chichester DC

  13 March 2001

  120.00

  Mendip DC

  19 March 2001

  70.00

  West Wiltshire DC

  26 March 2001

  100.00

  West Oxfordshire DC

  26 March 2001

  75.00

  East Staffordshire BC

  26 March 2001

  62.00

  Manchester CC Handforth Estate

  26 March 2001

  17.00

  Sunderland CC

  26 March 2001

  425.00

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  28 March 2001

  85.00

  Shrewsbury and Atcham BC

  1 October 2001

  82.00

  Mid–Bedfordshire DC

  5 November 2001

  50.00

  494W
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much investment to fund stock improvements has been secured via transfer, private finance initiative and Arm's Length Management Organisations since the Housing Green Paper was published in 2000, broken down by local authority; and how much of the backlog of repairs and improvement remains to be funded. [176756]

  Keith Hill
  The following tables show the level of additional investment secured by ALMO PFI and LSVT since 2000.

  These figures do not include mainstream housing funding paid to stock owning local authorities including those that have established ALMOs or PFI contracts.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not in a position to update or estimate the reduction since 2001 of the repairs and improvement backlog until we have sufficient data from the English House Condition Survey, the next report of which will be published by the end of this year.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister needs this independent assessment, as we cannot determine the remaining backlog by simply deducting the sums spent from the previous backlog estimate. This is because the expenditure is used both to reduce the backlog and to stop the backlog increasing.
  495W

  LSVT

  Authority

  Date of transfer

  Private investment (£ million)

  Derbyshire Dales

  4 March 2002

  59.00

  Chelmsford BC

  11 March 2002

  145.00

  East Hertfordshire DC

  18 March 2002

  50.00

  DC

  57.00

  Erewash BC

  25 March 2002

  99.00

  Reigate and Banstead BC

  25 March 2002

  105.50

  St. Edmundsbury

  24 Jun(2002

  91.00

  Vale Royal BC

  1 July 2002

  90.00

  St. Helens MBC

  1 July 2002

  129.00

  Redcar and Cleveland BC

  15 July 2002

  180.00

  Knowsley MBC

  15 July 2002

  180.00

  LB Waltham Forest

  30 September 2002

  175.00

  LB Hackney cc sheltered stock

  14 October 2002

  25.00

  LB Harrow

  14 October 2002

  55.00

  Manchester cc Langley Estate

  18 November 2002

  28.00

  County of Herefordshire C

  25 November 2002

  63.00

  Carlisle CC

  9 December 2002

  63.50

  Rushcliffe BC

  20 January 2003

  55.00

  Liverpool CC Eastern Fringe (south)

  23 January 2003

  25.50

  Liverpool CC Eastern Fringe (central)

  30 January 2003

  17.50

  City of Bradford

  24 February 2003

  245.10

  Amber Valley BC

  24 February 2003

  94.00

  Crewe and Nantwich BC

  10 March 2003

  54.00

  Liverpool CC Eastern fringe (north)

  10 March 2003

  64.50

  Oldham MBC Limeside (Hollins/The Avenues)

  17 March 2003

  12.00

  Walsall MBC (majority of stock)

  27 March 2003

  213.00

  Walsall MBC (tenant managed stock)

  27 March 2003

  7.20

  Craven DC

  31 March 2003

  15.00

  Forest of Dean DC

  31 March 2003

  50.00

  North Hertfordshire DC

  31 March 2003

  182.00

  Manchester CC (East Manchester)

  8 September 2003

  25.00

  Scarborough BC

  15 December 2003

  43.00

  Maidstone BC

  2 February 2004

  50.00

  Teignbridge

  4 February 2004

  45.00

  Oldham MBC Fitton Hill

  15 March 2004

  8.50

  Cherwell

  29 March 2004

  50.00

  Bromsgrove

  29 March 2004

  49.00

  Hartlepool

  29 March 2004

  65.00

  Liverpool (Kensington)

  29 March 2(104

  19.00

  Worcester

  31 March 2004

  55.00

  South Norfolk

  17 May 2004

  55.00

  Total

  5,118.30

  ALMO allowance (£)

  Local authority

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Round 1 ALMOs

  Ashfield

  1,012,603

  2,400,000

  Derby

  1,312,164

  3,110,000

  Hounslow

  1,179,452

  3,500,000

  Kirklees

  1,917,808

  6,250,000

  Rochdale

  835,397

  2,420,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,353,288

  4,450,000

  Westminster

  745,260

  2,030,000

  Wigan

  1,788,932

  5,830,000

  Round 2 ALMOs

  Barnsley

  —

  1,856,885

  Blyth Valley

  —

  1,329,235

  Bolton

  —

  2,619,654

  Brent

  —

  2,342,213

  Carrick

  —

  109,098

  Cheltenham

  —

  422,131

  Hillingdon

  —

  86,175

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  1,580,334

  Leeds—North East

  —

  447,072

  Leeds—West

  —

  778,210

  Oldham

  —

  3,033,211

  Total

  10,144,904

  44,594,218

  496W

  PFI

  Authority

  PFI credits (£ million)

  Manchester

  36.64

  Islington

  74.69

  Reading

  49.65

  Total

  160.98

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how much was paid per home to each local authority by the organisation taking over responsibility for housing where a large-scale voluntary transfer has taken place since 2001; and how many homes were involved in each case; [176707]

  (2) what (a) the total amount paid to the local authority and (b) the average payment per house by the registered social landlords taking over the stock in each large-scale transfer in the last four years is. [177006]

  Keith Hill
  To reflect the intended continued use of the properties for social housing and the need for capital
  497W
  investment, the price paid to each local authority per council house accords with a tenanted (TMV) rather than an open market value. The following table shows the price paid per dwelling, the gross

  Local Authority

  Date of Transfer

  Number of dwellings

  Price per dwelling

  Gross transfer price (£ million)

  LB Richmond

  17 July 2000

  7,139

  8,335

  59.50

  Coventry CC

  22 September 2000

  20,125

  2,460

  49.50

  Fylde BC

  2 October 2000

  1,905

  6,300

  12.00

  Chester CC

  27 November 2000

  7,096

  6,341

  45.00

  Horsham DC

  11 December 2000

  4,650

  14,462

  67.25

  LB Tower Hamlets Poplar 1

  12 February 2001

  1,859

  0

  Grant 35.22

  East Northamptonshire DC

  19 February 2001

  3,495

  6,150

  21.49

  Torbay BC

  19 February 2001

  2,947

  6,480

  19.10

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  23 February 2001

  3,132

  6,290

  19.67

  Calderdale MBC

  6 March 2001

  12,759

  2,825

  36.00

  Chichester DC

  13 March 2001

  5,321

  14,752

  78.50

  Mendip DC

  19 March 2001

  4,326

  8,091

  35.00

  West Wiltshire DC

  26 March 2001

  3,284

  6,423

  21.00

  West Oxfordshire DC

  26 March 2001

  3,643

  13,972

  50.90

  East Staffordshire BC

  26 March 2001

  5,637

  3,643

  24.50

  Manchester CC Handforth Estate

  26 March 2001

  659

  535

  0.37

  Sunderland CC

  26 March 2001

  36,356

  6,045

  219.80

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  28 March 2001

  9,886

  4,195

  35.40

  Shrewsbury and Atcham BC

  1 October 2001

  5,500

  11,527

  63.40

  Mid-Bedfordshire DC

  5 November 2001

  3,084

  10,159

  31.33

  Derbyshire Dales

  4 March 2002

  3,287

  7,616

  24.80

  Chelmsford BC

  11 March 2002

  6,902

  11,530

  79.60

  East Hertfordshire

  18 March 2002

  2,687

  11,937

  32.10

  East Hertfordshire

  (two transfers to separate RSLs)

  3,237

  13,725

  44.40

  Erewash BC

  25 March 2002

  5,847

  6,460

  38.10

  Reigate and Banstead BC

  25 March 2002

  4,846

  13,212

  64.00

  St. Edmundsbury

  24 June 2002

  5,947

  7,489

  45.10

  Vale Royal BC

  1 July 2002

  6,813

  7,462

  51.07

  St. Helens MBC

  1 July 2002

  14,632

  1,974

  28.90

  Redcar and Cleveland BC

  15 July 2002

  11,625

  5,180

  60.20

  Knowsley MBC

  15 July 2002

  17,090

  1,794

  30.66

  LB Waltham Forest

  30 September 2002

  2,242

  832

  1.87

  LB Hackney CC sheltered stock

  14 October 2002

  954

  0

  0.00

  LB Harrow

  14 October 2002

  518

  0

  0.00

  Manchester CC Langley Estate

  18 November 2002

  3,360

  0

  0.00

  County of Herefordshire C

  25 November 2002

  5,696

  6,945

  39.56

  Carlisle CC

  9 December 2002

  7,198

  1,803

  12.98

  Rushcliffe BC

  20 January 2003

  3,445

  12,934

  44.56

  Liverpool CC eastern fringe (south)

  23 January 2003

  2,833

  1,800

  5.10

  Liverpool CC eastern fringe (central)

  30 January 2003

  3,702

  0

  0.00

  City of Bradford

  24 February 2003

  24,764

  2,831

  70.10

  Amber Valley BC

  24 February 2003

  5,632

  5,077

  28.57

  Crewe and Nantwich BC

  10 March 2003

  5,515

  6,181

  34.10

  Liverpool CC eastern fringe north

  10 March 2003

  6,183

  0

  0.00

  Oldham MBC Limeside (Hollins/the Avenues)

  17 March 2003

  634

  0

  0.00

  Walsall MBC (majority of stock)

  27 March 2003

  22,971

  1,026

  24.00

  Walsall MBC (tenant managed stock)

  27 March 2003

  1,828

  0

  0.00

  Craven DC

  31 March 2003

  1,541

  5,201

  17.60

  Forest of Dean DC

  31 March 2003

  3,577

  6,849

  24.50

  North Hertfordshire DC

  31 March 2003

  8,570

  3,128

  27.00

  Manchester CC (east Manchester)

  8 September 2003

  2,823

  0

  0.00

  Scarborough BC

  15 December 2003

  4,632

  5,232

  24.25

  Maidstone BC

  2 February 2004

  6,810

  5,685

  35.82

  Teignbridge

  4 February 2004

  3,647

  3,651

  12.90

  Oldham MBC Fitton Hill

  15 March 2004

  1,285

  0

  0.00

  Cherwell

  29 March 2004

  3,656

  7,397

  42.85

  Bromsgrove

  29 March 2004

  3,096

  5,218

  16.50

  Hartlepool

  29 March 2004

  7,509

  427

  3.20

  Liverpool (Kensington)

  29 March 2004

  289

  0

  0.00

  Worcester

  31 March 2004

  4,714

  1,128

  5.31

  South Norfolk

  17 May 2004

  4,214

  7,499

  31.60

  498W
  transfer price and the number of dwellings involved in large-scale voluntary transfers in the last four years. The amounts were calculated in accordance with this valuation method.
  499W
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been paid in dowry and gap funding to local authorities to undertake large-scale voluntary stock transfers since 1999. [176758]

  Keith Hill
  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund dowry payments of £165.264 million and £81.142 million were made in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines he gives to registered social landlords taking over council property in large-scale voluntary transfers; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of tenant representation in existing registered social landlords. [177008]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Transfer Manual 2003 Programme provides guidance on housing transfer and sets out the procedure by which an authority should make an application to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We require Registered Social Landlords to discuss the implications of transfer with the Housing Corporation who published their new registration criteria registration with the Housing Corporation in April 2004. This gives guidance which covers stock transfer applicants seeking to become registered social landlords.

  The Housing Corporation sets out the requirements and expectations for tenant representation in existing Registered Social Landlords in paragraph 2.5 of its Regulatory Code and Guidance. Failure to meet these requirements will be reflected in the Housing Corporation assessment of the Registered Social Landlord.

  The need to ensure effective tenant representation has been further emphasised in the recent Housing Corporation publication, "Involvement Policy for the Housing Association Sector". This came into effect in April 2004 and brings together two of the Housing Corporation's previous documents—"Making Consumers Count" and "Communities in Control."

  This revised resident involvement policy sets out clearly what residents, and the Housing Corporation as regulator, can expect from housing associations, i.e.:
  all housing associations should clearly show how their services have been influenced by comments and feedback from the people living in their homes;
  all associations are expected to be able to show that responsiveness to residents' views runs through all their activities. That it is part of their culture and the way they deliver services; and
  all associations are expected to work with their residents to decide the best ways of involving them, taking account of their preferences and circumstances
  The Housing Corporation seeks residents' views on emerging policies in a variety of ways:
  working with a wide range of representative bodies of tenants and residents;
  maintaining a database of 'interested tenants' who have indicated that they are prepared to be involved in giving feedback on the Housing Corporation's developing policies and on the consultation papers issued from time to time;
  conducting a major national tenants' survey every three years covering 10,000 tenants. The next survey is due this year;
  providing grants to support conferences of residents at both national and regional level; and
  holding regular meeting with the Housing Ombudsman.
  500W
  The Corporation has asked the Audit Commission, as part of its joint programme of research, to look at the costs and benefits of resident involvement and to consider the evidence that involvement does in fact make good business sense. A report of the study, "Improving Services Through Resident Involvement", will be launched at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference in June 2004.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the costs of(a) consultation, (b) publicity material and (c) surveys connected with (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful tenant ballots on large-scale voluntary transfer or establishment of an arm's length management organisation was met by (A) local government, (B) housing associations, (C) arm's length management organisations and (D) central Government. [177015]

  Keith Hill
  All local authorities are required to produce Business Plans that set out medium/long-term plans for addressing the investment needs of their council housing and Improving the quality of services provided to tenants. The guidance provided to authorities highlights the importance of carrying out robust option appraisals as a part of this, to ensure that resources are used effectively and, where additional resources are needed, that the best option for delivering decent homes is identified. Therefore, the cost is met by local authorities, as all work on options appraisals including consultation, publicity material and surveys etc. is funded by the heal authority, as the work should be undertaken as part of their Business Plan.

  Arm's Length Management Organisations and housing associations are at the end of the process of options appraisal undertaken by local authorities, and so do not fund any of the consultation with tenants on the three options.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total cost to central Government of transferring council housing to registered social landlords and Arm's Length Management Organisations in the financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04, separately identifying (i) the total debt written off, (ii) the cost of dowry and gap funding, (iii) the cost of paying tenant housing benefit by social security, (iv) the cost of consultancies, literature, videos and surveys and (v) the cost of staff time at (A) national and (B) regional levels; and how many houses have been transferred. [177153]

  Keith Hill
  In 2002–03, £440 million of debt was written off for local authorities transferring their housing stock; there was no dowry or gap funding in this year. 167,000 homes were transferred to registered social landlords. Arms Length Management Organisations received £10 million funding that year.

  In 2003–04, £90 million of debt was written off for local authorities transferring their housing stock; there was no dowry or gap funding in this year. 42,000 homes were transferred.

  Arm's Length Management Organisations received £45 million funding that year.

  The additional information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Ancient Trees
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what action her Department is taking to ensure that ancient trees are identified for inclusion in biodiversity action plans; [173941]

  (2) what action her Department is taking to ensure that ancient trees are fully identified and mapped for the purposes of inclusion in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. [173942]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Sites with ancient or veteran trees are being recorded through a variety of different mechanisms. Some are Sites of Special Scientific Interest and a number of the best areas have gone forward as Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitats and Species Directive (including the New Forest, Burnham Beeches, Epping Forest, Windsor Great Park, Richmond Park, Sherwood Forest).

  Surveys to identify other sites for veteran trees, that may have been over-looked in the past, are under way, including recent work in Scotland and in the East Midlands of England. The Forestry Commission are planning to start the next National Inventory of Woodland and Trees later this year. The methods to be used are being finalised over the next few months and it is expected that the inventory will provide estimates of the overall abundance of veteran trees in woodland.

  The most important concentrations of ancient or veteran trees across the countryside tend to be associated with wood-pastures (old parks, commons and the former royal hunting forests). The UK Wood-pasture and. Parkland Habitat Action Plan is led by English Nature, who are developing the Wood-pasture and Parkland Information System (www.wapis.org.uk) that will enable both biological and historical data about these important sites to be brought together.

  The National Inventory cannot be expected to pick up every one of the many thousands of individual veteran trees that exist within Britain, in field corners, hedges or along riverbanks. There is scope, therefore, for voluntary efforts such as by local tree wardens and through the Woodland Trust/Ancient Tree Forum's Ancient Tree Hunt to complement the work of the Government Departments and agencies. We welcome such voluntary sector contributions. We would encourage individuals and voluntary bodies to use the Wood-pasture and Parkland In formation System to widen our knowledge and understanding and help make the information readily available through the National Biodiversity Network.

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent estimate she has made of the cost to retailers of the Animal By-products Regulation 2003. [177396]
  502W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Animal By-Products Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) estimated that the cost to retailers for disposing of raw meat and raw fish is between £4 and £45 a week depending on the size of the store and the amount of waste generated by the store. No more recent estimate has been made.

  Cattle
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 25 May 2004,Official Report, column 1486W, on cattle, how much of the total cost of running the cattle tracing scheme will be paid by farmers; and if she will make a statement. [176706]

  Alun Michael
  We recently deferred the introduction of Cattle Tracing System charging from 1 April 2004 and are currently reviewing a range of options on the level of cost recovery.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons she has not replied to the letter of 27 November 2003 from Mr. Jim Morrison, President of the Aluminium Federation on the problems of the export of waste under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994; and if she will make a statement. [174996]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: My Department has no record of having received this letter. A copy was recently passed to me by my hon. Friend. A follow-up letter of 19 May has been received recently. I have now written to Mr. Morrison, addressing the issues that he raised.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Master of Fox Hounds Association about whether hunt kennels will continue to collect fallen stock in the event of a ban on hunting. [176782]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has included the Master of Fox Hounds Association in discussions about arrangements for a National Fallen Stock Scheme and has registered a substantial level of interest from hunt kennels in joining the scheme. This suggests that many are willing to make the necessary investment to continue in business for the disposal of fallen stock whatever the future for hunting.

  Grain Stockpiles
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much grain was held on world stockpiles in each of the last 30 years; [177411]

  (2) how many days' worth of global consumption of grain was held on world stockpiles in each of the last 30 years. [177412]

  Alun Michael
  The Government do not collect global grain stock or consumption statistics but the following information is publicly available from supply and demand balance sheets compiled by the United States Department of Agriculture.
  503W

  World stocks1 (million tonnes)

  Days supply2

  1974–75

  170

  64

  1975–76

  180

  67

  1976–77

  241

  85

  1977–78

  233

  79

  1978–79

  278

  90

  1979–80

  274

  86

  1980–81

  255

  80

  1981–82

  281

  87

  1982–83

  332

  101

  1983–84

  278

  84

  1984–85

  340

  99

  1985–86

  421

  123

  1986–87

  469

  132

  1987–88

  420

  115

  1988–89

  336

  95

  1989–90

  318

  86

  1990–91

  366

  98

  1991–92

  356

  95

  1992–93

  395

  104

  1993–94

  362

  96

  1994–95

  358

  93

  1995–96

  317

  84

  1996–97

  366

  93

  1997–98

  412

  104

  1998–99

  444

  112

  1999–2000

  439

  110

  2000–01

  415

  103

  2001–02

  396

  97

  2002–03

  332

  81

  2003–04

  251

  60

  1Ending stock for year in question.

  Ending stock divided by total daily consumption.

  Public Rights of Way
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to develop a strategy for establishing connected-up networks of public rights of way in the North West. [177088]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires all local highway authorities to prepare rights of way improvement plans. This requirement is intended to encourage authorities to take a strategic look at their rights of way networks, with a view to providing better for the needs of users—this includes planning for better joined-up networks. The Government have provided additional funding for the preparation of these plans.

TRANSPORT

  Middle Lanes
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what survey work has been undertaken to gauge how often the middle lane is used on three-lane roads and motorways when not overtaking a vehicle in the left lane. [178006]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is not aware of any such survey work. In order to produce meaningful results, a survey into lane usage would need to be widely based and would be labour intensive and costly. My Department is working to improve lane discipline and to reduce the annoyance that poor lane discipline causes.
  504W
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will run a campaign to educate motorists when using multi-lane roads and motorways to use the left lane and only to use other lanes for overtaking; and if he will make a statement. [178007]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Poor lane discipline does cause annoyance and can reduce road capacity. We are working to improve lane discipline. It is safe driving practice for vehicles using motorways to keep in the left-hand lane unless overtaking, and this advice is reflected in the Highway Code and the Driving Manual. The Theory Test includes questions on motorway lane discipline and the Department produces a leaflet, 'A Guide to Safer Motorway Driving'. Police motorway patrols can, where they think appropriate, pull up motorists for poor lane discipline, and indeed can prosecute where the motorist's behaviour amounts to inconsiderate driving.

  Also, the Highways Agency is currently exploring the possibility of using the variable message signs on motorways (VMS) to encourage lane discipline, alongside their present use for early warning to motorists about traffic queues ahead and advice on diversion routes.

  We will keep the issue under review, and will further strengthen the actions described, and reshape our information programmes as required.

  Transport (Manchester, Central)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new cycle lanes have been provided using public funds in Manchester, Central since 1997. [177695]

  Mr. McNulty
  A total of 2.7 miles of new cycle lanes have been provided in Manchester Central since 1997.

  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of priority bus lanes have been created in Manchester, Central since 1997. [177696]

  Mr. McNulty
  A total of 1.5 miles of priority bus lanes have been created in Manchester Central since 1997.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Magistrates Courts (Totnes)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the cost to public funds was of replacing two doors to the cells at Totnes magistrates court; and when these cells were last used. [177652]

  Mr. Leslie
  The two cells doors were replaced during April 2002. The cost of doing so was £3,036.00.

  Shortly after the works were completed the Magistrates Courts Committee's (MCC) decided to centralise remand cases across the MCC area. While the cells at Totnes magistrates court have since no longer been used on a regular basis, as part of the MCCs contingency planning the cells are maintained in a condition which, if circumstances demand, means they could be used in an emergency.

  Corporate Legal Expenses Insurance
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions he has had with the Bar over the proposal for mandatory corporate legal expenses insurance; and if he will make a statement. [177814]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Bar has proposed a scheme for compulsory corporate insurance to cover legal costs arising when company officers and directors are accused of commercial fraud, in order to free up legal aid funding for other priorities. This idea is being considered in the context of the Fundamental Legal Aid Review currently being carried out by my Department. The review will report to Ministers early next year.

SCOTLAND

  Govan Shipyard
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on which dates in 1999 the former Secretary of State met Mr. George Simpson of GEC; if he will publish minutes of the meetings; and if he will list the attendees at those meetings; [174304]

  (2) what communications (a) the former Secretary of State and (b) his representatives and advisers had in 1999 with GEC over (a) the proposed merger of BAEGEC and (b) Govan shipyard; and if he will publish the communications; [174305]

  (3) what (a) meetings and (b) communications the (i) former Secretary of State and (ii) his representatives and advisers had with Kvaerner, their representatives and advisers over the proposed closure of the Govan shipyard in 1999; on what dates meetings were held; and if he will publish the communications; [174306]

  (4) what meetings his Department held with management of Govan/Kvaerner to discuss the future of the Govan shipyard in 1999; [174307]

  (5) what briefings the former Secretary of State (a) gave and (b) received in 1999 on the GEC interest in the Govan shipyard; [174316]

  (6) on what date the former Secretary of State received the minutes of the meeting between Mr. George Simpson of GEC and the Prime Minister to discuss the merger of BAE and GEC; [174317]

  (7) what meetings the former Secretary of State held at (a) Dover House and (b) elsewhere to discuss (i) the future of the Govan shipyard and (ii) the BAE-GEC merger; and on what dates; [174319]

  (8) if he will publish the (a) minutes and (b) list of attendees of meetings held by the former Secretary of State at Dover House or elsewhere to discuss (i) the future of Govan shipyard and (ii) BAE-GEC merger; [174320]
  506W
  (9) what meetings (a) the former Secretary of State and (b) his advisers, representatives and officials had with the taskforce chaired by Sir Gavin Laird set up by the Government to look for potential buyers for the Govan shipyard in 1999; [174321]

  (10) what meetings were held by the former Secretary of State with Sir Gavin Laird to discuss the future of the Govan shipyard in 1999; and what the dates were of the meetings;[174322]

  (11) what meetings took place between Mr. Ed Miliband and his officials in 1999 to discuss the (a) GEC-BAE merger and (b) Govan shipyard; and what the dates were of the meetings. [174323]

  Mr. Darling
  My officials and I have meetings and discussions with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings, under exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Exemption 12 of the Code also applies with regard to privacy of an individual.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what his Department's involvement was in the negotiations over the future of Govan shipyard in 1999; [174308]

  (2) what the involvement was of (a) the former Secretary of State and (b) his representatives and advisers in informal and oral approaches made to GEC over the purchase of Govan shipyard in 1999. [174309]

  Mr. Darling
  The then Scottish Office established the Kvaerner Task Force to act as a facilitator for discussions with key stakeholders, with the aim of securing the immediate future of the Govan shipyard.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) who chaired the press briefing on 16 April 2004 at the Scottish Office at which it was suggested that GEC would be transferring some of its shipbuilding work to Govan from Barrow-in-Furness; [174310]

  (2) if he will publish the (a) minutes and (b) list of attendees of the press briefing on 16 April 2004 at the Scottish Office at which it was suggested that GEC would be transferring some of its shipbuilding work to Govan from Barrow-in-Furness. [174318]

  Mr. Darling
  No Scottish Office press briefing was given on that date. I am informed that a briefing was given by Sir Gavin Laird in his capacity as Kvaerner Task Force chairman.

  Low Sulphur Petrol
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the provision of low sulphur petrol in the north-east of Scotland and the highlands and islands after 1 September; and if he will make a statement. [174482]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1460W.

CABINET OFFICE

  E-Government
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how the Government will be improving its e-Government Metadata Standard to ensure that the websites of(a) Government departments and (b) agencies and non-departmental public bodies are exemplars of accessibility. [177021]

  Mr. Alexander
  The e-Government Metadata Standard (e-GMS) provides information about the technical aspects of accessibility of a web page. It is reviewed and updated on an annual basis through consultation with a wide range of government departments, other public bodies, academics, the private sector and the UK public itself.

  e-GMS is mandatory for new public sector IT systems and the number of sites meeting the standard will therefore improve as sites are replaced or upgraded.

  The Cabinet Office encourages compliance through the provision of guidance and good practice. Compliance to the guidelines and standards is the responsibility of the individual departments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he first became aware of allegations of abuse of Iraqi detainees by British service personnel in Iraq; and from what source. [174392]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary first became aware of allegations of abuse of Iraqi detainees by British service personnel in Iraq in April 2003. The allegations against Colonel Tim Collins, which were widely publicised in the media, were investigated and it was found there was no case to answer.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and what discussions he has had with the(a) Democratic Republic of the Congo Government and (b) Government of Rwanda on the situation in Bukavu. [177977]

  Mr. Mullin
  The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is of great concern. Events in the east and violent demonstrations in Kinshasa and other major cities have placed the transition process under serious strain. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to President Kabila of the DRC and Present Kagame of Rwanda. We have been in 508W
  constant contact with the key players to press for restraint and to urge them to work constructively to achieve a peaceful solution.

  I had a meeting with Kabila's envoy on Monday 7 June.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on attacks upon UN personnel in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and if he will make a statement. [177978]

  Mr. Mullin
  There have been a number of attacks on the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) in recent weeks. An unarmed Military Observer was killed in South Kivu on 31 May and two South African peacekeepers were killed and several others were injured in an unrelated incident in North Kivu on 2 June. On 2 and 3 June MONUC was targeted by violent demonstrations in Kinshasa and other towns across the DRC. The UK supports the efforts of the UN to achieve the military and political stabilisation of the DRC.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of abuse of women, including rape and other sexual offences, by UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [177979]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are deeply concerned about press reports alleging serious sexual abuse by peacekeepers of the UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC), including against children. MONUC have launched an urgent internal investigation into the allegations. If these are confirmed, we will press MONUC to take all necessary steps to prevent such abuses from re-occurring.

  India
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the new Indian Government on the legacy of the Amritsar attacks on the Sikh shrine. [177980]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent shooting of a Serb teenager in Gracanica, Kosovo; and what discussions he has had with the authorities in Kosovo on this incident. [177981]

  Mr. MacShane
  In the early hours of 5 June, a Serb teenager was killed in a drive-by shooting in the Serb enclave of Gracanica in the municipality of Pristina. Two suspects were subsequently arrested by Kosovo Police Service officers. The Prime Minister and Present of Kosovo have both condemned the attack. The Contact Group also condemned the attack. The Contact Group also condemned this incident in their meeting in Pristina on 8 June, and had discussions with both UN Interim Administration Mission in
  509W
  Kosovo and Kosovo Serbs. The British Office in Pristina has been in touch with the police in Kosovo to urge that every effort be made to bring the perpetrators to justice.

  Sudan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the United Nations on preventing crimes against humanity in Sudan. [176816]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Darfur. We are in close contact with the UN and other members of the international community on this matter. Most recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development spoke to the UN Secretary-General about Darfur on 9 June. We are calling on all sides to put a stop to the human rights abuses and breaches of international humanitarian law.

  We see the deployment of the African Union (AU) ceasefire monitoring team as key to improving the security situation and addressing civilian protection. The UK will contribute one of the six observers requested from the EU, and have already provided £2 million to help the AU team to set up. In addition, the UN is planning to deploy human rights monitors throughout Darfur with UK financial support.

  Zimbabwe
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Zimbabwean residents have left Zimbabwe and sought residency in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months. [175156]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  The requested information is not available.

  Data are available on the number of entry clearance applications granted in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwean nationals seeking asylum. The latest available data are provided in the tables. In addition 3,530 Zimbabwean nationals were granted settlement in 2002.

  Detailed statistics on immigration control are published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002" (cm 6053) obtained from the House Library, the Stationary Office and via the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ commandpubs1.html

  Information on asylum applications is published in quarterly web pages and in the animal statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigrationl.html
  510W

  Initial decisions made on asylum applications1,2 received in the United Kingdom excluding dependants, 2003, nationals of Zimbabwe

  Initial decisions

  Total decisions

  4,175

  Grants of asylum

  870

  Grants of ELR3

  10

  Grants of HP4

  5

  Grants of DL4

  20

  Total refusals

  3,275

  1Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5, with* = 1 or 2

  2Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3Granted between 1 January 2003 and 31 March 2003 only.

  4Granted from 1 April 2003.

  Decisions on entry clearance applications, nationals of Zimbabwe, 20021

  Entry clearance applications for:

  Granted2

  Refused initially3

  Temporary purposes4

  8,665

  4,160

  Settlement5

  1,475

  80

  1Actual data not available, estimates based on financial year data.

  2Granted initially or on appeal.

  3Some may have been granted subsequently on appeal.

  4 Nationals of certain countries currently need a visa to enter the UK regardless of the purpose of their journey.

  5Includes applications for a certificate to the right of abode.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Transitional Government (Iraq)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the representation of women in positions of power in the transitional Government of Iraq. [177774]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am delighted to hear that six women have now been appointed as Ministers in Iraq. I am especially pleased to hear that the Iraqi interim Government has created the post of Minister of State for Women.

  Women's Entrepreneurship
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the progress of the strategic framework for women's entrepreneurship launched in May 2003. [177777]

  Ms Hewitt
  As a result of Strategic Framework, all nine English regions and all 45 Business Link Operators have set targets to increase the number of women starting their own businesses.

  Already, in the last year, the Labour Force Survey shows that the number of self-employed women in the UK has risen by 4.4 per cent. bringing the total number of businesses started and run by women to almost one million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Airwave
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of risk the Government considers is involved in the national roll-out of Airwave. [168382]
  511W
  Caroline Flint
  The Airwave service is already available to 35 police forces and we expect the national roll-out to complete by mid-2005 as planned. We do not anticipate any substantial difficulties in the remaining stages of the Airwave roll-out.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 352W, on Tetra, what reports he has received from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory assessments of the effects of Tetra exposure on various types of cells; and whether this research is continuing. [176449]

  Caroline Flint
  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) researchers have completed their work on calcium exchanges in cells the main concern of the Stewart report. They found Tetra exposure had no effect. Work is continuing to see if exposure to Tetra can affect electrical activity in brain cells and to assess the effects of Tetra signals on cognitive performance. Quarterly reports are available from the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tetra.html.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 352W, on Tetra, whether the research by Imperial College includes research into the health effects of (a) Airwave handsets and (b) Tetra masts. [176450]

  Caroline Flint
  The Imperial College national monitoring study of the health of Airwave police users is concerned with possible health effects from handsets. It does not include any work on Tetra masts.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 352W, on Tetra, what health issues are being researched by the University of Birmingham and the University of Manchester in their research into patterns of work of Airwave users. [176451]

  Caroline Flint
  The University of Birmingham and the University of Manchester studies do not involve any health issues. The purpose of this research is to gather information on the typical number of calls made by Airwave police users and on the duration of these calls.

  Littering
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made for littering since the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force. [176041]

  Paul Goggins
  Information is given in the table.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.
  512W

  Number of defendants prosecuted at the magistrates' courts for litter offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, England and Wales 1992—20021

  Environmental Protection Act 1990 s87

  Environmental Protection Act 1990 s91 and 92

  Environmental Protection Act 1990 s94

  Depositing litter2

  Failing to comply with a litter abatement order or notice

  Failing to comply with a street litter control notice

  19923

  828

  7

  0

  1993

  1,170

  4

  0

  1994

  1,164

  7

  1

  1995

  1,101

  5

  2

  1996

  626

  8

  1

  1997

  505

  4

  1

  1998

  494

  2

  2

  1999

  501

  0

  5

  20004

  466

  2

  0

  2001

  457

  7

  0

  2002

  332

  2

  1

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2Litter wardens appointed by local authorities can issue Fixed Penalty Notices, currently 50, for depositing litter.

  3Data collection commenced in 1992.

  4Staffordshire Police Force were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the figures.

  Crime Statistics (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded violent crime (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts in Bootle has been since 1997. [175913]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Bootle comes within the Sefton Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http:// www.crimestatistics.org.uk

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times powers preventing racial harassment introduced since 1997 have been used in Bootle. [175914]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Figures for the number of prosecutions in Bootle for this type of offence are not centrally available. Merseyside Police figures for harassment offences (published by the Home Office under the requirements of S95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991) show a total of 434 recorded offences of this type in the Merseyside Police area over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Asset Recovery Operations
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the 10 most successful asset recovery operations. [176641]

  Ms Blears
  Asset recovery operations and investigations are carried out by a range of agencies individually and collectively, including the police, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, National Crime Squad, Assets Recovery Agency and the Inland Revenue. The
  513W
  Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecuting authorities are responsible for obtaining confiscation orders in the courts. Information on individual operations and investigations is not collected centrally.

  In 2002–03, the last year for which we have full data, a record amount of criminal assets was recovered, totalling £47 million. The new cash seizure powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 have also been successful. Since they came into force in December 2002 the police and Customs have seized over £63 million, on the grounds that the money in question is derived from or intended for use in crime. Seized cash is subject to forfeiture in the magistrates courts.

  The Assets Recovery Agency successfully obtained a civil recovery order in the High Court last month. This is the first such case to be settled in England, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Proceeds of Crime Act, which allows for the civil recovery of the proceeds of unlawful activity.

  Child Migration
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied children arrived in the United Kingdom, broken down by(a) port of entry to the United Kingdom and (b) originating country in each of the last three years. [175952]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of unaccompanied minors who have arrived in the United Kingdom, broken down by port of entry and originating country is not currently collected.

  However the results of Operation Paladin Child on unaccompanied children arriving at Heathrow Airport were announced on 17 May. This operation ran between August 2003—November 2003 and was initiated by the Metropolitan Police Child Protection Command, with the co-operation of the Immigration Service, NSPCC and Hillingdon Social Services.

  In total 1,738 unaccompanied minors were granted leave to enter in the three-month study of whom 30 per cent. were risk assessed and referred to Social Services. The operation was a valuable exercise in determining the nature of child migration to the UK and has not uncovered evidence of child trafficking at Heathrow. The full details of the operation, and possible changes to procedures and policy in the light of it, are still being assessed.

  Asylum/Immigration
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations with which the Home Office is negotiating to run the proposed accommodation centre for asylum seekers at Bicester. [176113]

  Mr. Browne
  As part of a procurement exercise carried out under the ED procurement regulations for a contract to design, build and operate the centre near Bicester, the Home Office is in negotiation with Global Solutions Limited UK.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 754W, on asylum and
  514W
  immigration, when he expects the exercise in respect of asylum seekers remaining in the UK to be completed. [175416]

  Mr. Browne
  Good progress continues to be made in considering the cases originally identified. The bulk has been processed for eligibility and the majority, where the applicants have responded to our questionnaire, have been decided. We remain reliant on the applicants we contact replying promptly to our inquiries. Those not doing so are being reminded. We expect the exercise largely to be complete by July.

  Child Deaths
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were killed by their(a) mother or father and (b) a member of the extended family in each of the last 20 years. [175470]

  Ms Blears
  The latest available information on homicide is published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin number 01/04, 'Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime', a copy of which should be available from the House of Commons library or internet site http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosbpubsl.html.

  In England and Wales, the numbers of homicide victims under 16 years killed by their parents or by others that they know are given in the table.

  Son/daughter of suspect

  Other family/friend/ acquaintance of suspect

  1983

  53

  13

  1984

  62

  7

  1985

  72

  14

  1986

  35

  9

  1987

  54

  11

  1988

  76

  12

  1989

  44

  10

  1990

  49

  8

  1991

  63

  15

  1992

  51

  8

  1993

  49

  11

  1994

  53

  11

  1995

  52

  16

  1996

  58

  12

  1997

  50

  17

  1997–98

  44

  15

  1998–99

  57

  17

  1999–2000

  48

  4

  2000–01

  80

  7

  2001–02

  41

  9

  2002–03

  55

  11

  Citizenship Ceremonies
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the largest number of new candidates present at a single citizenship ceremony has been. [175376]

  Mr. Browne
  Citizenship ceremonies are arranged by local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland. Information on the largest number of prospective citizens at those ceremonies so far held is not available. During consultation with local authorities, 10 to 50 applicants was suggested as the normal level of attendance at citizenship ceremonies.
  515W
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what knowledge of(a) life in the UK and (b) the English language is a pre requisite for receiving citizenship. [175377]

  Mr. Browne
  When brought into force, Part 1 of The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 will require naturalisation applicants to demonstrate that they have sufficient understanding of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic and of UK civic structures.

  The language requirement already exists in the British Nationality Act 1981, although the standard is not defined. The Government have accepted the recommendations set out in the report of the "Life in the UK" Advisory Group that under new Regulations, "sufficient understanding" will entail applicants demonstrating progress from one English for Speakers of Other Languages entry level to the next.

  Development of the citizenship element of programmes, and the means by which this can be assessed, is continuing in line with the further recommendations of the Advisory Group.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timetable he has set for the rolling out of citizenship ceremonies throughout the UK. 175378]

  Mr. Browne
  The requirement to attend citizenship ceremonies was introduced for applications made on or after 1 January 2004. The first ceremony was held in Brent on 26 February.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have had an offer of citizenship revoked because of refusal to attend a citizenship ceremony. [175379]

  Mr. Browne
  To date no applicant has been refused citizenship as a result of refusal to attend a citizenship ceremony.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizenship ceremonies have been held to date in(a) town halls, (b) registry offices and (c) other places; and in how many ceremonies, in each case (i) a gift was given, (ii) the local school participated, (iii) a local choir or band performed, (iv) a local hon. Member or other dignitary attended and (v) a national or local emblem was used. [175380]

  Mr. Browne
  Citizenship ceremonies are arranged by local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, who are responsible for venues, composition, content, and attendance of guests and dignitaries. An analysis of ceremonies so far held is not available. Local authorities are encouraged to display national and local emblems at all ceremonies.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private citizenship ceremonies have been held for one candidate or one family. [175381]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no information available on the number of private ceremonies so far arranged.
  516W
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizenship ceremonies have been held to date; and how many(a) adults and (b) children have been awarded citizenship at these ceremonies, broken down by area. [175382]

  Mr. Browne
  The number of citizenship ceremonies held to date is not available, and information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of adults invited to attend a ceremony up to 30 April is 7,078. The number reported as having attended up to 15 April is 1,906. These figures cannot be broken down by area. Children are not required to attend ceremonies.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have had an application for citizenship turned down because of insufficient knowledge of(a) the English language and (b) life in the United Kingdom. [175392]

  Mr. Browne
  In 2003, the latest year for which published figures are available, there were 20 applicants refused citizenship for insufficient knowledge of English. In 2003, the "Life in the UK" Advisory Group recommended a new definition of sufficient knowledge of English and an additional criterion of knowledge of life in the UK. The Government broadly welcomed these recommendations but they have not yet been introduced.

  Domestic/Child Care Staff
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps his Department is taking to(a) identify and (b) prosecute agencies offering staff for domestic and child care duties who are not in possession of the required visa for such work; [175354]

  (2) if his Department will assess the merits of sting operations involving advertising requirements for domestic and child care staff as a means of identifying visitors to the UK breaching visa conditions; [175355]

  (3) what steps his Department is taking to identify illegal workers in the (a) domestic services and (b) child care sectors. [175356]

  Mr. Browne
  The Immigration Service is increasing enforcement activity against illegal working in general, and we have taken steps to strengthen the law preventing employers from using illegal migrant workers, section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. It is a criminal offence under section 8 to employ someone subject to immigration control who is not entitled to work in the United Kingdom or who is subject to immigration restrictions preventing them
  517W
  from undertaking the work in question. The law in this area applies to employers or agencies in all sectors of the economy, including those operating in the domestic services and child care sectors. On 1 May, an order under section 147 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 strengthened the security of the document checks employers must carry out on prospective employees in order to establish a defence under section 8. We have also tabled an amendment to the current Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill to make the current section 8 offence triable either way, effectively removing the statutory limit on financial penalties the courts can impose in the more serious cases.

  All Immigration Service illegal working enforcement activity is intelligence led, and if the hon. Member has any specific concerns or information about a particular company I would encourage him to pass these on to the Immigration Service for investigation. A number of enforcement operations in 2003 targeted the contract cleaning sector, but I am not aware of any recent cases involving the child care sector. It would not be appropriate for the Immigration Service to use advertisements to induce agencies to supply illegal, workers; to do so would undermine any subsequent criminal proceedings.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug related offences there were in the Easington constituency in the last three years; and what the success rate for prosecution was. [170125]

  Caroline Flint
  Recorded crime figures, which are available at police force level and are used to measure trends in crime, include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, and on property crimes, such as burglary. However they do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits. There are therefore no figures currently available for the proportion of crime in the Easington constituency which was connected to drug addiction, and what the success rate for prosecution was.

  The Home Office sponsored New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) survey, which involved interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police, provides an insight into the proportion of crimes that are drug related. However, this survey does not provide sub-national data and is also not nationally representative.

  Data collected from 16 sites across England and Wales during 1999 to 2001, show that heroin and/or cocaine/crack users reported committing an average of 442 acquisitive crimes in the last 12 months. This figure is much higher than for non-drug users, who reported committing an average of 79 acquisitive crimes in the same period.
  518W
  A comparison of the survey's findings from eight sites across the country visited in 1999 and 2002, indicate that there was no change in the proportion of arrestees testing positive for one or more of six illicit drugs. Nearly two-thirds (65 per cent.) of arrestees in each year tested positive for any drug.

  Durham Jail
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths have taken place in Durham jail in each year since 1 January 1997; and how many of these were due to(a) suicide and (b) natural causes. [176667]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested with respect to HMP Durham is included in the table:

  Number of self- Inflicted deaths1

  Number of deaths by natural/other causes

  1997

  2

  1

  1998

  2

  0

  1999

  3

  1

  2000

  1

  3

  2001

  0

  0

  2002

  6

  0

  2003

  5

  1

  20042

  2

  1

  1The Prison Service employs the term "self-inflicted death" rather than suicide. This includes all those deaths where it appears the person has acted intentionally to take his/her own life.

  2 To 27 May.

  Central to the suicide prevention strategy I announced on 31 March is the need to reduce levels of distress in prisons and to promote the well being of all staff and prisoners. The strategy has strong support from partner agencies and external organisations, and is being developed in close partnership with the Department of Health.

  Durham itself has a comprehensive local suicide and self-harm prevention policy, and an active Safer Prisons Team, which tackles the separate but related issues of suicide, self-harm, bullying and violence reduction. Durham has very strong links with its local Samaritans, who attend the prison at least once per week. They are involved in the selection, training and ongoing support of prisoner peer supporters ("Listeners"), who are a valued and well utilised resource at Durham.

  Recognising the increased risk of suicide and self-harm in the early days of custody, Durham has a dedicated First Night Centre, which has strong input from healthcare, probation and detoxification staff. Durham also pioneered the "Meet and Greet" scheme, whereby prisoners, selected and trained by officers, offer information and support to new prisoners during Reception and their first night in custody. This scheme has now been extended across the Prison Service, and is known in other prisons as the "Insiders" scheme.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the refurbishment programme at Durham jail. [176668]
  519W
  Paul Goggins
  At Durham prison the Prison Service is delivering an £8.5 million refurbishment programme which comprises a general upgrade of the fabric, services, security and associated wing facilities for some 170 cells on D and E Wings. The Refurbishment commenced in March 2003 on D wing and is due to finish with E wing in May 2005.

  EU Accession Nationals
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many(a) workers and (b) others from the new EU states have arrived in the UK since 1 May. [175441]

  Mr. Browne
  Since 1 May members of the EU accession countries are subject to the same immigration controls as citizens of other EU member states. We are therefore not able to say how many passengers arrived from EU accession countries or require every passenger to declare their purpose for coming to the UK. Data from the International Passenger Survey (IPS), showing the total number of visits by nationals of all the EU accession countries in May, will be available early in July. Data from the worker registration scheme will be available in due course.

  Fruit Farming
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign fruit pickers and agricultural workers he estimates came to work in the UK in each of the last three years. [175398]

  Mr. Browne
  Non-EU nationals working as seasonal fruit pickers in the UK come under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS).

  The number of work cards issued to SAWS participants in the last three years were:

  Number

  2003

  23,329

  2002

  19,372

  2001

  15,258

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has in place to monitor the work of agencies that provide foreign fruit pickers to farming businesses in the UK. [175414]

  Mr. Browne
  Non-EU nationals working as seasonal fruit pickers in the UK come under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS). The scheme is administered by nine organisations, known as Operators, under contract to the Home Office.

  The contracts require Operators to document their relationship with any third party that they choose to work through, including agencies abroad. They must be satisfied of the professional conduct of such organisations.
  520W
  The Home Office undertakes regular monitoring of all appointed Operators to ensure that there is full compliance with their contractual obligations.

  identity Cards
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Irish Government about his proposal to introduce identity cards. [175100]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: There have been contacts at official and at ministerial level since the publication of the "Next Steps" document in November 2003. These included meetings between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Irish Minister of Justice. The Irish Government were informed of the publication of the draft Bill and consultation paper in April 2004.

  Consultations are on-going between the two Administrations.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further assessment he has made of the implications of his plans to introduce identity cards for the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic since January. [175192]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: The principle of the Common Travel Area, which includes the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, will not be affected by the Government's proposals for art Identity Cards scheme.

  Consultations will continue with the Irish Government on the implications of the identity cards scheme.

  Judicial Review Cases
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on the defence of judicial review cases which the Government(a) won and (b) lost in each year since 1997. [173301]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: The records of Home Office expenditure on judicial review cases do not indicate how much is attributable to cases which are won or lost. The amounts paid by the Home Office to the Treasury Solicitor for handling judicial review cases from May 1997 were as follows. The figures comprise Treasury Solicitor's charges and disbursements, including counsel's fees.

  Amount (£)

  1997

  1,723,587

  1998

  4,392,654

  1999

  3,395,411

  2000

  4,979,425

  2001

  5,294,852

  2002

  5,920,377

  2003

  6,231,668

  2004

  2,695,265

  Total

  34,633,239

  521W

  JR Cases expenditure since May 1997

  Data

  Type

  Client

  Calendar year

  Sum of hours

  Sum of fees

  sum of disbursements

  Sum of total

  23

  HMPS

  1997

  42.6

  2,892.60

  5,733.38

  8,625.98

  1998

  62.7

  4,129.80

  5,079.38

  9,209.18

  1999

  9.2

  574.00

  89,404.51

  89,978.51

  2000

  56.7

  2,971.20

  4,001.83

  6,973.03

  2001

  60.8

  3,321.10

  1,620.49

  4,941.59

  2002

  97.8

  6,121.40

  6,433.48

  12,554.88

  2003

  3.4

  266.40

  394.50

  660.90

  2004

  0.0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  HMPS Total

  333.2

  20,276.50

  112,667 57

  132,944.07

  HOME

  1997

  8,464.5

  596,457.90

  663,917.14

  1,260,375.04

  1998

  21,093.6

  1,492,905.30

  1,745,589.98

  3,238.495.28

  1999

  16,978.2

  1,221,451.50

  1,189,467.43

  2,410,918.93

  2000

  19,805.5

  1,483,029.50

  2,478,642.73

  3,961,672.23

  2001

  24,326.5

  1,868,066.10

  1,550,874.62

  3,418,940.72

  2002

  33,123.9

  2,388,566.50

  1,209,105.49

  3,597,671.99

  2003

  19,692.1

  1,384,324.10

  696,139.51

  2,080,463.61

  2004

  202.4

  13,157.40

  13,293.14

  26,450.54

  HOME Total

  143,686.7

  10,447,958.30

  9,547,030.04

  19,994,988.34

  23 Total

  144,019.9

  10,468,234.80

  9,659,697.61

  20,127,932.41

  23C

  HOME

  1997

  120.3

  7,440.00

  6,624.46

  14,064.46

  1998

  426.4

  30,080.80

  12,960.05

  43,040.85

  1999

  145.9

  11,325.50

  103,021.84

  114,347.34

  2000

  215.2

  17,295.30

  99,117.32

  116,412.62

  2001

  369.0

  29,765.70

  146,373.39

  176,139.09

  2002

  1,953.1

  154,611.00

  205,236.39

  359,847.39

  2003

  2,714.5

  213,820.10

  356,627.10

  570,447.20

  2004

  817.9

  59,625.30

  63,898.31

  123,523.67

  HOME Total

  6,762.3

  523,963.70

  993,858.92,

  1,517,822.62

  23C Total

  6,762.3

  523,963.70

  993,858.92

  1,517,822.62

  23D

  HOME

  2000

  2.4

  204.20

  0.00

  204.20

  2001

  87.7

  7,637.30

  2,485.15

  10,122.45

  2002

  293.6

  20,025.10

  5,706.78

  25,731.88

  2003

  3,289.5

  242,262.80

  107,685.57

  349,948.37

  2004

  1,946.6

  133,087.801

  59,442.46

  192,530.26

  HOME Total

  5,19.8

  403,217.20

  175,319.96,

  578,537.16

  23D Total

  5,619.8

  403,217.20

  175,319.96

  578,537.16

  23E

  HOME

  2002

  41.0

  2,838.20

  55:2.25

  3,390.45

  2003

  1,350.5

  110,369.80

  71,938.00

  182,307.80

  2004

  1,934,8

  145,874.30

  42,541.51

  188,415.87

  Home Total

  3,326.3

  259,082.30

  115,031.82

  374,114.12

  23E Total

  3,326.3

  259,082.30

  115,031.81

  374.114.12

  23T

  HOME

  2001

  11.8

  1,062.00

  0.00

  1,062.00

  2002

  68.1

  6,027

  9,467.78

  15,494.98

  2003

  6,699.9

  424,339.60

  124,434.33

  548,773.93

  2004

  10,566.5

  641,503.90

  141,227.98

  782,731.88

  HOME Total

  17,346.3

  1,072,932.70

  275,130.59

  1,348,062.79

  23T Total

  17,346.3

  1,072,932.70

  275,130.09

  1,348,062.79

  26

  HMPS

  1997

  1,269.5

  101,139.40

  287,108.10

  388,247.50

  1998

  2,383.0

  164,713.10

  653,763.88

  818,476.98

  1999

  2,534.6

  182,007.50

  307,752.54

  489,760.04,

  2000

  3,089.0

  227,180.40

  409,566.28

  636,746.68

  2001

  3,801.1

  283,631.30

  448,883.39

  732,514.69

  2002

  3,990.8

  299,021.10

  172,985.66

  472,006.76

  2003

  1,394.6

  120,704.70

  76,400.51

  197,105.21

  2004

  41.9

  3,820.00

  20,943.58

  24,763.58

  HMPS Total

  18,504.5

  1,382,217.50

  2,377,403.94

  3,759,621. 44

  HOME

  1997

  214.0

  17.507.90

  32,211.73

  49,719.63

  1998

  598.2

  48.015.10

  216,937.23

  264,952.33

  1999

  402.0

  31,539.50

  133,500.82

  165,040.32

  2000

  509.6

  39.385.60

  70,585.94

  109,971.54

  522W 523W

  JR Cases expenditure since May 1997

  Type

  Client

  Calendar year

  Sum of hours

  Sum of fees

  sum of disbursements

  Sum of total

  2001

  952.4

  78,893 80

  231.767.60

  310,661.40

  2002

  1,246.9

  104,609.90

  113,161.05

  217,770.95

  2003

  331.1

  30,852 60

  30,467.71

  61,320.31

  2004

  0.5

  35.00

  2,852.55

  2,887.55

  HOME Total

  4,254.7

  350,839.40

  831,484.63

  1,182,324.03

  26 Total

  22,759.2

  1,733,056.90

  3,208,888.57

  4,941,945.47

  26R

  HMPS

  1998

  0.0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  1999

  0.0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2000

  0.0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2001

  0.0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2002

  10.1

  929.50

  587.50

  1,517.00

  2003

  7.1

  708.00

  0.00

  708.00

  2004

  0.9

  97.20

  0.00

  97.20

  HMPS Total

  18.1

  1,734.70

  587.50

  2,322.20

  HOME

  1998

  24.8

  1,100.00

  17.00

  1,117.00

  1999

  350.0

  27,459.00

  56,719.55

  84,178.55

  2000

  75.6

  5,794.10

  8,299.55

  14,093.65

  2001

  507.1

  41.312.30

  32,488.27

  73,800.57

  2002

  903.7

  76,815.00

  119,614.34

  196,429.34

  2003

  1,864.6

  171,335.50

  166,099.31

  337,434.81

  2004

  844.9

  77.434.60

  116,265.40

  193,700.00

  HOME Total

  4,570.7

  401.250.50

  499,503.42

  900,753.92

  26R Total

  4,588.8

  402.985.20

  500,090.92

  903,076.12

  23N

  HOME

  1997

  27.5

  2.314.30

  242.00

  2,556.30

  1998

  142.0

  11.403.90

  5,958.64

  17,362.54

  1999

  797.8

  33,549.50

  7,637.50

  41,187.00

  2000

  1,663.6

  80,687.50

  29,440.17

  110,127.67

  2001

  2,730.7

  170,465.30

  157,997.40

  328,462.70

  2002

  6,273.0

  417,246.20

  270,191.76

  687,437.96

  2003

  17,054.8

  1,183,361.00

  556,222.16

  1,739,583.16

  2004

  11,303.3

  765,167.50

  318,981.57

  1,084,149.07

  HOME Total

  39,992.7

  2,664,195.20

  1,346,671.20

  4.010,866.40

  23N Total

  39,992.7

  2,664,195.20

  1,346,671.20

  4,010,866.40

  23M

  HMPS

  2000

  0.0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2001

  0.0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2002

  23.6

  2,248.50

  3,426.99

  5,675.49

  2003

  0.9

  84.00

  0.00

  84.00

  2004

  113.0

  11,896.40

  2,130.86

  14,027.26

  HMPS Total

  137.5

  14,228.00

  5,557.85

  19,786.75

  Home

  2000

  220.7

  17,553.70

  5,668.27

  23,221.97

  2001

  953.7

  69,729.00

  168,476.75

  238,205.75

  2002

  844.6

  70,430.20

  254,418.71

  324,848.91

  2003

  983.9

  92,851.50

  69,979.82

  162,831.32

  2004

  377.2

  26,929.00

  35,057.52

  61,987.42

  HOME Total

  3,380.1

  277,494.30

  533,601.07

  811,095.37

  23M Total

  3,517.6

  291,723.20

  539,158.92

  830,882.12

  Grand Total

  247,932.9

  17,819,391.20

  16,813,848.01

  34,633,239.21

  National Minorities Convention
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the representations he has received from representatives of national minorities for consideration in the Government's compliance report to the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [175400]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: We have received a number of submissions on our
  524W
  forthcoming compliance report under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. We are currently considering those submissions, but have not yet made a final assessment.

  NCIS
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have left the National Criminal Intelligence Service before the end of their secondment(a) at their own request and (b) on

  525W
  being instructed to do so in each of the last five years for which records are available. [166599]

  Caroline Flint
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) does not maintain annual statistics for seconded police officers returning prior to the end of their secondment. However, based on an analysis on 100 police officers who left NCIS between July 2000 and March 2003, two thirds left earlier than expected at their own request (by an average of seven months), having secured their next posting in their parent force. NCIS can require an officer to return to force prior to the end of his or her secondment, for example where NCIS has "lost confidence" in the officer. This is a rare occurrence, involving typically only one or two cases a year.

  Operation Cyclamen
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at how many UK(a) airports and (b) border points Operation Cyclamen is being implemented. [174612]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Programme Cyclamen equipment provides the capability to routinely screen all forms of traffic at UK points of entry for the illicit movement of radioactive materials. Screening operations commenced in April. For security reasons it would nut in the public interest to be more specific.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has discussed the technology used in Operation Cyclamen with his counterparts in(a) other EU and (b) other countries. [174613]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government have had useful discussions and exchanges with counterparts in the US, EU and elsewhere, regarding the radiation screening equipment used in the Programme Cyclamen. A wide range of detection and security equipment is already in place around the world.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first use of the technology of Operation Cyclamen took place in the UK. [174614]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Trials of the Programme Cyclamen equipment were first undertaken at selected UK points of entry in 2002. Permanent screening commenced in April this year.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is provided to those using Cyclamen chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear technology. [174615]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The HMCE Customs Officers operating the Programme Cyclamen equipment receive training in radiation protection awareness in addition to training on the operating procedures for the equipment.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether those using Cyclamen technology are(a) customs officials and (b) private security officers. [174616]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The operation of Cyclamen Programme detection equipment at UK points of entry, is undertaken by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise officers.
  526W
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what implications the Madrid bombings of 11 March have for Operation Cyclamen.

  Mr. Blunkett
  The tragic events of March 11 further hardened our resolve to combat the international terrorist threat, in all its forms. The Government already have in place proven contingency plans contingency plans for responding to a wide range of terrorist actions, including those at Madrid.

  Programme Cyclamen is an ongoing programme of work, which commenced in April 2003 covering the routine screening of all forms of traffic, at UK ports of entry, for the illicit movement of radioactive materials. It is one element of the Government's strategy to reduce the threat of terrorist attack.

  Overseas Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the allegations of overseas bribery on the national register held by the National Criminal Intelligence Service relate to offences prior to 14 February 2002. [175976]

  Caroline Flint
  The number of cases recorded on the register that pre-date the legislation is five.

  This could rise to six as additional documentation is received on an earlier referral that was previously recorded for information only.

  Mr. Yalcin
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the letter to the hon. Member for Totnes dated 11 May 2004 concerning Mr. Fahettin Yalcin, formerly of Brixham, Devon, when Mr. Yalcin will be deported from the UK; and if he will make a statement. [175572]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 26 May 2004]: I have already written to the hon. Member on 11 May explaining that information relating to the immigration status of an individual is treated as confidential. This reflects the Home Office's legal obligations under common law, human rights and data protection legislation, and the treatment of private and personal information under the Code of Practice on Access to Information. I have also given him limited information about the case "in confidence" and can assure him that the case is with the Immigration Service. However, it would be inappropriate to make a statement giving details that could prejudice an operational matter of this kind.

  Police (Data Sharing)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data sharing system each police force is operating or proposing to operate; whether the systems are compatible; what he is doing to ensure compatibility; what his estimate is of the cost of ensuring compatibility; whether he will be requiring compatibility; what resources will be invested, and from what sources, for compatibility; and if he will make a statement. [172277]
  527W
  Caroline Flint
  Police Services operate a number of systems for different operational purposes and the extent of data sharing between these has depended on local requirements. The "Information Strategy for the Police Service" provides guidance to forces on technical integration of systems and a corporate data model to support data sharing both within and between forces. The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) and its Central Customer are actively engaged with forces, the Association of Chief Police Officers and others in articulating the information sharing needs of the Police Service. A specific initiative to facilitate data sharing in support of the National Intelligence Model is incorporated within the Home Office Police Science and Technology Strategy. The first step is a feasibility and costing study. This will link with the Cross Regional Information Sharing Project (CRISP) that is being taken forward by a consortium of forces, supported by PITO, to share information across force boundaries.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the Lancashire Constabulary in(a) 1992, (b) 1997, (c) 2002 and (d) the latest year for which figures are available. [176283]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Police officer strength1 Lancashire Constabulary

  Number

  31 March 1992

  3,198

  31 March 1997

  3,247

  31 March 2002

  3,304

  31 March 20032

  3,339

  1full time equivalents

  2comparable with previously published data i.e. excludes staff on career breaks or maternity/paternity leave.

  The latest available figures for the end of the year were issued with Home Office Press Release 095/2004 on 2 March 2004. On 31 December 2003 Lancashire Constabulary police officer strength was 3,549.

  Probation Service
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of probation officers required over the next five years. [176315]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: On current projections the number of probation staff will increase to 23,200 by 2008.

  Public Order
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests and (b) convictions there have been for breaching a designated public place order in each year since 2001. [175256]

  Ms Blears
  Information on arrests collected centrally is based on persons arrested for "notifiable" offences only and therefore does not cover this offence, as it is not notifiable.
  528W
  The offence of alcohol consumption in a designated public place (Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001) came into force on 1 September 2001 and was recorded in the Home Office Court Proceedings database from 1 January 2002. The information collected shows that no persons were convicted of this offence in 2002.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Fixed penalty notices for disorder have now been introduced in England and Wales covering 11 penalty offences. They have been introduced to provide the police with a quick and effective tool for dealing with minor disorder offences which saves both police and court time as well as providing the offender with an immediate punishment. The offence of drinking in a designated public place is included in the scheme. Home Office Research Findings No. 232 published in March this year gave details of the early results from the pilots of the scheme. This shows that for the period August 2002 to 28 March 2003 a total of four penalty notices were issued for the offence of drinking in a designated public place.

  Recordable Offences
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made to the list of recordable offences since 1997. [177466]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: All offences under provisions which carry the possibility of a custodial sentence are recordable, plus 52 other, non-imprisonable, offences specified in the Schedule to the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, as amended by the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Regulations made prior to 1997 had listed five non-imprisonable offences as record able
  section 1, Street Offences Act 1959 (offence of loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution);
  section 43, Telecommunications Act 1984 (offence of improper use of public telecommunications system);
  section 29, Road Traffic Act 1972 (penalisation of tampering with vehicles);
  section 1, Malicious Communications Act 1988 (offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety); and
  section 139(1), Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offence of having article with blade or point in public place).

  The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 added a further 42 offences to the list. The 2000 Regulations added a further 5 offences, and at the same time consolidated the provisions, including the list. Most recently, the 2003 Amendment Regulations added offences of taxi touting, begging and persistent begging to the list, and made some tidying-up amendments including removing from the list three offences which are now imprisonable and therefore no longer needed to be specified in the list as recordable.
  529W

  Seasonal Fruit Pickers
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average age is of seasonal fruit pickers who came to work to the UK in the last three years. [175439]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Non-EU nationals working as seasonal fruit pickers in the UK come under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS). Data about the average age of SAWS participants prior to 2004 is not available.

  The average age of SAWS participants who have been issued work cards to work on the scheme in 2004 is 22.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time a contracted seasonal fruit picker spent working in the UK in the last three years. [175445]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Non-EU nationals working as seasonal fruit pickers in the UK come under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS). Data about the average length of contract for SAWS participants prior to 2004 is not available.

  We anticipate that SAWS participants who have been issued work cards for 2004 will work on the scheme for an average of 4.7 months. Participants may only work for a maximum of six months on SAWS.

  Sentencing
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the dialogue between the Judicial Studies Board and the Sentencing Advisory Council. [176615]

  Paul Goggins
  I am satisfied with the arrangements for dialogue between the Judicial Studies Board and the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The Chair of the Judicial Studies Board's Criminal Committee is ex officio a member of the Sentencing Guidelines Council and there is regular contact between officials form both organisations.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 352W, on Tetra, what further work has been carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board on modelling specific absorption rates arising from Tetra masts. [176485]

  Caroline Flint
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has calculated specific absorption rates from Tetra handsets. Even in worst case situations, these were found to be well below international health and safety guidelines. In areas accessible to the public, signals from Tetra masts are very much weaker than those from handsets. The NRPB has not carried out any further work on specific absorption rates from Tetra masts.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 352W. on Tetra, what research has been carried out by the Radiocommunications
  530W
  Agency (now Ofcom) in checking the biological effects of low level electro-magnetic radiation from Tetra base station. [176486]

  Caroline Flint
  Ofcom does not carry out any research on the potential biological effects of low level electromagnetic radiation. Ofcom does however check that signal levels from base stations comply with health and safety guidelines. Ofcom checks at 12 Tetra base stations have confirmed that signal levels are hundreds of times less than international health and safety guidelines in areas accessible to the public.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 352W, on Tetra, what research is being carried out by King's College, London under the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme into the health effect of Tetra base stations and masts. [176487]

  Caroline Flint
  King's College London is already assessing the effects of GSM mobile phone handsets on cognitive performance and stress levels. It will extend the study to Tetra handsets in 2005. No work is planned on Tetra base stations or masts.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 352W, on Tetra, when he expects each of the research projects he refers to in his answer to report. [176488]

  Caroline Flint
  We expect two final reports from Dstl during 2004: the first on biological effects of Tetra in September and the second on cognitive performance in December. The Universities of Birmingham and Manchester are due to report in October 2004. MCL is due to report in December 2005.

  Because Imperial College is carrying out a long-term study, its interim report is not due until 2010.

  Interim reports from these studies are available from the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tetra.html, as are final reports from completed studies.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 352W, on Tetra, if he will list the people carrying out the research by Microwave Consultants Ltd. into specific absorption rates from Tetra equipment; whether this research includes Tetra masts; and what the source of funding is for this research. [176489]

  Caroline Flint
  The main Microwave Consultants Ltd. expert currently working on specific absorption rates from Tetra equipment is Dr. Philip Chadwick. The research does not include Tetra masts. It is funded by the Home Office.
  531W

  Worker Registration Scheme
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons from the new EU states have made an application under the Worker Registration Scheme since 1 May. [175440]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: We will be making information about the effect of EU enlargement available on a regular basis, in an open and transparent way, when it is appropriate and meaningful to do so.

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortions were performed on women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 in England and Wales in each year since 2000; and if he will make a statement; [174520]

  (2) how many abortions among women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 there were in each year since 2000, broken down by strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement. [174524]

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortions in those aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 there were in each year since 2000; [174460]

  (2) how many abortions were carried out on women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i)19 in the Essex Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000. [174574]

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortions were performed on women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in each year since 2000; [174505]

  (2) how many abortions among women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Essex Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000. [174512]

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions among women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000. [174952]

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortions among women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000. [175387]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions among women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000. [175624]
  532W
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions among women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (1) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000. [174886]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Members to the response I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) today.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which a girl under 16 years of age may obtain an abortion without pa rental consent. [175791]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An abortion can only ever be carried out where two doctors are satisfied that one of the grounds for a lawful termination, as set out in the Abortion Act 1967, is met.

  Health professionals can provide medical advice, treatment and examination, including abortion, for young people aged under 16. However they must be satisfied before doing so, that the young person is competent to consent to the treatment, by being of sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully the proposed treatment. Health professionals work within an established legal and guidance framework which involves assessing the young person's competence to understand the choices they are making and in particular encouraging them to talk to their parents. All health professionals are bound by their professional code and legal obligations as to confidentiality, which apply to patients under 16 as well as older patients.

  The duty of confidentiality is not, however, absolute. In the rare cases when a health professional believes that there is a risk to the health, safety or welfare of a young person or others which is so serious as to outweigh the young person's right to privacy, they should follow locally agreed child protection protocols, as outlined in "Working together to safeguard Children".

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortions among women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 there were in West Cumbria Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000; [175419]

  (2) how many abort ions on women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e)15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in each year since 2000. [175521]

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortions among women of 19 years and under there were in Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by age; [175785]

  (2) how many abortions in women of 19 years and under there were in each year since 2000, broken down by age. [175788]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The available information is shown in the tables.
  533W

  Number of abortions to women under age 20 by strategic health authority of residence, 2000

  Age

  Strategic health authority

  <14

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  8

  23

  76

  174

  236

  298

  269

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  1

  22

  70

  140

  219

  268

  280

  Essex

  6

  25

  68

  159

  199

  268

  265

  North West London

  7

  31

  88

  203

  357

  403

  568

  North Central London

  4

  26

  59

  159

  230

  324

  409

  North East London

  8

  43

  124

  213

  368

  450

  494

  South East London

  14

  38

  95

  234

  349

  460

  532

  South West London

  9

  21

  74

  151

  215

  291

  338

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  2

  29

  101

  162

  229

  261

  275

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  4

  21

  71

  108

  160

  179

  195

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  7

  28

  90

  164

  238

  272

  262

  West Yorkshire

  5

  38

  97

  211

  307

  328

  360

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  3

  29

  116

  205

  293

  355

  320

  Greater Manchester

  5

  38

  145

  328

  419

  551

  569

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  5

  35

  114

  284

  407

  495

  503

  Thames Valley

  7

  34

  96

  225

  259

  307

  396

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  4

  21

  79

  147

  236

  245

  310

  Kent and Medway

  3

  26

  77

  139

  233

  254

  285

  Surrey and Sussex

  2

  37

  100

  215

  331

  368

  419

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  8

  34

  100

  180

  256

  294

  372

  South West Peninsula

  4

  24

  59

  133

  198

  214

  224

  Somerset and Dorset

  3

  14

  57

  85

  161

  163

  144

  South Yorkshire

  4

  26

  91

  159

  184

  222

  251

  Trent

  6

  44

  108

  241

  331

  357

  447

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  6

  21

  74

  150

  201

  248

  290

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  1

  29

  84

  152

  209

  235

  236

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  14

  49

  154

  267

  432

  530

  570

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcestershire

  4

  30

  91

  173

  233

  287

  335

  SHA not known

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Wales

  7

  50

  141

  277

  404

  528

  512

  England and Wales Total

  161

  886

  2,700

  5,439

  7,895

  9,455

  10,430

  2001

  Age

  Strategic Heath Authority

  <14

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  6

  27

  71

  168

  246

  286

  303

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  6

  25

  80

  137

  219

  255

  292

  Essex

  6

  18

  66

  154

  218

  270

  290

  North West London

  7

  24

  90

  196

  331

  466

  588

  North Central London

  3

  29

  63

  162

  265

  325

  445

  North East London

  5

  38

  112

  267

  363

  487

  554

  South East London

  13

  38

  121

  287

  406

  500

  584

  South West London

  5

  21

  71

  145

  247

  246

  318

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  3

  32

  89

  157

  214

  259

  237

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  3

  26

  57

  111

  164

  188

  170

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  1

  32

  68

  154

  231

  255

  244

  West Yorkshire

  8

  31

  89

  210

  268

  351

  362

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  5

  38

  113

  196

  283

  312

  318

  Greater Manchester

  6

  57

  142

  299

  458

  517

  511

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  6

  34

  108

  295

  395

  448

  471

  Thames Valley

  3

  24

  79

  196

  286

  348

  420

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1

  32

  88

  140

  239

  277

  336

  Kent and Medway

  6

  30

  80

  169

  228

  279

  281

  Surrey and Sussex

  5

  34

  97

  219

  302

  373

  397

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  6

  39

  82

  185

  290

  308

  398

  South West Peninsula

  4

  24

  76

  114

  204

  239

  229

  Somerset and Dorset

  4

  13

  37

  132

  153

  159

  167

  South Yorkshire

  3

  34

  77

  158

  183

  221

  244

  Trent

  7

  38

  131

  240

  298

  378

  395

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  2

  26

  51

  143

  206

  255

  278

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  4

  22

  57

  180

  209

  217

  210

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  12

  54

  145

  315

  439

  504

  517

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcestershire

  3

  26

  89

  179

  225

  277

  295

  Wales

  5

  51

  163

  344

  394

  465

  497

  England and Wales total

  148

  917

  2,592

  5,652

  7,964

  9,465

  10,351

  534W 535W

  20021

  Age

  Strategic health authority

  <14

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  6

  23

  73

  168

  217

  266

  269

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  4

  22

  57

  144

  208

  225

  264

  Essex

  3

  14

  64

  136

  239

  256

  248

  North West London

  9

  28

  79

  211

  338

  403

  490

  North Central London

  11

  25

  69

  170

  283

  325

  388

  North East London

  6

  37

  104

  255

  394

  475

  540

  South East London

  11

  31

  123

  298

  389

  477

  555

  South West London

  4

  25

  71

  160

  214

  279

  312

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  6

  23

  78

  138

  205

  236

  242

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  5

  18

  73

  111

  177

  151

  185

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  2

  27

  82

  137

  221

  246

  252

  West Yorkshire

  5

  41

  104

  188

  262

  336

  362

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  7

  37

  90

  192

  275

  271

  305

  Greater Manchester

  2

  35

  129

  280

  403

  484

  482

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  4

  41

  111

  252

  396

  425

  449

  Thames Valley

  5

  17

  105

  195

  278

  340

  395

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  9

  27

  75

  139

  244

  263

  328

  Kent and Medway

  6

  20

  71

  152

  207

  254

  269

  Surrey and Sussex

  3

  18

  87

  190

  295

  325

  398

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  3

  22

  81

  187

  263

  330

  337

  South West Peninsula

  2

  24

  62

  111

  225

  207

  238

  Somerset and Dorset

  5

  14

  48

  85

  161

  180

  158

  South Yorkshire

  5

  35

  94

  182

  191

  215

  229

  Trent

  6

  42

  121

  218

  328

  355

  409

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  4

  31

  56

  136

  219

  244

  283

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  7

  20

  80

  143

  186

  228

  242

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  8

  33

  135

  267

  395

  478

  558

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcestershire

  5

  28

  90

  184

  230

  281

  281

  SHA not known

  1

  2

  13

  19

  50

  53

  75

  Wales

  4

  39

  132

  260

  392

  449

  451

  England and Wales total

  158

  799

  2,557

  5,308

  7,885

  9,057

  9,994

  1Provisional data.

  Source:

  Produced by Statistics Division, Department of Health.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions there were in women aged 11 to 19 years in each year since 2000 in the Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Avon Strategic Health Authority, broken down by age. [176122]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) today.

  Acupuncture
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of medical acupuncturists who practise the traditional acupuncture service. [177054]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 2 March, the Department published proposals for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture practitioners. The consultation period closes on 7 June. We are aware of the interests of both medical and traditional acupuncturists and will consider their representations very carefully.

  Adult Education
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the therapeutic benefits of adult education. [177276]
  536W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The "Acheson Inquiry into Inequalities in Health" found that education has an important role in influencing inequalities in socio-economic position. Educational qualifications are a determinant of an individual's labour market position, which in turn influences income, housing and other material resources. These are related to health inequalities.

  A report by the social exclusion unit on mental health and social exclusion is due for publication shortly. The report covers a wide range of issues, including the positive effect that participation in learning can have on mental health.

  Air Pollution
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adult deaths as a result of air pollution there were in the last year for which figures are available. [174851]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Air pollution is associated with an increased risk of death from respiratory and cardiovascular disease but only estimates of numbers of deaths can be made, based on the findings of epidemiological studies. The committee on the medical effects of air pollutants published a report: quantification of the effects of air pollution on health in the United Kingdom (QUARK) in 1998. The report estimated that 8,100 deaths were brought forward as a result of exposure to particles: the equivalent figures for
  537W
  sulphur dioxide and ozone being 3,500 arid 700 or 12,500, depending on the assumption of threshold for the effects of ozone respectively. Particle concentrations have fallen since 1998 though urban concentrations of ozone are rising albeit slowly. A revision of the QUARK report will be published in 2006.

  Care Records Service
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether additional resources will be made available to general practitioners using the EMIS system to migrate to the new Care Records Service. [176748]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national programme for information technology (NPfIT) has awarded a number of contracts to local service providers (LSPs) to act as prime contractors to deliver the elements of the NPfIT in a geographical area. It is the primary responsibility of the LSPs to work with national health service health care providers, including general practitioners, to deliver the solutions that the NHS needs. This will include working with EMIS and other primary care system providers to ensure that the systems currently in use across the NHS conform to the national standards required and can be upgraded to integrate with new national applications as they come on line. If this is not the case, GPs will be offered a choice of a new compliant system. The costs of this have been included in funding allocations for the NPfIT and to the NHS.

  Children's Hospital (Manchester)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the date on which work will start on the site for the construction of the new children's hospital in Manchester. [178081]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The estimated date on which work will start on the site for the construction of the new children's hospital in Manchester is late July 2004.

  Clinical Advisers (IT Forum)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to involve(a) clinicians and (b) end users in the development of the NHS IT system; and if he will make a statement. [173092]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have appointed Professor Aidan Halligan, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, as joint senior responsible owner and director general for the national programme for information technology (NPfIT). Professor Halligan now leads on work to engage doctors and other clinicians to ensure that the national health service IT system meets the needs of users and supports the Government's priority of improving patient treatment.

  On 30 April 2004, we announced plans to further improve engagement with NHS stakeholders to support the implementation of the NpflT. We have set up a new frontline support academy for clinicians. We are currently reviewing the formal arrangements for engaging with the NHS, patients and other stakeholders and we expect to make an announcement on this later in the summer.
  538W
  Extensive consultation has already taken place with clinical representative groups, including the professional Royal Colleges, the General Medical Council and the British Medical Council, all of whom have provided valuable input. As well as the national professional bodies and groups, the NPfIT team has also engaged closely with expert primary care practitioners, including practising general practitioners. This consultation helped to inform the requirement which was published in the system's output-based specification. Clinicians and users were also involved in evaluating the proof of solution demonstrators developed by suppliers and in evaluating the supplier bids.

  In all, the NPfIT has to date hosted around 400 local events involving managers, clinicians, allied health professionals and IT staff. Over 21,000 individuals have been involved as part of a concerted effort to ensure as many people as possible have the opportunity to influence local plans to prepare for phased implementation from summer 2004.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects a reply to be made to the letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, dated 7 April, from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, regarding his constituent Mr. T Curran of Banff. [176134]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on Tuesday 8 June.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a letter will be sent to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford concerning Olympus and his constituent, Mr. Dyckhoff, following the meeting which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford had with the Minister of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), on 10 March 2004. [177615]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A letter was sent to the hon. Member on 9 June 2004.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there have been in Pendle in each year since 1994. [176284]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of national health service dentists in the health authority areas covering Pendle since 1994 is given in the table for September each year.

  NHS dental services: number of dentists in Lancashire Family Health Service Authority (FHSA), East Lancashire Health Authority (HA) and Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust (PCT)

  September each year

  Lancashire FHSA

  East Lancashire HA

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT

  1994

  507

  —

  —

  1995

  511

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  191

  —

  1997

  —

  190

  —

  1998

  —

  201

  —

  1999

  —

  195

  —

  539W

  NHS dental services: number of dentists in Lancashire Family Health Service Authority (FHSA), East Lancashire Health Authority (HA) and Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust (PCT)

  September each year

  Lancashire FHSA

  East Lancashire HA

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT

  2000

  —

  200

  —

  2001

  —

  210

  —

  2002

  —

  —

  97

  2003

  —

  —

  98

  Note:

  NHS dentists cover dentists working in the general dental service (GDS), hospital dental service (HDS), community dental service (CDS), personal dental service (PDS) and salaried service of the GDS. Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service, apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS who are counted only once.

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS dentistry in the Vale of York. [177454]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are 111 dentists in the Selby and York Primary Care Trust area. The PCT is working with local dentists to develop a dental action plan to improve access to national health service dentistry in the area.

  Departmental IT Budget
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of the Department's IT budget will be assigned to the roll-out of picture archiving and communications systems; and if he will make a statement; [176652]

  (2) what the time scale is for introducing picture archiving and communication systems across the NHS. [176653]

  Mr. Hutton
  Picture archiving and communications system (PACS) technology funded under the national programme for information technology will begin to be introduced across the national health service during summer 2004. The aim is for national coverage to be complete within three years.

  In 2004–05, £60 million of central funding—approximately 4 per cent. of total anticipated NHS information management and technology expenditure will be provided to support investment in buying and implementing PACS. Expenditure on implementing PACS technology in future years will be determined and announced in due course.

  Dermatology Waiting Times
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the impact of the two-week wait rule on dermatology waiting times. [174125]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the two-week wait rule on the management of suspected skin cancers in the North West of England; [175052]

  (2) whether his Department plans to conduct an audit of the two-week wait rule for suspected cancer referrals in the North West of England; [175055]
  540W
  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the two-week wait rule on dermatology waiting times in the North West of England. [175056]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A two-week out-patient waiting time standard was introduced for urgently referred cases of suspected skin cancer from October 2000. In the last quarter (October to December 2003), 99.5 per cent. of urgently referred patients with suspected skin cancer were seen within two weeks of urgent referral. We have issued general practitioner cancer referral guidelines to assist GPs in determining which patients need to be referred urgently to see a specialist within two weeks, those patients that can be referred for a routine appointment and patients who can be safely watched at a primary care level. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently reviewing the referral guidelines.

  The referral guidelines should be used to agree local referral criteria and referral pathways. All national health service trusts have been encouraged to undertake local audit to assess the impact of the two-week wait on local services and to enable the appropriateness of urgent and routine referrals against the guidelines to be fed back to referring GPs.

  Doctors (EU Member States)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors from other EU member states were employed in the NHS in the last year for which data is available. [177457]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at September 2003, there were 109,964 doctors working in the national health service, of whom 5,379 gained their primary medical qualification outside the United Kingdom but within the European Economic Area.

  Embryology
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which licensed fertility clinics are involved in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority pilot scheme on embryo donation; and if he will make a statement. [175895]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Medical Research Council together with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) have written a patient information leaflet and a standard consent form to be used for patients who express an interest in donating embryos for the purpose of deriving stem cells. These documents were sent to a number of centres that have a licence to use human embryos to derive stem cells and are contributing to the MRC stem cell initiative. The centres were asked to pilot these documents for three months which ended on 31 March 2004. The feedback forms will then be evaluated by the steering committee of the United Kingdom stem cell bank and for the use of stem cell lines and the HFEA before being finalised and sent to all relevant in vitro fertilisation centres in the UK. The participating centres are as follows:Assisted Conception Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital
  Assisted Conception Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital
  Assisted Conception Unit, University of Aberdeen
  Institute for Stem Cell Research, University of Edinburgh

  541W
  Assisted Conception Unit, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital, London
  The Bridge Centre, London
  Section of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, The Jessop Wing, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
  The Hewitt Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool
  International Centre at Life, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
  Department of Gene Expression and Development, Roslin Institute, Midlothian
  Department of Reproductive Medicine, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester
  Assisted Conception Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from members of the public regarding the code of practice for the United Kingdom stem cell bank; and if he will make a statement. [175896]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No representations have been received from members of the public regarding the code of practice for the United Kingdom stem cell bank.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the code of practice for the new United Kingdom stem cell bank; and if he will make a statement [175897]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An interim code of practice for the United Kingdom stem cell bank is posted on the Medical Research Council website. Some changes may be required after the consultation on the companion code of practice on the use of stem cell lines finishes at the end of this month. The steering committee for the stem cell bank and for the use of stem cell lines will consider the responses to the consultation. The codes of practice are expected to be published by the Medical Research Council in the autumn.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the peer reviewers are, appointed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to consider the application to the HFEA by Professor Alison Murdoch for a licence to create human embryonic stem cell lines using nuclear transfer and pathenogenically activated oocytes; and if he will make a statement. [175899]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The use of external peer reviewers is an essential part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) process for evaluating applications for research licences. All applications are sent to at least two reviewers who are asked to determine whether the application comes within the statutory purposes of the 1990 Act (as amended), requires human embryos to fulfil its aims and objectives, requires the numbers and types of embryos outlined in the application, and meets the requirements of the HFEA code of practice including ethical approval and patient information.

  Assessment must not only avoid conflict of interest between reviewers and applicants but also avoid circumstances that might give the impression that there is a conflict of interest. Therefore all peer reviewers must declare any conflict of interest in an application that they have been asked to review. Furthermore, peer reviewers have an obligation to protect the ideas and
  542W
  plans of the applicants. The identity of the reviewers of individual research applications is confidential to the HFEA. This confidentiality allows the free exchange of views among reviewers and is in line with the policies of the United Kingdom funding bodies and scientific and medical journals. A list of peer reviewers, current as of 31 August 2003, is published in the HFEA annual report 2002–03 and an updated list will be published on the HFEA website and the next annual report.

  Entitlement Cards
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Scottish Executive on the NHS in England and Wales requiring entitlement cards when the Scottish NHS does not; and how this situation would affect Scottish citizens who do not have an entitlement card using the NHS in England and Wales. [176792]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Home Office has lead responsibility for developing the national identity cards scheme. The introduction of such a scheme is a long-term undertaking and there are on-going discussions to which the Department and Scottish Executive are contributing.

  As set out in the draft Identity Cards Bill consultation paper, published on 26 April this year, the registration of individuals and the issue of identity cards will operate on a United Kingdom-wide basis, including if and when the scheme becomes compulsory. However, the use of cards to access services will be a matter for the individual Departments concerned and, in the case of devolved services such as health, for the devolved administrations. We are working together to discuss how any potential differences, including for health service provision, would work in practice.

  Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the training issues for maternity services that would apply to a demerger of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust. [176956]

  Mr. Hutton
  No plans exist within Epsom and St. Helier National Health Services Trust or South West London Strategic Health Authority for the demerger of Epsom and St Helier at this time.

  Furthermore, the trust has not undertaken any studies in relation to any services on the effect of a demerger.

  EU Council Resolution 92/C172/01
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of EU Council Resolution 92/C172/01. [176767]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: European Council Resolution 92/C172/01 of 18 June 1992 aims to offer support to the competent authorities of third countries in their efforts to apply the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes in their territories.
  543W
  The European Community cannot legislate for third countries. However, as provided for in Resolution 92/C172/01, the European Commission has instructed its delegations in third countries to serve as contact points for receiving, from the competent authorities in those countries, any complaints about or criticisms of marketing practices in those countries by Community-based manufacturers of infant formulae and follow-on formulae.

  Family Clinics
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many attendances at family clinics by people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by sex; [176494]

  (2) how many women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were fitted with a contraceptive implant in the Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000. [176497]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on 7 June 2004,Official Report, columns 34—36W.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs were incurred by the Government in opposing the application of the Health Food Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Health Stores to the High Court in London for referral to the European Court of Justice of their case in relation to the Food Supplements Directive; and if he will make it his policy not to pursue those costs should the case prove unsuccessful. [176582]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The legal costs incurred by the Department in opposing the application of the Health Food Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Health Stores with regards to the Food Supplements Directive were in the region of £13,000. Should the claimants' case prove unsuccessful, it would be normal Government practice to pursue the legal costs incurred.

  Foreign Patients
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts were treating foreign patients on the latest date for which figures are available. [176468]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trusts are not required to submit statistics on the nationality of patients treated.

  GP Waiting Times
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS patients were able to see a general practitioner within two days within London health authority areas in each year since 1997. [177047]
  544W
  Mr. Hutton
  Data for London strategic health authorities (SHAs) are shown in the table.

  Percentage of patients being offered an appointment with a general practitioner within 48 hours

  SHA

  September 20011

  March 20021

  March 2003

  March 2004

  North West London

  75.4

  69.5

  80.0

  96.9

  North Central London

  70.2

  58.9

  79.8

  99.4

  North East London

  62.6

  56.9

  82.3

  99.3

  South East London

  68.0

  66.2

  92.4

  96.0

  South West London

  84.9

  77.4

  89.6

  98.6

  1Data collected between September 2001 and March 2002 are based on percentage of practices not patients and are not strictly comparable but are included here for completeness. Data for 2001—02 are an aggregation of data originally collected from the then 95 health authorities.

  Health Expenditure
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in Blackpool North and Fleetwood in each of the last seven years. [175328]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Black pool North and Fleetwood, has increased from £600.03 in 1997–98 to £1,173.57 in 2002–03, the latest year available. However, this does not represent the total expenditure per head as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Health Services (Manchester)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in Manchester, Blackley. [175013]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In June 1998, the earliest data available, 19 people waited between nine and 11 months and 23 people were waiting 12 months or more for heart surgery in the former Manchester health authority area. In March 2004, no patient waited over nine months for heart surgery in the North Manchester Primary Care Trust area.

  Heart Disease
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research the Department has commissioned into coronary heart disease, with particular reference to the incidence of the disease in Asian communities. [176094]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has in the last year commissioned a study of the experience of advance heart failure and access to palliative care for south Asian patients and their family carers. Other current research into coronary heart disease commissioned by the Department includes a £0.4 million study of the cost effectiveness of functional cardiac testing in its diagnosis and management; and a review of risk scoring methods and clinical decision aids used in primary prevention.

  Heart Surgery (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was. for heart surgery in Warrington hospital(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [172847]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In June 1998, earliest data available, eight people waited between nine and 11 months, and six people were waiting 12 months or more for heart surgery in the former North Cheshire Health Authority area. In March 2004 there was no one waiting over nine months for heart surgery in the Warrington Primary Care Trust area.

  Mean, median waiting time and number of admissions for finished in-year admissions for elective (waiting time and booked) with main operative procedure K01-K71, national health service hospitals, England 1997–98 and 2002–03

  K01-K71 heart operative procedures

  PCT of responsibility

  1997–98

  2002–03

  5J2

  Warrington PCT

  Mean waiting time (in-year finished admissions)

  58

  114

  Median waiting time (in-year finished admission)

  23

  84

  Number of in-year finished admissions

  362

  538

  Notes:

  Time Waited

  Time waited statistics from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the time waited as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical social suspension.

  Main Operation

  The main operation is the first recorded operation in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode. It is appropriate to use main operation when

  National Health Service Trust

  Estimated capital value (£ million)

  Funding1

  Status

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  76

  PFI

  Pre-procurement

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  328

  PFI

  Pre-procurement

  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington NHS Trust

  900

  PFI

  Pre-procurement

  Barts and The London NHS Trust

  1052

  PFI

  In procurement

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  74

  PFI

  In Procurement

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  51

  PFI

  In procurement

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  28

  PFI

  In procurement

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  422

  PFI

  Under construction

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  32

  PFI

  Under construction

  Barnet PCT (Edgware Community)

  24

  Public

  Under construction

  Havering, Barking an Redbridge NHS Trust

  238

  PFI

  Under construction

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  52

  PFI

  Under construction

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  69

  PFI

  Under construction

  Brent PCT—Willesden

  21

  PFI

  Under construction

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  50

  Public

  Under construction

  Queen Mary's Roehampton

  55

  PFI

  Under construction

  1PFI = Private finance initiative.

  Information on schemes with a capital value below £10 million is not held centrally.

  Illegal Drug Users
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people he estimates were illegal
  546W
  looking at admission details, for example, time waited, but the figures for all operations count of episodes give a more complete count of episodes with an operation.

  Finished in-year admissions
  A finished in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data year. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Grossing
  Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  HIV
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Department is taking to reduce the number of people contracting HIV each year in England. [176251]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government published the first ever national strategy for sexual health and HIV in 2001, followed by an implementation action plan in 2002. This is a 10 year strategy, which sets challenging goals to tackle HIV. Action to implement the strategy includes strengthening our HIV prevention work targeting those groups most at risk of infection, the publication last year of standards for HIV treatment and care and the publication of toolkits of best practice to support HIV prevention at local level.

  Hospital Developments
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on recent hospital developments taking place within the Greater London area; and if he will list them. [174493]

  Mr. Hutton
  Within the Greater London area the following hospital developments are taking place.

  drug users in the last year for which figures are available; and what the Government's plans are for reducing the number of people using illegal drugs. [176813]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is estimated that there are 250,000 Class A problem drug users in England and Wales (Home Office Research Study 2002). Problem
  547W
  drug users are defined as people who use illegal drugs and experience social, psychological, physical or legal problems.

  The Government are committed to tackling substance misuse and launched the updated Drugs Strategy in 2002. The Government are on track to meet the target in this strategy to double the number of people in treatment from 100,000 in 1998 to 200,000 by 2008 and to increase year-on-year the numbers retained or successfully completing treatment.

  Independent Treatment Centres
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the contract price of treatments provided by independent treatment centres is expressed as a proportion of the relevant NHS tariff for that treatment. [166077]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 April 2004]: National health service national tariffs do not directly correspond to the packages of care we are purchasing from the independent sector in the treatment centre programme. For example, varying numbers of out-patient appointments and follow-up care are included in the procedure prices of the independent sector treatment centre provider, which are not included in NHS national tariff for individual procedures.

  For the single-procedure cataract chain, a price per cataract procedure was at nearly 10 per cent. less than the comparable NHS cost. Further contracts have been signed in relation to treatment centres at Daventry, Bradford, Trent and South Yorkshire, Plymouth, and the national, so-called spine chain. These contracts are for the provision of joint replacements, other orthopaedics and other elective procedures. For these treatment centres, it is not appropriate to directly compare NHS national tariffs with the bid price of providers.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have benefited from infertility treatment in(a) Shropshire and (b) England in each year since 1997. [175635]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information is not collected centrally on the assisted conception services provided to Shropshire patients. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority collects data on licensed treatments carried out in the United Kingdom. The numbers of patients treated and treatment cycles carried out are shown in the table:

  Licensed treatment carried out in the UK, 1997 to 2001

  In vitro fertilisation (IVF)

  Donor insemination

  Patients

  Treatment cycles

  Patients

  Treatment cycles

  1997

  26,291

  34,017

  5,077

  13,169

  1998

  27,279

  35,559

  4,453

  11,453

  1999

  26,707

  34,684

  3,866

  9,985

  2000

  26,548

  34,634

  3,395

  8,102

  20011

  28,076

  35,599

  2,718

  6,450

  12001 is the most recent year for which information is currently available.

  Source:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Lumbar Punctures
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he has satisfied himself that lumbar punctures carried out on children at the Royal Free Hospital by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group since 1996 have had valid and explicit ethical approval from a properly constituted research ethics committee on the issues of full disclosure of the research's relevant interests and of the full clinical context. [157459]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Based on information currently available to us, the Royal Free Ethics Committee approved the collection of data from clinically indicated investigations for a study entitled "Enteritis and Disintegrative Disorder following measles/rubella vaccination" in November 1996. The disintegrative disorder described in the protocol is Heller's disease, and the vaccine under investigation was measles/rubella vaccine.

  We also understand that the study title was changed to "Autism and Non-Specific Colitis and Lymophoid Nodular Hyperplasia" and the name change was approved by the Royal Free Ethics Committee in 1998.

  The Ethics Committee gave approval for the collection of data from clinically indicated investigations. The Committee did not take a view on which clinical investigations, such as lumbar puncture, were justified. This would usually be determined for each individual child involved, depending on their condition.

  Manchester Children's Hospital
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the(a) monthly and (b) total cost of the delay in building the new Manchester Children's hospital. [176639]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There has been no estimate of the monthly and total cost of the delay in building the new Manchester Children's hospital.

  ME
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people his Department estimates had myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) in Greater London in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by(a) sex and (b) age group; how much (i) Government and (ii) non-government money has been spent on ME in Greater London since January 2002; if he will list the ME specialists there are in Greater London; and if he will make a statement. [177039]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information requested is not collected centrally.

  This Government are committed to improving services for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), which is also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). This is evidenced by the fact that:
  We endorsed the view or the independent working group that CFS/ME is a debilitating and distressing condition, which affects people of all ages.
  We have asked the Medical Research Council to develop a research strategy for CFS/ME.
  We have asked the National institute for Clinical Excellence to develop guidelines for the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME.

  549W
  We have made available £8.5 million to develop services specifically designed for people with CFS/ME.

  In line with the Department's "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative, allocations are made direct to primary care trusts (PCTs). It is now the responsibility of PCTs to commission services which meet the needs of their local populations.

  Medical Staff
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses, (b) midwives and (c) health visitors (i) were in post in 1997 and (ii) are in post; what plans there are for the future numbers of each in the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [176119]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the numbers of nurses, midwives and health visitors employed in the national health service in September 1997 and 2003 is shown in the table.

  There are 67,500 more qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors employed in the NHS than in 1997. The Government have already met the NHS Plan, manifesto and delivering the NHS Plan targets for increasing the nursing workforce and is on course to meet the NHS Plan target for increasing the number of students entering training to become a nurse or midwife. The Government acknowledge that the re are still more staff needed in these areas and we shall focus on increasing training places, retaining nursing staff and filling existing vacancies, it is for local NHS organisations to determine the number of nurses needed locally.

  NHS HCHS: qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1997

  2003

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and HV staff

  318,856

  386,359

  Of which:

  Registered midwife

  22,385

  23,941

  Health visitor

  12,410

  12,984

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reduce sickness absence in the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service; and what assessment he has made of the (effectiveness of these policies. [176926]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The information is not collected centrally. The measures used to address sickness absence rates within an organisation are matters for individual national health service organisations.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the travel costs incurred by(a) his Department and (b) each Minister within his Department, for each of the last 10 years. [175652]
  550W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Expenditure details are available for the Department from the financial year 1994—95 and are shown in the table. The Department's finance systems do not maintain information by individual Ministers for each year.

  Departmental travel costs

  £

  Expenditure

  1994–95

  4,437,078

  1995–96

  4,307,684

  1996–97

  5,847,922

  1997–98

  6,592,081

  1998–99

  5,814,365

  1999–2000

  7,080,034

  2000–01

  7,295,706

  2001–02

  7,972,843

  2002–03

  7,607,890

  2003–04

  18,211,382

  1Provisional

  MMR Vaccine
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific assessment he has made of the paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield on the possible links between the MMR vaccine and autism; what research has been commissioned by his Department on the subject since the publication of Dr. Wakefield's paper; and if he will place in the Library copies of scientific critiques of Dr. Wakefield's paper commissioned or endorsed by his Department. [156637]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's independent scientific advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), has reviewed the work of Dr. Wakefield on the postulated association between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines and the development of autism and inflammatory bowel disease. This has included the study published in The Lancet in 1998. CSM has kept this issue under continual review and has consistently concluded that the available evidence does not support a causal association. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has also kept this issue under close review and is in full agreement with the CSM.

  A study, subsequently published in The Lancet in 1999, was commissioned by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (then the Medicines Control Agency) to look at the occurrence of autism in children born within the North Thames region before and after the introduction of MMR vaccination. The results of this study do not support the suggested causal association between MMR vaccine and autism.

  At the Chief Medical Officer's request, the Medical Research Council (MRC) held an independent scientific seminar on 23 March 1998 to review the work of Dr. Wakefield's group. At this seminar, Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues were given time fully to present their work including the data from the 1998 Lancet study. The meeting concluded that there was no evidence to indicate any link between MMR vaccination and bowel

  551W
  disease or autism and no reason for a change in the MMR vaccination policy. The Chief Medical Officer endorsed the conclusions of the MRC panel.

  Nurses
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were employed in hospitals in Liverpool in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [173662]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  National health service hospital and community health services: qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff including practice nurses employed by unrestricted principals and equivalents1 (UPEs) in each specified organisation as at 30 September each specified year

  headcount

  1997

  2003

  Total specified organisations

  4,544

  7,626

  North Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT)

  n/a

  246

  Central Liverpool PCT

  n/a

  554

  South Liverpool PCT

  n/a

  152

  Liverpool Cardiothoracic NHS Trust

  336

  528

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  684

  788

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust

  98

  142

  Walton Centre for Neurology/Neurosurgery NHS Trust

  187

  271

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital

  1,567

  1,948

  NHS Trust

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,185

  1,120

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  487

  699

  Mersey Care NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,178

  n/a = not applicable.

  Note:

  UPEs include general medical services unrestricted principals, personal medical services contracted general practitioners (GPs) and personal medical services salaried Gps.

  Sources:

  1. Department of Health non-medical workforce census.

  2. Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics.

  Overseas Medical Treatment
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been sent abroad for medical treatment during the last 12 months. [174499]

  Mr. Hutton
  A total of 353 people were sent abroad for medical treatment commissioned by the national health service in the last 12 months.

  Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines govern the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy on patients with(a) cerebral palsy, (b) multiple sclerosis, (c) spina bifida, (d) cystic fibrosis, (e) Huntingdon's disease and (f) acquired brain injury (i) generally and (ii) for patients who are in receipt of residential care and support services provided by public, private or voluntary organisations. [178097]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have not issued guidelines for this technique. The aim of percutaneuous endoscopic gastrostomy is to feed those who cannot swallow.

  The National Institute of Clinical Excellence issued guidelines in 2003 on the prevention of healthcare associated infections in primary and community care.
  552W
  The recommendations provide guidance on infection prevention and control precautions that should be applied by all healthcare personnel and carers.

  Peripheral Vascular Disease
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the last year suffered from peripheral vascular disease in(a) Rugby and Kenilworth and (b) England. [174963]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows the number of finished admission episodes relating to peripheral vascular disease broken down by relevant primary care trusts (PCTs) in Rugby and Kenilworth, and the overall count for England in 2002–03.

  Number

  North Warwickshire PCT Rugby PCT

  248

  Rugby PCT

  71

  England

  60,023

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Ports
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Port Health Authority officials were employed at UK(a) seaports and (b) airports in each of the last five years. [177156]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The requirement for employing Port Health Authority (PHA) officials at seaports and airports rests with local authorities who are responsible for port health work. The number of PHA officials is determined by the local authorities, and their numbers are not held centrally.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the last review of(a) registration and (b) inspection procedures for privately-run nursing homes took place. [177817]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The current registration and inspection procedures for care homes were put in place in 2002, when the National Care Standards Commission was established and the regulations and national minimum standards for care homes were introduced. The Commission for Social Care Inspection became operational in April 2004 and operates under the same regulatory framework.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often the(a) independent group on teenage pregnancy, (b) joint committee on vaccination and immunisation, (c) patient information advisory group and (d) expert advisory group on AIDS are scheduled to convene; and on what date each last met. [175332]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The independent advisory group on teenage pregnancy is the responsibility of my
  553W
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Meetings of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation are convened three times a year; the last meeting was on 6 February 2004. Meetings of the patient information advisory group are convened four times a year, but have the flexibility to meet more frequently if required; the last meeting was on 28 April 2004. Meetings of the expert advisory group on AIDS are convened three times a year; the last meeting was on 8 March 2004.

  Radiography training commissions

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Radiography

  593

  582

  646

  685

  761

  948

  1,227

  Of which:

  Diagnostic

  452

  447

  507

  541

  597

  730

  942

  Therapeutic

  141

  135

  139

  144

  164

  218

  285

  Source:

  Department of Health quarterly monitoring returns.

  Rheumatological/Musculoskeletal Conditions
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners hold a specialist interest in(a) rheumatological conditions, (b) musculoskeletal conditions and (c) orthopaedics; and what steps are being taken to increase these numbers. [171930]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are now some 1,300 general practitioners with a special interest (GPwSIs). However, information on the number of general practitioners with a special interest in particular specialties is not collected centrally.

  In line with "Shifting the Balance of Power", the expansion of the range of services provided in primary care, though the development of new staff roles, such as GPwSIs, should be locally driven Primary care trusts are therefore responsible for developing GPwSIs' services in accordance with their local health economy need to improve access for patients.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections were reported in people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h)18 and (i) 19 years in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [176493]

  (2) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [176495]

  (3) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections was in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [176496]

  Radiographers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS training places for(a) diagnostic and (b) therapeutic radiographers there were in each year since 1997. [176754]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table. Between 1996–97 and 2002–03, the number of training places for radiographers have increased by 634, or 107 per cent.

  (4) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [176498]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on 25 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1610–11W.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections were reported in people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [176838]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [176839]

  (3) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were reported in Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [176841]

  (4) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [176843]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on 25 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1610–11W.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many attendances at family clinics by people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16,

  555W
  (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by sex; [176840]

  (2) how many women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e)15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were fitted with a contraceptive implant in the Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000. [176842]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on 7 June 2004,Official Report, columns 34–36W.

  Trastuzumab
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of breast cancer patients diagnosed in the past 12 months received treatment with Trastuzumab; [176867]

  (2) what percentage of patients diagnosed with breast cancer were tested for HER2 in the last year for which figures are available. [176868]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not collect information on the percentage of breast cancer patients who receive treatment with Herceptin or who are tested for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

  Professor Mike Richards, National Cancer Director, has been asked to investigate the variation in uptake of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence approved chemotherapy drugs, including Herceptin. His report is due to be published shortly.

  Trust Boards
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis his Department has made of the composition of trust boards in England, with particular reference to the(a) age, (b) nationality and (c) gender of members. [176480]

  Mr. Hutton
  Analyses of the age, ethnicity and gender of national health service board members are carried out by the NHS appointments commission, and data relating to 1 April 2004 will be published shortly in their annual report for 2003–04. In the meantime, I have asked the chair of the commission, Sir William Wells, to write to my hon. Friend with the latest data available.

  United Healthcare Group
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the scoping report on implementation of the Evercare model of care, completed in February 2003 by United Healthcare Group. [175807]

  Mr. Hutton
  United Health Group submitted a scoping report to each individual primary care trust (PCT), and these remain the property of the PCTs.

  vCJD
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the latest scientific evidence on infection rates for vCJD, with particular reference to links with BSE. [176127]
  556W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: The Government seek scientific advice on matters relating to spongiform encephalopathies from the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee (SEAC). SEAC is provided with all published research on variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) as it is available. The committee's consideration of scientific research is recorded in the minutes of SEAC meetings which are available at the website: www.seac.gov.uk

  Waiting Lists
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are awaiting(a) admission and (b) out-patient assessment in each national health service trust in Greater London. [177048]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of patients waiting for elective in-patient admission at national health service trusts and primary care trusts within the five London strategic health authorities is shown in the table. Information on the total number of patients waiting for outpatient appointments is not collected centrally.

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission: NHS trusts and PCTs within London SHAs: Position at 31 March 2004

  NHS trust/PCT

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  10,679

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  7,861

  Barts and the London NHS Trust

  8,468

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  4,881

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,913

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  2,145

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  4,565

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  1,630

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  7,846

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,548

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  1,972

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  902

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  4,871

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  5,609

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  3,577

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  5,091

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  3,258

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,510

  Newham PCT

  1

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  2,262

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,495

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  3,573

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  2,977

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  2,233

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  6,639

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  299

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust (London)

  2,889

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  5,418

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  3,911

  SW London and St. Georges NHS Trust

  41

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  4,833

  West London Mental Health NHS Trust

  14

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  1,639

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  5,165

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  1,598

  Source:

  DH form KHO7

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients were assessed by a specialist within two weeks of emergency referral in the last year for which figures are available. [176862]
  557W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A two week out-patient waiting time standard was introduced for all urgent referrals of suspected cancer during 2000. Performance against this standard is collected quarterly with the table showing performance for the last four available quarters. Further data on cancer waiting times targets is available at www.performance.doh.gov.uk/cancerwaits/

  Percentage of patients

  2002–03

  Qtr 4

  96.3

  2003—04

  Qtr 1

  96.9

  Qtr 2

  97.7

  Qtr 3

  98

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Animal Rights Extremism
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to combat the threat of animal rights extremism. [177755]

  Ms Hewitt
  Government have taken considerable action to combat animal rights extremists, both through legislation and by support for the police to deal with their criminal activities. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 gave the police a new power to direct protestors away from homes when such protests are intimidatory or harassing. It amended the Protection from Harassment Act and the Malicious Communications Act to cover co-ordinated campaigns of harassment and sending harassing emails and made provision for a secure register of company directors' home addresses where those directors are at risk of intimidation and harassment.

  Recently, we have introduced further legislation in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 that strengthened police powers to deal with smaller, intimidatory protests and office occupations by extremists. Government are also funding a new police unit to provide tactical guidance on policing extremists.

  But intimidation and harassment continues to be a very serious problem that threatens investment and research in the bioscience sector in the UK, so we are looking carefully, and urgently, at what further action is needed to strengthen police powers to deal with the tactics employed by extremist protestors.

  UK Directors
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that the talent pool of UK directors is sufficiently diverse. [177766]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following the publication of the Higgs and Tyson reports, and the "Brighter Boards" booklet last year, my Department organised a series of roundtable meetings with leading companies in order to raise awareness about the case for greater diversity on boards and to gather examples of pod practice.
  558W
  We have also commissioned research to assess the current representation of directors from diverse backgrounds on FTSE 100 boards, and supported the creation of registers for board positions, co-ordinated by the appropriate professional and affiliated bodies.

  We are currently consulting the Financial Reporting Council and a range of business and other organisations on how best to build on these initiatives and will be making an announcement later in the year.

  Low Pay
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on low-paid workers. [177767]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government have done a great deal through the minimum wage and tax credits to help the low paid. From October 2004, the minimum wage, in conjunction with tax credit and other benefits will provide a guaranteed minimum income of at least £252 a week for families with one child and one adult earner in full-time work, working 35 hours per week.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of future employment prospects in the call centre industry in(a) the North West and (b) the UK. [177769]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have not assessed future employment prospects in individual regions. The recently published DTI study on the UK Call Centre Industry found that employment in the industry is growing and predicts that it will directly employ over 1 million people by 2007 across the UK.

  A50-A514 Link Road
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to the East Midlands Regional Development Agency concerning the funding for completing the road linking the A50 at the A514 junction at Chellaston with Wilmore Road in Derby. [176750]

  Jacqui Smith
  No representations have been made. However, the East Midlands Development Agency (emda) has been working with Rolls Royce, other landowners and developers who have an interest in the 88ha Chellaston park site, with the intention of establishing a development consortium. A key part of the development would be the creation of a link road between the A50 and the A514. The viability of the site is impacted upon by the cost of developing this infrastructure. In March 2004 emda's Board approved £70,000 to fund a feasibility study into the viability of the project, which would address the issues around the road infrastructure. The report is due to be completed by the end of the year.

  Business (Blackpool and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have started up in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood since 1997. [175883]
  559W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in the last quarter of 2003, including 500 business start-ups in Blackpool Unitary Authority (which includes part of the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency). Data are not available for the Wyre local authority that includes the rest of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood Constituency. In the last quarter of 2003 there were 2,600 business start-ups in the County of Lancashire (which includes the Wyre local authority) excluding Blackpool Unitary Authority.

  The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. In 2003 there were 1,700 business start-ups in Blackpool Unitary Authority (which includes part of the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency). Data are not available for the Wyre local authority that includes the rest of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood Constituency. In 2003 there were 10,200 business start-ups in the County of Lancashire (which includes the Wyre local authority) excluding Blackpool Unitary Authority.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Blackpool Unitary authority and Wyre local authority (for which Blackpool, North and Fleetwood is a constituency) are shown in the following table for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT registrations: 1997 to 2002

  Blackpool

  Wyre

  1997

  340

  260

  1998

  325

  300

  1999

  310

  240

  2000

  315

  240

  2001

  300

  245

  2002

  265

  265

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics/vatstats.php

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Centres of Vocational Excellence
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether regional development agencies have contributed(a) funds and (b) resources to centres of vocational excellence. [176901]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is responsible for funding and resourcing the development of CoVEs.
  560W
  However, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) view CoVEs as strategic partners and may choose to provide complementary funding and resources to maximise their impact. This enables RDA funding to be targeted where further investment will enable the CoVE to meet anticipated skills needs.

  A number of RDAs have already contributed to CoVE development in their region including the South East Development Agency, Yorkshire Forward, the South West Regional Development Agency, Advantage West Midlands and the North West Development Agency.

  Coal Health Claims
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average payment made in respect of (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger is; and what the equivalent figures are for Nottinghamshire. [176548]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [hulling answer 7 June 2004]: To date the figures are:

  £

  COPD

  VWF

  UK

  Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire

  UK

  Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire

  Highest settlement

  364,537

  364,537

  113,111

  40,127

  Average settlement

  7,674

  5,262

  8,288

  8,180

  settlement

  Notes:
  Settlements can be low or even reduced to nothing if some or all of the factors outlined below have a maximum impact.

  1. Compensation offend is dependent on the percentage of disability due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the number of years spent underground after 1954, the date of liability. Discounting is then applied, taking into account any smoking history and the number of years worked before 1954. This is consistent with the High Court judgment. In chronic bronchitis (CB) only claims, the maximum amount payable is £5,604 (rising with the RPI), subject to the relevant discounting mentioned previously.

  2. Compensation offered in respect of VWF is dependent on the "staging" (the level of disability). Claims are then discounted taking into account any of the five co-morbid conditions as listed in the Claims Handling Agreement. Claims will also be apportioned according to whether there is any co-defendant involvement.

  3. Figures for Nottinghamshire are not available separately.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when minimum payment for compensation claims under the Coalminers' Compensation Scheme was last discussed with their representatives. [176801]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 27 May 2004, Official Report, column 1744.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have had final settlement through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [176617]
  561W
  Nigel Griffiths
  To date the figures are:

  Top 10 solicitors

  Number of full and final settlements

  VWF

  Hugh James

  17,622

  Thompsons

  17,141

  Raleys

  12,318

  Browell Smith

  7,330

  Beresfords

  6,760

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  6,495

  UDM

  5,439

  Watson Burton

  4,383

  Barber and Co.

  656

  Avalon

  388

  COPD

  Browell Smith

  11,095

  UDM

  7,234

  Thompsons

  7,046

  Raleys

  6,561

  Hugh James

  6,278

  Moss

  4,433

  Beresfords

  4,126

  AMS Law

  2,919

  Watson Burton

  2,584

  Graysons

  1,899

  In terms of numbers of COPD claims received, the rank order of the 'top 10' is—Beresfords, Thompsons, Hugh James, Raleys, Browell Smith, Mark Gilbert Morse, Avalon, UDM, Watson Burton, Barber and Co.

  In terms of numbers of VWF claims received, the rank order of the 'top 10' is—Thompsons, Browell Smith, Beresfords, UDM, Raleys, Hugh James, Graysons, Moss, Watson Burton, AMS Law.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to claimants through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [176618]

  Nigel Griffiths
  To date the figures are:

  Top 10 solicitors

  Total damages paid (£million)

  COPD

  Thompson

  216.8

  Hugh James

  198.5

  Raleys

  129

  Browell Smith

  77.4

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  43.7

  UDM

  26.5

  Watson Burton

  26

  Beresfords

  13.4

  Avalon

  1.2

  Barber and Co.

  0.45

  VWF

  Thompsons

  128

  Browell Smith

  89.8

  UDM

  72

  Raleys

  72

  Hugh James

  58.8

  Graysons

  49.6

  Watson Burton

  42.5

  Beresfords

  39.5

  Moss

  32.4

  AMS Law

  22.8

  562W
  In terms of numbers of COPD claims receive, the rank order of the "top 10" is—Berefords, Thompson, Hugh James, Raleys, Browell Smith, Mark Gilbert Morse, Avalon, UDM, Watson Burton, Barber and Co.

  In terms of number of VWF claims received, the rank order of the 'top 10' is—Thompons, Browell Smith, Beresfords, UDM, Raleys, Hugh James, Graysons, Moss, Watson Burton, AMS Law.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have had interim payments to date through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [176619]

  Nigel Griffiths
  To date the figures are:

  Top 10 solicitors

  Number of claimants who have received an interim payment

  COPD

  Thompsons

  10,895

  Hugh James

  7,708

  Raleys

  5,129

  Browell Smith

  4,048

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  2,246

  UDM

  1,323

  Watson Burton

  1,157

  Beresfords

  384

  Avalon

  69

  Barber and Co.

  8

  VWF

  Thompsons

  11,723

  Raleys

  5,752

  Browell Smith

  5,628

  Graysons

  5,413

  UDM

  4,811

  Beresfords

  4,224

  Hugh James

  3.899

  Watson Burton

  3,577

  Moss

  2,646

  AMS Law

  1,416

  In terms of numbers of COPD claims received, the rank order of the "top 10" is—Beresfords, Thompsons, Hugh James, Raleys, Browell Smith, Mark Gilbert Morse, Avalon, UDM, Watson Burton, Barber and Co.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to date to each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [176620]

  Nigel Griffiths
  To date the figures are:

  Top 10 solicitors

  Solicitors costs paid (£million)

  COPD

  Thompsons

  39.7

  Hugh James

  39.1

  Raleys

  28.9

  Browell Smith

  15.9

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  14.3

  Beresfords

  9.7

  UDM

  9.2

  Watson Burton

  9.1

  563W

  Top 10 solicitors

  Solicitors costs paid (£ million)

  Avalon

  0.7

  Barber and Co.

  0.1

  VWF

  Thompsons

  9.1

  Browell Smith

  8.7

  Raleys

  6.6

  Hugh James

  5.8

  UDM

  5.5

  Graysons

  3.8

  Beresfords

  3.2

  Watson Burton

  3.1

  Moss

  2.9

  AMS Law

  1.9

  In terms of numbers of COPD claims received, the rank order of the "top 10" is—Beresfords, Thompsons, Hugh James, Raleys, Browell Smith, Mark Gilbert Morse, Avalon, UDM, Watson Burton, Barber & Co.

  In terms of numbers of VWF claims received, the rank order of the "top 10" is—Thompsons, Browell Smith, Beresfords, UDM, Raleys, Hugh James, Graysons, Moss, Watson Burton, AMS Law.

  Combustion Plant Directive
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list the meetings that she has held with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the large Combustion Plant Directive; [175585]

  (2) if she will list the meetings which have taken place between her (a) Ministers and (b) officials and (i) Ministers and (ii) officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the large Combustion Plant Directive;. [175586]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been a number of discussions about this Directive between Ministers and officials in the DTI and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Further information about such meetings is being withheld under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the grounds that it would harm the frankness and candour of internal deliberation and of confidential communications between departments.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress made in investigating issues raised by the UN Panel of Experts on the illegal exploitation of the natural resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [177752]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following the publication of the UN Expert Panel's final report in October 2004, we asked the UN for the documentary evidence supporting the listing of British companies in Annexe III of the report. This is a list of all entities the Panel considers to be in breach of the OECD guidelines. Despite repeated requests, we have only recently received documentary material that the Panel obtained relating to the British companies considered by the Panel. This material is wide ranging in scope and quality. We are currently 564W
  assessing this material to identify outstanding issues with relation to breaches of the OECD Guidelines. We are in the process of approaching the companies concerned to respond to specific issues raised in the documentation. The UN National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines has recently made a statement relating to allegations made against De Beers that is available on the website and that I will place in the Libraries of the House.

  Election Literature (Postal Services)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the refusal by some postal workers to deliver election literature from(a) the British National Party and (b) other political parties. [176719]

  Mr. Timms
  Royal Mail has legal obligations, under the Representation of People Act 2000, to deliver election material from any properly nominated candidate, so long as the material is legal. Royal Mail recognises that staff may have strong feelings about the delivery of some election mailings. The company has always tried to have a flexible approach, so if an individual feels that they are unable to deliver the material because of personal circumstances or beliefs, or where an individual believes that delivery of a particular item may incur personal risk, then alternative arrangements will be made.

  EU Trade
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the negative balance in trade in goods was with the EU(a) in the most recent annual period for which figures are available, (b) in 1994, (c) in 1984 and (d) in 1974. [177760]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In 2003, the EU 15 countries accounted for 46 per cent. of the UK's total trade deficit in goods with the world. In 1994 the EU 15 countries accounted for 41 per cent., in 1984 55 per cent. and in 1974 42 per cent.

  However, these figures taken in isolation do not fully reflect the importance to the UK economy of our trade with the EU.

  Heat Pumps
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department is taking to encourage the development of(a) ground source and (b) air source heat pumps. [176759]

  Mr. Timms
  Defra and the DTI supported the formation of the UK Heat Pump forum which serves to disseminate information and promote the technology for both ground source and air source heat pumps.

  Heat pumps are a technology that is eligible for support from Carbon Trust programmes. I understand that the Carbon Trust has two projects in contract supporting ground source heat pumps. The Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme, which the Carbon Trust manages, supports heat pumps.

  The Clear Skies initiative supports the installation of ground source heat pumps by providing grants off £1,200 to householders and 50 per cent. of installed cost for

  565W
  community groups up to a maximum of £100,000. It does not currently provide grants for air source heat pumps. Budget 2004 also announced the introduction of a reduced rate of VAT on the installation of ground source heat pumps.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the(a) migration of information technology work overseas and (b) steps her Department is taking to reverse the trend towards migration of IT work overseas. [171399]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are well aware of concerns about the effects of offshoring, including on employment in the IT sector. But we know from consultation with key stakeholders that there is a broad consensus in the UK that trade protectionism is not the right response. Instead, we must do all we can to ensure that those who are affected by decisions to offshore work are found alternative work as quickly as possible. We also need to ensure that the UK remains competitive and an attractive place in which other countries wish to do business and it is important to note that the UK remains the lead country in terms of inward investment into the EU. We are also working closely with the RDAs and the Learning and Skills Councils to ensure that the UK is equipped to meet these challenges.

  In this globalised world, companies require the flexibility to take the required steps to remain internationally competitive. Location is ultimately a business decision for companies, and the Government cannot prohibit moves offshore. However the Government continue to create the macro-economic environment to encourage business location and growth within the UK.

  Finally, offshoring is not a one-way process. Successful Indian IT companies such as Tata, Wipro and Infosys, have invested in the UK and have created and expanded employment here.

  Contractual Leave
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 431 W, on leave, if she will place in the Library the surveys on the provision of contractual leave and pay referred to. [176438]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following surveys referred to in my answer are available in the Libraries of the House:The Second Work-Life Balance Study: Results from the Employer Survey (DTI Employment Relations Research Series No.22);
  The Second Work-Life Balance Study: Results from the Employees' Survey (DTI Employment Relations Research Series No.27); and
  Maternity and Paternity Rights in Britain 2002: Survey of Parents (DWP In-house Report 131).

  Manufacturing Industry
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what action she is taking to help small and medium-sized UK manufacturing companies. [177762]
  566W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI and Government have taken a number of measures including:Establishing the Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Providing £600 million support for business R&D through R&D tax credit
  Increasing the number of Modern Apprenticeship trainees from 75,000 in 1997 to 255,00 in 2004
  Cutting corporation tax
  Manufacturing SMEs also benefit from DTIs business support products for Knowledge Transfer, R&D, Best Practice

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of women in Wirral, South have taken 26 weeks' maternity leave since 1997. [177687]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of women taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue of the Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) they recover (since 2003 this has covered the first 26 weeks of leave). Figures for the take-up of SMP are not available on a regional basis, but nationally around 300,000 women receive SMP each year.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings or length of employment criteria for SMP) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of women in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale have taken 26 weeks' maternity leave since 1997; and what percentage of those were of Asian origin. [178518]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of women taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue of the Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) they recover (since 2003 this has covered the first 26 weeks of leave). Figures for the take-up of SMP are not available on a regional basis, but nationally around 300,000 women receive SMP each year. Information is not available on the ethnic origin of women receiving SMP.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because the do not meet the earnings or length of employment criteria for SMP) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  Minor Titles Consortium
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from the Minor Titles Consortium on the Royal Mail and distribution of their newspapers in Scotland. [177438]
  567W
  Mr. Timms
  I have not received any recent representations from the Minor Titles Consortium about the Royal Mail's distribution of newspapers.

  Night Shift Workers
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits to residents of Wirral, South of new rights for night shift workers. [177689]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. The regulations limit working time to 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week reference period. For night workers the limit is eight hours per day on average, including overtime where it is part of a night worker's normal hours of work. There is no opt-out from the night working time limit.

  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than six hours.

  All night workers should be offered a free health assessment before they start working night and thereafter at regular intervals for as long as they are working nights. The health assessments should take account of the nature of the work and the restrictions on a worker's working time under the regulations. Workers who suffer from problems as a result of working at night, should as far as practicable be offered alternative day work.

  All workers are entitled to four weeks paid annual leave. There is no specific data available for night shift workers in Wirral, South.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect on residents of Bootle of new rights for night-shift workers. [176996]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. The regulations limit working time to 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week reference period. For night workers the limit is eight hours per day on average, including overtime where it is part of a night worker's normal hours of work. There is no opt-out from the night working time limit.

  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than six hours.

  All night workers should be offered a free health assessment before they start working night and thereafter at regular intervals for as long as they are working nights. The health assessments should take account of the nature of the work and the restrictions on a worker's working time under the regulations. Workers who suffer from problems as a result of working at night, should as far as practicable be offered alternative day work.

  All workers are entitled to four weeks paid annual leave. There is no specific data available for night shift workers in Bootle.

  NIREX
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the future of NIREX. [177768]

  Mr. Timms
  The Secretary of State recently met with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as part of a regular series of bilateral meetings. The ongoing work on the future of NIREX was discussed as part of that wider meeting.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the involvement of NIREX in drafting the Energy Bill. [177222]

  Mr. Timms
  NIREX has not been involved in drafting the Energy Bill.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the intended relationship between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and NIREX. [177223]

  Mr. Timms
  It will only be possible to set out the relationship between NIREX and the NDA once NIREX and its industry shareholders have been consulted on the future of the company.

  Oil and Gas Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to investigate reports that speculation in oil and gas is helping to drive up prices. [177080]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: While speculation may be playing a role, there are a number of other factors supporting current oil prices including unanticipated strong demand, tight capacities upstream and downstream, and geopolitical uncertainties.

  The oil price is one driver of UK gas wholesale spot and forward prices, as is the market's perception of gas demand and supply. In order to inform the gas market about UK gas market fundamentals, on 24 May 04, the DTI published the Fourth JESS Report which, among other things, monitors the availability of gas supplies, the adequacy of the UK's gas infrastructure, and gas forward prices.

  Paid Leave
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Wirral, South qualify for paid leave entitlements. [177690]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Wirral, South qualify for paid annual leave entitlements of at least four weeks as set out in the Working Time Regulations. While all women are entitled to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, only those who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to claim statutory maternity pay for that period.

  All employees in Wirral, South who are eligible will be entitled to take statutory paternity leave with pay and statutory adoption leave with pay.
  569W
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Bootle qualify for paid leave entitlements. [176995]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Bootle qualify for paid annual leave entitlements; at least four weeks as set out in the Working Time Regulations. While all women are entitled to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, only those who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to claim statutory maternity pay for that period.

  All employees in Bootle who are eligible will be entitled to take statutory paternity leave with pay and statutory adoption leave with pay.

  Post Boxes
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the factors that determine the size of a post box available at a particular location. [176737]

  Mr. Timms
  The size and location of post boxes are the operational concern of Royal Mail Gorup and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what projections her Department has made of(a) the amount and (b) the percentage of electricity the UK will be obtaining from renewable sources in each year to 2010. [176740]

  Mr. Timms
  A working paper showing revised energy projections has recently been published on the DTI website. The projections suggest that electricity generation from renewables could leach 15TWh in 2005 and 39TWh in 2010. Taking account of all sources of generation, some of which are not shown separately in the working paper, these represent around 3.5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of overall supply respectively.

  The working paper is available on the website at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/euets.shtml#uep

  The Department does not publish projections of year-by-year generation patterns.

  Steel
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of steel(a) price increases and (b) supply problems on manufacturing industry; and if she will make a statement. [177012]

  Jacqui Smith
  I am very much aware of concerns about rising steel prices and appreciate that this is an unwelcome pressure on steel consumers at a time when manufacturing is showing signs of recovery. This is a global issue caused primarily by soaring demand in China, which is having a knock on effect on the cost of raw materials such as iron ore, coke and scrap. We acknowledge that the problem is especially difficult for steel users with limited scope to pass on price rises to customers. However, European steel prices are still low compared with USA and South East Asia. There have also been concerns about the availability of steel but I570W
  understand that there is no shortage of supply from UK producers although there are reports of tightness of those consumers that rely on imported sources of steel.

  The Chinese Government has recently introduced measures to dampen economic growth as a result of which Chinese steel imports have fallen pushing down prices in the Far East. It is hoped that this will bring some stability to world markets although industry analysts expect overall world demand to remain firm for the rest of this year.

  VAT-registered Enterprises
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many VAT-registered enterprises there were in each(a) region and (b) London borough in each of the last 10 years. [177063]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in the last quarter of 2003. Barclays data are not available for Scotland or Northern Ireland. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before.

  The following tables records Barclays business creation data for each region and London boroughs in 2003. Barclays latest survey of business creation publication only contains 2003 data for regions and London boroughs.

  2003

  Regions

  Number

  East

  47,500

  East Midlands

  34,700

  London

  84,300

  North East

  15,100

  North West

  57,400

  South East

  76,300

  South West

  52,400

  West Midlands

  38,000

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  37,700

  2003

  London boroughs

  Number

  Barking and Dagenham

  800

  Barnet

  4,700

  Bexley

  1,200

  Brent

  4,000

  Bromley

  2,300

  Camden

  4,500

  Croydon

  3,800

  Ealing

  4,500

  Enfield

  2,200

  Greenwich

  1,300

  Hackney

  2,400

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,400

  Haringey

  2,500

  Harrow

  2,200

  Havering

  1,700

  Hillingdon

  1,700

  Hounslow

  2,100

  Islington

  3,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,500

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,600

  Lambeth

  3,000

  571W

  2003

  London boroughs

  Number

  Lewisham

  1,500

  Merton

  2,000

  Newham

  1,900

  Redbridge

  2,600

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,100

  Southwark

  1,900

  Sutton

  1,300

  Tower Hamlets

  2,600

  Waltham Forest

  1,700

  VAT registrations in each year

  Government office region

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  England

  1,378,380

  1,374,275

  1,377,300

  1,393,070

  1,426,265

  Scotland

  120,805

  120,475

  120,225

  120,670

  122,260

  Wales

  80,180

  78,480

  77,545

  77,170

  77,390

  Northern Ireland

  53,410

  53,725

  54,090

  54,635

  55,420

  North East

  43,860

  43,500

  42,900

  42,855

  43,080

  North West

  163,500

  161,795

  160,445

  161,200

  163,430

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  123,270

  122,345

  121,165

  121,600

  122,635

  East Midlands

  112,585

  112,380

  112,400

  112,920

  114,830

  West Midlands

  138,320

  137,755

  137,545

  138,295

  140,430

  East

  161,660

  160,980

  161,810

  163,930

  168,355

  South East

  244,390

  243,755

  245,470

  249,350

  257,135

  South West

  156,680

  155,350

  154,130

  155,190

  158,095

  VAT registrations in each year

  Government office region

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  England

  1,458,720

  1,479,900

  1,498,425

  1,505,575

  1,505,495

  Scotland

  123,355

  123,565

  123,800

  123,980

  124,200

  Wales

  77,345

  76,905

  76,935

  76,990

  76,310

  Northern Ireland

  55,980

  55,990

  55,735

  55,810

  56,100

  North East

  43,340

  43,600

  44,040

  43,745

  43,825

  North West

  165,880

  167,420

  168,970

  169,860

  169,705

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  123,770

  124,320

  124,955

  124,605

  124,405

  East Midlands

  116,585

  117,605

  118,900

  119,500

  120,455

  West Midlands

  142,630

  143,980

  145,615

  146,225

  146,310

  East

  172,050

  174,450

  177,020

  177,445

  177,915

  South East

  265,115

  270,325

  274,475

  277,540

  278,670

  South West

  160,725

  162,350

  163,410

  163,795

  163,465

  VAT registrations in each year

  London borough

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Camden

  15,555

  15,875

  16,460

  17,175

  17,770

  Hackney

  5,320

  5,300

  5,385

  5,500

  5,765

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,900

  5,955

  6,080

  6,260

  6,615

  Haringey

  5,270

  5,265

  5,265

  5,430

  5,695

  Islington

  7,940

  8,175

  8,395

  8,765

  9,505

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7,905

  8,070

  8,135

  8,340

  8,660

  Lambeth

  5,235

  5,160

  5,245

  5,415

  5,670

  Lewisham

  3,790

  3,680

  3,660

  3,685

  3,850

  Newham

  3,230

  3,165

  3,135

  3,100

  3,190

  Southwark

  5,905

  5,930

  5,975

  6,125

  6,465

  Tower Hamlets

  5,560

  5,580

  5,645

  5,715

  6,000

  Wandsworth

  7,270

  7,320

  7,405

  7,700

  8,105

  Westminster

  28,630

  29,830

  31,245

  32,445

  33,945

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,145

  2,070

  2,175

  2,190

  2,230

  Barnet

  12,575

  12,870

  13,485

  14,000

  14,730

  Bexley

  4,505

  4,435

  4,375

  4,450

  4,615

  Brent

  7,270

  7,290

  7,305

  7,435

  7,800

  Bromley

  8,120

  8,040

  8,030

  8,165

  8,395

  Croydon

  8,000

  7,835

  7,850

  7,835

  8,010

  Ealing

  7,935

  7,900

  7,885

  8,095

  8,455

  Enfield

  5,775

  5,720

  5,725

  5,835

  6,040

  Greenwich

  3,425

  3,275

  3,275

  3,320

  3,510

  572W

  2003

  London boroughs

  Number

  Wandsworth

  4,000

  Westminster1

  6,900

  1Includes figures for the City of London.

  Source:

  For tables–Barclays Small Business Survey: http://www.business.barclays.co.uk/

  The stock of businesses registered for VAT in each (a) region and (b) London borough in each year between 1994 and 2003, are as follows:
  573W

  VAT registrations in each year

  London borough

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Harrow

  6,655

  6,740

  6,780

  6,860

  7,075

  Havering

  5,350

  5,230

  5,180

  5,225

  5,355

  Hillingdon

  6,725

  6,700

  6,725

  6,795

  6,970

  Hounslow

  5,850

  5,760

  5,830

  5,885

  6,085

  Kingston upon Thames

  4,275

  4,320

  4,380

  4,475

  4,720

  Merton

  4,725

  4,670

  4,775

  4,830

  5,095

  Redbridge

  5,175

  5,145

  5,120

  5,205

  5,350

  Richmond upon Thames

  6,905

  6,945

  7,150

  7,410

  7,725

  Sutton

  4,745

  4,730

  4,710

  4,800

  4,930

  Waltham Forest

  4,255

  4,225

  4,195

  4,215

  4,300

  VAT registrations in each year

  London boroughs

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Camden

  17,960

  18,375

  18,645

  18,630

  18,420

  Hackney

  6,230

  6,545

  6,895

  7,095

  7,165

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7,225

  7,665

  8,110

  8,435

  8,490

  Haringey

  5,935

  6,165

  6,340

  6,420

  6,425

  Islington

  10,115

  10,245

  10,280

  10,280

  10,125

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9,005

  9,350

  9,640

  9,800

  9,920

  Lambeth

  5,960

  6,230

  6,455

  6,675

  6,910

  Lewisham

  4,085

  4,230

  4,365

  4,515

  4,535

  Newham

  3,355

  3,505

  3,665

  3,790

  3,865

  Southwark

  6,870

  7,195

  7,565

  7,910

  8,020

  Tower Hamlets

  6,410

  6,825

  7,095

  7,270

  7,450

  Wandsworth

  8,585

  9,020

  9,250

  9,485

  9,610

  Westminster

  35,445

  37,000

  37,825

  38,480

  38,370

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,155

  2,255

  2,400

  2,490

  2,570

  Barnet

  14,865

  14,635

  14,425

  13,630

  12,720

  Bexley

  4,705

  4,830

  4,910

  4,995

  5,035

  Brent

  8,125

  8,330

  8,445

  8,510

  8,480

  Bromley

  8,740

  8,805

  8,920

  9,050

  9,015

  Croydon

  8,295

  8,425

  8,540

  8,605

  8,560

  Ealing

  8,885

  9,240

  9,510

  9,665

  9,745

  Enfield

  6,330

  6,495

  6,665

  6,710

  6,715

  Greenwich

  3,685

  3,785

  3,890

  3,995

  4,045

  Harrow

  7,325

  7,355

  7,350

  7,330

  7,280

  Havering

  5,515

  5,590

  5,630

  5,695

  5,655

  Hillingdon

  7,215

  7,340

  7,420

  7,410

  7,420

  Hounslow

  6,345

  6,575

  6,705

  6,930

  6,920

  Kingston upon Thames

  4,995

  5,205

  5,280

  5,270

  5,195

  Merton

  5,370

  5,500

  5,665

  5,670

  5,590

  Redbridge

  5,600

  5,735

  5,860

  5,750

  5,605

  Richmond upon Thames

  8,100

  8,365

  8,560

  8,730

  8,750

  Sutton

  5,090

  5,175

  5,140

  5,150

  5,115

  Waltham Forest

  4,515

  4,620

  4,665

  4,655

  4,660

  Source:

  For tables—Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Stocks, Small Business Service, available from www.sbs.gov.uk/analytical/statistics/vatstats.php

  Data for 2004 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT registrations do not capture all business activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Wirral, South have benefited from a reduction in the working week to 48 hours. [177691]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to.
  574W
  Numbers for Wirral, South are not available, however it has been estimated that around 300,000 workers resident in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Attendance Allowance
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Scotland have applied for attendance allowance since February 2002, broken down by(a) disability benefit centre and (b) quarter. [176761]
  575W
  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.

  All

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  May 20021

  7,250

  3,675

  3,575

  August 2002

  9,665

  4,905

  4,760

  November 2002

  9,540

  5,070

  4,470

  February 2003

  8,785

  4,625

  4,160

  May 2003

  10,550

  5,475

  5,075

  August 2003

  10,465

  5,275

  5,190

  November 2003

  10,430

  5,330

  5,100

  February 2004

  8,905

  4,570

  4,335

  1March data are unavailable for this quarter

  Notes:

  Figures taken from a 100 per cent. sample at the end of each quarter.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when those Child Support Agency cases enrolled under the old rules will be converted to the new rules system. [177974]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1092W.

  Council Tax Benefit
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are in receipt of council tax benefit in the City of Edinburgh local authority area. [176735]

  Net cost of administering Council Tax benefit in nominal terms

  £million

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total Greater London

  38.4

  39.3

  45.0

  52.4

  47.7

  Of which:Inner London

  City of London

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Camden

  1.1

  1.1

  1.4

  1.4

  1.5

  Greenwich

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  2.2

  2.5

  Hackney

  1.9

  2.0

  1.9

  4.0

  3.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  1.7

  1.6

  Islington

  1.5

  1.3

  1.2

  3.2

  3.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  Lambeth

  3.1

  3.4

  5.0

  5.6

  2.2

  Lewisham

  0.9

  1.1

  1.2

  1.2

  1.0

  Southwark

  0.8

  1.4

  1.2

  1.1

  1.2

  Tower Hamlets

  2.4

  2.3

  2.8

  2.9

  3.0

  Wandsworth

  1.0

  1.5

  1.5

  1.7

  2.0

  Westminster

  2.2

  2.1

  2.0

  2.3

  2.3

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.8

  0.7

  1.2

  1.3

  0.8

  Barnet

  1.2

  1.2

  1.5

  1.6

  1.8

  Bexley

  0.4

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  Brent

  1.3

  1.2

  1.9

  1.5

  1.2

  576W
  Mr. Pond
  The number of council tax benefit recipients in the City of Edinburgh at August 2003 is 38,100.

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figure is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Figures for non-responding authorities are estimated.

  4. Council tax benefit data excludes Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in August 2003.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost to local authorities of administering council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement. [176739]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.

  Cost of administering council tax benefit

  £ million

  England

  229

  Wales

  12

  Scotland

  19

  Great Britain

  259

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for reported net current expenditure in 2002–03. Amounts are rounded to the nearest £ million. The sum of the individual countries does not equal the Great Britain total due to rounding.

  2. Figures for England are provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  3. Figures for Wales are provided by the Welsh Assembly.

  4. Figures for Scotland are provided by the Scottish Executive.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of administering council tax benefit payments in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each of the last five years. [177186]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.
  577W

  Net cost of administering Council Tax benefit in nominal terms

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Bromley

  0.6

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  Croydon

  0.9

  1.0

  1.3

  1.2

  1.3

  Ealing

  1.7

  2.0

  2.3

  2.7

  0.9

  Enfield

  1.4

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.9

  Haringey

  0.8

  1.1

  1.2

  1.4

  1.5

  Harrow

  0.4

  0.7

  0.7

  0.9

  0.9

  Havering

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  1.4

  0.9

  Hillingdon

  0.3

  0.5

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  Hounslow

  1.3

  1.4

  2.2

  2.2

  2.3

  Kingston

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  0.4

  0.7

  Merton

  0.8

  1.1

  1.1

  1.1

  1.1

  Newham

  2.7

  2.2

  2.9

  2.5

  3.2

  Redbridge

  0.3

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  Richmond

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Sutton

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  Waltham Forest

  3.3

  1.9

  1.8

  1.7

  1.9

  Notes:

  1. The figures shown are reported net current expenditure, in nominal terms.

  2. All figures are provided to the nearest £0.1 million. The total greater London figure shown may not be the sum of the individual authorities due to rounding.

  Source:

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the value was of council tax benefit payments made in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each of the last five years; [177187]

  (2) what the value was of council tax benefit payments made in (a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the total amount of council tax benefit unclaimed in each of those years. [177188]

  Council tax benefit expenditure in nominal terms

  £million

  Outturn

  Greater London

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  City of London

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Camden

  18.3

  18.0

  17.4

  18.0

  18.9

  Greenwich

  18.0

  16.6

  15.9

  16.2

  16.9

  Hackney

  20.2

  17.2

  19.3

  24.2

  26.1

  Hammersmith

  12.0

  11.9

  12.1

  12.5

  12.7

  Islington

  22.4

  20.5

  19.7

  19.0

  18.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5.8

  5.9

  6.2

  6.8

  7.6

  Lambeth

  18.2

  16.8

  17.3

  19.1

  20.1

  Lewisham

  14.8

  14.5

  14.8

  15.7

  16.9

  Southwark

  18.5

  18.0

  18.8

  19.6

  20.5

  Tower Hamlets

  14.6

  14.7

  15.4

  16.4

  17.4

  Wandsworth

  5.3

  5.7

  5.8

  6.4

  5.6

  Westminster

  4.7

  4.8

  4.8

  6.0

  6.5

  Total Inner London

  172.9

  164.8

  167.6

  180.1

  187.9

  Barking

  9.9

  10.2

  10.5

  11.3

  12.1

  Barnet

  12.1

  12.1

  12.5

  13.3

  14.0

  Bexley

  7.1

  7.6

  7.5

  8.0

  8.3

  Brent

  12.4

  13.2

  14.5

  15.0

  16.7

  Bromley

  7.7

  8.3

  8.8

  9.7

  10.2

  Croydon

  13.2

  13.5

  13.7

  13.6

  13.9

  Baling

  12.2

  13.0

  12.1

  14.5

  14.6

  Enfield

  13.3

  13.5

  14.6

  16.0

  17.0

  Haringey

  22.6

  22.5

  22.3

  21.6

  21.9

  Harrow

  7.3

  7.5

  8.1

  9.0

  9.6

  578W
  Mr. Pond
  The information requested about the total amount of unclaimed council tax benefit is not available below national level. Estimates of the total amount of council tax benefit unclaimed at a national level can be found in a series of DWP reports entitled: "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up". The latest publication relates to financial year 2001–02; copies of this and previous reports are available from the Library.

  The value of council tax benefit payments made in each London borough and greater London as a whole, from 1998–99 to 2002–03 is in the table.
  579W

  Council tax benefit expenditure in nominal terms

  £million

  Outturn

  Greater London

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Havering

  8.1

  8.6

  9.3

  9.9

  10.7

  Hillingdon

  9.6

  10.2

  10.7

  11.7

  12.6

  Hounslow

  10.7

  10.8

  11.0

  11.7

  12.6

  Kingston

  3.7

  4.2

  4.5

  5.0

  5.5

  Merton

  7.5

  7.5

  7.7

  8.3

  8.6

  Newham

  17.7

  16.8

  17.6

  18.2

  19.1

  Redbridge

  9.1

  9.4

  9.9

  10.3

  10.9

  Richmond

  5.6

  6.0

  6.3

  6.8

  7.5

  Sutton

  6.0

  5.9

  5.8

  6.3

  6.9

  Waltham Forest

  14.9

  14.4

  14.2

  14.8

  15.4

  Total Outer London

  210.7

  215.3

  221.7

  234.8

  248.2

  Total Greater London

  383.6

  380.1

  389.3

  414.9

  436.1

  1Estimated

  Notes.

  1. All expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest £0.1 million and therefore may not add up to the total greater London expenditure.

  2. Expenditure figures for 1998–99 to 2001–02 are final outturn figures supplied by local authorities in 'final audited' subsidy claims. The figures for 2002–03 are the latest available estimated outturn figures, provided by local authorities in their 'initial final' subsidy claims, and are subject to revision in the final audited' claims.

  3. Figures are total yearly amounts paid to beneficiaries, regardless of the source of funding, and includes payments subsidised by DWP, those funded through local authorities housing revenue accounts, spending financed by the National Asylum Support Service, and benefit spending financed from local authorities' general funds.

  Source:

  Source:

  1. 1998–99—Final Audited Subsidy claim forms submitted by local authorities.

  2. 2002–03—Initial Final Claim forms submitted by local authorities.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has any plans to change the upper age limit for eligibility for the Disability Living Allowance; and if he will make a statement. [177511]

  Maria Eagle
  No. It is normal for pensions and benefits schemes to contain different provisions for people at different stages of their lives and disability living allowance is focused on providing extra help to people who are severely disabled early, or relatively early, in life.

  Attendance allowance provides help with the disability-related extra costs of people who experience the onset of disability after age 65. Based on the need for personal care, this help is part of the wide range of support that the Government make available to older people so that they can have a decent and secure income in retirement and share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many businesses have been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive for operating without employers' liability compulsory insurance in each of the last five years; and what the total level of fines imposed upon these businesses was. [176981]

  Jane Kennedy
  The number of businesses which have been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive for operating without Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance in each of the last five years is as follows.
  580W

  Prosecutions (cases heard)

  1999–2000

  4

  2000–01

  4

  2001–02

  12

  2002–03

  9

  2003–04

  6

  Total

  35

  The total level of fines imposed upon these businesses for each of the last five years was:

  Total fines

  1999–2000

  1,150

  2000–01

  1,950

  2001–02

  16,300

  2002–03

  4,425

  2003–04

  3,050

  Total

  26,875

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made since his Department's report in June 2003 on employer liability insurance on proposals to reduce the numbers of uninsured firms. [177528]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department published a Second Stage Report on Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) on 4 December 2003 which outlines current and future work on enforcement issues to reduce the number of uninsured firms. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Enforcement is undertaken on a day-to-day basis by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors and recent HSE research indicates a high level of compliance, over 99 per cent. Despite this high level of

  581W
  compliance the Department is considering the costs and benefits of a compliance database with HSE and the Association of British Insurers (ABI).

  In addition, in April we published through the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) website new Government procurement guidance to ensure compliance from bodies that contract with the public sector. A notice has been issued centrally to heads of procurement in other Government Departments and public bodies about the guidance and uptake and operation of the guidance will be evaluated in October.

  On 30 March the Department published a Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment about a review of the requirement for ELCI for limited companies that employ only their owner. A copy is available in the Library.

  Football Supporters
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many football supporters who have travelled abroad to football championships(a) have been investigated for possible infringement of benefit rules, (b) have had benefits withdrawn and (c) had overpayments identified, broken down by football championship.[177534]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  Health and Safety (Corporate Responsibility)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the Health and Safety Commission's report on the effectiveness of the current strategy to promote director's responsibility for health and safety. [177446]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Health and Safety Commission wrote to the Minister for Work in January of this year advising of progress and the way forward on the measures to improve corporate responsibility for Health and Safety including Directors responsibility.

  This advice, which the Minister of Work accepted, was based on research which concluded that further legislation was not necessary, that the voluntary approach was working and that this approach should be continued.

  I am placing a copy of the research reports in the Library.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how the Health and Safety Executive is financing the revenue costs of the 12 extra Band Five posts it is internally recruiting for in the North West region of the Executive; and what their total annual revenue costs will be in a full financial year. [176722]

  Jane Kennedy
  Eleven Band 5 posts are being filled in the North West Division by HSE's internal vacancy filling process in June 2004. Eight of these posts formed part of the North West pilot project which was set up in June 2003 to strengthen HSE's front line capacity and engage with more stakeholders. To ensure that the pilot was cost neutral, a number of inspectors in the division were redeployed to other parts of HSE.
  582W
  Following the success of the pilot, these eight posts are being consolidated. In addition, three other Band 5 posts are being created to extend the model to the Construction Division in the North West. These will be funded through a change in the grade mix in HSE's Field Operations Directorate.

  The substantive filling of these posts will attract no additional costs.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes have been made to housing benefit to support the policy that 16 to 17-year-old lone parents should be housed in semi-independent adult-supervised accommodation. [177541]

  Mr. Pond
  The ODPM have extended the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002, to give priority need to homeless 16 and 17-year-olds (who are not relevant children under the purposes of section 23a of the Children Act 1989). In practice, this means 16 and 17-year-olds will be assisted under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (priority need) and applies to a person to whom a local authority owes a duty to provide accommodation under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children in need).

  No changes to housing benefit were required to support this policy.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason income support recipients are not automatically transferred to pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit when they reach 60 years. [177394]

  Mr. Pond
  Pension credit is not a continuation of income support but is a different social security benefit with different qualifying conditions. Anyone receiving income support who reaches age 60 on or after 6 October 2003 will have to make a new application for pension credit. Arrangements have been put in place to ensure customers are informed of this in advance of reaching age 60.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit are different benefits with different qualifying conditions based on a liability to pay rent and council tax respectively. Determining entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit, and notifying customers of their entitlement is also the responsibility of local authorities.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber are eligible for pension credit; and what the take-up rate is. [177037]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of people who are eligible for pension credit is not available in respect of individual constituencies. However, we estimate that approximately 350,000 pensioner households in Scotland (rounded to the nearest 50,000) are eligible for pension credit in 2004–05. At 31 May 2004 there were 3,555 households, comprising 4,210
  583W
  individuals (rounded to the nearest five), in receipt of pension credit in the Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber constituency.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  British Students (Overseas Courses)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many British students undertook(a) part of their British undergraduate degree programme, (b) their whole undergraduate degree, and (c) a post-graduate qualification abroad in each year since 1990. [164848]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information is shown in the table. Figures for earlier years are not held centrally.

  Students form the UK studying all or part of their course overseas

  Undergraduate exchange students on year out abroad1

  UK students studying the whole of their course abroad2

  1994/95

  2,650

  26,400

  1995/96

  3,275

  n/a

  1996/97

  3,940

  n/a

  1997/98

  3,710

  26,200

  1998/99

  4,580

  26,900

  1999/2000

  5,470

  27,600

  2000/01

  4,700

  25,400

  2001/02

  4,940

  n/a

  2002/03

  9,770

  n/a

  n/a = not available

  1Figures for 2002/03 include non-exchange language students, which are excluded for the figures for previous years.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

  2Estimated. Covers all courses; figures are not available for undergraduate and postgraduate courses separately.

  Source:

  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

  CCTV
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many secondary schools have installed CCTV systems. [176624]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Schools and local education authorities make their own decisions about the level of security they feel best meets their needs, and information about security equipment, including CCTV systems, is not held centrally. My Department has provided information and guidance about school security that can be obtained free of charge from the Department's publication centre or accessed via the Department's website at www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolsecurity.

  Education (Over-40s)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding will be made available in each year up to 2007–08 to provide those over the age of 40 years with a first Level 2 qualification; and if he will make a statement. [176420]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department allocates funds for education and training in the post-16 learning and skills sector to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The 584W
  Department has allocated a total of £6.3 billion to the LSC for learning participation in 2004–05. It is for the LSC to use these funds for adult and youth programmes to meet the Government's funding priorities. The Department has no plans to allocate specific funding to the LSC for the provision of a first Level 2 qualification to those over the age of 40 years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced the Spending Review 2004 settlement for the Department for the years 2005–06 to 2007–08, highlighting the importance this Government attach to education and skills. It is too early to say what this settlement will mean for the funding of learning participation up to 2007–08.

  Education Authority Areas
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each local education authority the(a) number and (b) proportion of residents of (i) primary school and (ii) secondary school age not educated within that local education authority, and the (a) number and (b) proportion of school pupils of (1) primary school and (2) secondary school age not resident within the local education authority. [174863]

  Mr. Miliband
  Tables giving the requested information for all local education authorities have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the £1.2 billion provided to further education colleges for the period 2003 to 2006 has been allocated to(a) Government targets for growth in (i) 16 to 19-year-old students, (ii) adult students, (b) changes in pension entitlements and (c) changes in the level of national insurance contributions. [177388]

  Alan Johnson
  In November 2002 the Secretary of State announced plans to increase assumed funding for further education (FE) allocated to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) by £1.2 billion in 2005–06, when compared to 2002–03. In 2005–06 the proportion of additional assumed funding in FE for planned increases in the number of 16 to 18-year-old full time equivalent (FTE) learners, and those aged 19 and above, is 29 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively. Funding was not allocated for colleges specifically for changes in the level of national insurance contributions. Colleges are expected to meet these costs from the significant additional investment we are making in FE. Funding to colleges for changes to employer contributions to the Teachers Pension Scheme is over and above the £1.2 billion increase.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of young people between the ages of 16 and 21 years were studying at further education colleges, excluding A-level and GCSE students, in(a) greater London and (b) each London borough in each of the last five years. [177042]

  Alan Johnson
  Participation rates are routinely available at local education authority level. The proportions of 16 to 21-year-olds residents of greater
  585W
  London studying at further education colleges in 2001 and 2002, excluding GCSE and A-Level students, are shown in the following table.

  Proportions of 16 to 21-year-old residents of greater London studying at FE colleges(excluding A-level and GCSE Student) by local education authority of residence and year

  Percentage

  Local education authority

  November 2001

  November 2002

  City of London

  7

  6

  Camden

  9

  8

  Greenwich

  14

  14

  Hackney

  21

  20

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  14

  13

  Islington

  16

  15

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10

  9

  Lambeth

  21

  22

  Lewisham

  17

  18

  Southwark

  17

  19

  Tower Hamlets

  14

  15

  Wandsworth

  14

  15

  Westminster

  10

  8

  Barking and Dagenham

  14

  14

  Barnet

  14

  14

  Bexley

  15

  14

  Brent

  17

  17

  Bromley

  11

  10

  Croydon

  18

  17

  Ealing

  16

  16

  Enfield

  18

  18

  Haringey

  22

  21

  Harrow

  19

  18

  Havering

  18

  18

  Hillingdon

  15

  14

  Hounslow

  14

  13

  Kingston upon Thames

  9

  8

  Merton

  16

  16

  Newham

  23

  21

  Redbridge

  14

  14

  Richmond upon Thames

  12

  12

  Sutton

  14

  14

  Waltham Forest

  20

  21

  Greater London

  16

  16

  Source:

  LSC Individualised Student Record

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  ONS/GAD population estimates

  The percentages in this table are produced using post-Census population estimates. However we are currently unable to provide a historical series on a comparable population basis. Further information concerning this issue can be found in the Department's Statistical First Release, "Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16-18 Year Olds in England: 2001 and 2002" available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ rsgatewav/DB/SFR/s000426/index.shtml.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalent students have been educated at each of the further education colleges on Merseyside in each year. [177265]

  Alan Johnson
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Mark Haysom the Council's Chief Executive will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what he expects the funding gap between school sixth forms and further education colleges to be in(a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06 and (c) 2006–07. [176822]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Government have set out its investment plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 which should enable the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to increase funding for further education significantly. For the academic year 2003/04, base funding rates per qualification increased by 3 per cent. for school sixth forms and by 4.5 per cent. for further education colleges on a broadly comparable basis. Our expenditure plans to 2005–06 should see this trend continue. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 17 March the Spending Review settlement for the Department for the years 2005–06 to 2007–08, Ministers have yet to determine funding allocations and priorities within the Department. It is therefore too early to say what impact this settlement will have on the funding of schools, sixth forms and further education colleges.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to equalise funding between schools and colleges for 16-19 years olds in Weston-Super-Mare. [176979]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have set out its investment plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 which should enable the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to increase funding for further education significantly. For the academic year 2003/04, core funding rates per qualification increased by 3 per cent. for school sixth forms and by 4.5 per cent. for further education colleges on a broadly comparable basis. Our expenditure plans to 2005–06 should see this trend continue.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to provide funding to help further education colleges in Weston-Super-Mare to refurbish and rebuild their estates. [176980]

  Alan Johnson
  All of the Department's post-16 learning and skills sector capital investment is allocated to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The Department does not provide a specific budget to the LSC for rebuilding and refurbishing property in further education colleges at either the local or regional levels. It is for the LSC to determine for itself the right level of capital investment in further education colleges. Mr. Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member on this matter and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to equalise funding between schools and colleges for 16 to 19-year-olds in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. [177011]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Government have set out its investment plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 which should enable the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to increase funding for further education significantly. For the academic year 2003/04, core funding rates per qualification increased by 3 per cent. for school sixth forms and by 4.5 per cent. for

  587W
  further education colleges on a broadly comparable basis. Our expenditure plans to 2005–should see this trend continue.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much capital expenditure has been allocated to each further education college on Merseyside since 1995. [177261]

  Alan Johnson
  All of the Department's post-16 learning and skills sector capital investment is allocated to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The Department does not provide a specific budget to the LSC for rebuilding and refurbishing property in further education colleges at either the local or regional levels, and does not collect this information. It is for the LSC to determine for itself the right level of capital investment in further education colleges. This is an operational matter for the LSC. Mr. Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend on this matter and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding each further education college on Merseyside received in each year since 1997; what budget they have been allocated from the Learning and Skills Council for 2004–05; and what percentage change these allocations represent in comparison with the previous year. [177263]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department allocates funds for education and training in the post-16 learning and skills sector to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The LSC decides the funding allocations at individual college level. Information about these allocations 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 my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish his assessment of the impact of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilots on participation in work-based training. [174857]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The analysis of the impact of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilot on participation in work based training is not published. The analysis showed minimal impact. I refer the hon. Member to the response given to his previous question on this matter on 11 March 2004,Official Report, column 1725W.

  Irish Language (Pharmacy)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether pharmacy is taught in the Irish language at tertiary level at institutions in the UK. [177199]

  Alan Johnson
  I have responsibility for higher education in England only. However, information on individual subjects that may be taught in the Irish language in English higher education institutions is not available centrally.

DEFENCE

  Armando Nuclear Test
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made arrangements under the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement on atomic energy matters, as amended, to obtain the test results from the Armando sub-critical nuclear test at the Nevada test conducted on 25 May by the US National Nuclear Security Administration. [177067]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are regular United Kingdom/United States exchanges on a range of nuclear stockpile stewardship matters under the auspices of the 1958 UK/US Mutual Defence Agreement (Cmd 537 as amended). These exchanges have included briefings on the scope and outcome of US sub-critical experiments carried out at the Nevada Test Site, precise details of which are being withheld under the terms of Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Data from sub-critical experiments, which are consistent with our obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, is valuable in maintaining confidence in the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons. A review of the science behind this programme was published in Nature in February 2002.

  Augusta Westland
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect he expects the sale of GKN's shares in Augusta Westland to Finmeccancia of Italy will have on the completion date of the assessment phase for the Lynx replacement; and when he expects to make a decision on the awarding of the contract for that programme. [177594]

  Mr. Ingram
  The sale of GKN's shares in Augusta Westland will have little effect on the completion date of the assessment phase of the Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter/Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft programmes. The assessment phase is currently scheduled to complete later this year. The decision on the future of these programmes is most likely to be made early in 2005.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether concerns over the tender procedures for the upgrading of helicopters in Bulgaria were discussed at the meeting held on 2 December 2003 between the Minister for the armed forces and the Bulgarian Air Force commander, General Dimiter Georgiev. [175795]

  Mr. Ingram
  I met with the Bulgarian Deputy Defence Minister and senior Bulgarian Defence personnel on 2 December 2003. A wide range of issues were discussed and no concerns were raised over the tender procedures for the upgrading of helicopters in Bulgaria.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether officials of his Department have held meetings at which the BAE Systems bid for the upgrading of helicopters in Bulgaria was discussed which were attended by Prince Kyril Saxe-Coburg of Bulgaria. [175802]
  589W
  Mr. Ingram
  No record has been traced of Prince Kyril Saxe-Coburg of Bulgaria attending any meeting on this subject held with officials from the Ministry of Defence.

  Commercial Exportation Levy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money was received through the commercial exportation levy in each of the last four years. [176431]

  Mr. Ingram
  The value of receipts collected by the Defence Bills Agency in respect of Commercial Exploitation Levies over the last four years was as follows:

  Financial year

  Receipt (£ million)

  2000–01

  14.51

  2001–02

  14.64

  2002–03

  10.46

  2003–04

  11.83

  Contaminated Land (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the letter of 24th May, on possible contaminated land in Portsmouth, what requests he has received for details of such land from Portsmouth city council in the last five years. [177139]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence holds records of four requests during the last five years, from Portsmouth city council, for details on potential contaminated land. These requests were associated with environmental issues and proposed development on defence property in the City of Portsmouth.

  The four sites are: HM Naval Base, HMS Excellent, Fort Southwick and Horsea Island. Primarily these questions relate to development and are associated with the Department's Planning Consultation process. In regard to Horsea Island, there have been long-term discussions with the Environment Agency on the remediation of the lagoon.

  Training Accidents
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many training accidents have occurred in the Army in the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by(a) deaths, (b) serious injuries and (c) injuries; [176020]

  (2) what definition he uses of a road traffic accident for the purposes of statistical recording; and, in the past two years, what proportion of deaths through road traffic accidents involved service personnel (a) on exercise, (b) on regular duties and (c) off duty. [176021]

  Mr. Caplin
  The reporting of vehicle related accidents within the Ministry of Defence is based upon the following: the accident involves injury; a third party; or Ministry of Defence vehicles and equipment only. Those accidents resulting in a fatality or injury to any individual or those which involve a third party are regarded as road traffic accidents (as defined in law). Those which result in damage to military vehicles only are classified as incidents.
  590W
  During the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003, Ministry of Defence units and establishments reported a total of 10,363 road traffic accidents and 7,113 incidents. There were 118 Service fatalities; of these, seven were on operations/exercise and a further 14 on other duties. There were 97 off duty Service fatalities during this period. Details of accidents involving vehicles privately owned by Service personnel are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Bodies
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, (ii) Defence Postal and Courier Service, (iii) Defence Transport and Movements Agency, (iv) Deputy Chief Defence Logistics, (v) Army Base Repair Organisation, (vi) DG Defence Logistics Command Information Systems, (vii) Defence Aviation Repair Agency and (viii) Logistics Information Systems Agency management groups in financial year 2000–01; [176129]

  (2) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, (ii) Defence Postal and Courier Service, (iii) Defence Transport and Movements Agency, (iv) Deputy Chief Defence Logistics, (v) Army Base Repair Organisation, (vi) Command Information Systems, (vii) Defence Aviation Repair Agency, (viii) Logistics Information Systems Agency and (ix) Non Disaggregated Funds management groups in financial year 1999–2000; [176138]

  (3) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) DG Equipment Support (Land), (ii) Director Land Service Ammunition, (iii) Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, (iv) Warship Support Agency, (v) DG Fleet Support (Operations), (vi) DG Equipment Support (Air), (vii) Defence Communication Services Agency, (viii) Defence Fuels Group and (ix) DG Support Army HQ management groups in financial year 2000–01; [176143]

  (4) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) Internal Costs and (ii) Programme Account management groups in financial year 2001–02; [176147]

  (5) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) Defence Vetting Agency, (ii) Finance Directors, (iii) Defence Analytical Services Agency, (iv) Defence Bills Agency, (v) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments), (vi) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel), (vii) Defence Housing Executives, (viii) Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency and (ix) Defence Geographical and Imaging Intelligence Agency management groups in the financial year 2001–02; [176157]

  (6) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) Defence Export Services Organisation, (ii) Chief Constable MOD Police, (iii) Chief Scientific Adviser, (iv) Defence Estates Organisation, (v) Policy Director, (vi) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Equipment Capability) (vii) Civilian Management, (viii) Pay and Personnel Agency and (ix) Director General Information management groups in the financial year 2000–01; [176158]
  591W
  (7) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians and how many (i) officers and (ii) other ranks were employed on average in the (A) Defence Vetting Agency, (B) Finance Directors, (D) Defence Analytical Services Agency, (D) Defence Bills Agency, (E) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments), (F) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel), (G) Defence Housing Executive, (H) Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency and (I) Defence Geographical and Imaging Intelligence Agency management groups in the financial year 2000–01; [176159]

  (8) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) Defence Export Services Organisation, (ii) Chief Constable MOD Police, (iii) Chief Scientific Adviser, (iv) Defence Estates Organisation, (v) Policy Director, (vi) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Equipment Capability) (vii) Civilian Management, (viii) Pay and Personnel Agency and (ix) Director General Information management groups in financial year 1999–2000; [176155]

  (9) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Internal Costs and (ii) Personnel Account management group was in the financial years (A) 1999–2000 and (B) 2000–01; [176164]

  (10) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Army Personnel Centre, (ii) Queen Victoria School, (iii) Duke of York Royal Military School, (iv) Army Training and Recruiting Agency, (v) Service Children's Education, (vi) Army Programmes, (vii) General Staff, (viii) Adjutant General Higher Level Budget and (ix) Royal Military College Shrivenham management group was in financial year (A) 2000–01 and (B) 2001–02; [176166]

  (11) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Personnel Management Agency, (ii) Training Group Defence Agency and (iii) Core HQ management group was in financial years (A) 1999–2000, (B) 2000–01 and (C) 2001–02; [176167]

  (12) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Internal Costs and (ii) Programme Account management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176168]

  (13) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i)1 Group, (ii) 2 Group, (iii) 3 Group, and (iv) Deputy Commander-in-Chief management group was in financial years (A) 2000—01 and (B) 2001–02; [176172]

  (14) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed was in the (i) 1 (UK) Armoured Division, (ii) 2nd Division, (iii) 3rd Division, (iv) 4th Division, (v) 5th Division, (vi) Training and Theatre Groups, (vii) Joint Helicopter Command, (viii) UK Support Command (Germany) and (ix) Land Support management group in financial year 2001–02; [176176]

  (15) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Flag Officer Training and Recruitment, (ii) Naval Secretary and (iii) HQ management group was in financial year 2001–02; [176178]
  592W
  (16) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland top level budget-holder was in financial year (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02; [176181]

  (17) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) 1 Group, (ii) 11/18 Group, (iii) 38 Group, (iv) Directly Administered Units, (v) Chief of Staff and (vi) Works and Land management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176186]

  (18) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Chief of Defence Intelligence, (ii) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (iii) Surgeon General, (iv) Defence Secondary Care Agency, (v) Defence Dental Agency, (vi) Medical Supplies Agency, (vii) Defence Medical Training Organisation, (viii) Central Banking and Fund Management, (ix) DG Information and Communication Services and (x) Defence Communication Services management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176188]

  (19) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Flag Officer Naval Aviation, (ii) Fleet HQ, (iii) Flag Officer Surface Flotilla, (iv) Flag Officer Submarines, (v) Commandant General Royal Marines, (vi) Commodore Royal Fleet Auxiliary and (vii) non-disaggregated funds management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176192]

  (20) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) DG Equipment Support (Land), (ii) Direct Land Service Ammunition, (iii) Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, (iv) Warship Support Agency, (v) DG Equipment Support (Air), (vi) Defence Communication Services Agency and (vii) Defence Fuels Group management group in financial year 2001–02; [176197]

  (21) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) Naval Training and Recruiting Agency, (ii) Naval Manning Agency, (iii) HQ, (iv) Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff and (v) Fleet Accommodation Centres management group in financial year 1999–2000; [176211]

  (22) how many full time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) DG Equipment Support (Land), (ii) Director Land Service Ammunition, (iii) Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, (iv) Warship Support Agency, (v) DG Fleet Support (Operations), (vi) DG Equipment Support (Air), (vii) Defence Communication Services Agency, (viii) Defence Fuels Group and (ix) DG Support Army HQ management groups in financial year 2000—01; [176246]

  (23) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) Army Personnel Centre, (ii) Queen Victoria School, (iii) Duke of York Royal Military School, (iv) Army Training and Recruiting Agency, (v) Service Children's Education, (vi) Army Programmes, (vii) General Staff, (viii) Adjutant General and (ix) Royal Military College Shrivenham management group in financial year 1999–2000; [176214]
  593W
  (24) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Chief of Defence Intelligence, (ii) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (iii) Surgeon General, (iv) Defence Secondary Care Agency, (v) Defence Dental Agency, (vi) Medical Supplies Agency, (vii) Defence Medical Training Organisation and (viii) Central Banking and Fund Management group was in financial year 2000–01; [176196]

  (25) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed by the Major Customers Research Budgets top level budget-holder was in financial year (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01; [176191]

  (26) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) 1 (UK) Armoured Division, (ii) 2nd Division, (iii) 3rd Division, (iv) 4th Division, (v) 5th Division, (vi) Command HQ, (vii) Scotland, (viii) Capital Works and (ix) UK Support Command (Germany) management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176184]

  (27) what the average number of full time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Commodore Naval Aviation, (ii) Fleet HQ, (iii) Flag Officer Surface Flotilla, (iv) Flag Officer Submarines, (v) Commandant General Royal Marines, (vi) Commodore Royal Fleet Auxiliary and (vii) Non-Disaggregated Funds management group was in financial year (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; [176180]

  (28) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) Defence Export Services Organisation, (ii) Chief Constable MOD Police, (iii) Chief Scientific Adviser, (iv) Defence Estates Organisation, (v) Policy Director, (vi) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Systems), (vii) Civilian Management, (viii) Pay and Personnel Agency and (ix) Director General Information management groups in financial year 1999–2000; [176154]

  (29) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Personnel Management Agency, (ii) Training Group Defence Agency and (iii) Core HQ management group was in the financial year (A) 1999–2000, (B) 2000–01 and (C) 2001–02; [176163]

  (30) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the Chief of Staff management group was in the financial year 2000–01; [176161]

  (31) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks was employed on average in the (i) British Forces Cyprus, (ii) Permanent Joint Headquarters, (iii) British Forces Falkland Islands, (iv) British Forces Gibraltar and (v) Sovereign Base Areas Administration management groups in financial year 2001–02; [176149]

  (32) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks and full time equivalent (i) industrial and (ii) non-industrial civilians employed in the (A) Defence Vetting Agency, (B) Finance Director, (C) Defence Analytical Services Agency, (D) Defence Bills Agency, (E) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments), (F) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel), (G) Defence Housing Executive, (H) Armed Forces Personnel Administration
  594W
  Agency and (I) Defence Geographical and Imaging Intelligence Agency management groups was in financial year 1999–2000; [176144]

  (33) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) British Forces Cyprus, (ii) Permanent Joint Headquarters, (iii) British Forces Falkland Islands, (iv) British Forces Gibraltar and (v) Sovereign Base Areas Administration management groups in financial year 2000–01; [176141]

  (34) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, (ii) Defence Postal and Courier Service, (iii) Defence Transport and Movements Agency, (iv) Deputy Chief Defence Logistics, (v) Army Base Repair Organisation, (vi) DG Defence Logistics Command Information Systems, (vii) Defence Aviation Repair Agency, (viii) Logistics Information Systems Agency and (ix) Non Disaggregated Funds management groups in financial year 1999–2000; [176139]

  (35) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) DG Equipment Support (Land), (ii) Director Land Service Ammunition, (iii) Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, (iv) Ships Support Agency, (v) Naval Base and Supply Agency, (vi) DG Equipment Support (Air) (vii) Defence Communication Services Agency, (viii) Defence Fuels Group and (ix) DG Support Army HQ management groups in financial year 1999–2000; [176136]

  (36) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, (ii) Defence Postal and Courier Service, (iii) Defence Transport and Movements Agency, (iv) Deputy Chief Defence Logistics, (v) Army Base Repair Organisation, (vi) DG Defence Logistics Command Information Systems, (vii) Defence Aviation Repair Agency and (viii) Logistics Information Systems Agency management groups in financial 2000–01; [176130]

  (37) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) DG Equipment Support (Land), (ii) Director Land Service Ammunition, (iii) Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, (iv) Ships Support Agency, (v) Naval Base and Supply Agency, (vi) DG Equipment Support (Air) (vii) Defence Communication Services Agency, (viii) Defence Fuels Group and (ix) DG Support Army HQ management groups in financial year 1999–2000; [176137]

  (38) how many full time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) British Forces Cyprus, (ii) Permanent Joint Headquarters, (iii) British Forces Falkland Islands, (iv) British Forces Gibraltar and (v) Sovereign Base Areas Administration management groups in financial year 2001–02; [176150]

  (39) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians and how many (i) officers and (ii) other ranks were employed on average in the (A) Defence Export Services Organisation, (B) Chief Constable MoD Police, (C) Chief Scientific Adviser, (D) Defence Estates Organisation, (E) Policy Director, (F) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Equipment

  595W
  Capability) (G) Civilian Management, (H) Pay and Personnel Agency and (I) Director General Information management groups in the financial year 2001–02; [176156]

  (40) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) 1st (UK) Armoured Division, (ii) 2nd Division, (iii) 3rd Division, (iv) 4th Division, (v) 5th Division, (vi) Command HQ, (vii) UK Support Command (Germany), (viii) Joint Helicopter Command and (ix) Land Support management groups was in the financial year 2000—01; [176160]

  (41) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Army Personnel Centre, (ii) Queen Victoria School, (iii) Duke of York Royal Military School, (iv) Army Training and Recruiting Agency, (v) Service Children's Education, (vi) Army Programmes, (vii) General Staff, (viii) Adjutant General Higher Level Budget and (ix) Royal Military College Shrivenham management group was in financial year (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; [176165]

  (42) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) British Forces Cyprus, (ii) Permanent Joint Headquarters, (iii) British Forces Falkland Islands, (iv) British Forces Gibraltar and (v) Sovereign Base Areas Administration management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176169]

  (43) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) 1 (UK) Armoured Division, (ii) 2nd Division, (iii) 3rd Division, (iv) 4th Division, (v) 5th Division, (vi) Command HQ, (vii) UK Support Command (Germany), (viii) Joint Helicopter Command and (ix) Land Support management groups was in financial year 2000–01; [176171]

  (44) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Commodore Naval Aviation, (ii) Fleet HQ, (iii) Flag Officer Surface Flotilla, (iv) Flag Officer Submarines, (v) Commandant General Royal Marines, (vi) Commodore Royal Fleet Auxiliary and (vii) Non-Disaggregated Funds management group was in financial year(A) 2000—01 and (B) 2001–02; [176179]

  (45) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Flag Officer Training and Recruitment, (ii) Naval Secretary and (iii) HQ management group was in financial year 2001–02; [176177]

  (46) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Naval Training and Recruiting Agency, (ii) Naval Manning Agency, (iii) HQ, and (iv) Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff management group was in financial year 2000–01; [176174]

  (47) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) 1 (UK) Armoured Division, (ii) 2nd Division, (iii) 3rd Division, (iv) 4th Division, (v) 5th Division, (vi) Training and Theatre Troupes, (vii) Joint Helicopter Command, (viii) UK Support Command (Germany) and (ix) Land Support management group was in financial year 2001–02; [176183]

  (48) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed by the Major Customers Research Budget was in financial year (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01; [176190]
  596W
  (49) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Chief of Defence Intelligence, (ii) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (iii) Surgeon General, (iv) Defence Secondary Care Agency, (v) Defence Dental Agency, (vi) Medical Supplies Agency, (vii) Defence Medical Training Organisation and (viii) Central Banking and Fund Management group was in financial year 2000–01; [176195]

  (50) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) DG Support Army HQ, (ii) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, (iii) Defence Postal and Courier Service, (iv) Defence Transport and Movements Agency, (v) Deputy Chief Defence Logistics, (vi) Army Base Repair Organisation and (vii) DG Defence Logistics Command Information Systems management group in financial year 2001–02; [176199]

  (51) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed in the (i) Army Personnel Centre, (ii) Queen Victoria School, (iii) Duke of York Royal Military School, (iv) Army Training and Recruiting Agency, (v) Service Children's Education, (vi) Army Programmes, (vii) General Staff, (viii) Chief of Staff and (ix) Royal Military College Shirvenham management group in financial year 1999–2000: [176213]

  (52) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) Naval Training and Recruiting Agency, (ii) Naval Manning Agency, (iii) HQ, (iv) Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff and (v) Fleet Accommodation Centres management group in financial year 1999–2000; [176212]

  (53) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Flag Officer Naval Aviation, (ii) Fleet HQ, (iii) Flag Officer Surface Flotilla, (iv) Flag Officer Submarines, (v) Commandant General Royal Marines, (vi) Commodore Royal Fleet Auxiliary and (vii) non-disaggregated funds management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176193]

  (54) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) I Group, (ii) 11/18 Group, (iii) 38 Group, (iv) Directly Administered Units, (v) Chief of Staff and (vi) Works and Land management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176187]

  (55) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland top level budget-holder was in financial year (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02; [176182]

  (56) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) Naval Training and Recruiting Agency, (ii) Naval Manning Agency, (iii) HQ, and (iv) Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff management group was in financial year 2000–01; [176175]

  (57) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the Chief of Staff management group was in the financial year 2000–01; [176162]
  597W
  (58) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) DG Equipment Support (Land), (ii) Director Land Service Ammunition, (iii) Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, (iv) Warship Support Agency, (v) DG Equipment Support (Air), (vi) Defence Communication Services Agency and (vii) Defence Fuels Group management groups in financial year 2001–02; [176151]

  (59) how many full time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) British Forces Cyprus, (ii) Permanent Joint Headquarters, (iii) British Forces Falkland Islands, (iv) British Forces Gibraltar and (v) Sovereign Base Areas Administration management groups in financial year 2000–01; [176142]

  (60) what the average number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks employed in the (i) Chief of Defence Intelligence, (ii) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (iii) Surgeon General, (iv) Defence Secondary Care Agency, (v) Defence Dental Agency, (vi) Medical Supplies Agency, (vii) Defence Medical Training Organisation, (viii) Central Banking and Fund Management, (ix) DG Information and Communication Service and (x) Defence Communication Services management groups was in financial year 1999–2000; [176145]

  (61) how many full time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in (i) Internal Costs and (ii) Programme Account management groups in financial year 2000–01; [176140]

  (62) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) Defence Export Services Organisation, (ii) Chief Constable MOD Police, (iii) Chief Scientific Adviser, (iv) Defence Estates Organisation, (v) Policy Director, (vi) Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Equipment Capability), (vii) Civilian Management, (viii) Pay and Personnel Agency and (ix) Director General Information management groups in financial year 2000–01; [176132]

  (63) what the average number of full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians employed in the (i) British Forces Cyprus, (ii) Permanent Joint Headquarters, (iii) British Forces Falkland Islands, (iv) British Forces Gibraltar and (v) Sovereign Base Areas Administration management group was in financial year 1999–2000; [176170]

  (64) how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks were employed on average in the (i) DG Support Army HQ, (ii) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, (iii) Defence Postal and Courier Service, (iv) Defence Transport and Movements Agency, (v) Deputy Chief Defence Logistics, (vi) Army Base Repair Organisation and (vii) DG Defence Logistics Command Information Systems management group in financial year 2001–02; [176198]

  (65) how many full-time equivalent (a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civilians were employed on average in the (i) Internal Costs and (ii) Programme Account management groups in financial year 2001–02. [176148]
  598W
  Mr. Caplin
  The available information on numbers of military and civilian personnel analysed by budgetary grouping and by Defence Agency is contained in tables 2.2, 2.3 and 2.7 of United Kingdom Defence Statistics 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Further details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Disposal Services Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed by the Disposal Services Agency in each of the last three years; what the staff costs were in each of those years; and what the forecast cost is for each of the next two years. [176429]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to page 39 of the Disposal Services Agency (DSA)'s Annual report and accounts 2002–03. For the financial year 2003–2004 the average number of staff employed was 80, and the personnel costs approximately £3 million subject to audit.

  Forecast staff costs for 2004–05 are £3.1 million and for 2005–06, £2.7 million. The reduction in salaries being due to the cessation of the "A1 Hussein Project" in 2005. The figures do not include personnel due to be transferred into DSA from the Defence Logistics Organisation as from 1 April 2005. These are due to be finalised over the coming months.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects the Typhoon to enter service with the RAF; [176472]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress on the Typhoon programme. [176473]

  Mr. Ingram
  Typhoon achieved "type acceptance" in June 2003, triggering the entry to service process. The first RAF aircraft was accepted off contract in December 2003, and to date, six have been delivered. Release to Service, allowing flying under normal RAF procedures, was achieved earlier this month. The aircraft are now engaged in the process of pilot training and operational evaluation to enable Typhoon to be deployed operationally during the second half of the decade. The next step in the procurement process will be the order for the second Tranche of aircraft, and negotiations are in progress.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on problems experienced with the Typhoon's software programmes; whether he expects the software problems to delay the Typhoon's entry into service with the RAF; and what estimate he has made of the cost of correcting the problems. [176475]

  Mr. Ingram
  Typhoon, in common with other technologically advanced projects worldwide, has experienced some problems attributable to software development. However, the aircraft has already entered service with the RAF and we do not expect software
  599W
  problems to delay its operational employment date. We would expect costs associated with correcting problems of this nature to be covered within the existing contract prices as part of the performance warranty.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) the Typhoon's capability as a single seat fighter in all conditions and in all combat roles and (b) the need for a second crew member for certain operations. [176478]

  Mr. Ingram
  Typhoon, as with all new military aircraft, is undergoing a rigorous and incremental series of testing and evaluations to expand gradually its flight parameters to bring it up to an operational capability for front line service. Typhoon is performing extremely well at this stage of the development programme as it moves towards achievement of its full, single seat, Multi Role capability.

  Export and Market Access Forum
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to establish a defence export and market access forum. [177401]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government's Defence Industrial Policy, launched in October 2002, recommended the setting up of a forum to address export promotion issues and improved access for United Kingdom industry into key foreign markets. The Defence Export and Market Access Forum is chaired by the Head of Defence Export Services and the first meeting was held on 12 March 2003.

  Farnborough Air Show
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department is giving to the organisers of the Farnborough Air Show taking place from 19 to 25 July; and whether this includes assistance to enable overseas visitors to attend. [177499]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with the Government's policy of supporting defence exports, the Ministry of Defence undertakes a broad range of activities in support of The Society of British Aerospace Companies which organises the Farnborough International Air Show. The Defence Export Services Organisation provides marketing support to the United Kingdom exhibitors and helps the organisers ensure maximum exposure of UK products to potential customers by supporting official inward visits.

  Faslane
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is mandatory for submariners and radiation workers to use the IPM7 radiation monitor when they leave the nuclear submarines at HM Naval Base, Clyde Faslane; and if he will make a statement. [176800]

  Mr. Ingram
  Personnel exiting submarine reactor compartments must be monitored (by suitably qualified and experienced workers) using hand-held instrumentation capable of detecting very low levels of radioactive contamination. In addition, after leaving submarines, all staff have the opportunity to use a walk-through monitor similar to the IPM 7. This secondary 600W
  monitoring normally takes place after the worker has completed primary monitoring and removed his protective clothing. The purpose of this equipment is to provide reassurance to personnel leaving controlled areas, and is compulsory where contamination is suspected or found on exiting the Reactor Compartment.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries which have troops stationed in Iraq; and how many troops are deployed in each case. [175580]

  Mr. Ingram
  Exact numbers of forces deployed by each nation in Iraq varies daily. The table gives current, rounded, numbers.

  Number

  Albania

  70

  Australia

  400

  Azerbaijan

  150

  Bulgaria

  450

  Canada

  2

  Czech Republic

  100

  Denmark

  400

  El Salvador

  400

  Estonia

  30

  Georgia

  150

  Honduras

  350

  Hungary

  300

  Italy

  2,500

  Japan

  550

  Kazakhstan

  30

  Korea

  500

  Latvia

  100

  Lithuania

  100

  Macedonia

  30

  Moldova

  1

  Mongolia

  150

  Netherlands

  1,200

  New Zealand

  50

  Norway

  150

  Philippines

  50

  Poland

  2,500

  Portugal

  100

  Romania

  750

  Slovakia

  100

  Spain

  950

  Thailand

  450

  Turkey

  20

  Ukraine

  1,500

  United Kingdom

  9,500

  United States

  130.000

  Joint Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total projected budget of the Future Joint Combat Aircraft was spent prior to main gate approval. [176355]

  Mr. Ingram
  £144 million was spent on the pre Main Gate Assessment phase of the Joint Combat Aircraft programme. This equates to 6 per cent. of the approved procurement cost to date. This figure excludes expenditure by the United States on the Joint Strike Fighter.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what talks have taken place with BAE Systems about the Joint Strike Fighter's ability to operate from aircraft carriers. [174993]

  Mr. Ingram
  We keep in close touch with the industry teams (which include BAE Systems) involved in the United Kingdom future aircraft carrier and Joint Strike Fighter programmes. An integral element of the discussion is the interface between the ship and the aircraft.

  Legacy Wrecks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the letter of the Under-Secretary of State D/05 of S/IC 1295/04/A of 5 April, what his policy is on UK legacy wrecks and related issues of liability; what assessment he has made of their potential to pollute; and if he will make a statement. [177882]

  Mr. Caplin
  Our policy on UK military legacy wrecks and related issues of liability remains as set out in my letter of 5 April. At present, the Ministry of Defence is consulting with other Government Departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as to the most appropriate means of resolving the legal principle in international law of the ownership of wrecks. We do not expect to resolve the international position on ownership for some time because of the differing views taken by various states, although we hope to have a preliminary view by late autumn.

  In respect of pollution, the wrecks database at the UK Hydrographic Office contains some 60,000 records of wrecks worldwide, of which approximately 20,000 are named vessels. If a wreck is below 200 metres, and so is not likely to be a danger to shipping, it is recorded but not charted. Within the Western Hemisphere there are 422 records of UK military legacy wrecks, only 275 of which are charted, and in the Eastern Hemisphere there are 501 records with 295 charted. No assessment has been made of the potential of each of these vessels to pollute. However, as I said to my hon. Friend in my letter of 5 April, the Ministry of Defence will continue to address individual cases of potential pollution hazards from UK military wrecks on their own merits and take whatever action we deem necessary.

  Lynx Replacement
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the assessment phase for the Lynx replacement to be completed; and when he expects to make a decision on the future of this programme. [177595]

  Mr. Ingram
  The assessment phase of the Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter and Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft is currently scheduled to complete later this year.

  The decision on the future of these programmes is most likely to be made early in 2005.

  Military Support Vehicle
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his decision on the preferred bidder for the military support vehicle contract. [177440]

  Mr. Ingram
  The preferred bidder for the support vehicle project will be announced as soon as possible.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the potential for compatibility of equipment and co-operation between UK forces and US allies in the field when considering the supply of future strategic and tactical military support vehicles. [177460]

  Mr. Ingram
  Interoperability between our armed forces and those of our NATO allies has been considered as part of the evaluation of bidders' proposals for the support vehicle project.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations he has undertaken in considering his decision on preferred bidder status for the UK military support vehicle contract into the performance of medium tactical vehicles already in use with the US Army; and which company's products achieved the highest level of in-service operational readiness during Operation Iraqi Freedom. [177461]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of the competition for the support vehicle project, bidders had the opportunity to state their previous experience of supplying wheeled military vehicles to other Governments and to provide evidence of the performance of such vehicles. This material has informed the evaluation process.

  We are aware that vehicles manufactured by Oshkosh and Stewart and Stevenson, two of the four bidders for the support vehicle contract, were used by the US Army and Marine Corps in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, none of the vehicles used were the variants offered by those companies and an analysis of the type suggested would be inappropriate in the context of the current competition.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the importance of supplier experience and track record in his consideration of preferred bidder status for the military support vehicle contract. [177464]

  Mr. Ingram
  Consideration of these matters has informed the evaluation of bidders' proposals for the support vehicle project.

  Mine Disposal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for (1) what reasons he is holding an international competition for a Mine Disposal System; [176775]

  (2) what (a) research and (b) evaluation his Department has carried out on the Archerfish to decide whether it meets the requirements of the Royal Navy for its Mine Disposal System. [176776]

  Mr. Ingram
  The requirement for the new single shot Mine Disposal System is subject to international competition in accordance with the Department's
  603W
  Industrial Policy, which will ensure that the most effective system to meet the requirement is obtained, while obtaining value for money for the taxpayer.

  Four proposals have been received from industry, including one for the Archerfish system, and criteria, including operational effectiveness, through life support, safety and commercial aspects are being considered as part of the research and evaluation process. Following initial marking of the proposals, artificial trials in a water tank will be carried out on each system. Those that are successful will then undergo final explosive trials and ship based evaluations before a final decision is made.

  Missile Defence Interceptor Missiles
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with the US Administration concerning the deployment of missile defence interceptor missiles in the UK. [176837]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) on 25 May 2004,Official Report, column 1616W.

  Nuclear Safety
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department received copies of a nuclear safety report by John Connor in(a) June and (b) November 2002; and what evaluation has been made of its contents. [170228]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 May 2004]: In 1998 Mr. Connor submitted a report which was, effectively, a summary of correspondence that had taken place between him and the Ministry of Defence during the previous 20 months.

  In 1999 he submitted an update which, after review, was found to be substantially the same and Mr. Connor was informed that nothing could be added to the MOD's previous exchanges with him. Mr. Connor submitted further updates in November 2000 and June 2002. Again, these did not include any new issues and, as Mr. Connor was aware from previous correspondence that the MOD would not engage further with him unless new issues of substance were raised, a response was not warranted.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will furnish a substantive reply to question reference 170228 tabled by the hon. Member for New Forest, East on 28 April 2004. [177976]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Premature Voluntary Retirement
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of premature voluntary retirement applications have been denied for(a) officers and (b) other ranks in all three services in each of the last fiver years; and if he will make a statement; [176111]
  604W
  (2) if he will list the number of (a) officers and (b) other ranks who (i) applied for premature voluntary retirement and (ii) had their applications accepted in each of the last three years, broken down by regiment; and if he will make a statement. [176745]

  Mr. Caplin
  Data on applications for Premature Voluntary Release (PVR) are published quarterly in the DASA Armed Forces Personnel Statistics publication Tri Service Publication, TSP 5. Copies of the latest publication (1 April 2004 figures) along with back issues are available in the Library of the House. Published data include officers and other ranks and show applications and actual exits for each of the three services, split by gender. The main difference between the number of applications for PVR and the number of actual exits shown in TSP 5 is due to individual applicants choosing to withdraw their applications whilst serving their notice, not due to applications being refused. PVR rates broken down by regiment are not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  It is not possible to provide the information requested on those requests for PVR that have been denied as all such information is not held centrally and again could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Generally, denials are possible but are very rare and a deferral of the proposed leaving date is the more usual course of action.

  Service Personnel Deaths
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of the investigation into the deaths of(a) Sapper Luke Allsopp and (b) Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth; whether Her Majesty's Government received a response to it from the families of the men; and if he will make a statement. [173317]

  Mr. Ingram
  The investigation into the deaths of Staff Sergeant Cullingworth and Sapper Allsopp is continuing, and it would be inappropriate to speculate about its outcome. The families of both Servicemen have been regularly updated as to the progress of the investigation.

  Signing Off
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) officers and (b) other ranks signed off in each of the three services in each of the last three years; of those, how many were tasked to Iraq after signing off; and if he will make a statement. [176802]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The term 'signed off' is not recognised within the UK armed forces.

  Stockholdings Databases
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the fields of the three services stockholdings databases. [176359]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am placing the information requested in the Library of the House.

  UN Operations
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 2 March 2004,Official Report, column 792W, on Operation Telic, when each request was filed; whether it was approved; when the equipment arrived in theatre; and if he will make a statement. [160228]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 March 2004]: It is not possible to provide the information requested without explaining in detail the full range of Urgent Operational Requirements considered for operations in Iraq. The full list of such UORs is operationally sensitive and I am therefore withholding it under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cluster bomb-related injuries have been recorded in the British sector of occupied Iraq for each month since the official end of the conflict. [170456]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no viable means of recording the information requested. We do not hold any information in respect of injured persons not treated by UK forces and even for those treated by UK forces it is frequently not possible to identify the cause of shrapnel injuries.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqis he estimates have been arrested by mistake since the start of the conflict. [173454]

  Mr. Hoon
  When British forces apprehend people suspected of having committed a criminal offence, they are immediately handed over to the Iraq Police Service who arrest, and if appropriate, conduct a prosecution under Iraqi law. We do not hold central records of the outcome of such cases and cannot therefore estimate how many have been prosecuted or the results of such cases. In any event, the fact that an arrest does not ultimately lead to a successful prosecution does not mean that the arrest was either mistaken or unlawful.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether US intelligence contractors have had access to prisoners under UK jurisdiction. [175097]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Unmanned Air Vehicles
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place to ensure the safe operation of United States military unmanned air vehicles while in UK airspace; whether there have been breaches of these arrangements in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [174542]

  Mr. Ingram
  Requests from the US to operate military unmanned air vehicles in UK airspace are handled on a case-by-case basis. To date, there has only been one such request for overflight of UK airspace, which was approved. Stringent procedures are in place to ensure safe operation of such flights. There have been no breaches of these arrangements.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Food Advertising
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had on food advertising during children's programmes; and if she will make a statement. [176409]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have had a wide variety of discussions on food advertising during children's programmes, particularly in the light of current concerns about the possible impact of broadcast advertising on childhood obesity. This has included discussions at a range of meetings and events with Ministers, MPs, representatives of the food and drink, advertising and broadcasting industries, industry regulators, and consumer groups.

  In December, I asked Ofcom to review the current code regulating broadcast advertising to children, and they will report their findings to me in July. Government policy on this issue will be announced in the autumn as part of the Public Health White Paper.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which organisations were included in the Golden Jubilee medal distribution; and on what date their inclusion was announced. [177664]

  Mr. Caborn
  The medal was issued to serving members of the Armed Forces and Royal Fleet Auxiliary and to the "999" emergency services. Eligibility is restricted to those who completed a minimum of five years' reckonable service on 6 February 2002£the 50th anniversary of the Queen's Accession. This was announced on 4 December 2001.

  The announcement to extend the award to holders of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross was made on 29 April 2003.

  Libraries (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent on the digitisation of content in libraries in Bootle since 1997. [177712]

  Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally.

  The New Opportunities Fund £50 million Digitisation of Learning Materials Programme has delivered 150 projects across the UK to enable resources which support learning of all kinds held in libraries as well as museums, archives and other public-sector institutions, to be made available online through the People's Network and the National Grid for Learning. This initiative has created a body of material containing over 2 million images, tens of thousands of sound and video clips and documents and over 1,000 learning packages. All projects can be accessed via the Enrich UK portal at http://www.enrichuk.net.

  Information on grants awarded to individual local authorities and their expenditure can be obtained from the relevant authority.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Indemnity Scheme
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  The provision for the Government indemnity scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects, or bringing into the public domain the conclusions of any study.

  In the six month period ending 31 March, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued 687 undertakings, the Scottish Executive Education Department issued 179 undertakings and the National Assembly for Wales issued 229.
  16WS
  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as of 31 March for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are £3,177,492,071. The value of section 16 contingent liabilities as of 31 March for the Scottish Executive Education Department are £607,547,273 and £76,817,843 for the National Assembly for Wales.

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government art collection and which remained outstanding as of 31 March are £4,975,000.

  The value of non-statutory undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the royal collection and which remained outstanding as of 31 March are £170,937,987.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mainstreaming Gender
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  The FCO has today published a booklet entitled "Inclusive Government: Mainstreaming Gender into Foreign Policy", prepared by its Gender Advisory Group. Copies of this booklet have been placed in the Library of the House. From 23 June it will also be available on the FCO's website at www.fco.gov.uk.

  Mainstreaming gender is about considering fully the impact on men and women of a particular policy, project or service, and taking steps to ensure that those impacts are positive for both sexes. Mainstreaming gender is crucial to the work of the FCO.

  This booklet draws together the work the FCO is already doing on gender, and serves as a toolkit for FCO staff to mainstream gender more fully into their work. I hope it will help to ensure that the FCO can devise more effective policies, and make better use of resources, leading to positive outcomes for the UK.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Afghanistan: Provincial Reconstruction Teams
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are confident that NATO will meet its deadline of 28–29 June for putting in place five provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Secretary-General has expressed a wish to see five provincial reconstruction teams under ISAF command by the time of the Istanbul summit. That is not a deadline, but part of a NATO plan to extend its stabilisation mission in Afghanistan, which also includes providing support for elections in due course. We and NATO colleagues are working hard on the objectives. We are confident that further contributions from allies will be forthcoming before the Istanbul summit.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. ISAF has now been waiting for months for promised extra troops and equipment from alliance members, and NATO's credibility is very much threatened. What can the Government do to ensure that pledges from NATO allies to supply those vital resources are quickly fulfilled to deploy the necessary security for the September elections?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are talking to our NATO colleagues about the pledges that may be forthcoming at the Istanbul summit. A number of countries have indicated a willingness to contribute more by way of personnel or hardware towards the extension of the PRTs in Afghanistan. I am not in a position to make announcements on that at the moment; I hope that they will be forthcoming by the time of the summit. As the countries concerned have not made the announcements themselves yet, it would not be proper for me to make such an announcement now.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that the aid agencies are still in considerable confusion about the role of the provincial reconstruction teams, and particularly about whether they are to do humanitarian work? There is concern that they should protect aid workers. Will she confirm that that is one of the objectives?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have tried to be clear on the role of the provincial
374
reconstruction teams. Representatives from the Foreign Office, the MoD and DfID have presented what I understand that they called a PRT roadshow in Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Berlin, Rome, NATO headquarters in Brussels, and Ottawa to try to explain how the teams will work. They have also briefed officials from Hungary, Poland, Turkey, New Zealand and Bulgaria in London.
There are very difficult problems around security. The noble Earl asks his question on a day when we have heard of the very tragic deaths of 13 Chinese reconstruction workers in Afghanistan. The recent killings of Médecins sans Frontières aid workers have also been a cause of great concern. When in place, the PRTs are meant to provide stability for the country. That must include providing protection for those engaged in reconstruction that will be vital for the future. I hope that the way in which British officials have tried to give briefing, in both London and elsewhere, indicates to noble Lords the seriousness with which we take our role on the reconstruction teams.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, there is obviously a link between the rather serious security situation that the noble Baroness has illustrated and the prospect for elections, which are crucial politically. I noticed that, in her Answer, she talked about elections in due course, whereas my noble friend recalled—I think correctly—that the policy decision was to have elections in September. Can she explain that? Is the decision for September still a clear one?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, there has been no change. On 28 March, President Karzai announced that the joint presidential and parliamentary elections would indeed be held in September 2004. Electoral registration began in eight regional centres in December and moved into rural areas in February. By 25 May, there were 720 operational registration sites in 31 provinces, and more than 2.5 million voters have been registered. The process has been delayed, but the delay has been because of lack of funds rather than due to concerns about security. I acknowledge that security of course remains an obstacle and, if the situation worsens, will become more of one. I have been able to give noble Lords the best possible indication of what has happened so far, and of the fact that the elections are still due to take place in September.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on the question of funding, does the noble Baroness agree that the donors are unlikely to cough up the 87 million dollars said to be needed by 1 July when they see humanitarian workers and those involved in the elections threatened and murdered, almost on a daily basis? How many times has President Karzai said that there can be no reconstruction without security? Does not the noble Baroness agree that the success of the Berlin declaration is conditional on the provision of additional NATO troops? When will they be deployed in troubled areas such as Gardez and Khost?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the extension of the PRTs outside Kabul is absolutely vital to ensuring proper security in Afghanistan. I have not given an absolute pledge to your Lordships about the date of the Istanbul summit, which will be the date for the first PRTs, but it is crystal clear that the NATO effort in establishing these PRTs is the best means of stabilising Afghanistan.
Regarding the noble Lord's point about reconstruction, it is always the case—and we have seen other examples—that security is a vital prerequisite of reconstruction. That much must be common sense wherever we have seen countries struggling with their security arrangements. If security cannot be guaranteed, then reconstruction becomes that much more difficult and the private sector has more concerns about putting people on the ground. That is why NATO is putting such forceful emphasis on that in relation to the discussions at the Istanbul summit and I hope that we will be able to discuss this in clearer terms after we have seen what the Istanbul summit is able to bring forward in terms of security help.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, one of the main problems in the reconstruction of Afghanistan is that some of the of the warlords are playing an unhelpful role in connection with opium poppy production. Will the reconstruction teams have any role to play in helping to reduce opium poppy production, bearing in mind that Her Majesty's Government have assumed the task of helping the Afghan Government to do so? Can the noble Baroness give the latest figures on opium poppy production?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord has understandably conflated the important point about pledges for reconstruction with issues about opium poppies and other drugs. Donor countries have pledged some 8.2 billion dollars over the next three years, including 4.4 billion dollars for the financial year 2004–05, which is more than the Afghans requested for that period. So I do not think there is evidence that the international community is not coming forward with the money needed to help Afghanistan and the United Kingdom has more than doubled its pledge from £200 million to £500 million over the next five years.
The effort over drugs is continuing. A team of Afghan counter-narcotics police have been trained and they are being mentored by our own Customs officials with the support of the United Kingdom. I understand that, to date, this special force has seized over 32 tonnes of opiates and has destroyed 32 laboratories and opiate storage sites as well as significant quantities of the precursor chemicals. I do not have up-to-date figures about drug production other than those that I have given fairly recently, but what I have been able to tell your Lordships indicates that the scourge of drug production in Afghanistan is being tackled seriously on the ground.

St Helena
11.15 a.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to encourage immigration to St Helena in view of the depopulation of the island.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, depopulation featured prominently in recent talks between the St Helena Government and a Department for International Development/Foreign and Commonwealth Office team visiting the island. Her Majesty's Government are working with St Helena on ways to address this important issue. They include a fiscal review to identify ways of stimulating growth and inward investment and further work to provide private sector development; an analysis of the terms on which some key public sector service appointments are offered; a review of the system of ministerial government; an assessment of access arrangements for the island; and a review of immigration and land purchase laws.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and for her helpful letter to me recently on this subject, is not encouraging immigration one of the ways of combating such an enormous amount of emigration? When there is an island community, no matter how worthy in itself—and worthily called "Saint"—would it not be a good idea to inject some entrepreneurship from outside? Would the Government consider reversing the decision that they made when the dependency was granted independence and give the islanders reciprocal citizenship rights with Britain?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I remember being the Minister with responsibility for the overseas territories when we were discussing their rights in relation to citizenship. One of the issues that was put forward again and again was the concern of the overseas territories that there should not be reciprocity of immigration into those territories. Their fear was that, although they wanted to have rights of abode in this country, granting reciprocal rights of abode would simply mean that many overseas territories would be flooded with immigrants from this country. There is a real problem about saying, "Well that's what we said then, but we feel differently now".
It is important to note that the drop in the population has been from about 5,500 to approximately 4,000. Most of the emigration has been by offshore workers who are still remitting relatively large sums of money back to St Helena, with the intention of returning there in due course. Many of them are putting money back into St Helena, building houses and building up businesses for the future. Of course there is an issue and that is why those five areas

377
of analysis, review and consideration of what can be done have been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, has the noble Baroness not been made aware that the Government have turned down all four proposals for air access put forward in response to the Government's 2003 invitation? How on earth can population decline be arrested unless there is air access to the island?
Is the noble Baroness aware that one of the applications was turned down on the basis that the runway proposed was too short? Is she also aware that, if the runway was longer, that could affect the viability of associated developments and that the CAA has said that the runway is long enough? Why on earth, when the 2003 invitation document referred to the development of air access being part-funded by associated developments, are the Government now saving that they have turned their back entirely on such developments?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I am aware that the four proposals were turned down. I am also aware that the Government's reason for turning them down was that none of the proposals put forward by the four respondents was satisfactory.
However, that is not the end of the story. The Government made the position very clear in their parliamentary Written Statement of 19 April. A new feasibility study has been commissioned and the results should be available to your Lordships by November this year. The study will look at various options, such as the procurement options and likely tourist demand, and will investigate the environmental and social impact of future access arrangements. Therefore, the fact that the first four proposals simply were not suitable does not mean that the Government have turned their back on the question of air access. It is being considered and a report will be issued later this year.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Waddington about air access, are the Government prepared to make a funding contribution to any of the schemes when they are agreed? Since we and this brave island helped to save the rest of Europe from Bonaparte, would there not be a reasonable case for asking the rest of the EU to stump up as well?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is a terrifically ingenious idea. I like it, but I am bound to say that I do not think that it will be successful. None the less, it would be a good one for us to toy with.
Investigations to date have centred on the potential for the development of air access to St Helena at a capital cost not exceeding £26.3 million. Had it proved possible to reach agreement with a private sector partner to achieve that without unacceptable risks to St Helena, we would have been able to accept one of the proposals already put forward. I believe that we must let this work go ahead. It is not only a question
378
of air access; my colleagues are also considering the question of sea access to the island. Your Lordships will know that many questions have been raised about that as well. I think that we have to consider the questions of access in the round—that is, how do people and cargo get in—and I hope that the results of the study will be available for your Lordships to consider in November.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are into the 17th minute and my noble friend is to answer the next Question as well. I think that she is working overtime and that we should move on.

European Union: Croatian Accession
11.23 a.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that European Union accession negotiations for Croatia should begin following the meeting of the European Council on 17–18 June.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, following the European Commission's recent opinion on Croatia's EU application and the positive assessment of Croatian co-operation by the ICTY Chief Prosecutor, Croatia should be declared a candidate for EU membership. EU heads of state and government will consider the timing of opening accession negotiations at the European Council. The UK agrees with the ICTY and the Commission that Croatia must continue to make progress on judicial reform, minority rights and arresting the fugitive indictee, Gotovina, as part of its preparations for membership.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if the European Council approves the proposal, it must then clearly indicate when accession negotiations should begin? Does she agree that the setting of a date for this early in 2005 will, in itself, encourage progress and efficiency both within Croatia, which carries out further reforms, and within the European Union, which monitors that process?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said, the June European Council will decide whether Croatia should be granted candidate status. I have indicated where Her Majesty's Government's views lie on that. That may also be the time to decide on the date on which to open the accession negotiations. However, it is difficult to pre-judge that question. It is a matter for Council discussion. I suggest to your Lordships

379
that the issue is likely to be fairly heavily debated, and let us hope that some decision is forthcoming as a result of that discussion.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I acknowledge that it is right that the Government should be satisfied that the preconditions for membership are attainable before the negotiations on Croatian access are started. However, does the Minister agree that the setting of a date for such negotiations might assist the process of seeking to meet those conditions within Croatia? Are the Government, in principle, in favour of setting a date?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government are in favour of giving maximum clarity to the position of Croatia. Your Lordships can see that I am hesitant about the question of setting a firm date. As I stressed in my opening Answer, in our view it is important that the Croatian Government maintain and build on the levels of co-operation that we have seen. As your Lordships will know—we have been very frank on the matter—our concerns remain in relation to Croatia's co-operation with the ICTY. Of course, we are glad that the Chief Prosecutor is now satisfied with the level of co-operation, but the issue of the arrest and detention of Mr Gotovina is still not resolved. We believe that it would send a very strong and positive message to the European Council if he were arrested before the June Council meeting.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that not only Croatia is in the waiting room, as it were, for 2007 accession talks and entry into the European Union but also Bulgaria and Romania? Is she aware that we on this side would strongly favour the fixing of a date, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for the accession talks to begin, provided that conditions are met in relation to both Croatia and, in particular, Bulgaria? A few more queries possibly remain to be resolved in relation to Romania before talks on that country can go ahead as well.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that not only Croatia is in the waiting room, but I also draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Question is specifically about Croatia.

Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis
11.27 a.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce an incentive scheme for the public to deposit badger carcasses found on roads in veterinary collection points to assist in the campaign against tuberculosis in badgers and cattle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, no such scheme is envisaged. Indeed, we would not advise the public to touch wildlife carcasses by the roadside. In Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire and Dorset, Defra's wildlife unit will collect from the roadside any badger carcasses deemed suitable for TB testing. Defra is also undertaking a survey of badger carcasses and suspect deer in the Furness peninsula in Cumbria.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very encouraging reply. I am sure he would agree that there is a huge anachronism in that legislation is in place for dead farm animals to be collected but not wildlife. Given the statement that he has just made, is there a prospect of ensuring to some extent that the carcasses are collected, if not through a bounty scheme or by private individuals, at least effectively by the units of which he has just spoken? Clearly, dead badgers which remain on the roadside for weeks are a health hazard not only to cattle but also to humans.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, two different issues arise here. One is whether we should simply clear the carcasses from the roadside. That, ultimately, is the responsibility of the highways authorities, and we are certainly not encouraging members of the public to remove the carcasses themselves as that would create a health hazard and potentially a road safety hazard. There is also the issue of testing. In the counties to which I referred, a specialised wildlife unit picks up the carcasses for testing. But that does not take away from the responsibility of the highways authorities for any wildlife carcasses which present a hazard on the roadway.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the bovine TB outbreak is out of control and spreading rapidly? Some 22,000 cattle were killed last year and that state of affairs is likely to continue. Does he recognise the severity of the outbreak and that farmers are frustrated? On the collection of badger carcasses found on roads, can the Minister give the House the figures for, say, the past five years, of how many badgers were collected and the degree of infectivity established in those badgers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the last point, the study is continuing and I cannot give the precise figures because we are working on different samples. The aim is to compare the samples from the random receipt of badger carcasses from the roadside with the information that is coming out of the Krebs trials, which I am not in a position to put into the public arena because they are not yet complete.
On the general situation with regard to TB, I accept that the situation is very severe and that TB is still spreading. I do not accept that it is out of control. The number of new cases last year was marginally fewer than the previous year and the backlog in testing has

381
largely been made up. Nevertheless, it is the most significant animal disease problem facing British farming at the moment and very substantial testing and slaughter efforts are being made by the Government and our agencies. This has involved significant public expenditure and a severe cost to dairy and other livestock farmers. The importance of getting to grips with the matter cannot be overestimated.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the latest situation regarding vaccination?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. Theoretically, vaccination could be part of the answer, but developing a vaccine is a long-term effort. In the past two years, we have spent £1.5 million on developing a bovine vaccine and we expect to spend about another £1 million this year. The research programme is in line with the timetable on the Krebs trials. We have also agreed to support the process of looking for a vaccine that could be used for badgers. Recommendations are coming to us from the Independent Scientific Group which proposes to complete within a faster timetable. Work is being undertaken on a vaccine for cattle and badgers.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, with regard to the testing of deer carcasses in the Furness peninsula in Cumbria, which he mentioned, can the Minister tell the House how many carcasses have been tested and how many of them have been shown to be positive for tuberculosis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for the same reason, I cannot give precise figures for the situation in Cumbria. The reason for testing in Cumbria is slightly different from that in the southern and western counties. Cumbria has been relatively clear of TB but there have been a number of recent outbreaks, most of which have been ascribable to movements of infected stock post FMD into Cumbria. There are some unexplained questions. We are trying to use the badger tests to discover whether the problem is caused by the local badgers, which hitherto have not been as infected with TB as badgers further south.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, when does my noble friend expect the Krebs trials to be completed? Are the Government considering evidence from other countries to help to develop the case; for example, from the Republic of Ireland?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, we shall consider evidence from anywhere. There has been a certain amount of press coverage in relation to a particular Irish experiment. That has not been finalised and, therefore, I am not in a position fully to assess the implications of the Irish trials. It has not yet reached full peer review within Ireland, so some of the coverage has been premature. On the first part of the
382
question, clearly we are putting much effort into establishing the patterns of the spread of the disease from all sources.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I can confirm the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that in some cases such carcasses are allowed to remain at the roadside for weeks. Is it not time that the highways authorities were reminded of their duty?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think the highways authorities are aware of their duties. In many cases we are talking about badgers on country roads which are the responsibility of a particular local authority. In regard to the Highways Agency roads, I am sure that the agency is well aware of its responsibilities in that regard and that it tends to clear roads relatively rapidly.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an idea of when the figures may be available? We are talking about 15,000 cows being culled a year. We can identify when and where they are culled. Does the Minister agree that most farmers who read the answer that the Minister cannot give the number of badgers and deer picked up from the roadside and tested will consider that Defra was in a total and utter shambles over the TB débâcle?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord may conclude that. Anyone who has followed this story will recognise that we are trying to take a very systematic approach. The testing of roadside casualties is part of that and feeds into the general assessment of the spread of the disease. I did not reply to the part of the question of my noble friend Lord Dubs to which the noble Lord refers, which is when we expect the results of the trials. Previously we have said that we would expect the trials to be completed by 2006, although the report from Professor Godfray suggests that it may be a little later. But that has not been accepted by the group of scientists who are carrying out the trials so there is a slight dubiety about which date is the most appropriate end point. We believe that we shall have a fairly clear indication in 2006.

Business of the House
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the Second Reading of the Pensions Bill and for the avoidance of doubt, I point out that we have an Unstarred Question scheduled today for lunch-time business. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is common sense that that is taken at the conclusion of the first Second Reading debate and before the start of the next Second Reading debate. It is not clear when that will be, but I shall assume it will be around 2.30 p.m. I can be slightly more precise if everyone is able to abide by my second suggestion, which is that, if Back-Bench contributions on the two Second Reading debates are restricted to 10 minutes, we should still meet the target rising time of 7 p.m.

Pensions Bill
11.38 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Most people can expect 20 to 25 years of retirement, and life expectancy grows around a year every decade. Today a quarter of all women will probably live to 93. If those years are to be rich and fulfilling, while in work we need to plan how much to save and when to retire. That means that our pensions, the main vehicle of our retirement income, must be reliable—because they will be relied on.
Between 1979 and 1997 average pensioner incomes grew by 64 per cent in real terms under all governments compared with 36 per cent growth of real average earnings—nearly twice as much. However, while the incomes of the richest fifth of pensioner couples grew by 80 per cent, that of the poorest fifth grew by only 34 per cent, lagging behind the growth in real earnings.
Since 1997, as a Government we have done much for those poorer pensioners who inevitably depend on state pensions. Increases in the basic state pension, the introduction of state second pension and the wraparound of pension credit have all helped to ensure that, compared with the 1997 situation, in 2004–05 the poorest third of pensioner households will be on average £1,750 better off a year in real terms—or an extra £33 a week.
However, our levers for those pensioners with higher incomes and private pensions, even though they may be far short of full prosperity, are less direct. The combination of falling stock markets and falling employer contributions with which to meet increased longevity has destabilised the final salary pension promise. The task of the state is—by encouragement, regulation and reward—to secure the framework of occupational pensions, especially final salary schemes.
In spring 2002, the then Secretary of State for Social Security asked Alan Pickering to look at how the administration of occupational pension schemes could be simplified. Ron Sandler was jointly commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State to review retail savings in the same period. A quinquennial review of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) and a National Audit Office value-for-money study into how OPRA worked also took place during 2002.
The outcomes of all those separate reviews show that major themes for pension reform were emerging—reflected in the series of Green and White Papers published by the Government and informed by some 800 responses to its consultation exercise—culminating in today's Bill, which I would now, with your Lordships' permission, like briefly to describe.
Our aim of increased security begins with the replacement, in Part 1, of OPRA with a new non-departmental public body—the pensions regulator. The new regulator will focus on protecting the benefits
384
of members of work-based pension schemes, concentrating its effort on schemes where it assesses that there is a high risk of fraud, bad governance or poor administration. It is risk focused.
The pensions regulator will inherit OPRA's current powers as well as having a range of new or increased powers that will assist in fulfilling its objective of protecting member's benefits. New powers will include issuing notices that require schemes to take specific action to remedy identified problems within a specified timescale. Failure to comply with such a notice may result in civil penalty.
In addition, the new regulator will also have the ability to freeze a scheme for up to six months in certain circumstances—which is an important new power—thus protecting members' benefits and scheme assets while investigations take place.
There will be an extension to the existing whistle-blowing responsibilities. Currently, that duty applies only to auditors and actuaries. The statutory whistle-blowing obligations will expand to include trustees, fund managers, employers, scheme administrators and independent financial advisers. A separate determinations panel appointed by the regulator would help to ensure that procedures are fair.
Many of the new regulatory functions will be exercisable only by the determinations panel, which is, so to speak, the judicial arm of the regulator. The panel will have power to impose fines for specified acts or omissions. There will be one significant government amendment to Part 1. As I speak, I hope to indicate where the Government will be coming back with amendments, and I am confident that we will lay them in good time.
There will be one significant government amendment to Part 1, which would ensure that the regulator has the necessary powers to combat the practice of pensions' liberation. There will also be amendments to ensure the proper functioning of the regulator's duty to protect the pension protection fund from abuse.
Part 2 of the Bill will establish a brand new compensation scheme called the pension protection fund, which will be run by an independent board to strengthen member security by protecting the pension promise. It will provide compensation in two areas. First, the PPF will ensure that where a company with a defined benefit (DB) pension scheme becomes insolvent and its pension fund is not sufficiently funded—if it is sufficiently funded, there will obviously be a buy-out into annuities—members can be reassured that they will still receive the core of the benefits to which they are entitled.
That will be achieved by providing compensation covering 100 per cent of the original pension promise, subject to PPF rules, for people who have reached the scheme's pension age and to those who are already receiving either survivor's benefits or their own pension on the grounds of ill health. People below that age will receive 90 per cent, subject to PPF rules, up to a maximum capped level of £25,000.

385
Secondly, the PPF board will also take over the existing responsibilities of the Pensions Compensation Board and can compensate members of both DB and defined contribution (DC) schemes in cases of fraud and misappropriation.
The PPF will be funded by a levy that will be split into three parts. The first part will be the pension protection levy, of which one element will be based on scheme factors, such as the number of members and the balance between active and retired members. The other element will be based on risk factors that are linked to the level of underfunding and other risk factors. In order to reassure levy payers that costs will be minimised for good employers with well funded schemes, the risk-based element will constitute at least 50 per cent of the total charge and will be introduced in due course.
The second part will be the administration levy that will cover the set-up and ongoing costs of the PPF and the PPF ombudsman who will deal with appeals. Finally, the fraud compensation levy will, as now, cover and be paid for by both defined benefit and defined contribution schemes if and when a case of fraud occurs. Since 1997, I think that there have been only three such cases, which suggests that some of the procedures that were set up by the 1995 Act have worked effectively.
The PPF has been designed so that government funding is not required. The fund can, within reason, control its own income through the levy and its own liabilities to ensure that it has enough funds to pay out compensation and reassure its members that they are sufficiently protected. In order to strengthen the level of support that is provided to certain groups, ensure the smooth running of the fund and to clarify the governance arrangements, some additional amendments on the PPF will be tabled and debated in due course.
Those amendments will ensure that the PPF makes effective provision for certain groups, such as divorcees and those with short periods of service. They will also enable the PPF to take account of insurance contracts that are taken out by schemes in an individual's name and will align the priority order on scheme wind-up with the PPF provisions. An amendment will require the board to verify notices that are issued by an insolvency practitioner. Further amendments will mean that the costs of the PPF ombudsman are funded from the levy on eligible pension schemes rather than from a grant in aid and will give the Council on Tribunals oversight of appropriate PPF appeals. There will also be some minor technical and consequential amendments to this and other parts of the Bill, and minor amendments to align with tax changes and the European directive on occupational pensions.
Part 3 will introduce new scheme funding requirements that will replace the minimum funding requirement (MFR) for defined benefit pension schemes. As your Lordships will know, the MFR was introduced by the 1995 Act. It was a one-size-fits-all arrangement. With your Lordships' agreement, we will be replacing that with a scheme-specific approach.
386
This is a widely welcomed deregulatory reform, which has been developed through extensive consultation with the pensions industry, employers, the actuarial profession and representatives of consumer groups. As I say, there will be scheme-specific funding, which has been almost universally welcomed.
Under the new arrangements, trustees will be required to ensure that an appropriate funding strategy is in place to provide for the benefits promised by the scheme and to put a recovery plan in place where a valuation shows that there is a shortfall. To help trustees fulfil their new responsibilities, the regulator will issue a code of practice to give them practical guidance on their duties and responsibilities in relation to the funding of their schemes.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, but it is not statutory!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no. But whether trustees have behaved prudently and reasonably in the light of that guidance will be taken into account.
Part 4 deals with the Government's Informed Choice agenda. It is the individual's own responsibility, where possible supported by their employer, to determine the level of income in retirement they want over and above the foundation provided by the Government through the basic state pension, state second pension and the pension credit. Many people, in changing jobs through their lives, may end up with several different sources of quite modest pension incomes which they must somehow integrate in order to understand what they can expect to receive in retirement, and whether during their 40s and 50s they need to make good a shortfall that perhaps they had not expected.
The Government are working in partnership with pension providers and employers to offer people combined pension forecasts. This Bill contains reserve powers to make it a statutory requirement for pension providers to offer combined pension forecasts if significant numbers remain outside the voluntary scheme.
In addition to pension forecasts, the Government are developing a retirement planning tool, to be made available on the Internet, to empower people to put tailored information about the financial outlook for their retirement into their own hands. I have seen a model of the tool and I invite noble Lords to look at it themselves at an appropriate time. I think that it will be a very effective and valuable aid.
The Government believe that employers who make little or no contribution to their employees' pensions, and who have low levels of scheme membership, should ensure that their employees have access to the information and advice they need in order to plan for retirement. The Bill includes a clause to introduce this obligation. Its use will be informed by a pilot study to evaluate the most effective ways of delivering pensions information and advice to employees through the workplace. The findings of that study will be published during the summer of 2005.

387
Part 5 applies the simplicity, security and choice agenda to the Pensions Act 1995. This is how we are trying to simplify matters and, as a result, encourage employers to continue to support the defined benefit agenda.
On indexation, it was clear that the degree of inflation protection and hence the costs and liabilities that this imposed on schemes had become disproportionate. In effect, we were forcing everyone providing a pension to buy a high level of inflation insurance, which was becoming so expensive that some providers were choosing to pull out of pension provision altogether. Reduction of the mandatory indexation cap for defined benefit schemes reduces this burden going forward—and we must remember that people are trying to plan for not just two years ahead, but for 20 or 30 years—and help such schemes in paying for the pension protection fund levy.
For defined contribution schemes we have accepted that a reduction in indexation would in fact increase complexity by adding an additional regime to the rules already governing the purchase of annuities. We therefore intend, as a result of guidance given to us, to correct this. If noble Lords are comfortable with this, and I would welcome views on the issue, the Government will take the opportunity further to simplify pension rules by introducing an amendment in Committee to reduce post-1997 indexation requirements for defined contribution schemes altogether. The member will then have the choice of turning their pension pot into an annuity, whether they do or do not buy an inflation-proofed annuity.
The Bill will also drive forward a range of other simplification measures to enable schemes to restructure historic patterns of benefit provision providing suitable protection is offered. The Bill will streamline the requirements on member-nominated trustees, on dispute resolution procedures and reporting arrangements, in particular in relation to late payments, and remove the requirement for schemes to provide additional voluntary contributions. The point of this is that when that provision was introduced in 1987 or 1988, someone could not run a personal pension alongside an occupational pension, and therefore AVCs were offered. Now that it can be done, it is no longer necessary for this to be a mandatory provision by employers.
On member-nominated trustees, we have accepted that our simplified requirements would nevertheless be better balanced by giving pensioners as well as active scheme members a statutory role in the member-nominated trustee processes. We shall introduce an amendment to that effect in Committee.
On security, Part 5 includes provisions to provide TUPE-style protection—transfer of undertakings—of occupational pensions where a transfer of employment takes place, and for employers to consult their employees about major prospective changes to pension entitlement. It also seeks to improve the governance and hence the security of pension schemes
388
through basic requirements to ensure that trustees are properly conversant with and knowledgeable about their powers, responsibilities and duties. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that all these are important safeguards.
Finally, on measures to increase choice in Part 5, I am pleased to draw the attention of noble Lords to Clause 253. This will enable the many employees, in particular young people, who join an employer's pension scheme but leave before their rights have vested—most schemes vest rights only after two years—to choose between a refund of their own contributions in cash, which is all they can do now, or for the first time receive a cash equivalent of all their acquired rights which they can transfer into a pension of their own choosing. That means that they will be able to take with them the virtue of the contracted-out rights and the employer's contribution. The difference between that and the existing system can be 300 per cent. Instead of taking £800, a young person may take £2,500 with them.
Also on choice, which is particularly important for young people moving between jobs, and for women who may have very different pension and work cycles by virtue of their caring responsibilities, I should point out that our intended amendment to remove indexation from defined contribution pensions will provide greater choice to members of such schemes when they come to purchase an annuity.
Part 5 also contains measures to mesh pensions legislation in with the radical simplification of tax rules in the Finance Bill.
Part 6 gives the detail of the new financial assistance scheme that has already been widely welcomed, helping to resolve what I would call the Allied Steel and Wire problem, with which I am sure noble Lords are familiar. The Government have made available £400 million of public money to provide assistance to those people who have lost their pensions due to their defined benefit schemes being wound up underfunded. The Government are talking to industry about the contribution it may wish to make, as well as discussing the best ways of administering the scheme. Further details of the financial assistance scheme, including who will be eligible and the level of assistance to be provided, will be developed through consultation with stakeholders. I shall not be able to give noble Lords much information on those today, but they will include pension scheme trustees, trades unions and key business representatives.
Part 7 deals with the cross-border provisions of the European Union Directive on the Activities and Supervision of Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision. The directive puts in place regulatory mechanisms to support the operation of pan or cross-European occupational pension schemes. Crucially, it leaves member states free to determine the structure of their pension systems in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. This is an extremely technical and complex area, and we may need to ensure by amendment that the occupational scheme covering employees in the northern and southern Irish

389
bodies established under the Good Friday agreement is adequately covered. We are still taking advice on this.
Part 8 includes measures that will further support our aim of increasing choice about when people retire and encouraging those who wish to do so to work on into later life.
That brings me to the state pension section of the Bill. The proposals will improve the reward for those who delay claiming their state pension by bringing forward the increase in the rate at which state pension increments build up and removing the current time limits on deferral. These changes were due to come into effect in 2010, but we will be implementing them from April 2005.
We acknowledge that increments to the pension even at this enhanced rate will not suit everyone, in particular those who may feel that they cannot necessarily look forward to a long life in retirement. Some people might prefer to get the gains from deferral straightaway in the form of a lump sum, in particular if they are moving into retirement without much in the way of capital or savings. So we will also introduce an entirely new alternative to the higher weekly pension that comes from deferring the drawing of the state pension in the form of a lump sum payment consisting of the pension given up while deferring, plus a rate of interest. This interest rate, set at 2 per cent above the Bank of England base rate, is, we believe, a very fair return. For example, it would mean that for a couple, he may decide to take increments while she decides to take the lump sum. Such choices will be available.
To conclude, the key issue is whether, in the view of noble Lords and those of industry, employers, pensioners and employees, the Bill answers the right questions as well as getting the answers right. The key question is: will the Bill encourage both employers and employees to invest more in their pensions to protect against poverty or a lack of adequate income in old age?
This leads to further questions. For employees, will the Bill secure greater stability of schemes; greater confidence in the pension promise; greater willingness—this is key—to forgo current income for future needs? It can do that only if there is confidence in the security of their deferral and the sharing of their income over a lifetime with both the scheme specific funding, on the one hand, and the pension protection fund, on the other, in place.
For employers, will the Bill not compromise the ability of the employer to remain solvent as an employer as well as guardian and co-provider of the pension promise?
In the process, has the Bill got the balance right between intervention, regulation and protection from scheme insolvency and the need of the pension regulator to focus on risk and the need for schemes to have greater flexibility in meeting their own commitments?
390
As to cost, is the "who pays/who gains" equation reasonable and equitable between employers and employees; between pensioners, deferred pensioners and employees; and between stakeholders, genders and generations? I believe so. The consultation process suggests that this view is widely shared. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
12.1 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is clearly an important piece of legislation. It is as important as it is complicated, which makes it very important indeed. This is reflected in the list of distinguished and expert speakers today, many of whom have great experience not only in government and ministerial office but in the practical world of pensions operations. The practical application of the Bill is the most important aspect we will need to consider and there have been many representations from outside bodies on the proposals before us today.
In her opening remarks, the Minister referred to the provenance of the Bill in terms of White Papers, Green Papers, more White Papers, outside consultations and so on, which are all listed in the Explanatory Notes. But, despite that, when the Bill came to the House of Commons there were hundreds of amendments. The Engineering Employers Federation has pointed out what happened in the Commons. When the Bill was published it comprised 235 pages with 248 clauses and 12 schedules; when it completed its Committee stage it had grown to 280 pages with 282 clauses and 13 schedules; now the Bill comprises 316 pages, in two volumes, with 310 clauses and 13 schedules—all of this against a background of a programming Motion agreed at the beginning of the proceedings. Although it was later extended to some extent, against that background, the ability of the Opposition—or, indeed, the Commons as a whole—to give the Bill adequate scrutiny has clearly been diminished. It is an extraordinary situation.
I am afraid that yet again—as has been the case on previous pensions Bills—your Lordships' House will have the responsibility of clearing up what the Commons have, to a large extent, been prevented from doing on a Bill which was clearly inadequately presented and drafted in the first place. This gives one grave cause for concern; it has gone from an unfortunate lapse occasionally to become a very nasty habit. We shall need to pay very careful attention to these measures.
We on this side are clearly in favour of protecting the pension rights of individuals. However, we and outside bodies have very serious reservations about the proposals. In opening the debate, the noble Baroness made some general remarks about the present situation—but we are in a pensions crisis. It is, of course, to some extent, the result of the ageing population, the falling stock markets and the annuity rates, which are not divorced from general government or the Chancellor's policies. But, while saying that

391
there had been destabilisation of the final salary pensions promise, the noble Baroness totally failed to mention the most important factor—that is, the effect of the Chancellor's action on advanced corporation tax.
The noble Baroness referred to the savings ratio, which has halved under the present Government. The ABI, for example, estimates that there is now a £27 billion a year saving gap. This will not be significantly affected by the Bill. The dreadful decline that we have seen in the number of defined benefit schemes and the conversion to defined contributions schemes will quite clearly be accelerated rather than retarded by the effects of the Bill.
I shall deal first with the question of the regulator. From my own experience, I feel that OPRA did a remarkably good job. But, at all events, we are going to have a new regulator. However, as has been pointed out by the National Association of Pension Funds, in addition to the regulator those operating pension schemes will have to contend, if that is the right word, with the FSA, three ombudsmen and three government departments.
The new regulator will have draconian powers and the extent to which that could complicate matters for those administering pension schemes may well offset any improvements in the simplification that is likely to result otherwise from the Bill. We are faced with a new regulator and the noble Baroness has suggested that there are yet further amendments to come in regard to some aspects of his work.
Certainly very considerable doubts have been expressed by the CBI and others about the effects of Clauses 35 and 39 and the operation of the anti-avoidance schemes and so on. Clearly we are in favour of effective anti-avoidance schemes but there are dangerous implications in the complex proposals in these clauses.
The regulator will not be able to prevent employers becoming insolvent. There was a great deal of confusion in the other place and, perhaps, to some extent, in the Minister's remarks. We are concerned about two separate risks: one is that the employer is insolvent; the other is that the pension scheme is underfunded. We need to be clear about this aspect and I shall deal with it in detail in a moment. Before doing so, however, I should like to deal very rapidly with some other aspects of the Bill.
The noble Baroness placed great stress on Part 4, which concerns financial planning for retirement. I am fairly sceptical about any forecasts given to individuals as to what they are likely to receive in retirement. Certainly those who very prudently, they thought, invested with Equitable Life will find that what they receive will not turn out to be in line with the forecasts they have been given.
Similarly, there will be a need, for example, to make assumptions about what is happening to the state pension. We on this side of the House have made our position very clear so far as that is concerned. Obviously a forecast would have to take into account
392
the assumptions that one party as against another makes on state pension provision. I am sceptical about these clauses but no doubt we can debate them in detail.
I welcome the scheme's specific proposals and the elimination of MFR, which has not worked effectively, but we need to be very careful as to exactly what method is used to calculate the scheme's specific proposals. Again, we can deal with that.
Thirdly, as to the proposals on LPI and the cap at 2.5 per cent rather than 5 per cent, I doubt whether there is a case for it at all. The reduction in the cap has somehow been presented as a benefit. It is certainly not a benefit as far as pensioners are concerned, but somehow that is the way it has been spun. I find that a very strange situation.
I turn now to the central part of the Bill—the pension protection fund. Many bodies in this House and elsewhere have stressed the moral hazard of this aspect and the danger that perfectly sound schemes may have to pay for the effects of unsound schemes going bust. As I said earlier, it is important to stress that there are two separate risks—the insolvency of the company as against the underfunding of the scheme.
What is proposed is not a guarantee. Indeed, the possible benefits are capped. I shall not go into the details, as the noble Baroness spelt them out. There are varying opinions on whether the level of proposed payout from the fund is too high or too low. The Association of Consulting Actuaries believes it to be too high. This will depend on the level of the levy. At all events, what are being protected are the accrued benefits only, not the pension which employees in a company expected to receive when they retired, before the employer went bust.
I understand that the fund will set the levy. But there is a great concern that this should be risk-based rather than flat-rate. I believe that to be extremely important, because otherwise perfectly sound schemes would pay a premium for something from which they are not at risk. Again, the moral hazard argument arises. The CBI has rightly stressed that this will be an addition to business costs. The National Association of Pension Funds says that this will be a non-democratic body to raise a tax from a constituency which has yet to be defined. This gives us considerable cause for concern.
The noble Baroness was a little confused on this point, but as I understand it, the principles of the levy, apart from the administration costs, are that the risk will need to take into account the risk of the employer going bust and the extent to which particular schemes are underfunded. That will not be a very easy thing to do. I am not clear what the implications would be if the fund suddenly announced that such and such a company was at a high risk of going bust. These are not simple matters.
There are further concerns that the fund will run out of money before it starts. It is significant that the amount that the Government apparently envisage it costing—about £300 million a year—is less than the

393
amount they are proposing to pay out to schemes which have already failed, at a cost of £400 million a year.
As the United States has found out, there are real dangers. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is at present something like 11 billion dollars in deficit. The Government, having underwritten the position of those, alas, who have found that their pension schemes have already failed recently, are not proposing to underwrite the fund itself. There seems to be a slight inconsistency in those two positions. We are clearly heading for a very difficult transitional period as we switch from the present proposal the Government have suddenly come up with to the longer-term proposals in the Bill.
It seems probable that the fund will become a massive conglomerate of funds which have failed and have become, in the rather euphemistic words of the Bill, eligible funds. If various funds and companies fail, the fund's managers will have the enormous task of dealing with administering a very complex fund particularly with regard to payouts. As I understand it, the payouts with regard to survivor benefits, and so on, will depend on the rules of the scheme which has been taken over. The fund may end up with dozens or even hundreds of these over a period of time, so it will be paying out benefits in a multitude of different ways. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm whether that is the case.
As the fund will have to administer the assets it takes over, it surely ought to have the same degree of transparency as exists with an ordinary scheme. That is, it should be obliged to set out its investment principles and the allocation of assets. The latter will need to change with time, but I should have thought that there was a case for putting on the face of the Bill the fund's investment principles—obviously amendable by regulation if necessary. This will be a very complicated matter.
There are many other issues I have not dealt with, such as the position of trustees, in which, having served as chairman of a board of trustees of a fairly large fund for some years, I am extremely interested. Furthermore, the anti-avoidance provisions may be excessively onerous. The Bill does not deal as well as it could with solvent companies which renege on their pension promises, and we will need to consider that as well.
To a large extent, the Bill has become necessary as a result of what has happened to the pensions industry since 1997. I do not think that it would have been necessary to introduce such a Bill in 1997. It clearly is necessary now and I believe that we will have to work very hard to make sure that it is practical and workable. We on this side of the House will do our best to achieve that.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, today's debate is the overture to an opera of many acts which will inevitably, in light of our starting date, have very long intervals. Day after day in the other place, as the
394
noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pointed out, Members struggled to digest a demanding diet of new government clauses and amendments. I had hoped that we would be spared much more of this from the Government in this House. My noble friend Lady Barker has weighed the Bill carefully. The two volumes and the Explanatory Notes come to 1.48 kilograms—three and a half pounds, in old money. It really is about time the Government tried to cut down on obesity in their Bills.
Some of the proceedings in the other place inevitably smacked more of pre-legislative scrutiny than proper, detailed parliamentary consideration of a complex Bill, offering properly worked-out solutions to Britain's pension crisis. No other issue in Britain combines such economic, political and social significance, and on no other issue, despite the impression the Minister tried to give, is there such widespread acceptance by all sides of industry, independent experts and stakeholders—as new Labour loves to call them—that current government policies have failed and we need a radical change of course.
I declare my interest as a pension fund investment manager for the past 28 years. We have already, in this House, displayed remarkable consensus, apart from the Government, in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in March. Today I intend to focus not on what is wrong in government pensions policy—I only have 15 minutes—but on how this House can improve this well intentioned but muddled Bill. Let me start with a warm and genuine welcome for the good intentions.
We welcome the new proactive pensions regulator—a tiger with teeth, we hope, when things start to go wrong, instead of a box-ticker limited to fining funds for technical infringements or putting returns in a few days late. We welcome, too, the cornerstone of the Bill, the new pension protection fund. Workers and pensioners are, rightly incensed to find their hard-earned contributions effectively stolen from them if companies go bust with deep troughs in their funds, indulge in fancy financial engineering to shuffle off pension liabilities in subsidiaries or move businesses offshore, leaving pension black holes in Britain.
We all agree on the problems, but we on these Benches will do our utmost in the weeks and months ahead to improve and strengthen the Government's proposals for the PPF. We must put far more flesh on the bones of what is really only a skeleton in the Bill. As for the "son of PPF", the £400 million financial assistance scheme, so-called, knocked up between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the back of the note from their Chief Whip warning them that the Government faced imminent defeat in the House of Commons, that is not even a skeleton in this Bill. It is more a twinkle in the Government's eye. They really must give the House a proper account of how that £400 million in the next 20 years will operate, who it will cover and what it will cost, if we are to do our job of scrutiny properly.

395
Britain is split into two nations on pensions: in public pension land, if I can call it that, 5 million employees enjoy full protection against investment risk, inflation risk and insolvency risk from a guarantor safer than the Bank of England—the British Government, with unlimited recourse to the British taxpayer. The other 19 million people at work are barely covered by a ragged patchwork quilt of mean and means-tested state pensions, leaving women worst off, and a fast unravelling web of private pensions covering ever fewer people with ever poorer benefits.
We see a classic case of the Government's schizophrenia on pensions in Schedule 5 of the Bill, setting up the PPF. Paragraph 27 states that the chair and staff of the PPF will be eligible for a Government-backed pension for which the,
"Board must pay to the Minister for the Civil Service … such sums as he may determine".
So private sector schemes struggling to meet their pension commitments and pay their levy to the PPF will also have to sign a whole book of blank cheques to the Minister for the Civil Service to charge whatever he likes for giving government-guaranteed index-linked pensions to the board and staff of the PPF. Other public bodies, such as the FSA, do not grant Civil Service-type pensions, so why should the PPF?
French restaurants used to have a sign outside, saying "Le patron mange ici", but the PPF will not taste its own basic cooking if the Government get their way. The sky is the limit on index-linking on the PPF boardroom menu.
Following the initial period, the Bill provides for a transitional period during which the implementation of the risk-based element of the levy may not be applied. As the PPF is essentially operating as an insurer of the benefits to be provided in the event that a scheme is wound up with an insolvent employer, it is essential—and here I stand shoulder to shoulder with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—that the levy charged by each scheme reflects properly the risk involved. A well funded scheme supported by a strong employer should not be charged the same levy as a similarly funded scheme with a weak employer.
In fixing PPF premium rates the two key factors are the scheme funding level and the risk of employer insolvency. The real risks to the PPF will be heavily concentrated in schemes where weak employers run underfunded schemes, and the premium paid must reflect that joint risk fairly as soon as possible. Any other policy would be a poll tax on pension funds, penalising responsible employers and prudent trustees.
We will propose, therefore, that, after the initial period, the risk-based element of the levy should contribute at least 80 per cent of the total. The risk-based element is, as set out in the Bill, a function of the scheme position, in particular the shortfall between its assets and liabilities to which the PPF is exposed—the "sum at risk"—and the employer's position—that is, the likelihood of insolvency.
396
The essential ingredient in calculating the sum is that it should be determined on a consistent and objective basis across all schemes. That is not a mere technical matter to be left to the yet-to-be appointed board of the PPF. It is fundamental to fair operation of the scheme, and Parliament must make two things crystal clear in the Bill: when the risk-based levy will be in full operation, and the basic principle that the risk-based levy must be calculated on the joint risk of scheme underfunding and employer insolvency. Parliament is compelling all DB pension funds to pay this levy and Parliament must therefore set its main parameters.
To make it easiest to move rapidly to a mainly risk-based levy, the PPF board should provide the basis for a broad-brush assessment of the sum at risk for each scheme to be introduced at an early stage. We appreciate that it will not be possible for a precise assessment to be made immediately, but there are funding calculations made for all relevant schemes which would provide a starting point. For all its faults, the MFR provides that. That could lead to a much fairer interim solution than the poll tax solution, and would help the transition to the final goal of a scheme-specific risk levy. Responsible employers with properly funded schemes are not prepared to wait until 2008 or 2009 to move to a proper risk-based levy, particularly as there will be an extra element of moral hazard in letting underfunded schemes choose whether to wait for a triennial valuation or do it immediately.
No insurance company would last five minutes if it let its bad risks pay a flat-rate premium and its good risks pay the correct risk-based premium. This nonsense policy for the first few years will not wash for the PPF either. Waiting for the best here really would be the enemy of the good and waiting up to five years for the perfect solution would be grossly unfair in the mean time. The National Association of Pension Funds assures me that an interim approach along the lines that I have outlined would attract the support of most pensions schemes that are exposed to the PPF levy. One of the main problems of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, is that it delegates too much power to the board of the PPF, which is a non-elected public body.
The second key question on the PPF is whether the Government, who appoint the chairman and the board in the first instance, and in practice pull most of the PPF's strings, can wash their hands of all responsibility if the PPF gets into serious trouble. We recognise that there are interim solutions in the Bill, such as suspending indexation. But is anyone seriously suggesting that the Government, having invested so much parliamentary time and political capital in setting up the PPF and going one step further by establishing the financial assistance scheme would stand idly by if the PPF could not meet its 90 per cent and 100 per cent obligations up to a cap, as set out in the Bill? Of course not; so why do they not come clean and admit that they would, if they had to, act as a lender of last resort on a clearly defined and limited basis?

397
There are precedents; the Bill provides one, as the Exchequer is to lend the PPF enough to cover its startup costs before the levy is charged. Well established now for many years is the Pool Re arrangement for insurance of commercial buildings against terrorist attack, whereby the Treasury explicitly stands behind commercial insurance companies and unconditionally guarantees their obligations. I have raised that point before in the House and not had an answer, so can the Minister either explain why the Pool Re principle cannot be applied to the PPF or, alternatively, undertake to procure a proper answer from the Treasury?
Business and industry are also concerned about the complex provisions introduced late in the other place, designed to make directors and investment groups liable for pension fund shortfalls. A fine balance has to be struck, between on the one hand, too lenient a line that enables directors to walk away from their obligations or parent companies to shuffle off their subsidiaries and, on the other hand, too tough a regime that makes company rescues impossible or stifles venture capital investment—a great favour of Gordon Brown's, noble Lords will recall—or management buy-ins or buy-outs at troubled companies. We must protect pensioners properly without making the market in struggling companies seize up. We shall take some convincing that the Bill has got the balance right so far.
My noble friend Lady Barker will cover the vital topics of fair treatment for women, survivors and state pension issues in so far as they feature in the Bill. State pensions are the black hole at its heart. So long as long-term state pension policy in this country is founded—let us be fair to the Minister and the Government, quite openly and honestly—on means-tested benefits for the majority, it really will be gross mis-selling to try to persuade millions of our fellow citizens to save privately for a pension. This Bill is not the place for that battle of principle, which will be fought between the three main parties at the general election, when pensions will be right up there with health, education and the economy at the top of voters' concerns. As we prepare for the long hard slog of work on the Bill, I find it difficult to banish the haunting fear that without radical reform of state pensions we will, like Nero, merely be fiddling while Rome burns.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I very much welcome the Pensions Bill. It is a complex Bill that will take a lot of time in debate. There will probably be quite a number of amendments to it. At the heart of what it must achieve is to bring back some of the confidence in occupational pensions that has been lost over the past few years. It is a long Bill, but anyone involved in pensions knows that there is no such thing as a small, neat, few-clause Bill that deals with pensions. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, is agreeing with me. After chiding the Government for the 1.4, I think, kilos, it is interesting to listen to the noble Lord chide the Government about the length and complexity of the
398
Bill—and then go on to complain that Part 6 has only one clause and ask for more. That is actually the heart of many of the debates that we will have; we would like simplicity but I do not think that it is possible to have it.
With the exception of fraud and Part 8, the Bill deals mainly with defined benefit schemes. It would be a shame if we lost sight of the fact that the number of people in the UK participating in occupational pension schemes and benefiting from them has grown over the past 20 years. They have been a huge success, with the exception of the past few years. Many people today are enjoying a quality of retirement that my father's generation never enjoyed. There is consensus in the country that we want to rebuild confidence in occupational and personal pension schemes so that people can look forward to retirement with confidence. When I was a union officer, members never queried how their money in their company pension scheme was being handled because they had confidence in it. It was probably misplaced, but they had confidence that the pension scheme would be okay in the end.
The 1995 Bill was brought about by the huge-scale fraud by Robert Maxwell. This Bill has been brought about for a different reason: to try to rebuild confidence. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rightly received quite an accolade of approval from his own Back Benches when he appeared to lament the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution pension schemes, which cannot be retrieved. I see that the noble Lord is nodding in agreement. Let us cast our minds back to the previous administration. People were paid money to encourage them to take out personal pensions and to pull out of their occupational pensions.
Let us look at the matter in the round. Much of what we have today is a result of the decisions that we all supported in the past; for example, pension holidays for employers. Many of us know of employers who have not paid pension contributions for employees for a number of years. That cannot be right. Under the pension legislation, many employers take surpluses out of the pension scheme. So there are a number of reasons why we are in the state that we are in, among them the shortcomings of the Act.
I welcome the one-clause Part 6 of the Bill. Well, it is currently one clause, but it will probably be several clauses when it leaves this House. It deals with financial assistance for members of certain pension schemes; that is, those people who, today as we debate the Bill, do not know where their retirement income is coming from and are worried about it. I have seen people in the Maxwell scheme who were worried to death about how they were going to make ends meet when they retired.
But there is a bigger impact; they felt complete failures in the eyes of their families. They had promised them that they would be financially okay when they retired and they had to turn to their families for financial support, a situation which we hoped had gone out of the window. I thank the Government for

399
introducing the clause. It may have been hurried and it may not be perfect, but let us hope that it will be near to perfect when it leaves this Chamber. I look forward to the debate on this clause.
I also welcome the creation of a pension regulator. It is a much more pragmatic, flexible and better approach. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, or the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that OPRA was not the failure that many people said it was and I pay tribute to the work that OPRA has done. The problem is that the ballgame has changed. The whole environment has changed and OPRA has not kept up with it. So I welcome the new regulator. I also welcome the regulator's ability to take an incremental approach to sanctions on pension schemes.
I know that there is a lot of dissention about the flat payment in the pension protection fund. Like most people, I believe that a substantial part of it should be risk-assessed, but we must start where we start. We must build up a no claims bonus for a company within the scheme. The shorter the flat-rate period can be, the better. Having said that, it must be flat rate from the beginning. Many of us can name pension schemes that, a few years ago, we would have said were solid—I almost said "as the Bank of England"—which ran into serious trouble and have deficits today.
The provision for financial planning for retirement has long been needed. It is welcome. I must declare my bias on this. My noble friend the Minister referred to employers who do not provide pensions or who perhaps have a small take-up in the company. My view is that if we do not get this right, at the end of the day compulsion is the only answer. We must find a way of dealing with this, otherwise compulsion will be forced upon us by the instability of pension schemes.
Among the enormous amount of briefing I have had, the CBI wrote regarding Clauses 233 to 238. It considers that a legal requirement for training is unnecessary and would undermine the willingness of member-nominated trustees to serve. If that statement is true, I agree with it. But I have read the Bill and it does not mention legal qualifications. It refers to "knowledge and understanding". I agree with that requirement and with training. It is absolutely essential, but an insufficient number of trustees receive it. Indeed, trustees worth their salt would insist on having it. I would not be a trustee without it. But if someone is going to be told that he must have legally assessed qualifications, then employees will not be willing to come forward. Will the Minister clarify that?
Part 8 deals with state pensions. There are changes that must be welcomed in view of the changing world of work; for example, people having to defer retirement. The ability to defer pension and be encouraged to do so by a small bonus is most welcome. People can then convert a lump sum of their pension.
However, I am disappointed that the Bill does not recognise the role of part-timers. They form a growing proportion of the labour market, yet the Bill does not take that into account. More significantly, a number of people hold several jobs and their cumulative income
400
would be above the lower limit, yet they still cannot be part of a pension scheme. I want us to examine that issue in Committee. It particularly affects women but, with the changing nature of work, it will affect an increasing number of men, too.
The Bill does not mention annuities. Noble Lords who have heard me speak in other debates about pensions will know that I do not accept the Government's current policy. If we do not address the issue of annuities, it will revisit us. It is already an issue. It is an insufficient argument to say that it does not affect many people and that the only people it affects are those with big pots of money in their personal pension schemes. That is changing because of the change from defined benefit pension schemes. The annuities issue could have had a place in the Bill. It does not have one, which is a great disappointment and I think that the Government will live to regret it.
I was a sorry case as I was always interested in pensions even when I was a young woman. Years ago, a glazed look would come over the eyes of members I was proud to represent, but not today. Today, people know that their pension is, perhaps after their home, the biggest investment in their life. More importantly, if one cannot afford one's home, one can downgrade. If something goes wrong with one's pension, it affects the rest of one's life after retirement. As my noble friend the Minister said, we are living longer and are therefore more dependent on the assuredness that our pension will be there when we need it.
I therefore welcome the Bill and the forthcoming debate. I rather suspect that the Minister is in for a hard time on some aspects of it. I just hope that the House is able to give it a good passage and sign off on a measure that we can all ultimately accept.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who made an important speech. It will come as no surprise to her to hear that I strongly agreed with her final comments on annuities.
On a day when there are European elections and important local elections—and we very probably stand on the brink of a major electoral scandal—I suppose that it is fanciful to think that our deliberations on pensions are going to get many column inches in the press tomorrow. That is a pity because more and more people are understanding the scale of the pensions problems that we face in this country. I think that that is how the Bill should be judged. The Minister touched on that point but then moved away from it rather rapidly. We will come to the Committee stage, but the question now—at Second Reading, on the issue of principle—is how the Bill faces up to the problems that we unquestionably face.
No one can complain that the Bill is too short. It has more than 300 pages of closely printed script and we are still counting. Judging from what the Minister said, we are going to be counting quite substantially. It would be unworthy of me to say that I can find nothing in the Bill with which to agree. In Clause 283, on

401
page 213, I found a set of proposals that I welcome. As it happens, they deal not with paying the state pension but with deferring it.
Many of us have long argued for flexibility in retirement—I advocated that in my Green Paper on pensions back in 1985—and a decade of retirement between 60 and 70. However, making that a reality involves creating some incentive to work on. I think we can agree that the present incentive is not great. The figures which I have indicate that currently only 2 per cent of pensioners defer their pension and the average length of deferral is two years. Some research suggests that many of those who defer do so by accident, not as a deliberate policy.
I therefore welcome the increase in increments and the concept of the lump sum that one can get in occupational pension schemes. In Committee, I think that we will have to examine whether that incentive is enough and whether it could not be a tax-free lump sum. Even now one calculation suggests that a retired man will have to live to 81 to find that beneficial. However, that point is for Committee. Nevertheless, I welcome the direction of policy. I also welcome the movement on the ASW type of situation where pension holders were deprived of their rightful expectations. That was the theme of the debate we had on 24 March which I led and where I think there were calls from round the Chamber for a change in that policy.
I can therefore certainly welcome parts of the Bill. However, that is not actually the acid test. The acid test is basically this. When the Government introduced the Bill, they said it was designed to restore confidence, to encourage employers to increase their occupational provision and to encourage individuals to increase their private pension saving. What we need to do at Second Reading is to measure whether they have succeeded in doing that. My concern, basically, is that they have not.
The context of the Bill is, as my noble friend Lord Higgins said, the current pensions crisis. However one measures the position, no one can be satisfied with what has happened over the past six or seven years to occupational pensions; it has been a dire period. We have seen public confidence in pensions fall. We have seen the number of people in private pension schemes reduce. We have seen an increase in the number of pension schemes wound up and a steep rise in the number of final salary schemes closed to new entrants. According to the Association of British Insurers, 36 per cent of the total working population are not saving enough for their retirement, and of that 36 per cent, four-fifths are not saving anything at all.
So the real challenge is to face the prospect that under present policies hundreds and thousands of people will face a bleak and money-pinching retirement. Surely that is something that on all sides of the House we wish to avoid.
I am not suggesting to the Minister that everything that has gone wrong can be blamed on the Government. That would be absurd. They cannot be blamed for the fall in the world stock market. But I
402
think it disingenuous of the Minister to miss out the fact that the £5 billion a year pension tax has had an impact on pension provision in this country; it clearly has. It was introduced at exactly the wrong time. The public have understood it, but when encouragement and practical incentives were needed they were given precisely the wrong thing.
Probably the most important measure the Government are introducing in the Bill is the pension protection fund. Although I say that they are introducing it, it is being paid for by the pension schemes. So although I see the force of what is being proposed, there seems to be a range of practical issues and practical questions about how it will work. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred to a range of those.
There is a difficult balance. We all want to protect the pension holder, but we do not want to add to the cost of the schemes to such an extent that it acts as a deterrent for new schemes being formed and a further encouragement for the closure of existing schemes. We do not want unfairly to penalise good, well funded schemes, and we have to be clear what kind of guarantee we are giving to pension holders. At the moment, I think that the public understand—because this is the way that it has been spun—that there is an absolute guarantee here. But it is not an absolute guarantee. The only way that the scheme could be that is for the Government to stand behind it.
I say in parenthesis—and in a sense I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott—that I really do wonder whether, in the real world, any government would be able to maintain a position in which they were not standing behind a scheme of this kind. So we will need to examine that carefully in Committee.
Basically, I am saying that irrespective of any examination in Committee, this measure is not going to have a great impact on persuading men and women to save more for their retirement. It is going to have little if any impact on persuading those without any pension to start saving. Yet those are the urgent issues, and those are the issues that have been ignored in the Bill. My own belief is that at least two measures could be taken.
The first—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean—is to end the rule that anyone with a personal pension must take an annuity at the age of 75. I think annuity rates have halved since 1990. The position has changed. The public know and understand that the position has changed. This age rule, in my view, acts as a great disincentive to saving when we should be about providing incentives. I will not delay the House with all the arguments on this, but I should like to give notice that I certainly wish to return to the issue in Committee.
My second proposal is more controversial, although I was encouraged in our last debate by the support I received from two of my noble friends. I am coming firmly to the view that the only way that we can increase pension saving is if we have some form of compulsory private scheme to which employers and

403
employees are required to contribute. When I mentioned that in our March debate, the Minister suggested, rather unkindly I thought, that we never thought anything along those lines in government. As it happens that is not true. My 1985 Green Paper, approved by the whole of the Cabinet, proposed just that, along with the abolition of the state earnings related pension scheme—which the Government have now done.
In other words, my proposition was that the state should be responsible for paying as good a basic state pension as possible, and the private sector should provide the second pension. I regret that that was considered too radical at the time on the part of most members of my party and certainly on the part of the party opposite. However, in my view it is the way forward because the sad fact is that even when companies provide defined contribution schemes, often employees do not take them up, even when there is a matching contribution from the employer on offer.
I know that arguments will be put against compulsory pension contributions, but we should consider the alternative. The alternative is that not only will many, many people remain uncovered, but state provision will go up, not down. I remind the House that the aim of both parties is that that should not happen. Back in 1998 the Government set out their first pensions Green Paper. They said then:
"State spending will increase but income from private pensions will increase even more as stakeholder pension schemes become established and occupational pension schemes are strengthened and supported".
They went on to say that the state share, therefore, would go down and private pension provision would go up. I say to the Government that there is absolutely no sign whatever of that happening; in fact, quite the opposite is taking place. Stakeholder pensions have not been a success and occupational pension schemes have not been strengthened. On the present policies of this Government I do not believe that they will achieve 60 per cent of pension income from private schemes.
Finally, there is basically a pensions double whammy. On one side there is inadequate income for retired people; on the other side there is a diminution in personal saving and an increase in state spending. It is an unhappy picture but that is the pensions crisis that we face in this country. Although this Bill does one or two useful things, frankly I do not believe that it remotely matches up to the size of the challenge that this country faces.
12.52 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. I share many of the reservations outlined by noble Lords but the Bill is very welcome, especially the measures that should help, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, to restore confidence in our occupational pension schemes, of which for many years we in this country have been very proud, and which, as we all know, have suffered very much, particularly over the past few years.
404
Indeed, some of the problems that are now faced by today's pensioners result from the practice on the part of some employers at the time of large pension fund surpluses to use those surpluses to get rid of older workers by paying them off. Now those workers are suffering because the money was not enough to ensure a decent level of income in retirement. Therefore, many of the problems that older people face today are the result of problems that arose in the past which were not adequately dealt with.
I welcome the pension protection fund and a more proactive regulator. Those measures are long overdue. Indeed, when I was still involved with Age Concern in 1995, when the Pensions Bill was before Parliament, the former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pensioners, the Tory MP, Sir Andrew Bowden, lobbied his own party very hard indeed to strengthen pension fund boards to make them more independent and more representative. This is a matter about which all parties in the House feel strongly. I welcome the pension protection fund and I welcome very much the proposed compensation scheme for those affected by occupational scheme collapses although, as has rightly been said, much detail needs to be clarified.
I stated in a Written Question last March that we still have very little information on people affected by scheme collapses. I hope that we shall have more such information in future. I suggest that the available money should be skewed more towards people who are closest to retirement along the lines set out in my Written Question. Like others who have eloquently stated the position, I am very concerned by the moral hazard question; that is, badly run companies deliberately under funding their pension schemes knowing that the pension protection fund will step in. There is a risk that that could happen.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, hinted at the plight of those who work in a company that is taken over by another company which may replace a reasonably good scheme with one that is not of the same standard. Many such details will need to be examined carefully, particularly anything that could derail the pension protection fund and harm good schemes, whether direct contribution or direct benefit schemes. That forms part of the detailed analysis to which we shall need to subject the Bill in Committee.
Like others I, too, should have liked to see more provisions with regard to annuities. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that that matter desperately needs to be addressed. I have felt for many years that some kind of compulsory saving is necessary and needs to be introduced in this country. I do not think there is any other way of ensuring that people save sufficient money for their retirement, particularly given people's greater longevity and the need to plan for a much longer period of life, perhaps not in full-time employment as we know it but with a totally new work pattern.

405
I should have liked to see more provision with regard to reform of the state pension to make any contributions that are made count, for example, by abolishing the 25 per cent rule. I should have liked to see more proposals to help older women although the Government's commitment to look at that matter in more detail is very welcome. Despite the measures that have been outlined on more flexibility regarding the lump sum at retirement, which will be of help, I share many of the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, in that regard. We really do need to look seriously at certain issues regarding women.
I welcome the greater incentives to defer the state pension. In the future I should like to see much more radical measures with regard to state pensions so that any contributions that are made count. I have much sympathy with those who call for a really radical look at the way in which we organise state pensions and benefits.
Some of those points have been made today. We need an all-party consensus on the matter. As a long-term policy will need to be adopted, we shall probably need a Royal Commission, or something like it—although I am never very fond of advocating such a step—to consider pensions across the board. We need to consider the issue of pensions that are based on residency or citizenship and to see whether we cannot tackle once and for all the uprating issue for overseas pensioners—people who work here all their lives and then join their families overseas on retirement. Many of those pensioners feel very aggrieved by their situation. Perhaps it is only by considering pensions overall that we can meet the needs of so many of our citizens now and in the future.
12.59 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the trustees of a large industrial defined benefit scheme.
I should like to begin by thanking the Minister's officials in the Department for Work and Pensions and in the Minister's own office for the very helpful way in which they have begun to brief noble Lords. It is very refreshing and much to be welcomed when that happens. I think that Sir Winston Churchill once said—or is thought to have said—that it was important for politicians not to let the facts get in the way of decisions. I think that it is important that we have the facts, and we look to the officials to maintain the excellent start that they have made.
I shall not repeat anything that has been said by my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Fowler, and I agree very much with what they said. However, I shall concentrate briefly on four points of principle that, so far, either have not been raised or need underlining further. First, there is the regulator. I think that your Lordships will agree that the regulator must be well informed, must make speedy decisions and be efficient. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, said about the work done by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.
406
It was limited by the original legislation but has helped measurably to keep trustees and pension schemes on their toes. However, the new regulator is to be welcomed. It will be proactive and will be involved not in the day-to-day minutiae of schemes but in considering risk and protecting pensioners.
Under the Bill, the regulator will have important powers. For example, the regulator will, presumably, have prime responsibility for drawing up codes of practice for the training of trustees; for the investment management of the funds, or at least the policy for investment; and for the assessment of employer/company risk and employer solvency. I am not convinced that, in this complex field, sufficient thought has been given to the advice that would be available to the regulator. I hope that the Minister will comment briefly on that; I shall certainly table amendments in Committee. The regulator should have a small advisory committee that is unpaid but has the specific job, based on advice from the actuarial profession, employers, trade unions and, certainly, the trustees, of keeping in regular contact with the regulator and advise on some of the complexities that the regulator will face. I also hope that cross-reference will be made to the Financial Reporting Council and to the new powers under the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill, which is proceeding slowly through your Lordships' House, so that proper advice on the solvency of employers can be given.
I am disappointed that the Better Regulation Task Force was consulted only informally in the preparation of the Bill. In future, it should be asked to give a formal opinion at the draft stage of a Bill, as it is sometimes too late to make amendments, once the Bill begins its progress through Parliament.
The second point that I wish to raise concerns the Government's belief—I think that it is wrong—that the proposals are cost-neutral. The recommendations and observations of the regulatory impact assessment, to which I am sure we will return in Committee, are wrong. The Minister has said that the costs, which are certain for schemes and, therefore, for the sponsoring employers who underwrite defined benefit schemes, are of the order of £300 million per annum. The Government have said that there are two off-setting savings, but they are based on false or misleading assumptions. I shall not go into detail, as there is not time, but there are two key components of those savings.
First, the Government say that the reduction of the inflation indexation limit—the cap—from 5 per cent to 2.5 per cent will yield savings of £370 million per annum. I cannot find the basis of that calculation in the impact assessment, but there is an inherent contradiction in it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set his inflation target at about 2.5 per cent, and I wonder whether the Minister has spoken to the Chancellor. If the cap is reduced from 5 per cent to the point at which the Government believe that inflation will be, there is no saving. At 2.5 per cent, the cap will be at the assumed inflation rate.

407
I also believe that the other assumption is wrong. The argument is that the abolition of the minimum funding requirement will yield savings of £100 million per annum. Again, the argument is a little obscure, but it is based on the assumption that trustees will move assets from gilts and fixed-income securities into equities. Asset allocation has not been based on the impact of the minimum funding requirement; it is based on a number of actuarial assumptions, but not the MFR.
I am sure that we will come back to those issues in Committee. It is not a cost-neutral initiative. I agree with my noble friend Lord Fowler that, because there will be an extra burden of £300 million per annum, it will mean a further shift away from defined benefit schemes or, at least, the truncation of the benefits of being in a defined benefit scheme—for example, accrual rates and so on.
Thirdly, there is the issue of the information and advice given to employees. I rather liked the draft retirement planner that the Minister's office provided. I am sure that we will examine it in Committee. It is a new web-based mechanism by which individuals can check what their anticipated retirement pension will be 10, 20 or 30 years ahead. However, I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and Lady Greengross, and my noble friend Lord Fowler that some form of compulsion will be required sooner or later. It is one thing to provide help and advice; it is another to ensure that people in their 30s and 40s provide enough for an expected comfortable retirement such as that of their father or even their grandfathers. If we do not do something soon, we will look back in 10 years' time and regret not introducing legislation. To use the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, Rome is burning now: total provision by employers and employees is falling fairly significantly. That will have a dramatic effect on the pensions of our children and of the younger generation in 20 or 30 years' time.
My final point concerns the funding of the pension protection fund. So far, the Government have worked on the assumption that it is the responsibility of the schemes and, therefore, of the employer to fund the schemes. My noble friend Lord Higgins raised an important issue when he said that that was inconsistent with the position for the pre-PPF assistance scheme, with £400 million being provided by the Government over a number of years. If the Government have accepted that some social responsibility to do something about those who have lost their pension rests on their shoulders, why should not that also imply some form of contribution to the PPF by the Chancellor, either as a lender or provider of last resort or by sharing in some proportion in the total cost?
I look forward to Committee. I hope that the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House, not consigned elsewhere. It is an important issue—one of the most important facing Parliament—and the arguments should be exposed on the Floor of the House.
1.9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. It is an immense document and comes just when we had hoped that pension provision and the legislation on which it is based would be simplified. However, legislation that amends existing law and builds on previous structures is bound to be complex.
There is to be a new regulator. That must be the third since Barbara Castle introduced SERPS. For 17 years, I was a member of the Occupational Pensions Board, which was followed by OPRA. The new regulator will have more powers than either of its predecessors. I well remember the Maxwell scandal, which occurred when I was a member of the OPB. We were criticised for that, but in fact we had no power to deal with it. Now OPRA has not had the power to prevent the catastrophe that has hit many employees who were members of schemes where the employer has become insolvent. The new regulator plus the other provisions in the Bill are meant to deal with that.
I am a fan of final salary pension schemes; they were one of the successes of the previous century. Employees fortunate enough to have been members of such schemes have in the main been able to enjoy a relatively comfortable retirement. Now it looks as though the era of defined benefit schemes may be coming to an end, at least in the private sector. Many employers are closing them to new entrants and offering, if anything at all, membership of defined contribution (money purchase) schemes, where the employee bears the risk himself or herself and has no certainty about the eventual outcome. Employers give a number of reasons for that change of policy—mainly, of course, financial.
During the good days of high investment returns, many employers took contribution holidays. Although there were protests at the time, auditors assured us that benefits were safe. Then there was Treasury action over ACT, which led to large sums being removed from pension funds to the benefit of the Inland Revenue. Finally, low and uncertain investment returns. Unions claim, with some justice, that employers who benefited from high investment returns and took contribution holidays ought now to be prepared to maintain final salary schemes.
Meanwhile, we have had the ASW scandal, with more than 60,000 employees from that company and others facing an impoverished future, losing what they have contributed. Something clearly had to be done about that; hence this Bill, one of the main provisions of which is the establishment of the pension protection fund (PPF). The fund has been widely supported, not only by unions but also by many employers. The Engineering Employers' Federation, for example, says that it should provide greater security for pension scheme members and could help to rebuild employee confidence in occupational schemes. It would help, I believe, to prevent a further decline in the number of defined benefit schemes. A board will be responsible for setting the funding levy, overseeing investment strategy and running the PPF itself. The scheme will

409
cover defined benefit and hybrid schemes, where the employer is insolvent and there is not enough in the fund to buy the PPF level of benefits.
There has been some criticism, some of which was voiced today, but, generally speaking, the whole concept has met with approval. No doubt, we will have the opportunity in Committee to discuss some of the criticisms, some of which are valid.
Most concern has been voiced, however, about the fact that the original Bill had no provision for retrospection, so employees of ASW and other firms still had no redress. The Government have now indicated that a scheme will be introduced to provide some compensation for those employees. They propose that £400 million be provided over 20 years, but members of the Pensions Action Group believe that that is not enough, since it would produce pensions of just £6 a week for the 60,000 workers. The campaign for the scheme has been supported by the TUC, the general-secretary of which has welcomed the decision to set up the fund. But he says that the task is now to ensure that each individual who has lost out gets a fair deal from the funds available.
There are a number of issues arising from other parts of the Bill, to which my noble friend the Minister will, I am sure, be able to respond. The new regulator has very wide powers. There will also be a tribunal to deal with complaints. It will inherit some of OPRA's powers but have some objectives that OPRA did not have. The key one is to reduce the risk of claims on the PPF. It is also to provide education, advice and guidance, and must take account of the interests of members. It will publish codes of practice. There will be an ombudsman and a deputy ombudsman. I would be interested to know how that new apparatus relates to what currently exists.
As the Minister knows, I have for many years been a member of the council of the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS). It was established originally as a charity, with a nationwide network of advisers able to deal with pension queries and complaints. The advisers were, and still are, all volunteers but professionally qualified. It has been very successful and eventually received government funding, which came to it via the OPB and then via OPRA. It provides a valuable sifting service before cases go to the ombudsman. I believe that there have been discussions with OPAS officials about its future, and I would welcome whatever the Minister can tell us about that today.
Then there is the matter of pension fund trustees. I understand that the Bill provides for at least one third to be member-nominated. Attempts have been made in the other place to increase the proportion to one half; I am very sorry that that was not successful. I have always been very much in favour of member-nominated trustees. In my experience, many become very committed to their schemes. They have the advantage also that they know their companies well. Unions have for many years provided training for trustees. There is now a new requirement in the Bill for trustees to be conversant with, or have knowledge and
410
understanding of, a very wide range of issues. The regulator is expected to produce a code of practice. No penalties are specified but the regulator apparently has power to create them.
I am a little concerned, however, that if there is too much regulation—too many requirements imposed on trustees—people who might be suitable might not be willing to come forward. Many of the problems encountered recently in occupational pension provision have been the fault not of lay trustees but of company managements. It would be a great pity if lay trustees felt they were being discouraged and became unwilling to serve in that capacity. There is a trustees' code of practice group, consisting of lay trustees of a number of large schemes, which has devised a code of practice that has had government support. It would be a good idea if such people could be consulted; I am sure that it would be helpful to all.
Another aspect that concerns me, which has been mentioned on several occasions in debate, is the proposal to reduce the cost-of-living cap, which currently stands at 5 per cent per annum. For the future, it is suggested, it will be reduced to 2.5 per cent. It is true that we have lived through a period of low inflation, but we cannot be certain that that will continue. If it does not, and 2.5 per cent is the maximum that future pensioners can expect, many will face a substantial lowering of standards. Since we are all apparently living longer, some elderly pensioners will be liable to lose out. It is not necessary, and, if it is a way of off-setting the costs of the PPF, it is not acceptable either. I urge the Government to think again about that.
Then there is the matter of what happens in mergers and takeovers. Employees currently have a form of protection under what have become known as the TUPE regulations. The Government quite rightly want to ensure that protection exists in relation to pensions. However, the protection on offer is of a minimum level, with the employee entitled to either a stakeholder or other form of money purchase pension. A member of a final salary scheme is therefore likely to lose out quite substantially. It is necessary that at least comparable provision should be made available in such cases.
The Bill concentrates on defined benefit—that is to say, final salary—schemes, and rightly so, since the main objective is the establishment of the PPF. However, it might be appropriate to say something about stakeholder pensions. I am sure that the Government would agree that take-up has been disappointing. That is because all the employer has to do is to provide access for a provider of such a scheme. No contribution is necessary from the employer. Take-up improves dramatically when the employer makes a contribution. Compulsion is often mentioned as a way of ensuring that individuals make provision for themselves—the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has just mentioned that. Is it not about time that we started looking at a measure of compulsion as far as employers are concerned, and perhaps not only about stakeholder provision but across the board? If there is

411
widespread concern about retirement provision, why should not employers be asked to bear at least a part of the burden?
The issue of compulsion is being raised by the unions; after all, pensions have always been regarded as deferred pay. It is not uncommon for employees to stay with a company, even when they could get better pay elsewhere, if the employer provides a good pension scheme.
A good pension structure must be built on good state provision. All that many people can expect is what the state pension scheme provides. The value of the basic state pension has declined, and under present policies it is not likely to increase. I understand that some people have been able to benefit from the pension credit; that is to be welcomed. But it depends on a system of means testing, which means that some people who are entitled to it will simply not get it. Moreover, means-tested benefits are expensive to administer. I still believe, as do many others, that the foundation of pension provision should be a good basic state pension linked to the wages index.
The tax system can be utilised to make sure that if there is what the Government would regard as overprovision because of additional income from other sources, appropriate deductions are made. I do not expect the Minister to agree with me, but she will surely know that what I have just enunciated is a widely held view. Meanwhile, there is much to welcome in the Bill; no doubt we shall have the opportunity to explore it further in Committee.
1.20 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the debate. I greatly appreciated the briefing pack provided by her officials, as did my noble friend Lord Freeman.
As this is the first time that I have spoken since the passage of the House of Lords Act four and a half years ago, perhaps I may also say how delighted and honoured I am to have received a new Writ of Summons.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I ask your Lordships a question: is one allowed to be a maiden twice over?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I also inquired whether I would be required to make a second maiden speech, but happily was assured that I am the same person who was here before. Although the Writ of Summons that I have received is identical to the Writ of Summons that I was previously in receipt of, I am told that this one now empowers me to attend the House, while the power of my previous Writ was somehow terminated. Anyway, I am delighted and honoured to be back here. I hope to be able to use my experience in financial services to make a contribution to the business of the House.
Although I am currently retained as a consultant by Prudential Financial Incorporated of the United States, I must confess that I have not worked in the
412
pensions area. My understanding of pension schemes and their regulation has developed somewhat from rather a low base over the past few days, but I still have a lot to learn.
I should also declare an interest as a member of two defined benefit pension schemes, both operated by companies that have since been taken over by foreign financial institutions. Although I do not believe that the frequency of communications I receive from the trustees or from the administrators of those pension funds is adequate or acceptable, I feel fortunate and happy that, as far as I am aware, neither has commenced a winding-up process—or at least neither has commenced a winding-up process prior to the cut-off date of 11 June 2003 announced in another place by Mr Andrew Smith as part of the long overdue regulation making it mandatory for solvent employers to make up any deficiency in or underfunding of their pension schemes.
I was surprised to learn that solvent employers had an option to honour their pension promises or not to do so. I had assumed that the risk of not receiving an expected pension from a defined benefit scheme depended on the solvency of the employer or its successor, not on the willingness of the employer to stand by its promises.
As has been explained, the Bill provides for a PPF to be set up, which is intended, inter alia, to provide compensation to members of underfunded defined benefit pension schemes maintained by insolvent companies. The Government have also acknowledged that, for some, the PPF has come too late and have therefore decided to make available £400 million of public money to provide assistance over 20 years to members of underfunded pension schemes being wound up.
The Government have, somewhat optimistically in my view, said that they will be talking to industry about what level of contribution companies may wish to make to the scheme. However, it is not at all clear which pension schemes may qualify for inclusion in the financial assistance scheme and to what extent members may benefit. Would it not also seem illogical that assistance under the scheme should be restricted to those operated by insolvent companies? That would surely be unfair and discriminatory unless the Government separately resolve to require solvent companies whose schemes are not yet wound up, but which were not caught by the 11 June 2003 cut-off date, to make good the deficit and buy out the accrued benefits for their members in full. That would not be retrospective legislation; it would simply be requiring companies to honour their obligations to their employees and not merely to the level required by the minimum funding requirement. I do not believe that companies would have any legitimate grievance should the Government make such a move.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, reminded the House that many companies took pensions holidays for many years. Some of those companies got it wrong and it is not unreasonable that they should now make good their mistakes.

413
My honourable friend David Willetts rightly questioned in another place on 19 May whether £400 million would be enough. I feel rather in agreement with Frank Field who said that of course £400 million is not enough. Mr Field also questioned why the taxpayer should have to fund this when a levy could be applied to the £13 billion pool of unclaimed assets, some of which have been lying idle for 100 years or more. I also agree with him that it is unrealistic to expect companies, already robbed of £5 billion a year in extra taxation through the abolition of the advanced corporation tax credits, voluntarily to offer contributions to keep another company's scheme going.
Perhaps it would be wise to consider further how serious is the risk that the provision of public money, and money eventually made available through levies raised by the pension protection fund, will in effect encourage companies to pay less attention than they should to their obligations to ensure that their schemes are fully funded and capable of meeting their pension obligations in full. Further, the £25,000 cap will greatly reduce the relevance of the PPF to many senior managers who will have influence in determining whether or not to retain a company's scheme.
It appears that there is very little in the Bill to encourage increased savings and improved funding of pensions schemes. I would hope the Government will consider the introduction of a pension contribution tax credit, such as has been proposed by the Association of British Insurers. Such a measure would undoubtedly encourage employers to make pension contributions. That is the key to ensuring a higher level of contributions by employers themselves.
As my noble friend Lord Higgins rightly explained, a great deal is still unclear as to how the PPF will operate. Will it contract out its assets under management to fund managers, or will it recruit experienced individuals? How will it select appropriate fund managers? The funding arrangements for the PPF also clearly need scrutiny. There is no clear timetable for the switch from a scheme-based levy to a risk-based levy. Especially in the initial period, companies with well funded schemes will greatly resent being forced to subsidise companies with poorly funded schemes. That will surely encourage more companies to wind up their defined benefit schemes. The Minister said that at least 50 per cent of schemes will eventually be risk-based, but if a substantial number remains scheme-based this problem will surely still remain.
There are many other matters covered by the Bill which need improvement and clarification. Other noble Lords have mentioned many of those. I hope that the noble Baroness and her colleagues in government will have an open mind and that your Lordships' House will ensure that a much better and more effective Bill returns to another place than the Bill which has arrived here.
1.29 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I declare two interests, one as a non-executive director of a life and pension company, and the other as a trustee of a pension fund. Like my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Fowler, I would like to start briefly with what is not in the Bill. I must reinforce that it does not deal with the biggest issues facing us on pensions. We know from earlier debates that there has been a huge decline since 1997 in Britain's present, and especially prospective, pension position, stretching out for years to come. We have to accept that the stampede away from direct benefit schemes will continue. Indeed, some of the measures in the Bill, however well intentioned, will accelerate that.
There is nothing on the two key issues. There are no proposals at all to encourage more people to save and to encourage employers to provide better funded DC schemes more widely; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, had me in mind as one of those in the previous debate who was moving to the position of compulsion for occupational pension schemes. Nor is there anything about the black hole of underfunding in so many current occupational pension fund schemes. The Minister does not like the fact of the £5 billion ACT to be constantly reiterated, and she does not think that it has anything to do with where we are now. However, the plain fact is that, every year, £5 billion that previously went into pension funds is not now doing so. That is a major contribution to the underfunding. I hope that we will keep coming back to that.
I do not want to make too much of the point about the massive size of the Bill. If one of the Government's key objectives for pensions is simplification, they have a very funny way of going about it. Many outside who have to deal with the Bill will feel that, given its length, a huge number of regulations will follow. It will be very important to give sufficient time for consultation with all the outside interests. I also hope that there will be sufficient time for this House to look at those regulations in due course.
Outside consultation on the Bill has been made more difficult by the many late additions in the other place, and I want to reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, about Clauses 35 to 46. They have wide implications with which many employers outside the pension industry, and probably within it, simply have not caught up yet. We will have to spend a good deal of time looking at that in Committee. Even given that many of the main provisions are welcomed and supported in principle, there is a responsibility on this House to try to improve the Bill and probe on many points of concern. I too express my thanks especially to the Minister, but also to her officials, for the way in which she has been so open about the details so far. That will greatly help in our discussions in Committee.
I welcome the pensions regulator in principle, and I also welcome very strongly the independent pensions regulator tribunal. The Select Committee of which I have been a member stressed the need for a tribunal in

415
its recent report, and I am delighted to see it in the Bill. Will the appeal to the tribunal be only on fact or law? Will it also be on the substance of the case and the decision of the determination panel, as our Select Committee certainly thought that it ought to be?
There are a number of issues that we will obviously want to explore in Committee, many of which have been raised already in relation to the regulator. However, I shall mention one or two. I am very conscious that, increasingly on mergers or acquisitions, pensions are a major issue in a merger itself—not only as protection for the employees, but for much wider reasons. Will the regulator be able to examine or intervene on pension issues while such negotiations are going through?
I come back to Clauses 35 to 46, and especially Clause 39. As I read them at the moment—I have not had time to study them fully—I have several concerns. One is the danger that, as often in things that we do, we will discourage good people from taking on the role of directors or senior managers if the responsibilities, liabilities and penalties become too great. I echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. There is a similar problem in relation to trustees of pension funds. The pressures, requirements and potential liabilities are increasing greatly, as is the need for knowledge and training. I think that we have to be very conscious of that. One conclusion is that trustees will have to be paid, or we will not attract them in exactly the way in which an earlier Mynor's report recommended.
Another area in Clauses 35 to 46 is the risk of the discouragement of merger and acquisition activity, venture capital operations, rescue and restructuring companies, and inward investment. We will have to look very carefully at whether Clauses 35 to 46 inadvertently have much bigger and widespread implications for industry as a whole. I am delighted and welcome the fact that the emphasis of the regulator is on key risks, with light touches on everything else. As with all regulators, a light touch converts in time to much heavier and more frequent touching. I hope that we will look at how we can avoid that in Committee.
On the pension protection fund and the moral hazard issue, which is clearly a major topic for us, I recognise that the Government have tried to take into account the potential burden on sound companies and schemes. The question that we have to ask is whether that is enough. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that that was one of the questions on balances and costs that she wanted the Committee to examine. Clearly there are two areas to it. So far as companies are concerned, we have to ask whether we have to fix the timetable to the move to risk-based schemes so that companies know where they stand, and to ensure that the timetable does not slip. There is very clearly a temptation for that to happen. The other question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is clearly important. Is 50 per cent for risk-based schemes
416
sufficient? I go much closer to between an 80 per cent and 100 per cent move to risk-based schemes. That is another area that we will have to examine.
There are issues that I think that the Minister was inviting us to explore on beneficiaries, too. Will the benefits be too substantial? Is it right that there be 100 per cent compensation for some, given that the compensation schemes in existence now have a limit of 90 per cent? Is there a case for saying that there should be not only benefit limits of 90 per cent for all, but a cap on all benefits as there is going to be a cap on some? Other issues arise from that.
It is interesting and noticeable that, as the Bill stands, the Government are more generous on benefits when they are asking others to fund them than they are when they are funding them themselves. The classic example is the financial assistance scheme, where the Government will offer very meagre benefits because they are funding them. That raises the question voiced by others of the Government being the guarantor of last resort in some way on the PPF. Given the American experience, I am tempted to think that that would be necessary.
There are many other questions on the PPF, but there is not time to explore them now. In Part 3 on scheme funding, I have one major problem, which is about what the term "technical provisions" means. The whole actuarial profession, the funding of pension schemes and everything surrounding such issues are a moving quicksand, if one can have such a thing. We have FRS 17, realistic balance sheets and all sorts of changes taking place in that profession. We need to hear a lot more from the Government in Committee on how such change is intended to be carried through.
It is a very interesting idea to have a retirement financial planning tool. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that we can look at it, and I look forward to doing so. If it is to cover all the objectives as I understand them, I cannot for the life of me see how it can be done for £10 million in set-up costs; it will be much more complex than that. There is a more important issue. Will the Government be held liable for any gross miscalculations? I make that point because, in endowment mis-selling, a lot of complaints have been made about the original projections, which followed rules set down by the predecessor of the FSA. The interesting question is this: if it is thought to be mis-selling and if the Government make mistakes in their calculations for people's projections for retirement, will they be held liable for them?
Let us be frank: we all know exactly what happened on the financial assistance scheme. I have a number of quotations from the Committee in the other place that I do not have time to read out, which indicate why the Government could not possibly go down the route which they have now taken. The reference to assistance is plainly a euphemism for compensation. We know that well and we know exactly why, because there is a read-across to Equitable Life and all sorts of other cases.
We need to ask about some serious issues on that, in relation not only to how much money is coming through, but also to industry contributing. I do not

417
think that any industry will contribute. Why should it? The decision is for the Government; it is nothing to do with industry and it is retrospective. I suspect that the Government will get nothing from that. If they try to compel employers to contribute, that would be monstrous.
I very much support the objectives about state pensions, because they reflect the economy's need and the lifestyles that we all have now in that they encourage many more people to go on working. However, I am not sure whether a great incentive is being provided; we will have to explore that in Committee. I could say other things about that, but, given the time, I want to conclude on a different point. One matter that will be very tricky is whether the lump sum is taken into account in relation to pension credit and other issues of that sort. My suspicion is that the only answer for the Government will be to go to something like £21,000 overall so that we do not have to consider all sorts of problems about precedents, ring fencing, and so on.
In my final point I return to the fact that the Bill does not face up to the real issues. On many arguments, there is now a clear case for saying that the state pension age needs to be raised. There will have to be a long movement ahead before the final decision is implemented; there will have to be a transitional stage. The sooner we face up to that and have the courage to do so, the better.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, first, I welcome the reincarnation of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I recall sparring with him in the 1990s on the Competition Bill, for example, and am glad that we had the pleasure of hearing him today and will, no doubt, on many other occasions.
We all know that there are huge gaps in living standards among the elderly. The poorest are overwhelmingly dependent on state benefits and the better-off receive the bulk of their income from occupational and private pensions. I regret to say at the beginning of my speech that I disagree with my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden, because the Government have been right to concentrate state help on the poorest among the elderly by way of pension credit. Despite powerful criticism from people such as the much respected and vociferous Lady Castle of Blackburn, when she was still with us, Government policy has been more socially just by concentrating help on the poorest, rather than by giving an across the board increase in the basic state pension for everyone. That would have involved a hugely expensive total outlay, including to the better off, each of whose income would only have been minimally enhanced.
For better off and future pensioners, whose main income comes from private sources, the Government have had to take account of the fall in public confidence in private pension provision, which they have in the Bill. Too many workers have found that their employers are no longer supporting final salary occupation pension schemes and have closed such
418
schemes to new members. Even during the passage of the Bill in the other place some 60,000 workers have recently lost some or all of their pensions when their employers' schemes collapsed.
In the other place MPs from all sides expressed concern at that existing problem. They could not expect and it would not have been right, I am sure noble Lords will agree, to have sought to make retrospective the pension protection fund that the Bill introduces. How can one make a protection fund—an insurance scheme—retrospective? But the Government have reacted positively with a financial support scheme, about which there are many questions to be asked, as others have said. None the less Clause 274 is an indication of the Government's realisation that something must be done for those who have already had that misfortune happen to them in the course of their working life. That has put a blight on their prospects in terms of what will be available to them when they retire.
The central part of the Bill creates a pensions protection fund to deal with future cases where bankrupt companies are no longer in a position to pay out retirement pensions. In principle, all sides of the House would agree that that must be the right course, but it is important to recall the underlying reasons why pension funds have so often been in financial difficulties in recent years. They include major falls in the stock market, the introduction of the new accounting standard FRS 17, the minimum finding requirement under the Pensions Act 1995, reluctance of people to save adequately for retirement on a voluntary basis and, of course, increased longevity—although none of us, especially in this House, would wish to regret that.
The world today is so different from the forecasts of the Beveridge report of some 60 years ago. The pension protection board, which will be set up by the Bill, will control its own income through what will in due course—that is a vital point—be to some extent a risk related levy. Compensation will comprise 100 per cent pension benefits for those already over pension age and 90 per cent for others, with a cap of £25,000 a year. But that cap is equivalent to the pension expected by those on a final eligible salary of some £40,000 to £60,000 a year. To have a cap at all is to put a limit on the burden placed on good employer schemes and recognises the reasons why so many schemes have been in financial difficulty in recent years.
How much will the levy be? According to the Bill's regulatory impact assessment, it is £300 million a year, presumably passed on to employees in higher contributions. Is that an underestimate and will it be yet another factor that discourages employers from providing final salary pension schemes? The Government say that the levy and the existence of the pension protection fund will make it easier to recruit, retain and provide staff with a greater incentive to save, but that is all a matter of perception for employers and employees. The Government have a great task to perform, because if employers think—even if they do so wrongly—that the fund and the levy are overburdensome, it will discourage employers

419
from providing defined benefit schemes. It is most important—and I agree with some noble Lords who have spoken—that the risk-based element of the levy or premium is introduced as soon as possible and is perceived to be imminent, whatever date is chosen, because employers with well managed schemes will strongly resent underwriting their weaker brethren.
Your Lordships will wish to probe all the details of the proposals but as a matter of general principle, despite the problems of the cross subsidy and moral hazard, it is difficult to see any alternative—and no one on the other side has suggested one—to something like this insurance and protection scheme if the risks of insolvency and underfunding are to be adequately covered. The reliability of having the insurance of a pension—or the "reliability of your pension" if you are mid-career, to repeat a phrase used by the Minister—is most important.
From my earlier incarnation as head of the Office of Fair Trading, I fear that I am something of a regulation buff and have supported the Government's recent efforts to improve regulation in, for example, the Utilities Act 2000 and the Communications Act 2003. My only connection with pension regulation was as a non-executive director of the Mirror Group, which I hesitate to mention, but in the post-Maxwell era. A brilliant rescue effort was undertaken by one of my fellow directors, the executive director and former editor of the Times, Charles Wilson. When he was managing director of the Mirror Group he worked hard to ensure that pensioners who had been robbed by Maxwell were able to recover most of their money. The later report by the eminent lawyer, Sir Roy Goode, proposed a regulatory body to help to avoid the misappropriation of pension funds in future, and, of course, the 1995 Act created the regulatory authority.
Reviews in recent years have suggested that the regulator needs to be more proactive and to become involved before the damage is done, focusing, as the department has said, on protecting the benefits of pension scheme members against fraud and maladministration. I am not sure that I like the title "pensions regulator" to replace the OPRA. In a sense, it is a welcome simplification, but anyone outside the Westminster village may be somewhat misled into thinking that it is a one-man band. In fact, the pensions regulator is, as is customary nowadays with regulatory bodies, a corporate body with a chairman, a chief executive and at least five other members, and so on.
I do not think that the Government have explained entirely why this recent development, which is so popular in modern corporate governance in the private sector, should necessarily be read across into the public sector so that, every time we have a regulator or a regulatory authority, we have to have the full assembly of executive and non-executive personalities, and so on.
But one thing of which I am sure (I say this, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who took a rather different view in his opening speech) is that the new wide range of powers—the repertoire of powers to
420
cover improvement notices and freezing orders—seem to be very useful alternatives to what I might call the "nuclear option" of winding up a pension scheme. They will be useful weapons, enabling the regulator to be proportionate, if I may use a fashionable word, and to adopt action for the occasion which is appropriate to the situation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that that, to my mind, is not a set of draconian regulations; it is a set of proportionate regulations.
It is commonplace to say that people are not saving enough to ensure a reasonably comfortable retirement. Related to that question is whether it is desirable for people to be able to postpone the age at which they retire. To that extent, I share the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, concerning the age at which the state retirement pension should be paid. The Government may need, at some stage, to seize the opportunity to deal with that matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, indicated, certain worries would be attached to Part 4 of the Bill, which concerns forecasts, if it involved some kind of government responsibility for the forecasts and illustrations and if those turned out to be incorrect. However, on the basis of encouraging people to save and to understand their position according to what they are doing at present, it must be a most useful proposition.
At the next general election, the majority of voters will be either retired or within five years of retirement. No subject is more relevant to the electorate than pensions, and this Bill is one strand of government strategy that we should support.
1.53 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I begin by declaring two direct interests. I am a trustee of two final salary pension schemes and chairman of the trustees of one of them. They are both now closed to new entrants. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made a powerful plea for the importance of final salary pension schemes. My central concern relating to the Bill is that I can see no reason why I and my fellow trustees would seek to reopen either of those schemes or to provide ways for new people to join them.
As I read the Bill, I also came to realise that I have another potential interest to declare. It is not a relevant interest at present but one that will certainly become relevant if and when the Bill is enacted.
I am the non-executive chairman of a struggling listed UK engineering company. It is but a shadow of its former self, given the decline of the UK's manufacturing base over which this Government have so cheerfully presided. With a group of investors, we have been endeavouring to turn the company round and, to date, we have had some success. But, in relation to our current UK activities, we have a large pension fund which arises from our history. If what I understand is true about this Bill—in particular, Clauses 35 to 46—then I am concerned on two levels: first, what it means for the future of the company and its remaining staff; and, secondly, and perhaps more

421
selfishly, what it means for directors who have, in good faith, invested and worked hard first to preserve and then, it is hoped, to make prosper a UK-based enterprise.
By happy chance, this debate is to be followed by the Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill. It updates the pension arrangements for our Armed Forces and, indeed, replaces some pieces of legislation that are more than 100 years old. That will give us a chance to look in a little more detail at how the Government think about their own employees.
Therefore, I must ask the Minister whether she and her officials are aware of the proposals in the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill. In short, they run contrary to nearly every provision which the Government proposed in the White Paper, Security, simplicity and choice, and which are enacted in the legislation before us today. There is no provision for independent trustees; there is no requirement to provide information about the scheme and the members of it; there is no requirement to consult members on proposed changes; and it is described as a non-contributory scheme when, by any fair measure of the word, it is not; and so on.
Therefore, when the noble Baroness comes to propose the measures in the Bill, which will weigh quite heavily on the private sector, I hope that she will forgive me if I ask whether she expects government departments to live by the same standards, or is this another case of "Do as we say; don't do as we do"?
Issues of pension policy are particularly challenging, for a number of special reasons: the language and terminology of pension provision is inevitably technical and, as such, is unlikely to commend itself to the casual reader; the outcome of any particular policy is hard to predict because of the length of time involved and the impact of unforeseen and unpredictable factors; and, finally, changes made, although perhaps only of marginal cost in the short run, can, because of the inexorable pressure of compound interest, be extremely expensive in the longer term.
All governments are sensitive about their image. This Government have shown themselves to be even more sensitive than most, particularly about their short-term image. That is a dangerous weakness when it comes to pension policy, which does not respond well to quick fixes. My noble friend Lord MacGregor referred to the Chancellor's raid on pension funds, which the Prime Minister, playing to the gallery, felt that the stock market was high enough to sustain. That has done untold damage to pension provision. And, of course, stock markets are now below the levels which existed when this Government took office in 1997 and the Prime Minister did his bit of grandstanding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lord Fowler referred to the decision to leave unchanged the requirement to purchase annuities at fixed ages. In an era of low interest rates, that has imposed a high degree of inflexibility on individual pensioners and pensions.
422
The recent announcement about a £400 million fund to compensate workers whose pension funds have failed represents another wrench on the wheel in an attempt to spin out of trouble. While £400 million is a not inconsiderable sum in itself, it must be pointed out that it is less than 10 per cent of the sum which the Chancellor is extracting from pension funds each year as a result of tax changes. More significantly, it is a minuscule sum when measured against the total assets or liabilities of UK pension funds. There must be a real danger that the Government will have aroused public expectations about what can be delivered or what is to be expected—expectations which may have to be disappointed when, as I believe will inevitably happen, the sum involved becomes vastly bigger. Therefore, if there has been a decline in public confidence about the value and role of pension funds, the Government are far from blameless.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness about some specific issues, first, on the powers of the regulator in relation to a UK-based company whose parent is based overseas. I have had correspondence, particularly from a pensioner who worked for Joseph Lucas, a Birmingham-based, long-established engineering company, supplying the automobile and aerospace industries. The company has been taken over by a US company, which the pensioner believes is hard-nosed—one might say predatory—in its reputation. He has concerns about the drawing of assets out of the United Kingdom. I would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness the powers of the regulator in respect of controlling the departure of assets from the United Kingdom, or the powers to require restitution if assets are so removed.
Secondly, I return to the provisions of Clauses 35 to 46 and ask for some preliminary thoughts about how the Minister believes they will work in practice. In particular, what is the relative weight to be placed on the financial weakness of the employing company, as against the financial weakness of the scheme? What limits does she expect there to be on the regulator's powers to make levies on the employer and how do the Government expect the regulator to define "fully funded" in relation to a pension scheme?
Thirdly, can the Minister explain whether the regulator will be under any pressure to give answers on the adequacy of pension funding in due time? It is interesting that Mr Philip Green's bid for Marks & Spencer has as one of its prime pre-conditions satisfaction on the adequacy of funding of the Marks & Spencer's pension scheme. Without some pressure on the regulator to give answers to those kinds of questions, corporate acquisition and/or investment activity will be severely curtailed. Equally importantly, when a company is in financial difficulty, speed is of the essence. The regulator needs to be prepared to answer quickly if rescues are to be achieved.
My final question relates to trustees. The Minister referred to the streamlining of the process for trustees. Does she really believe that with these new responsibilities, sufficient numbers of men and women will be prepared to come forward to serve as trustees

423
of pension funds, or are we moving inexorably towards the emergence of professional trustees? If so, is that a good idea in the view of the Minister?
To conclude, there is general agreement that we need to encourage individuals to save for their old age and to encourage employers to help people in that by providing good pension schemes. As I have already said, I see nothing in the Bill that will encourage employers to do that. I see it more as another, and maybe the final, nail in the coffin of final salary pension schemes.
During the briefing on the Bill, which the noble Baroness so kindly arranged for us and for which I and other noble Lords were extremely grateful, she discussed the Bill in terms of carts and horses. It may be that the Government have designed a shiny new cart. No doubt we can discuss and explore that in Committee, but unfortunately, in my view, they have shot the horse that was to pull it.
2.3 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the characteristically expert contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. The courteous way in which he made his points was characteristic of the debate. I hope that that augurs well for the Committee stage. It is even more courteous and informal in Grand Committee than in the Chamber, but where the Committee stage takes place will be decided later.
I begin by echoing the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. In the Bill we are guaranteeing people's quality of life in retirement. It is rather striking that whichever way one looks at the crystal ball, the prospects 10 or 20 years ahead do not appear to be as rosy as the retirement experience of our colleagues in this generation. That is not a matter for this Bill, although I believe it will be for another Bill after the general election. At that stage the point picked up by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Freeman, about compulsion—we may disagree about what we mean by that—is the way that matters will go.
Before I turn to the Bill, I want to make a point about why that is the way that we should go. Increasingly, the buy-now pay-later culture in which we live makes the idea of looking ahead 20, 30, 40 years more difficult than it was, even if it had not been for the classic phrase of John Maynard Keynes that in the long run we are all dead. That may be so, but the fact is that we want a guaranteed living standard in our retirement. A noble Lord opposite—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and he will correct me if I am wrong—said that of course one cannot have totally reliable forecasts, but with a final salary pension scheme one can forecast what a pension will be. It is important to point out that people want a quality of life in retirement that comes from that type of guarantee; and if they want to know that they will receive 62.1 per cent, or whatever, of their final salary, they need to be in one of those schemes.
424
The real question is how we can get back to that system. Far from allowing them to decline—it is not yet a stampede—we should reverse the trend. That is a fairly unfashionable thing to say today. I do not criticise the statistical projection of the noble Lord. Lord Freeman, that in 20 or 30 years' time there will be no such schemes open to new members and that they will all be finished. I believe that is what he said in a debate in March. On the logic of wanting quality of life in retirement, we should reverse that trend. That is the challenge.
Against that background, some noble Lords opposite have suggested that the Bill will make the matter worse. We shall have to look at that for a moment. I do not believe that the Bill can be seen in isolation from the other points that I have just made. However, one point is obvious: the move from DB to DC schemes. They are normally associated with a halving of the contributions by employers—it is a wage cut. There is also a cut in the worker's contribution when he moves from DB to DC—I am talking in averages—but the bigger cut is in the contribution from the employer.
We are all fiddling while Rome burns, if that is the right metaphor. We must not cry crocodile tears about that and say it is all the fault of Gordon Brown when this is a trend that has been going on for some time.
I want to mention the work of the commission chaired by Adair Turner, which I believe will bring out an extremely important interim report in September—even on present forecasts. I think we can make one other forecast today—the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, may be able to help us with it—that the Bill will probably still be under consideration in September. I suggest that that is a forecast on which one can put money.
These days, people do not expect to have multiple choice decisions about retirement planning, which has been highlighted and epitomised by the argument about the pension protection fund and the extra scheme for Allied Steel and Wire and such like.
It would be a helpful step forward if the Opposition, having willed the end, willed the means. From Michael Howard downwards—if that is the right expression—it has supported the pension protection fund in principle and the "why did we not get on with it quicker?" idea. If the Opposition is in favour of the fund and the levy, it should decide what sort of improving amendments—if that is the name of the game—it can put forward. Otherwise, it is hard to see how that is consistent with support for the principle.
The trade unions are very satisfied with the success of the campaign, with which many of us were associated, to get the retrospective funding. There may be some misunderstandings about the £400 million, given that there can be money and funds in some of those companies. If the £400 million is divided by 60,000—which I think has been mentioned—and 20 years, you get a sum that is clearly not very satisfactory. All the related financial arithmetic will have to be brought out into the open. But I do not think that we will be able to dot every "i", cross every

425
"t" and name every number in this Bill. That is just a hit of rhetoric if some noble Lords are seriously suggesting that we can. However, before we reach Clause 274 we have time to look at the financial assistance scheme.
In helping people to look at their responsibilities for making better provision for retirement, which the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, among others, has advocated, the philosophy in the Bill is assisted considerably by some of the later parts. As a former trade union official, together with my noble friends Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and Lady Turner of Camden, I believe that if it is difficult for people to find agents to trust in this matter, if we did not have trade unions already we would have to invent them.
Trade unions—surprise, surprise—are trusted by their members regarding pensions. They may not always be able to deliver, but I do not think that I would be contradicted by anyone in this Chamber when I say that the trade unions are trusted a damned sight more than any independent financial adviser. I shall not give a generic word about the current reputation of independent financial advisers. I hope that I have made the case for trade union involvement in the protection fund and so forth.
Finally, an important development is the initiative of the Citizens Advice Bureau, which I think was announced in May. It is to conduct some pilots around the country in which it will co-operate with independent financial advisers to see how they can walk this difficult tightrope—the words "moral hazard" spring to mind—of giving independent financial advice through the Citizens Advice Bureau. We are desperately short of people who are trusted in the community. That initiative must also be welcomed. I look forward to the Bill progressing through Committee stage and on to the statute book as soon as possible.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, first, I declare my interest as senior partner of Beachcroft Wansbroughs and chairman of Beachcroft Wansbroughs Consulting. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his kind words about the speeches made by a number of my noble friends. However, I must take issue with him on his description of independent financial advisers because the Association of Independent Financial Advisers, led by its very able director-general, Paul Smee, has done much to raise, and has sought to raise even higher, the standards followed by independent financial advisers. Of course, in a world that is as complicated as it is now, that has become very difficult, as has been pointed out in the debate.
My plea is to espouse the cause of simplicity, particularly as regards occupational pensions. We are all concerned to protect the vulnerable in society. However wealthy an individual may be, it is a moment of vulnerability to commit to a pension arrangement that will require an organisation to be in existence several decades hence in order to pay that pension out,
426
especially in the world described by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall; the "buy now/pay later" environment. For the less well off that is of particularly critical importance to their welfare in later years. Yet the reality of modern mixed economies is that businesses operating in dynamic markets do not last for decades.
However, the solution does not lie in accumulating various forms of protection to deal with each new difficulty as it arises. That is the long road to complexity which, in itself, brings problems of its own. It frustrates pension take-up and can result in the very detriment that the rules are trying to cure.
In that context, the Inland Revenue's substantial proposals for simplification of the taxation of pensions contained in the Finance Bill currently before another place are to be welcomed. I should point out that it will be an opportunity missed if this Pensions Bill does not secure a similar balance between effectiveness and the benefits of simplicity.
So far, it is not easy to see that the mass of pensions rules for occupational schemes is being improved. We will not have the new pensions regulator until next April and we have yet to see the codes of practice on how to run a pension scheme. It must be a goal to ensure that those will be simpler and easier to understand than the rules of the current regulator, OPRA.
Limited price indexation (LPI) is another area where needless complexity is evident, as several speakers have already pointed out. In creating the pension protection fund, the Government propose to create a new cost for all employers. It is a superficially attractive proposal by the Government to propose an offset to that by reducing to 2.5 per cent the LPI ceiling for benefits that were built up after April 2005. But consider the administrative burden that that will create and the increase in the complexity which consumers will have to master.
In future, retiring defined benefit scheme members may find that they have built up three tranches of pension all gaining LPI, but at different rates. Those benefits built up before 1997 will increase at whatever rate the trustees choose. Those built up after 1997 will increase by price inflation subject to a cap of 5 per cent. Those built up after 2005 will increase by price inflation subject to a cap of 2.5 per cent.
But this is relatively straightforward when compared with the LPI for money purchase arrangements. The Pensions Act 1995 also requires that members of defined contribution occupational schemes must use funds built up after 1997 to buy a pension, again subject to LPI at 5 per cent, And these too would be subject to the proposed 2.5 per cent cap from next April. However, this means that the scheme member would have to buy two different types of pension with his fund, one from amounts built up during the period 1997 to 2005, attracting index linking up to a ceiling of 5 per cent, and one from amounts built up after 2005, attracting index linking subject to a ceiling of 2.5 per cent.

427
Sadly, the complexity does not end there. If the scheme member is contracted out, protected rights have set rules on increases to pensions. In consequence, this person is likely to have multiple tranches of pension, each one subject to different rules.
I understand from the Minister that the Government are aware of the complexity of their proposals, and we have heard that amendments are to be introduced in this House to deal with it. I suggest, however, that rather than complicate LPI for money purchase schemes they should do away with LPI completely. This would be a helpful development, but a brave and courageous one. I could see the Minister flinch as I said the word "courageous". It would match the boldness of the Inland Revenue.
Clearly, there will be some who would find the terminology worrying and confusing. For example, removing something called "protected rights" has the appearance of an important protection being taken away, but viewed from the consumer perspective, it would actually look rather different. An indexed annuity simply comes into payment at a lower base. Removing LPI from all types of money purchase pensions would mean that members would have the freedom to choose the most appropriate annuity for them in particular, whether it is level or indexed.
This freedom will reduce significantly the number of separate pension tranches. It will make it much easier for members to understand their benefits at the outset, during their working lifetime and when they come to choose to take their benefits. By demystifying pensions saving at every opportunity, the Government will encourage people to save for their own retirement. So I think it is high time that the Government really adopted a practical approach to dealing with the pensions crisis, and simplification is a central plank of being practical.
I look forward to seeing the Government's proposals on LPI and I commend to them the clear objective that simpler policy options will nearly always be better for consumers than complicated ones.
As we have heard in the debate, there are many other concerns about the Bill. John Harris, chief executive of the Society of Turnaround Professionals, has expressed concern that the new provisions will impose large, uncertain and unprecedented liabilities on directors and shareholders who have done no wrong. Many share in the general concern that the pension protection fund must be implemented in such a way that it does not deter valuable turnaround business by imposing unsustainable personal liabilities on turnaround executives.
These concerns are also shared by R3, which represents licensed insolvency practitioners who take formal insolvency appointments over insolvent companies. It, too, is very concerned that the Bill as drafted could expose administrators to a contribution liability as a result of a strategy to achieve a successful administration. It is ironic that only 18 months ago this Government passed the Enterprise Act, which introduced new measures designed to encourage and
428
promote the rescue of troubled companies with viable businesses. There is now a real risk that this Bill will undermine those measures by strongly discouraging such rescues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, pointed out earlier, this would undermine the policies of the Chancellor himself. So while there is obviously a need for robust anti-avoidance measures to ensure that the PPF helps only those for whom it is intended, this must be carefully balanced to ensure that desirable business rescues are not blocked.
I understand that last week the Occupational Pension Schemes Joint Working Group put this point forcefully to the Minister's senior officials. I do hope that the Minister will have had a full report and will move quickly, as of course many of the anti-avoidance measures in the Bill were added at a very late stage and the noble Baroness and her colleagues will not have had time properly to consider these problems. I hope that she will have an answer for us in this debate.
2.25 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, put it so eloquently, there was a time when people's eyes glazed over when the subject of pensions arose, but now it is a subject of deep interest. Moreover, we have had a demonstration of why this House is so necessary when considering matters of this kind, such has been the range of expertise among the speakers today. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, went on to take issue with some of our comments about the length and complexity of the Bill. Perhaps more than anyone else the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, having worked through the pension credits legislation, will be the first to agree with me that the length of a Bill is absolutely no measure of its complexity. That legislation was very short, but managed to give the Financial Services Act a run for its money.
Our problem with this Bill is not so much its length, rather it is the key areas in which it should be explicit, but remains silent. I shall concentrate my comments on a number of those areas. I do so because there is only one fundamental question that noble Lords have to answer: what does this Bill add up to in practice? At the moment, it is extremely hard to tell. Will it be, in the words of Malcolm Wicks in another place,
"something which will come to be seen as one of the most important developments of social policy"?
Or is it just a patchwork of reforms and regulations that will amend some of the deficiencies of the 1995 Act and which may mean that some people have a marginally better income in retirement than they might otherwise have done?
In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, I shall make one prediction with absolute confidence. For the next year and a half, your Lordships' House will devote an inordinate amount of time to studying the regulations and orders which will emanate from this Bill, and I believe that we will be right to spend as much time as we possibly can on going through them.

429
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, as he has done a number of times in your Lordships' House, set the political context for this Bill. He is absolutely right to say that the political importance of pensions has grown dramatically over the past few years. It is interesting to note that shortly noble Lords are to be joined by Mr Philip Gould. Every pollster knows that since 1995 the issue of pensions has shot up the list of concerns of electors in a quite remarkable way. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and others have pointed out quite rightly that there is growing knowledge about pensions on the part of the public, but there is too an even more swiftly growing concern about the lack of knowledge people have about pensions.
To that end, I want to follow on directly from many of the points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, about the necessity for simplification and clarity. There is agreement across the House that situations like Allied Steel and Wire are unacceptable, that we have to do what we can in this House to reverse the current situation. Some companies deem it acceptable to walk away from the obligations they have to their pensioners over 30 and 40 years, leaving those people with nothing. However, there is disagreement about the extent to which this Bill will in reality protect those pensioners, as well as the extent to which it will enable the other 19 million private and occupational pension holders referred to by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott over the coming 50 or 60 years.
Other speakers in the debate have questioned many aspects of the pension protection fund, which is unsurprising given the amount of confusion during the extremely lengthy debates on it in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rightly pointed out, even the Minister himself was unclear: is it an insurance scheme, a pension fund or something which at times he simply could not describe? It is important that the basis of the scheme is clarified before we go any further in our deliberations, not only to enable the pensions industry to take some satisfaction from it but in order that there is an absolute certainty which can work its way down to individual pensioners.
Our reading of the Bill is that the PPF is a pooled-fund insurance scheme; that it will be started with the remaining assets and liabilities of those pension schemes that have fared worst of all; that it is expected to continue with unspecified investment powers and, ultimately, without the backing of the Government—although I believe that my noble friend Lord Oakeshott was right to question the extent to which that would happen in reality.
That is not a good start in life for any fund, quite frankly. For this one, in particular, there is a need to ensure that it is set up from the beginning on a sustainable basis. We on these Benches will bring forward amendments to ensure that matters such as the analysis of risk—not only for pension funds but also for employers—are included. We shall seek to limit the transitional period in order that that moral hazard is minimised.
Much of the comment from the pensions industry has focused on the cost of the PPF. It is extremely important to determine the cost because the viability
430
of the fund is crucial. But it is also necessary to establish beyond any doubt exactly what will be the benefits to individuals. There have been differing views about the cost to business of the proposal that those who have retired will receive 100 per cent and that those who have not yet reached retirement age will receive 90 per cent. However, there is a more fundamental question than that: 90 per cent of what? It is still not clear.
Can the Minister confirm that, contrary to what some people have understood, the PPF will not replicate entirely the provisions of the scheme to which a person belonged—for example, that it will pay survivor pensions only to spouses, and do so to a maximum of 50 per cent, even if under the scheme from which the person came unmarried or same sex partners received survivor benefits? If I am correct, does not the Minister agree that the scheme will soon face challenges on the grounds of equal treatment?
I am extremely concerned that there should be clarity from the outset about what the scheme will do. The impression given when it was announced in the House was that some people would have their Rolls-Royce defined benefit pensions replaced. I rather suspect a number of people will find that they get something a little more like a clapped-out Ford Cortina.
We on these Benches have consistently said that reform of the state pension is essential. We have referred to the need to raise the level of the basic state pension and to ensure that older pensioners receive greater support. Simplification of the state pension will provide a crucial underpinning of the Bill. It is only with simplification of the state pension that employers and pensioners can begin to have a hope of understanding what their income in retirement might be.
We have a number of misgivings about some aspects of the Bill that deal with this issue—and here I part company slightly with both the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—because we believe that the proposals on the deferral of the state pension have been rather overestimated. The introduction of a lump sum in return for deferment was heralded by Ministers in another place as,
"a new opportunity for low and moderate earners to earn a lump sum for retirement".
Moreover, it is stated that this would be "a choice of reward" for people in that deferral would enable them to receive a higher percentage weekly pension. But the reality is that poor people cannot afford to defer their state pension; they need it to live on.
It is not clear from the Bill what the effect of deferral will be on a person's entitlement to pension credit. It is not clear from the Government's statement whether or not it will apply to all pensioners. The Government state that they want to make sure that the lump sum is ignored where "most" people claim pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. They have not said that there will be an overall disregard. That crucial matter of detail needs to be addressed.

431
Deferral is a gamble. One gambles that one will be alive to receive the pension at the end of the period of deferral. I do not agree with those who say that the whole area of pensions is really a form of expert gambling; nor do I believe that any of your Lordships would wish to kid people that there is some kind of magical certainty. We want to ensure that people make informed choices. It is therefore important that we should make clear exactly what will happen to people if they do defer and what will happen if they die—particularly if they are not married—in the interim.
As to combined pension forecasting, we, too, have a number of reservations. The Government are already way, way behind in their estimates for provision of combined pension forecasts. Nearly six years ago the Government predicted that more than 700 employers and pension providers would take part in such a service. To date, only two pension providers and 64 employers have participated in the scheme.
One of the most crucial aspects is that there should be a reliable means of giving people the best estimate of what their income will be. The Minister helpfully circulated a hard copy of the proposed web-based retirement planner. I realise that the programme is not yet finished and that it is not yet live, but even at this stage there is a glaring omission—the pension credit is not mentioned anywhere at all. Given that, over time, 50 to 80 per cent of all pensioners will be in receipt of pension credit, that is a huge omission.
It is on details such as this about the interface between state and private pensions that an overall policy of increasing the age at which the basic state pension is paid, and supporting employers in maintaining older people in employment, will rest or fall. It is the nitty gritty, but it is important.
As we are debating this issue today, I should like to ask the Minister this question. In a recent survey, one in four people expressed the hope that they would retire to Spain. Can the Minister say whether the calculations will be done in euros or in sterling?
There are other elements of the Bill to which we give a cautious welcome. We are very pleased with some of the proposals on providing information and advice to employees. However, we think that the Government's rigidity in relation to member-nominated trustees is too limiting. We think that the proposal to have only one means that in any scheme a choice between having a member-nominated trustee who is a member of staff and who is not retired, or having someone who is retired, will have to be made. It would be rather difficult for a person in either of those two categories to adequately represent the interests of the others.
Many noble Lords have referred to the financial assistance scheme. I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, how did the Government arrive at the figure of £400 million?Is it a political calculation that £20 million per annum over 20 years is all that the Treasury is willing to stand? Or is it a DWP actuarially-based calculation that the average compensation payment of £340 is adequate to make up the losses of those people who have lost defined benefit
432
pensions? Furthermore, did the calculation take into account that while some of the beneficiaries of the assistance scheme have already retired and are facing a very bleak retirement, some of them are only in their twenties? I think that will make a huge difference to the way in which the assistance scheme will work.
I agree with others that the question of annuities will not go away. It has been ducked in the Bill. We need to go back and look at it again—and we need to do so now, well before the forthcoming debate on compulsion, which, if I am right, will come after the general election.
We are all agreed on the scale of the pensions crisis. We are all agreed about the need to encourage employers and employees to have faith in the pensions system and to increase their contributions. We are all agreed that one of the major factors which is a bar to employers and to individuals is the lack of knowledge and certainty, as well as the lack of ability to figure out what the financial position for individuals will be in the future.
We would be unrealistic if we thought that we could magically provide people with accurate predictions of the financial position either in macro terms or at the individual level. But there is one thing, above all, that we must do. We must preserve as far as possible the reputation of Parliament and the Government as the honest broker—perhaps the only honest broker left in the pensions field.
The worst thing would be to overspin or oversell the measures in the Bill. I think we are all agreed that they make a valid contribution to a difficult problem. With detailed study and consideration on a non-partisan basis, the measures could be made a great deal better by the time the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
2.41 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I begin by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, not about sex or the pensions gamble, but in congratulating all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on what is, without doubt, the major Bill of the Session and, arguably, the decade. The expertise exhibited in this debate, usually technically based, goes to show why we will always need a House of Lords or some other appointed advisory body to the government of the day.
I referred to technically based expertise. Nothing was more technical than the comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt on his findings on the LPI; they were so technical that it will take me about three weeks—well into the Committee stage—to understand them, complete with a cold towel around my head.
I should like to single out my noble friend Lord Trenchard—whom I have come to think of as my noble friend Lord re-Trenchard—and his current working experience in the financial sector. It is sometimes a great relief to have people in this Chamber who have careers at which they are still actively working.

433
Perhaps I should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who did her best to summarise the Bill. Quite clearly, someone in her department must have at least a Masters degree in the art of précis.
The amount of money a person has to live on in retirement is probably the most fundamental worry of the population as a whole. It used to be something that exercised people's minds only in the last 10 to 15 years of their working life. Today, however, I find young people of my children's age beginning to worry, and they are keen, once they are settled into a job, to join the firm's—or, in some cases, the charity's—pension scheme. They now have a different worry. They read the newspapers and see stories of schemes not paying out as promised, with some of them going into gross deficit. That is what the Bill is all about.
I referred to people having settled down in a job, and I said this advisedly. Although the portability of pensions has been the law in this area for many years, introduced, if memory serves me right, by my noble friend Lord Fowler, employees cannot take less than two years' pension entitlement with them when they transfer to a new job. That is one subject not covered in this massive Bill, nor is the desperately needed reform of state pensions, barring a minor bit of fiddling with the age extension. You are currently able to get an enhanced state pension when you retire at least one year after normal retirement age. This is more generous than heretofore and of course we all welcome it. However, for the first time ever, if you extend your working life and continue to pay into the state pension scheme, you will be eligible for a lump sum instead.
I have to admit that I am agnostic about this proposal. A state pension has always been there to support you at a basic weekly level in your declining years. Today's workforce pays for today's pensioners. Surely the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, can see that people are living longer and that the birth rate is declining. From the Treasury's point of view, it is a good thing not to pay enhanced weekly pensions, as it no doubt is from the contributors' point of view, too. But for the pensioners, it is a temptation to spend on one last binge. It does not provide a more comfortable living to the end of your life. The thoughtful, or healthy, pensioner would be mad, I believe, to take it up.
The Bill does not tackle the state pensions crisis, which has been caused, to a great extent, by the Government. I was brought up in the days of Flanders and Swann. At one point in one of their shows they discuss the signs of the zodiac. Michael Flanders turns to Donald Swann and asks him his star sign: "Oh, Pisces are you? Two fish swimming in opposite directions". That is exactly how I would describe the Government's policy on state, personal and occupational pensions.
To put flesh on a remark made by my noble friend Lord Higgins with which the Minister indicated profound disagreement, on the one hand the Government, in the shape of the Treasury, are encouraging people to save for their retirement; on the other, they have come up with the minimum income
434
guarantee or, in this case, the pensioner guarantee—a means-tested top-up for pensioners. Means-testing, by definition, is a disincentive to saving. If that is not Piscean, I do not know what is. Yet nothing in the Bill even attempts to sort out the problem.
Occupational and personal pensions policy is equally Piscean. In the heady days of the 1980s, the pensions industry, thanks to a bubbling stock exchange and, indeed, prior contributions by employers, was awash with money, so much so that many firms were able to take pensions holidays. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, my old sparring partner, referred to that. Not so now, when many schemes are underfunded, and new final salary schemes are as rare as hens' teeth.
Nor does the Bill encourage schemes to be reopened, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out, due mainly to a period of declining stock market values. The FTSE 100 has gone from the high 6,000s to the low to mid-4,000s. Of course, the Minister will say that this is a cyclical phenomenon, and so, to an extent, it is. But the Government have done their part to keep the Stock Exchange depressed. Probably the worst and most damaging of their stealth taxes is the Chancellor's decision to milk the pensions industry of between £4 billion to £5 billion a year for the past six years. That is at least £25 million that the industry no longer has to invest, which would have been done mainly on the Stock Exchange. So over and above cyclical factors, there is the extra depression of the Stock Exchange. On the one hand, there is extra money for public services and, on the other, there is a limitation to the portfolios of the pension funds. This is their members' money—members who have votes at national and local elections, and who will, thanks to medical science, be needing the funds more and more, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, reminded us, as they will be living longer and longer. Again, I find this Piscean.
Then there is the much mentioned anomaly of 75 year-olds having to take out an annuity by law. Contrast that with the new state pension lump sum. Like my noble friend Lord Freeman, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for providing not only the copious notes on clauses, about which I was so rude when she introduced her first Government Bill, but the additional briefing for Peers, which I assume many of your Lordships have seen. I am afraid that I have not yet assimilated volume 2, which appeared on my desk only this morning. However, Section 2 of volume 1 is a rundown of the current situation for holders of pensions. I zeroed in immediately on the first sentence, which says that,
"57 per cent of all employees of working age are currently contributing to a non-state pension".
That, to me, is a rather meaningless statistic It means, first, that 43 per cent are not so contributing and, secondly, there is no indication of what it really means. How many actual employees are we talking about? It goes on to say that,
"98 per cent of private sector employers with 20 or more employees provide some form of pension provision"

435
That sounds marvellous until one realises that some form of pension provision incorporates the good, the bad and the ugly. Not only that, but it quietly ignores the many thousands of small companies that make up the vast bulk of the economy. Some, like my own, with four permanent employees, have indeed got pension schemes; but how many of them have not? After all, they are not compulsory—and many of the comments made by noble Lords have been about compulsion.
Even before my noble friend Lord Fowler first referred to the matter, I had in my notes the question pondering whether the time had come whether we should be thinking about the matter very hard indeed. I accept that it is much more radical than the ABI's suggestion for encouraging employer contributions. I wonder, too, in the light of the concluding remarks of my noble friend Lord Hunt, whether it is rather hard for him to stomach. Certainly it would take a lot of working out.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, believes that after the next election there will be just such a Bill. However, I believe that any government who introduced it would have difficulty rebutting the charge that it was yet another stealth tax. The only way in which to avoid that would be to have a reduction in state contributions to the state scheme. In the current scenario that is not very likely.
The first 100 clauses and four schedules and Part 2 are really there just because of the bad and the ugly. The brief for Peers explains the differences between IT and OPRA, which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, described as a proactive regulator. I certainly accept the need for that, but we shall need to investigate in Committee its modus operandi. On the face of it, the regulator has powers that are so draconian as to put them somewhere between those of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. No wonder we need a tribunal!
I would add that it is essential for all public bodies involved in pensions to sing from the same hymn sheet. I refer in particular to the Inland Revenue, the FSA, the new regulator, the PPF and the multitude of ombudsmen in this area. We do not want a repeat of the horrific story in a recent copy of the Financial Times, which started:
"Hundreds of wealthy investors are set to lose millions of pounds after misleading advice from government institutions led them to breach investment rules".
I accept that some of that is journalistic hype; none the less, the fact remains that the rules are not always known by all the official bodies involved.
In its current form, the action permitted by the regulator will be the nail in the coffin of final salary schemes—a point made by many noble Lords. Of course, I welcome the PPF and the last minute addition of the financial assistance scheme. Cynics such as me believe that we would not be discussing the Bill now had it not incorporated the latter. Details are as yet very vague, and I look forward to investigating it and establishing how the PPF will cope with having to run what appears to be a myriad of expired pension
436
schemes, all of which will probably have different scheme rules and members' rights. How will the regulator's colleagues cope, and how will we know that they are to be competent?
My copy of the Bill is littered with comments such as those. I anticipate that those three subjects alone will take more than three days in Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, it will be days and days more before we are finished with the Bill.
For example, like my noble friend Lord MacGregor, we have serious reservations about the financial assistance or compensation scheme, which the Government introduced on Report. It is fine in theory, but what about the practice? Since the Government introduced the scheme, innumerable questions have surfaced, such as that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. How was the figure of £400 million reached? Is there scope for the extension of that sum, should it be needed? How will it be divided between 60,000 pensioners over a 20-year period? My noble friend Lord Trenchard is right: what basis is there for the mention of "contributions from industry", and how will that by encouraged and structured? Why are solvent wind-ups excluded? Clause 274 is open-ended and dangerously undetailed; we shall certainly table amendments to probe those issues.
Our second concern is with the PPF itself. We welcome the fact that there will be some form of protection and compensation for those who lose their pensions through no fault of their own. The Government have been aware of the problem of the lack of security to people in the private sector to find benefit pension schemes for a very long time. But the PPF that they have proposed have several areas that are a cause of concern for employers and employees. It is not by any stretch of the imagination an assurance that an employee will be guaranteed a full pension.
To start with, there is the cap on non-pensioners of 90 per cent, as well as caps on other amounts; there is a lack of detail about how money will actually be distributed; there are concerns about fiddling with indexation with the reduction from 5 per cent to 2.5 per cent; and, lastly, there is the reserve power for the Secretary of State to cut benefits anyway. There is likely to be less money available under the PPF than the Government imply, and the Government are not prepared to underwrite the scheme if it proves under-funded or in crisis. As my noble friend Lord MacGregor said, that is inconsistent when the primary duty of government is to provide the basic floor of insurance for the citizen. In Committee, we shall certainly press the Government to justify some of those important areas.
Thirdly, and in conjunction with the previous point, there is serious concern about the flat-rate levy and the transition to risk-based payments. We have all had considerable representations from organisations which insist that the levy must be risk-based from day one, irrespective of the demands of the triennial cycle which has been used to justify a delay until perhaps 2009 for all contributors to be on a risk-based levy.

437
My fourth point deals with the anti-avoidance provisions introduced during proceedings in another place. Clearly there is merit in have provisions for anti-avoidance, but there have been frantic representations from the CBI, NAPF and the venture capital industry about the potentially disastrous effects of Clause 35 and the dumping of liability. This is something which has not yet been scrutinised and I am sure that we shall consider the matter very carefully.
Time is getting on, and I have covered just a few of our principal concerns. There are many more which have cropped up during today's debate and which I do not have time now to mention in detail but which include the new requirements for trustees. I agree with those noble Lords who fear that the provisions will seriously deter individuals from becoming trustees.
I finish by reiterating that our primary concern with the Bill is that it does nothing to encourage employers to set up or continue their occupational pensions schemes. In a recent survey of their members, the Association of Consulting Actuaries reported that a majority of firms feel the measures in the Bill will decrease occupational pension scheme coverage; fewer than one in 10 firms feels that the measures will improve pension coverage; close to nine out of 10 firms say the Bill's measures will either add to costs or make no difference. Those who have to work with the new provisions in the Bill for pensions have no confidence in the fact that the new proposals for pensions will be workable.
All that I can say is that the Government have delivered a less than watertight Bill on the sensitive issue of pensions. We owe it to everyone to do all that we can in Committee and on Report to rectify that situation and work to improve the Bill as much as possible.
3 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I reckon that about 150 queries have been raised in the course of the debate. By definition, I can reply to about 10 or 12 of them, so, as usual, I shall write to noble Lords about the queries that I am not able to address today due to the pressure of time.
I open by endorsing the comments of my noble friend Lady Dean about the importance of pensions and by picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we can see pensions as being an expert gamble or an issue of trust. What we are trying to do in the Bill is to turn it from the first into the second. I agree with all noble Lords who said that the test of the adequacy of the Bill is the degree to which it addresses the issues present on the pensions scene.
I do not want to repeat what was said by many noble Lords about the dimensions of the current pension situation. The fall of the stock market—or I should say its volatility, as it has risen a little—and its concurrence with the fall in long-term interest rates has had a depressing effect. This is a rare event that has not happened since the inter-war years. There is also the rise in longevity. I also wish to endorse the points made
438
by my noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Greengross about the long-term impact of the contributions holiday from 1987 onwards. It has accounted for something around 30 per cent of the current deficit in pension funding and actuaries now tell us that it was probably unnecessary in terms of the 105 per cent cap. It was used to prop up corporate returns.
I shall be very brief on the final issue before turning to the particulars of the Bill. The Benches opposite insisted that what the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, called "the £5 billion ACT raid" contributed to the pension scenario that we now face. It was not £5 billion, it was probably £3.5 billion and it was not ACT, which is a form of payments on account, but was payable tax dividends. We all know that pension funds pay no tax. Until 1997, they were gaining a 25 per cent additional payment, or tax credit, to reflect the fact that companies already paid corporation tax.
That meant that there was pressure on companies to increase their dividends, which might not be prudent, to gain the "freebie" of a payable tax credit. It also meant that by reducing corporation tax by £3.5 billion, the lowest in Europe, which the Chancellor did, companies were in a much healthier position to pay dividends, which is more appropriate. But in any case, pension funds are not taxpayers and I do not see why there should be an additional notional tax paid refund on top when pensions are already heavily tax privileged on the way in and on the way out compared to all other forms of savings, which are not only taxed, but are also often double taxed, as with building society accounts.
Therefore, I simply do not accept the description of the role of ACT. I quite understand that pension funds would like a 25 per cent freebie on top of paying no tax at all. However, if one does not accept that that is legitimate, except in so far as it artificially enhances the value of funds, I hope noble Lords will agree that reducing corporation tax and strengthening companies is a much healthier way to grow dividends for the future.
I turn to today's debate. The contributions were made in three parts, rather like Gaul. The first were the sections of speeches that welcomed contributions in the Bill. I regret to say that that will comprise the shortest part of my speech this afternoon. The second included issues that aroused disquiet—for example, PPF, focus on business, trustees and some smaller points which I shall mention if I have time for them. Finally, I shall comment in response to some of the wider issues raised by your Lordships about what is missing from the Bill. I shall deal with what was welcomed; then with what seems to have aroused particular disquiet to see whether I can address some of the concerns; and then make some broader comments on what is missing from the Bill.
Those elements that were welcomed included scheme-specific funding. I am pleased, as it has been widely welcomed across the industry. A pension regulator with teeth was pretty much welcomed. There were some questions about its structure, based on the

439
Higgs report of last year, and whether it will have an advisory committee. It will certainly need professional advice and will expect to make use of the expert risk panels that currently exist. In the briefing pack, there is information about parliamentary control and annual reports to Parliament. Some questions were raised about investment strategy. We expect it to be in the public domain but I do not think that it is appropriate for Parliament to control investment strategy any more than we would now expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take back control of interest rate policy from the Bank of England. There are plenty of accounting devices from the determinations panel to the independent tribunal, which will bring the pension regulator into proper control. The regulator has been welcomed, particularly by my noble friends Lady Dean and Lord Borrie. OPRA did good work but it needs strengthening and it is the first to recognise that. The additional weapons that the pension regulator will have and its capacity to assess risk will secure the position of funds before they come to topple-over point of possibly going into PPF.
There was quite a lot of welcome for state pension deferrals and the alternative of the lump sum. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked who would benefit from it. Our current information on deferrals is that most people who take deferrals are not the wealthy who can afford to carry on but tend to be women who, because of the discrepancy in retirement ages, tend to carry on working for a couple of years longer than basic state pension age in order to make their retirements coincide with those of their husbands, whose retirement age is later. These patterns of behaviour may change with lump sums and the like but, so far, it is certainly clear that deferral and the lump sums will be very largely appreciated by the lower paid and often by women.
In his comments, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, welcomed our proposal to reduce indexation on DC schemes. He asked me to be brave and bold. My opening speech included the comment that we will remove indexation from money purchase arrangements back to 1997 by an amendment in Committee. We actually believe that by amendment or regulation we may be able to go further and remove all indexation of protected rights of money purchase schemes back to the beginning of personal pensions in 1988. I think that the equivalent of bouquets are being thrown in the direction if not of me, of the Box. I hope that that will be a significant simplification on the one hand and an increase in choice for those turning money purchase pots into annuities on the other. I hope that I can live up to the outline here. That is an important announcement and I am happy to make it today.
Pension forecasting and informed choice was also welcomed, as was CETV, about which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was concerned. Clause 253 will show that people who have them can go for immediate vesting instead of having, as now, to wait for two years. This is of importance to mobile people and to women.
440
Those were the matters that were welcomed. We now come to the much more substantial section about which there was disquiet in your Lordships' House today. The three matters that I want to address in particular are the PPF; the burdens on business issue, that is the costs issue which brings up LPI; and some of the issues on trustees raised, in particular, by my noble friends. Those are the big issues, although there were some smaller ones.
I was asked whether PPF was a pension scheme or an insurance scheme. It is a compensation scheme. In response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about what it will cover, it will, broadly speaking, produce up to 100 per cent for existing pensions and 90 per cent for deferred pensions of the benefits that have accrued in the schemes of which people were originally members. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will recognise, that situation is no different from any other deferred pension when moving jobs and leaving behind rights.
There was a lot of concern about the risk-related levy. I entirely accept that it is important in order not to produce the problem of the last man standing. I accept that it will be technically complicated and that it will have to be built with consent. That is why there is the roll-out period. We are trying to get it right and get it fast and there is obviously tension between those two objectives.
However, we expect that, after year one, we will be able to go into the risk-related roll out. Companies will be able to bring themselves into the risk-related levy earlier than the usual revaluation, if they so wish. We will not be setting down the formula, but our expectation is that at the point of "maturity" of the roll-out process the PPF could be shaping its levy so that 80 per cent of it is risk related and 20 per cent is flat rate, which is almost opposite to the position in the United States.
That brings me to a point on the United States to which there are a couple of cross-references—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the point she was just on, I just wanted to say that much of the risk on roll-out involves the company becoming insolvent. That does not need to be delayed over a long period. The other aspect of it is based on the valuation of the assets. However, many pension schemes, including the one with which I was involved, do evaluations other than in the three-year period. So there is no real reason why it needs to be staggered over such a long time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am perfectly happy to take this away and see whether we can expedite it. However, in consultation with the industry, we believe that people are most comfortable with this timetable. I nevertheless take the point: if we can expedite it, we should.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned consultation with the

441
industry. That is certainly not what the National Association of Pension Funds believes. I think that that is very important.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, whatever the National Association of Pension Funds believes is important, but whether its belief is correct is another matter. The point that I am making, as noble Lords will see in their briefing packs, is that sophisticated companies that have the sort of assessments to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, refers can bring themselves into the valuation procedure ahead of the triannual valuations. Therefore, companies are not forced to remain towards the end of the period; they can bring themselves forward if they wish. That option is available to them.
I should like to make one point on the USA comparison that has been made and the possibility that that presages bad news. The fact is that in the United States the levy is set by Congress. The levy has not been increased since 1991, not even to deal with inflation—despite inflation and market instability. It is also worth emphasising that the 10 largest claims in the United States amounted to two thirds of the liability. Five of those were steel, four were airline companies and the other was Polaroid. The situation is not the same as that in the UK.
I was pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, on whether the Government should stand behind the PPF, and to say what sort of scheme it is if the Government will not stand as its guarantor. We are seeking to ensure that marginal companies are not encouraged to enter into what we would all accept is moral hazard behaviour because they know that the Government will stand as guarantor. I believe that there is a similarity to the case of asbestos. If companies knew that the Government would pick up the bill for every asbestos claim, what inducement would they have to improve their health and safety practices in relation to asbestos? That is the point. If we want companies to produce the best possible standards, they themselves will have to act as their own moral policemen across the industry. If the Government picked up the bill, we could be sure that individual companies would not. That is not the way in which to go forward with a pension protection fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked about the moral hazard of bad companies. We have tried to build out that hazard. I do not think that I have the time to go into the detail, but, basically, for companies to come under the scheme, they will have to be insolvent and the scheme will have to be underfunded. If the company is insolvent but the scheme is funded, it will be able to buy full annuities. Those are the tests. Without them, too many companies would seek to come within the PPF as a better buy purchase. That is exactly the sort of moral hazard we cannot afford to sustain.
On the adequacy of funding, I do not think we should confuse the nature of assets for funding with cash flow. The scheme will bring in assets from companies that are folding, however limited those
442
assets may be. It will also have the levy and, ultimately, the power to raise loans. That £300 million a year will be over the lifetime of the fund, in contrast to the financial assistance scheme, which is £400 million over 20 years.
My noble friend Lord Borrie very effectively addressed most of the points on the financial assistance scheme. We could not have made the PPF retrospective; that would not have been fair. If one had gone for unclaimed assets—one of those siren calls—one would have had to raid privately owned assets, which would have been questionable. I also do not think that it would have been accepted as an additional levy on industry across the board.
I believe, therefore, that members of those defaulting schemes have nowhere else in these particular circumstances to go for compensation. Compensation it will not be; but assistance, at least, it will be. The Government have no legal liability, but we do accept a moral argument here about decency. That is why we have tried to assist as we are doing. I shall have to ask the House to indulge me until I can provide further details. We will be publishing our best statistics as soon as we can.
The second big concern was on the cost-savings ratio and, in particular, whether the amount of savings generated by the reduction in LPI would be sufficient to cover the costs of things such as the levy. I realise that time is pressing, but perhaps I should spend a moment on this issue.
At present, although we expect inflation to run at 2.5 per cent, with a tolerance over time of about 1.5 per cent on either side, companies nevertheless have to hedge against the possibility of paying up to 5 per cent indexation each year. The GAD has calculated that this will reduce the cost of indexation from about 23 per cent of total contributions to 19 per cent of total contributions—the 4 per cent, multiplied by the £12 billion of employers' contribution, brings us down to £480 million, and 75 per cent take-up of that is £370 million. That is how we reach the sum which the RIA says industry should be saved. Within that, industry can offset the cost of what are, I think, the quite modest charges on the pension protection fund. We expect the average levy to be about £20 per member—not a sum that I would think would determine the solvency or otherwise of schemes.
My noble friend Lady Turner asked about the downside for people denied as a result of price indexation. It is true that over time the total loss for men and women in the schemes may be about 2 per cent over the course of their retirement.
The first big issue was about the pension protection fund and the second about costs and savings, in particular the costings behind the LPI reductions and the way in which they generated the savings necessary for the fund. I think the third issue is the absolutely legitimate views and concerns about the role of trustees and whether they will be overburdened. That issue was raised by my noble friends and by the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord MacGregor, and other noble Lords. There are three points. First,

443
trustees already need knowledge and understanding, and the best trustees are already compliant. I have full figures showing that about 80 per cent of companies and 95 per cent of mixed schemes already send their trustees for training. That already happens; whether that is enough training is another matter, but it is happening.
Secondly, the provisions say "relevant knowledge and understanding". We do not expect people to be legally qualified, but we do expect trustees in future to have a good basic understanding of the major issues including funding and investment.
Thirdly, the regulator's approach will be educative, not punitive, with a code of practice offering advice on how trustees can attain the relevant knowledge and understanding. I have put some relevant information in the pack and I am happy to send noble Lords additional information about the sort of trustee training we would expect companies to ensure they receive to discharge their duties. The issue of when a trustee should be paid, raised by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, is open to the individual funds to determine as they consider appropriate. We would not wish to legislate at this point on the subject.
Moving from those three big issues, I was pressed by several noble Lords on the Benches opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I think, and the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord MacGregor—on Clauses 35, 36 and 39 and the CBI's concerns that the moral hazard provisions are too widely drawn.
It may be worth my putting a few remarks on the record which I hope will be of some assurance. The CBI supports the proposals in principle. The clauses have to be wide to ensure that the regulator can effectively tackle avoidance, but the regulator will be able to act only where avoidance was the primary motive for a decision. The regulator will be able to issue a contribution notice under Clause 35 only where an act or failure to act was deliberate and designed to avoid pensions liabilities.
The regulator will be able to issue financial support directions only in prescribed circumstances. Those involved in business transactions, corporate restructuring or investments will be able to seek confirmation in advance that the regulator will not impose a contribution notice on them. Officials are working with industry to provide examples of how these new powers will work and how they will be exercised. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and others who have raised this issue will take some comfort from that.
My noble friend Lady Turner asked about OPRA. I have no reason to think that that body will not continue. It is a valuable body and I hope that it will continue. Points were raised about TUPE by one noble Lord. It might be better if I write to the noble Lord on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, referred to the Better Regulation Task Force. That body was consulted during the consultation on the Green Paper. However, I hope that the noble Lord will work with us if we need to improve the matter further.
444
The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, asked whether we could raise the issue of mis-selling on the retirement planner. We do not seek to give financial advice but information from which people will be able to make their own deductions. However, I take the "fair cop" point about pension credit; that was well made. I shall find out why that is not included. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, also referred to the plain English technical provisions. The term "technical provisions" is used in the EU directive. It requires schemes to have appropriate assets to cover technical provisions and to put a recovery plan in place. We understand that to mean the amount of assets a scheme needs to hold now on the basis of the actuarial method and assumptions used in order to pay its accrued pension commitments as they fall due in the future. In calculating this amount the scheme actuary will be required to use assumptions about factors such as future investment returns and life expectancy that have been chosen prudently. If we can enlarge on that in correspondence which I shall circulate to your Lordships, I am happy to do so. Given the time that is available to me, that seems to be the most helpful thing I can say.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked about the Armed Forces Bill. So far as I understand it, the Armed Forces pension fund is unfunded. Unfunded schemes do not come within the remit of this Bill. Therefore, his concerns should not be raised in this context.
Various accusations were made regarding what was not in the Bill. The four big ones concerned annuities, compulsion, state pension age and the reshaping of state pensions. Strong arguments were advanced today by noble Lords on all sides of the House, which I respect, about the role of annuities and about the degree to which taking them at the age of 75 could be seen as discouraging oversaving, which is what you might want people to do when they are younger. However, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that it is not a problem that affects many people. To float off the amount of money you would need to protect yourself against income related benefits and so on, you would probably need at least £100,000. The average pension annuity is only about £25,000. Some 95 per cent of people draw their annuities now before the age of 70. There is no reason to think that they seek or need extended choice.
I accept—the point was well made by my noble friend Lady Dean—that with increasing movement towards DC schemes, this will be an increasing and not a diminishing issue. However, at the end of the day, I ask your Lordships to consider what you are arguing and whether you are willing to strip away all tax privileges and the like; that is, that people should have the right to be able to save through their pensions to gain the tax concessions without any of the constraints to ensure that that money is spent on pensions. There is nothing to stop everyone of us in this House tonight saving for our old age in any other way we see fit without necessarily expecting a cross-subsidy from other people possibly less well off than ourselves in the form of tax privileged entry into pension annuities.

445
As I say, there may be other issues that we can take up in future debates, but essentially the reason people do not wish to defer the measure until the age of 75 is because they wish to be able to pass on a tax privileged asset to their heirs. They can save in other formats but those do not enjoy the tax privileges that people currently enjoy with annuities.
I am sure that we shall revisit the issue of compulsion. The climate is changing on that matter. I do not think that live years ago we would have heard the arguments that we heard today. We await the report of Adair Turner. The debate on that matter, rather like the debate on annuities, will not go away and will increase in significance and importance over the next couple of years, as my noble friend Lord Lea said.
Accusations were made that we are not reforming the whole of the state pension system. I plead guilty to that. We are not reforming the whole of the state pension system, nor are we raising the state pension age. That would bear too unfairly on the poorest people in the poorest jobs who have the lowest life expectancy. Two-thirds of men and a half of women have already left the labour market before they reach basic state pension age now. The issue is to keep them in work in their 50s and 60s, not to extend their working years longer still. I ask noble Lords not to press that matter further.
We all share the objectives of security, stability and the building up of trust. We all accept that the Bill will need, and will incur, scrutiny. I emphasise that it has emerged after elaborate consultation exercises and that the regulations that will flesh out so much of the detail of the Bill will in turn be subject to consultation. The debate will not end with the completion of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House before the Queen's Speech. I appreciate that your Lordships have been grateful for the additional information that the officials produced. It involved a lot of work. I am glad that noble Lords opposite and my noble friends thought that that was a worthwhile exercise. We are all in this together trying to ensure that we build a better basis for the health of occupational pensions in the future.
Like others, I am appreciative of the courteous nature of the debate and the respect for information. Like everyone else, I am confident that together we shall ensure that the Bill will leave this House, if not changed, at least to your Lordships' satisfaction.
On Question, Bill read a second time.

Multiple Sclerosis
3.27 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the risk-sharing scheme, designed to allow eligible patients with multiple sclerosis to have access to beta interferon and glatiramer acetate in controlled trials, is working satisfactorily.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I need not, I think, spend too much time setting out the background to my Question, but a few words of introduction may help.
In 1999 the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to appraise beta interferon and glatiramer acetate as treatments for multiple sclerosis. NICE concluded in July 2000 that routine use of these treatments could not be recommended, but following a reappraisal, it issued guidance in early 2002 that confirmed that the therapies were clinically effective for certain groups of patients but that sufficient evidence of long-term cost effectiveness was lacking. Shortly after this, the Department of Health announced the MS risk-sharing scheme. This is a scheme whose aims are to enable all eligible MS patients—that is to say, patients who meet the guidelines of the Association of British Neurologists—to receive treatment with disease modifying drugs and for the NHS to acquire these drugs in a manner which could be considered cost effective.
I am sure I was not alone in my utter dismay at the NICE determination in 2002. Nevertheless, the risk-sharing scheme seemed to me then, as it does now, a brave and welcome move by the Government to try to square the circle. The targets set under the scheme were for between 7,500 and 9,000 eligible patients to receive treatment with disease modifying therapies by November 2003, with 5,500 to 7,000 in the formal monitoring cohort. Clinical trials of their very nature last only two to three years, which means that the long-term benefits of MS treatments cannot be discerned with any accuracy from such trials. MS evolves over decades and it is therefore reasonable to evaluate the costs and benefits of the treatments over a period of 10 to 20 years. Any shorter period than that and we run the serious risk of failing to uncover possible long-term benefits. Also, the cost-effectiveness of the drugs will appear to be commensurately lower.
The risk-sharing scheme therefore represented a huge opportunity not just to demonstrate the long-term benefits of these therapies but to help real patients. The international comparisons are stark. In 2002, the proportion of MS patients in the UK receiving disease-modifying therapies was 6 per cent. In the EU as a whole, the figure was 28 per cent and in the United States it was 46 per cent. One of the looked-for benefits of the scheme was to redress that imbalance.
Unfortunately, the whole process got off to a very slow start. In many areas there was simply no infrastructure to get it off the ground—clinic space, administrative support and appropriately qualified clinicians and nurses were simply absent. There was a large backlog of patients to assess, and quite a number of PCTs did not have a precise idea of how many patients there actually were. Even one year into the scheme, many qualifying patients were still waiting for the drugs to which they were entitled.
The main reasons were stretched PCT budgets; systems that had not really been well prepared to cope with administering the scheme; and over-burdened

447
neurologists struggling to keep up with the workload. However, by late 2003 progress had been made. At the end of October, about 7,000 patients were being treated with a disease-modifying therapy—some 500 below the original target. Nevertheless, more than 3,000 people had been enrolled into the scheme over the 18 months from May 2002. Fifty-three new specialist nurse posts had been created, and there were 65 prescribing centres for multiple sclerosis around the UK, since increased to 67. All that is positive, but it really is not positive enough.
We are now more than two years into the scheme. After this length of time, we really would expect to see it working in the way that everyone had been hoping for, but I am sorry to say that it is not. The scheme was the subject of a formal ministerial direction. It is therefore mandatory. The detail of the scheme has the status of NICE guidance. Dedicated funding was made available to PCTs to implement it. Despite this, it is clear that many PCTs have relegated the scheme to a box marked "low priority".
Of the 67 prescribing centres, one—namely, Truro—is still not prescribing disease-modifying therapies at all. Of the rest, Aberdeen has not begun to recruit to the risk-sharing scheme, Leicester and Gloucester have stopped recruiting because of resource constraints, Swansea has not started, although it looks as though it may in the next couple of months, and North Staffordshire has a very long waiting list. Most serious of all is what appears to be a giant misunderstanding about the scheme targets. It is clear that some PCTs are under the mistaken impression that once the target for recruitment to the monitored cohort has been met—that involves 5,500 to 7,000 patients—the shutters can come down and no new patients need be given the therapies.
We understand from the Government that the patient number targets that were originally set are likely to be met later this year—about a year late. That target cannot be, and was never intended to be, the end of the story. This is a programme that places an obligation on PCTs to continue funding new access to treatment for 10 years. That obligation must be met for the sake of all MS patients.
One of the prime bottlenecks in rolling out the risk-sharing scheme is the chronic shortage of neurologists. In the UK, we have only one neurologist for every 177,000 people. In France, the ratio is four and a half times better—one in 38,000; in the Netherlands, it is nearly seven times better; and, in Denmark, it is eight times better. We are miles behind the bare minimum ratio recommended by the Association of British Neurologists of one in 80,000.
The key point here is that getting into the risk-sharing scheme in the first place depends on being seen and assessed by a neurologist. A lot of patients cannot get to see a neurologist at all. Someone in that position must resort to their GP, who almost certainly does not have any in-depth knowledge of MS and is unable to assess them for their eligibility to receive the therapies. The potential tragedy of the situation is this: should an MS patient suffer a significant delay in access to
448
treatment, he or she may be unable to benefit from it. The earlier we treat someone with MS, the more effective the treatment is. If someone suffers a progression of his disability, it may be irreversible, and the window of opportunity is lost. The risk-sharing scheme may have helped to iron out part of the postcode lottery of funding for drugs, but there is still a considerable regional variation in access to neurologists. In 2001, the Emergency Medicine Journal highlighted those wide regional differences.
In 2004, the percentage of MS patients in the UK receiving disease-modifying therapies is still only 8 per cent. In the EU as a whole, it is 35 per cent, and in the United States, it is 50 per cent. Let us, for the sake of simplicity, ignore the United States. What on earth can count as a satisfactory rationale for the gap between ourselves and the rest of the EU? There is no such rationale. The monster gap calls into question the estimates of the number of patients eligible for treatment under the ABN guidelines. It suggests that a great many more people might benefit from the therapies than actually receive them.
The European Parliament recently published a report on discriminatory treatment afforded to MS patients in the EU in consequence of a petition submitted by a UK citizen, Louise McVay. There are some pretty damning conclusions in that report, on which the Minister's comments would be welcome. On the UK, it says that the risk-sharing scheme,
"represented a big step forward though it has not managed to resolve the therapy-related problems experienced by the majority of MS sufferers even today".
It continues:
"the disparities between the types of care and support available are much too great both within and between the member states of the Union. This must be remedied by raising the level of care provided across the board, bringing about equality of access as a clear objective. With free movement of persons recognised as a binding principle of the Union, better provisions must be put in place to enable the disabled person, including MS sufferers, with equal rights to treatment in all EU states".
The denial of healthcare to people with disabilities is described in the report as,
"a fundamental breach of their human rights",
impacting,
"disastrously on an individual's ability to work, on his or her family life, freedom of movement and integration into society".
The designated therapies are recognised as making an "enormous difference" to sufferers and the enhancement of their lives. Securing best practice for equal access to therapies and treatments for people with MS should become a,
"principal objective to be obtained by all health authorities in the European Union".
In each member state, there should be,
"co-ordinated programmes designed in conjunction with the World Health Organisation".
What official comment does the Minister have on those conclusions?
We ought to be getting a regular progress report on the number of patients receiving MS therapies within the formal monitoring arrangements. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us what the current

449
number is and how many patients have started receiving treatment since the inception of the scheme. How many patients are on the waiting lists for formal assessment?
It is not good enough for the Department of Health to adopt a laissez-faire stance on regional variations. Strategic health authorities need to remind PCTs of their statutory responsibilities. Above all, they should stress that the risk-sharing scheme is not a clinical trial about the efficacy of MS therapies; rather it is a study aimed at reducing the uncertainty around previous estimates of their cost-effectiveness over the long term. What action does the department plan to take to ensure that, when the monitored cohort has been recruited, disease-modifying therapies continue to be prescribed under the scheme? That is vitally important. PCTs need to be made aware that the time has passed for the "wait and see how it goes" attitude before treatment is started.
This is not a low-priority matter in any sense. Real patients are suffering as a result of systemic blockages, inadequate resourcing and, I think, basic misunderstandings. That situation cannot and must not go on.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made a very powerful speech. He is to be congratulated, not only on giving us the background to some of the problems associated with the risk-sharing scheme, but on initiating the debate in the first place. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I go over some of the same ground covered by the noble Earl.
Around 85,000 people in the UK have MS. Fifty people, usually between the ages of 20 and 40, are diagnosed with the disease every week. MS is the most common disabling neurological disorder which affects young people in the UK. It affects three women for every two men. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has reminded us of the history of the issue, which he set out very clearly.
At the time of its publication, many of us expressed considerable criticism of the NICE cost-effectiveness appraisal, which was based on short-term data and short-term benefits. Many of us raised questions and continue to do so about the methodology used by NICE, which, in the case of glatiramer acetate and beta interferon, seems significantly in doubt. That is not the case in many of the other appraisals that NICE has carried out. The reason is that the benefits of disease-modifying therapies in MS stretch well beyond the short term. As the noble Earl described, it can take 20 years for the benefits to be taken fully into account. But the NICE methodology could not, or would not, take that into account. The noble Earl said that that was distressing; it was certainly distressing, and in some cases shocking.
Many of us appreciated very much the Government's rather creative approach when the risk-sharing scheme was set up. It was designed to allow
450
access to treatments, such as beta interferon and glatiramer acetate, despite the NICE appraisal not having accepted their cost-effectiveness.
As early as 2002, problems were identified with the scheme. I have been reminded that in autumn 2002 the MS Society and the MS Trust commissioned opinion leader research to gain an accurate picture of public health bodies' progress in implementing the MS risk-sharing scheme. They set out numerous issues and problems, not all of which, by any means, have been tackled in the mean time. That is the aspect on which many of us wish to probe the Government and call them to account. Having set up such a scheme, raised the hopes of so many MS suffers and, for the very best of motives, found a creative way round the lack of a positive NICE appraisal, it is incumbent on the Government to make jolly sure that, in the almost two years since the survey, they have tackled the problems.
In February last year an article published in the British Medical Journal put it in general terms. It stated:
"The scheme has several scientific and practical problems that we believe limit its ability to improve the care of patients in the long term".
That seems a fairly sweeping statement. Administrative problems, from serious staff shortages to confusion over how to deal with the backlog of patients in some areas, have plagued the scheme from the start. In some areas the scheme was significantly delayed, as we heard from the noble Earl, with some clinicians concerned that MS patients were suffering as a result. Waiting lists have been long, and, as we know, some patients are still waiting to clear them in a number of areas.
One of the key points that the noble Earl made was on the shortage of neurologists. The current figures for neurologist numbers are quite dramatic—one in 177,000, with a proposed modest increase, in an extremely cautious approach by the British Association of Neurologists, to one in 80,000. But, compared to the continental figures of one in 25,000 and one in 35,000, we have a second-rate situation that needs to be tackled. When an MS sufferer cannot access a neurologist within a certain amount of time, as the noble Earl pointed out, he or she may miss out on the risk-sharing scheme if the disease progresses.
The shortage of personnel contributes to regional variances in prescribing and in medical access, although one of the objectives of the risk-sharing scheme was to eliminate the postcode lottery. Access to specialist care is lacking; patients are dependent on GPs, who, despite their best efforts, are not equipped to handle all aspects of such cases and certainly do not have the specialist knowledge of a neurologist. Clearly, the scheme has stretched PCT budgets and processes, demonstrating in another setting how ill-equipped PCTs are to deal with conditions affecting relatively small percentages of the population. We debated specialised commissioning not too long ago. Even the Health Minister in another place, Mr Hutton, has admitted that specialised commissioning is not going

451
as well as it should in the current circumstances, with consortia of PCTs. The same is very true of the situation with PCTs and multiple sclerosis.
Many PCTs are treating MS as a low priority, although, as the noble Earl has pointed out, there is a mandatory requirement to fund medicines under the risk-sharing scheme. Funding levels also vary between regions, pointing continually to the problems with addressing specialist care at PCT level. It is clear that the PCTs are not treating specialist conditions as a priority.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave figures on the use of disease-modifying therapies. We have one of the lowest percentages in Europe. In other countries, 20 to 30 per cent of MS sufferers are on such treatments. The UK is well behind the curve on giving people access to those treatments. The importance of DMTs cannot be overstressed, because rather than purely managing MS, they tackle it, making a huge difference to patients' quality of life. The noble Earl graciously eliminated from his calculations the US, whose figures are staggering compared to those in this country. We are nowhere near the 10 per cent mark, and we have had two years' experience.
We have heard about the assessment centres. Yes, they have been set up, but we should ask why all of them are not prescribing DMTs. It seems quite extraordinary that Truro stands out as the lone exception that fails to prescribe.
Again, some PCTs seem to be under a misapprehension that once recruitment targets for the risk-sharing scheme are met they can stop recruiting new patients into the scheme, whereas of course they have an obligation to fund DMTs for 10 years.
I very much hope the Minister will address the single most important question to reassure MS sufferers and the patient organisations involved, that when recruitment to the monitored cohort has finished, which is likely I understand to be towards the end of the year, those PCTs which do prescribe will not cease doing so. That is a very important reassurance that the Minister can give in this debate.
Generally, the Department of Health and the NHS should be doing a much better job in getting the correct information to those at local level who are responsible for daily implementation of the risk-sharing schemes. Some PCTs still do not believe that they have an obligation to provide these treatments to all eligible patients and others are still under the impression that these treatments are not clinically effective.
It seems to me that the responsibility of getting the correct information to PCTs must be firmly laid at the door of the department and SHAs. It is very important that prescribing information and eligibility criteria needs to be communicated clearly to GPs and specialists responsible for prescribing, so that as many patients as possible can be offered access to these treatments.
To his great credit the noble Earl has been extremely consistent in raising these issues with the Government. I have in front of me the text of a Question he asked
452
exactly a year ago. The Government's response was that they did not hold precise details about how PCTs implement the scheme, and so on.
I hope that what the Minister has heard both from myself and the noble Earl will persuade her that the scheme is not going as well as it should. The noble Earl mentioned some significant progress that has been made, but of course that was all part of the essence of the scheme. Further progress needs to be made. I very much hope that the Minister can give us assurances that this very unsatisfactory situation will be improved.
I do not think that anyone denies that the Government were very imaginative in the way they set up the scheme, but they now really have a duty to make sure that it is properly implemented.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity to put on record some information on progress and for me to respond to some of the questions raised. The noble Earl has indeed been very persistent on this issue and it is right that we should be able to respond at regular intervals because this is an imaginative scheme, a ground-breaking scheme and very much, as he said, a major opportunity for MS sufferers. We very much see it as our duty to make sure that they receive all the benefits that the scheme is intended to provide for them.
Multiple Sclerosis is a particularly cruel disease. It can target young people and young mothers. It is unpredictable. It has the worst possible combination of features. For many years we have been thrashing around trying to find the right therapies. The opportunity provided by the gift of the drugs that are now licensed for the lapsing/remitting form of the disease is incredibly important. I am again very grateful to the noble Earl for rehearsing the history of the risk-sharing scheme.
I hope that I can address some specific concerns and talk about some other ways in which we believe that progress is being made. Admittedly there is a great deal of progress still to be made, but I believe that over the past few years we have made significant progress.
Four drugs are licensed—the three beta-interferon products (Avonex, Rebif and Betaferon) and glatiramer acetate (Copaxone). Clinical trials have shown that all these products reduce the frequency of relapses and may reduce their severity. Disability progression also appears to be delayed by treatment, but the longer term effects are not certain.
Betaferon was the first product to receive a licence, back in 1995. At the time there were differing views about the evidence from clinical trials. The then cost of around £10,000 per year per patient was high. The dismay to which the noble Earl referred was in part the result of the NICE judgment on cost-effectiveness, but it was against that background of very high cost. Resource implications were left for local assessment. Inevitably the result is variable decision making and what we now refer to as "postcode prescribing".

453
I understand that the petition brought by Louise McVay, reflected in the European Parliament's report of December 2003, had its origins in that sort of problem. As the noble Earl said, the risk-sharing scheme and associated developments are intended to address many of those concerns. He asked me whether I would agree with the statement that best practice for MS sufferers should be a principal objective of every scheme in every country. Of course I would agree with that. Indeed, I do not want to limit my remarks simply to the scheme, I want to describe some of the context and how best practice is being made more accessible and more universal.
Obviously, the key conclusion arrived at by NICE was that on the balance of clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness the treatments could not be recommended for universal treatment of MS in the NHS. However, it went on to recommend that the health department, together with the manufacturers, should consider how to obtain the medicines for the NHS in a cost-effective manner. That scheme was set out in the key circular 2002/004 which was issued widely across the NHS.
All four products are included in the scheme. All have evidence of short-term clinical effectiveness based on randomised controlled trials, but there remain major uncertainties whether these benefits are maintained over the longer term course of the disease. The scheme addresses this uncertainty by setting target outcomes for each product based on the assumptions that short-term benefits are: first, maintained for as long as treatment continues; and, secondly, retained after treatment ceases. Models have been developed which estimate how the drugs might work in the longer term. We need that evidence because, as the noble Earl said, if the drugs delay progression of disability, not only would there be a cost saving, but that is precisely what we want to achieve for MS sufferers. The longer we can keep people mobile and out of wheelchairs, the better. That is what we aim to do. So we have agreed costs to the NHS that could be considered cost-effective if the assumptions are fulfilled. Some prices were reduced to gain entry to the scheme. If outcomes fall short of targets, the scheme provides for further cost reductions "by results". I put that on the record because that is the detail of the scheme.
In terms of the methodology, a cohort of patients will be observed for up to 10 years. It is long-term monitoring, not a controlled trial. We expect that approximately 5,000 patients will form the core of the monitoring group. Their disability will have been assessed at the time treatment starts and be subject to annual assessment thereafter. At pre-determined intervals the outcomes will be analysed and compared to that projected by the model and to data recording the natural progression of the disease in the absence of any drug intervention. The first analysis will be undertaken when at least two years data are available for all patients in the monitoring cohort. On current progress we estimate that results from the first analysis will become available in late 2006. Subsequent
454
analyses will be undertaken at two-yearly intervals. One reason we cannot produce regular annual reports is that we do not have any findings yet.
The scheme has been launched with the full support of the key stakeholders, including the Association of British Neurologists and the MS Society. Both noble Lords talked about delays in the setting-up of the scheme. We have made a significant achievement, but it was held back because there were many practical problems to be overcome—we would not dispute that. Patient recruitment occurred at a slower pace than originally anticipated. The PCTs were just being set up, as were the specialist commissioning arrangements. We had to overcome some of the variability in the postcode lottery, and it has taken some parts of the NHS longer than others to resolve some of the complex staffing and funding issues. I shall talk about that in a while.
Since then, we have had 7 per cent increases per year in funding for the health service. The PCTs are settling down and learning how to do the best job, and now the scheme is seen as part of the NHS architecture. It is an extensive operation and is co-ordinated in a very sophisticated fashion. As the noble Earl said, 67 centres are participating in the study. It is significant that originally we thought that there would be only 30. The fact that there are 67 reflects that local authorities have wanted to have a centre. The centre that is not prescribing—Truro—is likely to start doing so soon.
The centres generally provide dedicated services for MS patients, including assessment and follow-up. More than 8,000 patients are now prescribed treatment. Of those, nearly 4,000 have consented to be monitored as part of the study. The figures can be confusing. Some patients are eligible for treatment—they are able to walk independently and have suffered two relapses over two years; those are the ABN criteria—but are not suitable for the monitoring cohort because their initial diagnosis occurred before the scheme was set up. We lack sufficient details about the extent of disability at the time of diagnosis. An example is young women taking treatment breaks to start families.
Newly diagnosed patients are generally suitable. If current recruitment to the monitoring cohort continues at the present rate of 200 a month, we will certainly achieve the 5,000 target over the autumn. I cannot give the noble Lord figures on patients waiting for assessment, but we genuinely do not think that the numbers are likely to be great. It is a significant measure of success that, before the scheme was started, there were constant complaints to the Department of Health, led by the MS Society itself, about failure to treat. I am assured that those complaints have virtually dried up and that the MS Society is closely involved in the scheme. It obviously seems happy with how things are going.
We will publish regular reports on progress as appropriate, but one problem that is that delays have occurred in reaching agreement with the participating companies on a method to validate the information on patient numbers. We believe that there is an element of

455
under-reporting. It would be very helpful if companies would agree to an exchange of data, which would allow us to know how much of their product they are selling so that we have a better idea of how many people are being treated.
Noble Lords have raised important issues about what has been described as the PCTs seeing the scheme coming to an end when the monitoring cohort is complete. Let me give total assurance on that. Eligible patients not included in the monitoring cohort will, as now, continue to be initiated into treatment under the scheme. Decisions about eligibility and initiation of treatment will continue to be made by specialist clinicians. There will be no artificial capping of the number of patients eligible for treatment, whether they are in the monitoring scheme or outside it. When the monitoring cohort is complete, PCTs will carry on prescribing just as they do now.
I take the argument made by the noble Lords that some PCTs may have missed that point; I do not know that. The matter will be closely watched. Strategic health authorities were mentioned; they have now all appointed lead officers to monitor performance, and we shall monitor the SHAs. We will certainly watch out on the subject of information or for any confusion, as it is clearly very important.
I want to comment on the international differences. Noble Lords are probably right that a great deal more of the therapy is available in other countries. It is difficult to make international comparisons about treatment regimes, because clinical practice alters. We may offer a different mix of therapies from other countries, so I caution against an easy comparison.
It is also worth recording that there have been major developments in dedicated MS services as a direct result of the scheme. I particularly want to pick out the investment that we have made in specialist nurses. The Department of Health is contributing £2.8 million over three years, starting in 2003–04. That is part of a partnership between government, manufacturers and the voluntary service. We estimate that there are now between 150 and 200 specialist nurses in the specialist centres, which is about three per centre. Obviously, that will contribute enormously to the overall quality of care.
Moreover, the Long Term Conditions Care Group is working to increase the number of neurologists. Consultant neurologists have increased by 49 per cent since 1997. There are still gaps, but I assure noble Lords that the Speciality Workforce Advisory Group has been reviewing the number of consultants on an annual basis, along with the professional groups. It has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient higher specialist trainees for there to be enough qualifying for consultant posts to meet estimated future demands.
I do not want to underestimate the problems that shortages create, but we are moving to a better position. Central funding has also been distributed to support the implementation of 10 additional specialist registrar posts. Because physiotherapists are so important in the mix of therapy that we offer, we are
456
also pleased to say that we now have 26 per cent more physiotherapists than in 1997. Physiotherapy training places have gone up by more than 1,000 in the same period. We have addressed the problem. The NSF on long-term conditions, which will be produced next year, will give us another opportunity to address the strategy and review the care offered. So will the modernisation agency, which is also looking, with DoH funding, at how to create better pathways and processes.
I shall end where we began—with NICE. In November 2003, NICE issued guidelines for the NHS on the management of MS in primary and secondary care. They focus on the quality and configuration of services. Essentially, they look at better ways to deliver care. The noble Earl raised the issue of early intervention and waiting lists. Key priorities are that referral to a neurologist should take no longer than six weeks, with a further six weeks for investigations to be completed. We are not at that point yet. We have articulated it; I have said that we are doing what we can to generate greater numbers. But it will be given momentum by the publication of the national service framework next year. Continued progress is very much dependent on co-operation and effective working partnerships and I believe that the risk sharing scheme very much represents that.
In summary, we are encouraged by progress. We take the points that the noble Lords have made. We will keep a close eye on the issues. Treatment is now widely available in accordance with ABN guidelines, where it was not before. The scheme has been the catalyst for major improvements in services. We are seeing successful recruitment into the key specialities and, as I have said, people seem to be much happier that they can rely on receiving the service that they need and which a few years ago they certainly were not receiving. I hope that, with the reservations that have been expressed, noble Lords will feel comforted by my response.

Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
4.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I declare an interest as an associate member of the Royal British Legion for the Lutterworth and District branch.
This small, but important Bill provides the essential legislative underpinning to allow the introduction of new pensions and compensation schemes for the Armed Forces. We need to modernise current arrangements to meet the evolving recruitment and retention needs of the Armed Forces and to respond to the concerns of existing personnel and of ex-service organisations.
As your Lordships will know, the new schemes have been developed after extensive consultation with serving personnel and with ex-service organisations.

457
We have listened and responded positively to criticisms from the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. Framework documents setting out the detail of both schemes have been published and placed in the Libraries of both Houses, along with documents explaining the new early departure payments scheme. We have, in short, provided a substantial amount of supporting and background material.
I recognise at once that it has taken a long time to develop these new arrangements. However, I consider the time has been well used. It has allowed us to explore and address the concerns of ex-service groups. It has ensured that the outcome properly responds to the views of service personnel and the needs of the Armed Forces. It has been necessary to address recent developments in the Government's wider agenda for pensions, which meant that the MoD's original pension proposals had to be substantially re-thought.
The new pension scheme comes in for new entrants from April 2005. It embraces the Government's wider pensions agenda in three respects.
First, it responds to the Government's move not to allow the payment of pension benefits before the age of 55 by replacing the immediate pension, paid currently at around the age of 40, with a system of compensation payments—the early departure payments scheme.
Secondly, we will defer the payment of preserved pensions from age 60 to 65 in both the new and current schemes, while protecting benefits already earned for those who choose to remain on the current scheme. This responds to the increased cost of people living longer, which all pension schemes are having to address. Scheme members elsewhere in the public and private sectors are contributing to meeting that cost and it is right that members of the Armed Forces should also do so.
Thirdly, by providing benefits for unmarried partners who can demonstrate that they are in a substantial relationship, the pension scheme recognises the wider changes in society and the lifestyle preferences of those who serve already and those we seek to recruit. This will include same-sex partners.
There was some criticism in the other place of the fact that the Bill gives the Secretary of State enabling powers to introduce the new schemes, but that there are no details of the two schemes included in it. I hope that I can reassure the House that this is the normal approach in these matters, consistent with that used for other public sector schemes, such as the police, fire and NHS schemes. In that respect, we see no reason to treat the Armed Forces any differently. Current arrangements have no formal parliamentary scrutiny. By contrast, under the new arrangements described in the Bill, the full scheme rules will be laid before both Houses in statutory instruments and be subject to the negative resolution procedure, giving Parliament the freedom to choose whether it wishes to debate the issues. Future changes will be dealt with in the same way.
We have responded positively to the real concerns that have been expressed by the Commons Defence Select Committee and by members of the Standing
458
Committee that Armed Forces personnel have no representative body to speak for their pension interests.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister for Veterans, Mr Caplin, announced on 30 April that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has agreed to provide external validation of the pensions scheme. The AFPRB will compare benefits offered by the Armed Forces Pension Scheme with those offered elsewhere and will consider the extent to which these arrangements meet the recruitment and retention needs of the Armed Forces. We believe that this work fits well within the AFPRB's existing remit to consider aspects of the remuneration package, of which pensions are clearly a significant element. The very high regard in which the AFPRB is held by all its stakeholders should give confidence to service personnel that their pension scheme provisions will continue to measure up to wider good practice.
I turn now, briefly, to the new schemes themselves, which are contained in Clause 1 of the Bill. The new pension scheme remains a defined benefit pension scheme, giving a high level of assurance to our personnel in their retirement or in the event of injury, ill health or death. It will be fairer than the current scheme, with benefits based on final pensionable pay and with common terms for officers and other ranks. Those are two important differences from the present position.
We believe that there are significant improvements to dependants' benefits: first, the death-in-service lump sum benefit is increased from up to one-and-a-half times pensionable pay to four times pensionable pay; secondly, full-career widows' and widowers' pensions are increased by 25 per cent, reflecting the particular demands of service life and their impact on a spouse's ability to earn a pension; thirdly, and I suggest significantly, widows will in future be able to keep their pensions for life on remarriage, whether or not the death is due to service; and, lastly, there is an extension of dependants' benefits to unmarried partners, including same-sex partners, where there is a substantial relationship.
Those changes reflect key concerns raised during consultation and address the need to make proper provision for those who are left behind when personnel die or are killed in service. I have already mentioned the new Early Departure Payments scheme, which replaces the immediate pension in the current scheme. The EDP is a unique and generous mid-career leaver's compensation scheme and will be paid to personnel aged 40 and above when they leave after at least 18 years' service with their excellent transferable skills. A minority of Armed Forces personnel leave at this stage, and, historically, the Immediate Pension has been an extremely expensive benefit for the relatively small numbers who receive it.
I can assure the House that the Armed Forces Chiefs of Staff are content that, although reduced in value, these payments will continue to support effectively their manning needs. Indeed, there is a concern that

459
the present arrangements lead too many people to leave at the mid-career point in a number of key skill areas.
Overall, the cost of the new pension scheme will be broadly the same as that of the current scheme, with the costs of better dependants' benefits and pensioners living longer broadly offset by a reduction in the value of payments for those leaving in mid-career and the delay of five years in the preserved pension age.
The pension scheme will be introduced for new entrants to the Armed Forces on 6 April 2005. Current members of the Armed Forces will be given the opportunity to transfer to the new scheme as soon as possible thereafter but by no later than 6 April 2007. That does not mean that they will be given up to two years to decide; in most cases, they should need no more than three months. If personnel were to be given much longer, it is possible that many would put the decision to one side and lose sight of the timescale.
Our current thinking—of course, we should be interested to hear what noble Lords have to say on this matter—is that the timetable will set a window for decisions of around nine months so that those who are on standard six-month operational deployments have at least three months on their return in which to take the decision, including time, of course, to discuss the issues with their family and, if necessary, with a financial adviser.
The decision to transfer will of course be entirely voluntary for each individual member. The Ministry of Defence will give individuals all the information necessary to allow them to make an informed choice. They will also be given sufficient time to allow them to discuss their decision with their families and, if they choose, with a financial adviser.
I turn briefly to the subject of the new compensation scheme, which will also be introduced from 6 April 2005, for death, ill health or injury resulting from service from that date. The arrangements will replace provisions under the war pensions scheme and benefits under the current pension scheme. I should make clear that the existing arrangements will continue for disablements or deaths due to service where the cause pre-dates 6 April 2005.
The existing war pension arrangements have their origins in the two world wars and are now, frankly, outdated and complex. The current standard of proof used in the war pensions scheme, "beyond reasonable doubt", was introduced in 1943. In fact, for World War I and for the first four years of the Second World War the scheme used tests based on "balance of probabilities", the standard of proof we propose to use in the new scheme. The standard was changed to the current "beyond reasonable doubt" because of the extreme circumstances of the time when it was considered important to be able to deal quickly with the very large numbers of casualties.
The social and medical environments are very different today. The proposed balance of probabilities standard of proof is widely accepted for other occupational schemes and, as noble Lords know, is
460
used in our civil courts. In my view, it is no longer possible to justify the current approach. In combination with the absence of any time limit for claiming, it does not allow evidence-based decision making, properly reflecting the circumstances of an illness, injury or death. The way in which disablement is assessed means that provision is not properly focused; specifically, there is inadequate provision for those who are more seriously disabled. We would be doing service personnel a disservice by perpetuating the current outdated arrangements.
The new scheme reflects modern medical understanding and current practice and thinking on disability. We believe that it is fair, transparent, simple to understand and offers consistent outcomes, with a better focus on the more severely disabled. Importantly, the scheme is evidence-based, with a proper requirement on the department to make available medical and other records that it holds which are relevant to a claim. The MoD accepts that it has an important responsibility in this area and that the burden of providing the evidence for a claim does not fall wholly on the individual. We are confident that no claim would fail where there was reasonable evidence that disablement was due to service. And, for those claimants who feel that they have not been dealt with fairly by the department, all this will be underwritten by an independent appeal process.
Unlike the current arrangements, there will be in-service lump sum awards for pain and suffering where a significant injury does not lead to invaliding from the Armed Forces. Benefits will be provided for dependants where deaths result from service and—as with the new pension scheme—these will be extended to include unmarried partners where there is a substantial relationship. There will be a normal time limit to claim of five years, with discretion to consider claims delayed by ill-health, and an exception for late-onset conditions.
The modernisation of the appeal process for compensation arrangements is the second major element of the Bill. In line with the recommendations of the Leggatt review, the Department for Constitutional Affairs proposes to change the path of appeals from decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal to include a new level of appeal on points of law to a social security commissioner, with a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Social security commissioners provide a simple and accessible system of justice. It is non-confrontational, low-cost and user-friendly. Individuals could represent themselves, if they chose to do so, but commissioners deal with most cases without the need for an oral hearing. I should also make it clear to the House that commissioners will be known as pensions appeal commissioners when hearing cases from service personnel which are appealed from the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. That will recognise the special status of Armed Forces personnel and distinguish their appeals from general matters of social security.
There is one final aspect of the Bill which I will mention briefly. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, a small charity which helps service

461
personnel and their dependants, needs to modernise its constitution and therefore simplify and reduce its administrative burden. We have agreed that the Bill can make provision for the legislative changes required. The Explanatory Notes give more background to that.
In conclusion, the new schemes are designed to be fairer, to reflect modern good practice and to meet the needs of our Armed Forces in this century. Those schemes were born out of a wide-ranging consultation exercise that included existing personnel, ex-service organisations and last, but certainly not least, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee.
Their comments and concerns are reflected in substantial changes to the final schemes. The proposals have the confidence of the service chiefs and their staffs, with whom they have been closely developed, and the reactions of individual service personnel have so far generally been positive.
At a time when pension schemes are under great pressure more widely in the economy, we have retained a defined benefits structure and we have made major improvements to widows' and dependants' benefits. I make no apology for going against the trend seen more widely in pension provision; that is, towards placing the ultimate risk on the individual through defined contribution schemes. Service personnel can be assured that they are getting a very good package and, specifically and most importantly, that if the worst happens there will be generous financial support for their families. The level of provision is high, but we believe that such treatment in those circumstances is fully justified. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bach.)
4.26 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am grateful for this early slot in the speakers' list. I am involved with the Constitutional Reform Select Committee that is currently in session. I have already expressed my apologies to the Minister and the Front Benches for my consequent absence for part of the debate.
I am very pleased that the MoD has produced this much needed and long awaited Bill. It has taken years to get here. It will be another year before the new scheme arrangements, many of which I welcome, are in place. I should remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Forces Pension Society. It is appropriate to commend the society's determination and hard work in its many meetings and exchanges with the MoD. They have played an important part in identifying and securing some significant, if overdue, pension and compensation improvements for servicemen and women and their dependants.
When I was commissioned aged 21 in the RAF, even with an honours degree in pure mathematics, neither pensions nor compensation arrangements figured anywhere in my personal thinking about my future career. Even today, with much more exposure to the topic, and as a pensioner, I am still far from clear on much of the detail. The whole topic is riddled with
462
complexities. I shall not labour that point other than to stress this important consideration: it behoves the employer—MoD—to make exceptional efforts to ensure that servicemen and women are not short changed. There should be an understanding—an undertaking—that Armed Forces pension benefits will always be at the level of the best in public service and never measure unfavourably with best practice in the private sector.
Service in the Armed Forces has unlimited liability—anywhere, any time, at no notice. When he was in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said:
"Members of the Armed Forces enter into a unique contract with the state. In effect, they agree to die for their country if necessary".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 816.]
I am sure that this House would agree with him.
It is not reasonable to expect young men and women who join the Armed Forces to be pensions "literate". Youth and the spirit of adventure mean that pension and compensation are not something that the recruit weighs in the balance when deciding whether to sign on. It was not the case with my age group when we joined up.
I do not know whether the Minister has any evidence that pension and compensation rates are a significant pull factor and recruiting sergeant for today's youth. The minuscule number of serving personnel who responded to the consultation exercises—a mere 139 on pensions and 22 on compensation—seems to indicate that attitudes have not changed from my generation.
Another of my concerns was that there was no provision for any review, so I was much encouraged to learn from the Minister in his letter of 30 April that the Government would invite the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to carry out quinquennial reviews and assessments. That is good news, but does it go far enough? The AFPRB does not report on remuneration for senior officers of two stars and above. How will their pension entitlements be reviewed?
Will the Minister confirm, as now happens with AFPRB recommendations on pay, that its views on pensions and compensation will be accepted and implemented by the Government? Will the AFPRB be restricted to a review of the new schemes only? That would be unfortunate. I strongly urge that the involvement of the AFPRB is placed on the face of the Bill. This would give great reassurance that the schemes will not be allowed to become outdated and outmoded, as has happened in the past. I press the Government to adopt this suggestion.
It has been MoD practice to argue that the impact of pension arrangements on recruitment and retention has to be considered. In his letter about AFPRB involvement, the Minister referred to that again. I do not like this because it is a cop-out. I am not aware that generous pension schemes for Members of Parliament are dependent on recruitment and retention. I doubt whether private schemes based on best practice are greatly varied to take account of recruiting. Why should this provision, which could be prayed in aid of

463
lower than best practice arrangements when recruitment and retention happened to be good, be allowed? Recruitment and retention rates fluctuate, and to rely on them as a means of settling or reviewing pensions which will run for decades seems wrong. I hope that the AFPRB will not allow it to dominate its advice about pensions.
At the moment, this enabling Bill will allow a Secretary of State to set up new schemes, varying them up or down solely by statutory instrument. The armed services would be reassured if there were some key benchmarks about the new schemes on the face of the Bill. In spite of his opening remarks, I hope that the Minister will consider including some of those, such as the improved rate for dependants' benefits; the new death-in-service benefit; and that defined benefits are to be based on actual pensionable earnings. These and some other key markers drawn from the proposed new schemes and put on the face of the Bill would set a baseline below which pensions and compensation benefits could not fall without primary legislation.
I note with concern a matter the Minister referred to, and one that I know the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, will speak about as well: that the MoD is proposing to change significantly the standard of proof needed for a claim. The onus will move from the MoD to the individual serviceman. This does not strike me as the action of a caring employer who should be no less willing to treat quickly and sympathetically today those who suffer great trauma, both mental and physical. I do hope that the MoD will think again and agree to retain the present standard of proof in the new scheme.
Finally, I turn to two of the legacy issues. As we have heard, the new scheme, while improving arrangements for future widows and partners, perpetuates a source of great anguish and disgust. I refer to the differing treatment of those who become service widows. The new scheme will withdraw the existing distinction about whether or not the spouse's death was attributable to service. All widows and widowers, and all unmarried partners of either sexual orientation will now be permitted to keep their pensions for life. So far, so good. But the Bill will leave the existing non-attributable widows' rules untouched. These widows will still lose their pensions, should they elect to remarry or even to cohabit.
Why discriminate against a small, discrete group by relying on a long-outmoded rule dating from the days when women were perceived to be totally reliant on their husbands for support? The rule has been dropped for all other widows and widowers, unmarried partners of either sex and their offspring. It is utterly indefensible.
Could not those affected be allowed to opt for the new scheme? Governments have been, recently, much less rigid about holding to past precedent when close family relationships are involved. Once only those married could benefit. Now entitlement has stretched far beyond the confines of a legal marriage. Surely those legally married should not lose out.
464
A further widows' issue concerns post-retirement marriages. My postbag—as I am sure have those of other noble Lords—has been full of letters from those who will remain assessed by a rule that has now been scrapped for other widows and widowers in the new scheme. I could quote any number of telling points that have been made to me but the underlying message is clear and strong.
A serviceman's pay throughout his career was abated to provide a pension entitlement for himself and for a widow and dependent children of his. That is what he thought he was paying for; the more so when he, along with many others, was given the opportunity and encouraged to pay to increase his widow's pension entitlement from a third to a half of his own pension. Surely, in equity, he has a right to expect that if he leaves a widow she should benefit from his contributions and that the Government should honour that arrangement regardless of when he did get married. Any dependent child should also not be penalised.
We should remember that service rules and customs discouraged early marriage for the generation of individuals who are now affected. The pattern of service life then—many young servicemen were stationed overseas and their chances of meeting a potential spouse were limited or non-existent—meant that marriages were often contracted later than in other walks of life; in many cases only after the end of a military career.
I hope that we do not have to await the debates on the relevant statutory instruments to correct these gross injustices which bring so much justifiable anger and distress to those affected. It would be greatly appreciated if the Government would themselves table the necessary undertaking so that there is not an unseemly battle over the issue. It is too sensitive and too distressful a matter to be a topic for heated debate in your Lordships' House. I urge the Government to do so and I invite other noble Lords to support me in this appeal.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend am delighted to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, whose wise counsel—as I know my noble friend agrees—is always most helpful in debates on the needs of service and ex-service men and women alike.
The Bill is a measure of profound significance for our Armed Forces, as it is, too, for the ex-service organisations and those who work to make life better for war widows. It promises welcome improvements in pensions for service men and women and improved death-in-service benefits for widows/widowers of the future. Cover will be provided for in-service accidents which strangely—one could also say scandalously—is currently available to service personnel only if they take out private insurance. That, too, is most welcome. But there are intended changes—more especially one fundamentally to change the war pensions scheme—

465
that cause the ex-service community deep concern. Again, there is regret that this opportunity to do more to help older war widows is not being taken.
I have two interests to declare: first, as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to The Royal British Legion—the authentic voice of the ex-service community—and, secondly, as vice-president of the War Widows' Association. I speak also as the son of a war widow and from personal experience of active service with Middle East Land Forces when Israel was still Palestine and our role was to stand between rival terrorist groups that would have had very little to learn from Al'Qaeda.
My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, president of the War Widow' Association, has been fighting the good fight for war widows for as long as I can remember. I much look forward to her speech in this debate and I honour her today, as I do the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and, of course, my noble friend Lady Dean, for the constancy of their commitment to war widows and the ex-service community.
While acknowledging all the difficulties, as a former Minister, I find it sad that the 60th anniversary of D-day could not have been marked by the announcement of some further new help for older war widows. Most of them lost their husbands during or due to the Second World War. Their average age is now over 80 and the attrition of age-related illnesses and disabling conditions reduces their number year by year. In consequence, the cost to the Exchequer of war widows' pensions falls year by year. So more could now be done to help them without increasing the totality of public spending. Was that not justification enough for making last weekend's commemoration in Normandy—and I warmly congratulate the Government on their part in its success—a moment not only for reflection and admiration for those who were prepared to lay down their lives for human freedom but of practical concern for the increasingly needful loved ones of those who did so? We all owe them an immense debt of honour.
Of course, from next April, all service personnel and those widowed after then will be affected by this Bill's hugely important intention to change the rule relating to burden of proof for awards under the war pensions scheme, the principal avenue for compensation for death, illness or injury caused or made worse by service in the Armed Forces. As of now, the scheme's distinguishing feature is that burden of proof rests not on the claimant to show that death, illness or injury was due to service but on the MoD to disprove the claim. Seven years after the death—or the condition being identified—the onus of proof moves to the claimant, but an award may still be made provided "reasonable doubt" would justify the claim. There is no time limit for claiming.
That the placing of burden of proof on the MoD is the distinguishing feature of the war pensions scheme was set in bold relief by my noble friend Lord Bach—whose personal commitment to helping war pensioners wherever and whenever he can is undoubted—when he replied to my Starred Question
466
on 22 January about the case of the late Major Ian Hill. As a lawyer, my noble friend is all too familiar with the much sterner "balance of probabilities" standard of proof used in courts, and he took pains to emphasise the crucially important difference by pointing out that Major Hill's widow did not have to prove that his death was due to service but—and I stress his words—only to a reasonable doubt.
"I can say",
he replied,
"that war widows' pensions are paid when death is deemed to be due to service, and that the widow has to raise only a reasonable doubt for claims to succeed".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. 1138.]
Yet the MoD now intends to abandon that safeguard: to dump "reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof and substitute "balance of probabilities", thus transferring the onus of proof to the claimant.
Making the effect of this pikestaff plain, the House of Commons Defence Committee has noted that,
"under the existing scheme, it is for the Secretary of State to show beyond reasonable doubt that Service has not played a part in causing or worsening the condition for which a claim is made. Under the new proposals, the standard of proof is changed to a "balance of probabilities" with the onus of proof on the claimant to make the case".
The Royal British Legion estimates that this change will mean a cut of 60 per cent in claims for service after 2005 that would succeed under present rules. The estimate is based on the Legion's involvement in a vast range of case work. Last year alone, over 1,300 initial cases came its way, and the Legion took scrupulous care in making its estimate.
The Government's reaction has been to cast doubt on the estimate while doing nothing whatever to produce one of their own. Attempting to allay criticism of this negative stance, they told the House of Commons:
"We have now joined with the [Royal] British Legion to consider the methodology it used".
That is not true. They have not joined in discussion with the Legion. And even if they had, it was up to them to produce a valid statistical analysis of their own, based on data available to Ministers, not simply to criticise the Legion's methodology without particularising their criticism.
The Government did attempt a statistical comparison by looking at the Industrial Injuries and Disablement Scheme and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, but it was a flop because the two schemes and the standards of proof are predicated on entirely different bases. In fact, the Government's own consultants dismissed it as invalid.
Again, the MoD claims that the "balance of probabilities" standard of proof is more modern and fairer; but how much fairer would it have been to the late Ian Hill's widow? As my noble friend knows well, there have always been two standards of proof, one applicable to civil law and the other to criminal law. This is not a modern invention.
The Armed Forces accept unlimited liability in defending the interests of this country. Their one safeguard with regard to compensation if they become

467
incapacitated due to their service has been the War Pensions Scheme with its standard of proof strongly based on "reasonable doubt". Removing that safeguard will leave service men and women in an extremely vulnerable and totally unacceptable position.
It must be a cause for very serious concern that the Government now want so fundamentally to change the War Pensions Scheme without, as we have seen, providing any data as to its likely effect, despite being challenged to do so by the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Royal British Legion. It is a change of policy that alters the recognition, over more than 60 years, that there are "specific circumstances" and special factors which apply to our Armed Forces. The Government now seek to place them on the same footing as teachers and other public sector workers, those hurt in street brawls or workers injured in industry, whose employers have compulsory employers' liability insurance. That is demonstrably wrong.
I heard recently of an employee of a British contractor in Iraq earning £5,000 a week who was attacked while working and said that he should have been protected by British troops. It would be interesting to learn how his pension arrangements compare with what is now proposed for our troops deployed there, and the widows and other dependants of those who have been killed in Iraq.
The essential difference between the Armed Forces and almost all other employment, as the House of Commons Defence Committee said in considering this issue,
"is that Armed Forces personnel can be asked to put themselves in harm's way, indeed to die for their country, which makes compensation for injury an entirely different matter for them than for civilians …
"There can be no proper basis for comparing the Armed Forces Scheme … with schemes for other public sector workers [civil servants, teachers, nurses and the like] who are simply not exposed to anything remotely similar to the dangers and uncertainties of service factors".
That is the ex-service community's case for insisting that the existing "reasonable doubt" standard of proof is retained.
I most strongly urge Ministers now very urgently and meaningfully to consult with the Royal British Legion to end the present impasse. Meanwhile, let us all recognise that for parliamentarians there is no more compelling duty than that of acting justly to those who are prepared to lay down their lives in the service of this country and the dependants of those who do so.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has put the case in compelling terms for rejecting the new proposed standard of proof in this Bill—the balance of probability which puts the onus on the claimant to prove his case—and for retaining the present system. I cannot do better than to quote from the House of
468
Commons Defence Committee report on December 2003 on Armed Forces pensions and compensation. In paragraph 69, the report said:
"Because of the special risks that Armed Forces personnel are required to run and because they are likely to be involved in situations of great uncertainty with uncertain effects on their health, we continue to believe that the onus should remain on the government to prove that service will not be responsible for causing or worsening a condition for which a compensation claim is made".
The Government claim that the proposal is to bring the scheme into line with civil law and common practice, and "reflect modern practice". The truth, I suggest, is that this is another cost-cutting exercise. Why should those who voluntarily risk their lives to serve their country be treated in the same way as a civilian, however brave and worthy, simply because it would be tidier? The MoD has a duty to prove that their service was not responsible for causing or making worse a condition for which a compensation claim is made.
The Gulf War veterans have had a long and painful experience in fighting this battle, although the MoD did eventually set up a Gulf Veterans Illness Unit. I heard the Minister say on the radio this week that the unit has spent £8 million so far on research to establish whether or not there exists a Gulf War syndrome. The research continues and they are not prepared to make any decisions of principle until the outcome is known. Meanwhile some of the veterans have died and others continue to lead stressful lives. They have been fighting just the kind of battle that the MoD now wishes to make the general rule, paying for legal help and finding it difficult, but not impossible, to make their case because of a serious failure in the MoD at times to preserve vital medical records.
I am not at all cheered to hear that there is a brand new computerisation program planned to provide access to medical records. What went wrong last time was a computer scheme that failed and lost a significant number of medical events. In the case of the Gulf War veterans, they were sometimes refused access to their medical records in any case because the records were said to be classified "Secret". I hope that that will not happen again.
However, I return to the simple but cardinal issues. The "modern" balance of probabilities formula requires a claimant to demonstrate that on balance the disablement is due to service. It is not reassuring that the Government wish to move to this procedure not only because it reflects so-called modern practice elsewhere in society, but also because:
"The WPS eligibility criteria can no longer be justified either in relation to wider best practice or in relation to the particular demands placed upon Service personnel and how these would be dealt with elsewhere in society".
I submit that servicemen are unique in that society because of their commitment of their very lives, if that is necessary, to defend the realm. Yet this Government, who I would have thought had very recent and direct experience in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq of the risk to life and limb that is accepted and embraced by our Armed Forces, wish to tidy things up and have the same standards for them

469
as for, let us say, the insuring of a house or a car or for taking out holiday insurance to go skiing. They are prepared to put a man or woman, already ill or under stress, to further stress to fight their case. The onus should be on the Secretary of State to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the individual's service has not contributed to causing or worsening the condition for which the claim is made. This is all the more necessary since so much turns on the medical record, and the MoD, not the claimant, holds these records and has not been seen to be a very competent record holder in recent years.
The new plan does not strike me as likely to aid recruitment or create confidence because it is so manifestly weighted against the individual and in favour of the state, and all this is said to be in the interests of being modern and, I suppose, politically correct. I am greatly reassured to hear that the AFPRB will be playing a positive role in this issue.
It is not fashionable to recognise that the country owes a special debt to servicemen and women, a debt of which we have recently been reminded, and I do not believe that the ordinary man in the street would wish to see the system changed, because of its inevitable consequences for the individual claimant. The British Legion does much for these people, but the average claimant will not be able to afford legal advice if the case goes to appeal. He will have no right to legal aid, as it is not available for appeals concerning war pensions.
I feel particularly strongly about the need to place the onus of proof on the state, not on the litigant—which would, therefore, protect the litigant—because I have been involved for the past year in trying to do something for ex-servicemen and women in Zimbabwe. The many old age homes are having great difficulty in surviving because formerly the white farmers provided fuel, food, transport and much practical help. In just one of them, there are 44 service pensioners from all ranks and services. Their pensions are nearly worthless because of over 600 per cent inflation and can be reckoned in terms of from half a loaf of bread a month to eight loaves and nothing else. There is no money for medicine or medical care, food, shelter or rent, or for such basic needs as soap, batteries for the radio or new spectacles if they get broken. Unlike pensioners here, these pensioners can expect nothing from the state. Here they would get medical and dental care or social security payments. Their case is unique and it has simply not been known.
I quote them because, thank God, pensioners here are relatively well looked after both by the MoD and by the British Legion but we must not allow the Government to trickle their rights away in the name of modern best practice. These are valuable people who are not good at asking for help for themselves. They will be frail and they will find it difficult to fight battles for themselves rather than for the country.
I have one final point and one question. I do not know how great a part the MoD's medical advisors are required to play when claims are made but the present state of Defence Medical Services is still dire. What impact will that have on the pensions arrangements?
470
In my question I ask for information, and it is my ignorance that compels me to ask. Has the MoD yet announced the compensation package for those who were improperly taxed? I ask because, in the Defence Committee's report of late December 2003, it had not been announced by late October.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I apologise in advance to my noble friend the Minister if I am not able to stay to the end of the debate as I have to catch the last train to Scotland, but I hope I shall.
I must declare an interest as president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, so that what I say will be directly applicable to those ladies. My noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde took some of us from the Defence Study Group last week to the MoD, where the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bach—and his civil servants were most helpful to us all in talking us through the new Bill and answering all our questions. We were all agreed that there was much to be welcomed in this new Bill, particularly for service men and women, and—though I sincerely hope there will be none—war widows after 2005.
It is an enabling Bill, and there is some uncertainty over detail. Because of this we must ensure that the devil does not get in here. We want an assurance, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley, said, that all future revisions and draft regulations will be brought to Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure, so that we can discuss them, and not just find them shoved away under the carpet in a corner of the Library.
We believe that it is particularly important that the pensions and guaranteed income stream should be index linked to the retail prices index and not to any lower index. This, your Lordships must agree, is particularly important for widows with young children, who have to eat and need new clothes as they grow.
It is possible that widows and young children will be better off under the new scheme, but there is still some lack of detail which we would like spelt out for us.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, who is a vice president of the War Widows Association and does sterling work for us all, for his delightful and charming compliments. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Park—my noble friend—and the War Widows Association and the Royal British Legion all have many concerns about the change of the burden of proof from the DSS criterion, that an injury must be proved not to have been the result, to the MOD criterion which is that the burden of proof must be on the individual concerned. As the individual is obviously at the time in a damaged state that can be more difficult.
There is the Cheryl Hume case where a lady was awarded a war widow's pension by the DSS criterion; turned down by the MoD, on its criterion; appealed to the ombudsman, who decided in her favour; and then appealed in the High Court against the MoD, and won. There are other ladies in her situation who have

471
not appealed, and are therefore disadvantaged. I think that there is much to be said for having one criterion, so that we do not have all this difficulty, but the decisions must be transparent, above board, and seen and known by everyone, and not just decided hugger-mugger in the MoD with no one having any access to what is going on.
In 2000, members of the War Widows Association were all delighted to achieve the right of post 1973 war widows to retain their attributable Armed Forces pension for life whatever their future marital status. That has been an enormous emancipation for them, although very few of them have in fact remarried. It does however create an anomaly for all service widows—but not war widows, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley said—who would lose their forces family pension if they remarried. After 2005, all service widows on the new scheme will be able to keep their pension for life, so this will once more create a trough. It is possible that not many of these ladies, like the post 1973 war widows, will wish to remarry; so to iron out this glitch might not be as expensive as the MOD fears. It does not represent new money from the Government, merely preventing money which is already being paid out and which could then be clawed back.
All of us at this time are touched and moved by the D-Day memorial services, all those hundreds of old men, in their uniforms and medals, standing in the boiling sun so proudly on the beaches on which they had once fought their way through so horrendous a battle, when they were only 18 or 19, so long ago. I think we all cried a bit, as we saluted their courage. This is a time now to remember also the girls, so many of them left behind. Some of them now, 60 years on, might wish to remarry or cohabit for companionship's sake. One of them wrote to me,
"We come of a generation that believes in marriage. I am 86 and my husband is 92. People of our vast age do not lightly become what is now known as partners. We decided that, although it would mean a fearful tightening of belts, we would marry. This we did last October. I have now lost my war widows pension and my MOD supplement".
Could these ladies not just at least retain their MoD supplement if they remarry or cohabit for companionship's sake? As we remember those brave men who gave their lives on those blood-stained beaches, could we not show compassion to the girls they left behind so long ago?
5.1 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest as a trustee of two final salary pension schemes, and as chairman of one of them. I suspect that this is a peripheral interest to the matters that we are discussing this afternoon but I should like to put it on the record.
We had a characteristically persuasive and sincere introduction from the Minister. A Bill that ostensibly at least sets out to update and improve pensions and benefits for members of our Armed Forces instinctively commands sympathy. As many noble
472
Lords said, it may be repetitive and trite to refer yet again to the particular risks that they run on our behalf—it may be trite but it is also true.
Further, when one reads in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes that the Bill is intended to replace or update the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865 and the Pensions and Yeomanry Pay Act 1884, one is bound to conclude that pensions must have moved on a good deal in the intervening 140 years and therefore that an updating is probably well overdue. Similarly, moves to bring up to date the structure of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, to which the Minister referred, seem entirely sensible. So one approaches the Bill with sympathy. However, the closer one looks into the detailed provisions of the Bill, the more inequitable they seem to be and, indeed, the more at odds the proposals seem to be with the Government's own wider pension policy objectives, particularly as regards member involvement, participation and education as expressed in the Government's own pensions White Paper, Simplicity, Security and Choice.
I should like to address my concerns under five main headings: the unique role and position of our Armed Forces; the issues of enabling legislation; the concept of cost neutrality; member involvement and education; and, following the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, correction of past inequalities—the "legacy" issues, although not the legacy issue that he raised.
First, I turn to the role of the Armed Forces and the Government's view of them. I have no doubt about the Minister's sincerity. I have heard him speak with conviction and candour about the special nature of service in our Armed Forces and the level of commitment it requires. So what I am about to say is not aimed at him. However, paragraph 11 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill states:
"Clause 1 is modelled on the Superannuation Act 1972 which governs the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS), the Local Government Pension Scheme, the Teachers' Pension Scheme and the NHS Pension Scheme".
I do not find that encouraging. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, pointed out, members of the Armed Forces are not like teachers or local government officers or nurses, worthy though such careers are. It is not so much the danger inherent in a service career, though it includes that. More, it is the inevitably shortened career span imposed both by the structure of the Armed Forces—the rapidly narrowing pyramid—as well as by the physical nature of many roles, which means that they cannot be fulfilled by older men and women. So, as was frequently pointed out in debates on the Bill in another place, most servicemen and women serve for much less than a full career. In those debates the Armed Forces Minister tried to argue that this does not matter, because departing members of the Forces find it easier to get civilian jobs, and so can provide for their pension through their second career.
My anecdotal evidence suggests that that is not the whole story. First, while it is true that members of the forces get a job fairly easily, it has proved much harder

473
for them to get a job with commensurate responsibility and therefore commensurate remuneration. Too often, I am told, there is a need to trade down, which has an inevitable impact on pension levels. Secondly, my anecdotal evidence suggests that the longer the individual has been serving, the harder it is to get an alternative job, so that those who have given the most to the country and presumably have been the most valuable to the services, find it the hardest to start another career. They therefore suffer the greatest financial shortfall.
In at least one respect, the Government recognise that service men and women are different from those others employed by the state. If this were not so, why would the Government exempt the Armed Forces from the national minimum wage? The minimum wage applies to local government officers, teachers and nurses, but not to servicemen. The Government further recognise the special position of servicemen by the use of the "X-factor". In answer to a Written Question I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, she said:
"Unlimited liability for duty is essential to operational effectiveness of the armed forces, and, given their unique status, the Services are exempt from the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 … An additional element called the 'X-factor' (currently 13 per cent of basic pay) is then added to reflect the overall balance of advantages and disadvantages experienced by members of the armed forces which cannot be taken into account when assessing pay comparability".—[Official Report, 29/11/00; col. WA 133.]
So much for comparability with the Superannuation Act 1972—I see no "X-factor" for teachers, nurses or local government officers.
Further, when one studies paragraph 36 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, one reads:
"The long-term pension cost increases are being addressed through the Government's proposals in its paper 'Simplicity, Security and Choice', as well as through increased Departmental contributions for future pension liability".
I have looked through this document, which is 167 pages long, and I may have overlooked something, but I can find no mention of the Armed Forces at all. Indeed, when I asked the Minister's colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about this in the earlier debate today, she said that Simplicity, Security and Choice did not apply to the Armed Forces. But what I find on page 105, paragraph 59, is the sub-heading "Tax changes to encourage flexible retirement". Paragraph 60 states:
"Currently, tax rules allow people to work and draw an occupational pension, but only where they no longer work for the company that is paying the pension. Often people who would like to carry on working do not want, or are unable, to change employers at this stage in their career. So they end up retiring when they would have preferred instead to stay in work in a reduced capacity, supported by a combination of earnings and pension".
In the Armed Forces, by contrast, there is enforced retirement. So how do the Government square this with the proposals in Simplicity, Security and Choice?
The Minister may argue that there is a proposal under the Bill to replace the immediate pension with early departure payment. Those represent, according to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee report on the subject, at paragraph 50, a saving for the
474
state—or, from the other point of view, a reduction in benefit—of £100 million per annum or 2 per cent of pensionable pay. The Minister owes the House a better philosophical and practical explanation of whether the Government accept that the Armed Forces' position is unique. At present, it looks all too much as though the Government are determined to cram the Armed Forces into pension schemes structured for other very different careers, with the Armed Forces losing out on the way through.
My second area of concern is that this is little more than a framework Bill. We have a skeleton but little flesh and blood. This is a familiar rant, and I do not propose to develop it, except in two regards. The first involves the statement in paragraph 11 of the Explanatory Notes:
"The Statutory Instruments made under the Bill and any amending instruments will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny under the negative resolution procedure".
I note that the Minister said that that proposal persisted unamended. I accept that the details of a pension scheme cannot be put into primary legislation but, in pensions more than in most areas, the devil is in the detail. The Government must think carefully whether the negative procedure is a good enough safeguard in these circumstances, given our ability—or, perhaps I should say, our inability—to amend statutory instruments.
Secondly, while I accept that the detail of pension provision cannot be put into primary legislation, the Secretary of State is taking powers to do far more than amend details. Under Clause 1, for example, the Secretary of State may by regulation change the whole scheme from "defined benefit" to "defined contribution". That is no detail; it is seismic in its effect and impact on serving personnel. I am not sure that the Government have grasped that. They are taking for granted passive acceptance by servicemen and servicewomen.
Next is the issue of advice, guidance and communication for members of the Armed Forces. I accept that pensions are an issue that make many people's eyes glaze over; young, fit and active servicemen and servicewomen will be no exception. That is no reason not to be open and honest and to facilitate the provision of advice. The Armed Forces pension scheme is described as non-contributory but, as I understand it, there is a 7 per cent abatement in each individual serviceman's pay as a contribution towards the cost of pension. It is not shown on the payslip. I will restrain myself from spending too much time on a semantic argument about whether that can be described properly as a non-contributory scheme.
I doubt whether one could get away with that in the private sector. I will wager that if you asked a serviceman what he paid for his pension, he would say that it was free. It is not; it has cost him a 7 per cent abatement—carefully hidden from his view, perhaps, but a cost to him none the less. I understand that the situation is worse than that, because the MoD hides another little wrinkle from members of the Armed Forces. Normally, in the private sector, pensions are

475
calculated on gross salary before contributions, whereas service pensions are calculated on net pay after abatement.
I refer the Minister to page 71 of Security, Simplicity and Choice, where paragraphs 105 to 107 contain three important proposals that the Government intend to apply to the private sector. I wish to know whether they intend to apply those to members of the Armed Forces.
The Government profess to be very concerned about consultation with members, at least as regards the private sector. Again, the Government's White Paper lists a number of proposals:
"We are proposing … ensuring that members are consulted about changes to their pension scheme".
Perhaps the Minister can say how the Government will fulfil that objective as regards the Armed Forces.
I wish to say a word on the remedying of past inequities—the legacy issue. There are several examples, particularly relating to widows' pensions, but I wish to focus on the pensions trough. My colleague in another place Gerald Howarth has received answers to questions that starkly illustrate the depth of the trough and, still more dramatic, the cumulative impact of RPI uprating. Thus the pension receivable by a member of the Armed Forces of the same rank after the same length of service, retiring in the five-year range 1975 to 1979, could vary from £13,800 to £18,400, a difference of over £4,500 per annum or one third.
The difference has come about because of the chance combination of Government public sector pay policy and the existence of a forced retirement date for individuals. I do not exclude my own party for having failed to grasp this when in government but it does now need to be grasped. The Government accept this in principle. Again, I refer the Minister to Simplicity, Security and Choice. Paragraph 47 on Page 27 states:
"What income might individuals want in retirement? In planning for their retirement, most people will compare their projected living standard in retirement to that enjoyed during their working life. The ratio of retirement income to income when in work is called the replacement rate".
So what about the replacement rate for this unfortunate and unlucky group of people?
To conclude, of course I want to see our Armed Forces properly looked after in their retirement. So I welcome the provisions in this Bill which bring their pension provision up to date. But I cannot conceal from the Minister my concern at the line the Government are following, both in broad approach and in detail. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I cautiously welcome some of the schemes the Government are putting in place. I know that we have been talking about what will happen in the future, but I should like to go back a little to the past. I believe that a grave injustice continues to the widows who receive only a one-third pension.
476
I take your Lordships to the 31 March 1973. Anyone serving before that was not allowed to pay in to extend his pension to half his final salary and emoluments. I think that was a very grave injustice. That really means that the Government, previous governments, and particularly down the corridor in another place, are all satisfied that the one-third payment is fair.
Of course a lot of flak is put up by governments, politicians, Members of Parliament and civil servants, saying that the issue is a bit of a dead duck because no one has worked on it and particularly that the European Court has ruled against any change on the technical side. But I see this as a moral issue. We are saying that everyone is happy that this bunch of widows are still receiving only one third of a pension. There is no Member of Parliament whose widow will receive one-third of a pension. These days, I cannot think of many widows or pension schemes where one third comes in.
So, I ask the Minister what we are going to do about this. It was suggested—and it is a good suggestion—in December I think by the Forces Pension Society that a little compassion should be shown in this area and that pre-31 March 1973 widows should be given the same advantage of being able to opt in and turn the pension into a half, like the post-1973 widows.
I should have thought that in this year of the veteran—2004–05—something innovative could be done about this. It will not cost the Ministry of Defence anything because it will be getting money in. Some widows will be unable to pay, some will not wish to pay and some will pay. It is really a gesture of opportunity to enable them to feel once more that they are wanted a little more than they have been in the past and that they are thought about and cared for.
When the Ministry of Defence took over the whole panoply of caring for and looking after veterans and widows and their pensions, there was quite a lot of trumpet-blowing about what it would watch and do. However, I still see little sign of compassion in the area. The suggestion that may have been put forward by the Forces Pension Society is a good one. What has the Minister been doing about it since it was made in December, and why cannot we hear some innovative idea? Let us do something.
5.20 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a serving TA officer. Sadly, I have no MoD pension entitlement. Service pensions used to be DHSS business but have been returned to the MoD, which is why it was the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who moved the Second Reading. I have no experience in pension matters, unlike my noble friend Lord Hodgson, and I do not intend to make a comprehensive response to the Bill.
The Armed Forces are far more joint and PC than anyone in the Westminster village realises. When I refer to junior ranks, I include Royal Navy ratings and RAF airmen. My arguments apply to all three services, and to servicemen and servicewomen equally. When I use the term "TA", I include all volunteer Reserve Forces.

477
The Minister told us about the time window for deciding to join the new scheme, but the period affected by operational commitments can be quite long and should certainly include the time spent preparing for operations, the time actually on the operations, and the post-operational tour leave period. It might be better to have a substantial period of education for servicemen, and that could include time on operations. The Minister is rightly concerned with having too long a decision-window, because that might result in procrastination on the part of servicemen. The matter would benefit from detailed discussion in Committee, as I think the Minister hinted.
The Minister and others referred to parliamentary scrutiny by means of the negative procedure. We will have to wait and see what the Delegated Powers Committee decides, but it may be preferable to have the first order subject to the affirmative procedure. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, suggested subjecting all the subsequent amending orders to affirmative procedure, which might be overdoing things a little.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson talked about the challenges of obtaining civilian employment on leaving the services. The Minister told us about transferable skills, but I have seen highly trained warrant officers from my own corps—the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers—struggle to secure a civilian job of equal salary and status. I am particularly worried about the position of junior NCOs and servicemen who are severely disabled on exercises and operations. I urge noble Lords not to forget that bad accidents occur on exercises as well as operations. That is frequently overlooked, but the Minister nods his head; I am sure that he is very well aware of it.
If a junior NCO is severely disabled, he is awarded a substantial lump sum plus a war pension, but at a junior NCO rate. I am not convinced that the scheme will meet the Minister's aspiration for generous financial support for families if the worst should happen. The career expectations of junior NCOs may be to reach warrant officer rank, or even to get a commission and become a captain or major. They may marry on the basis of being young men with prospects. But that career would be stopped dead by a severe injury, along with all of the expectations. It may not be realistic to have any significant civilian career after an injury. Yes, there would be a lump sum payment, but that might be needed to cope with the results of the injuries and it would not cover lost earnings. That would not be a major problem for me if I was disabled as a result of an exercise, because I would receive a major's pension. If one happened to be injured as a "one star" and could no longer work, it would be more like early retirement.
The Minister will point out that the same problem arises in civvy street. But severe disablements in civilian life are unusual and often someone has been negligent and is liable to pay compensation. Many noble Lords have skilfully referred to the unlimited commitment of our Armed Forces. But the Armed
478
Forces are the only people to engage in a mission where it is probable that some will be killed or seriously injured. No other group in our society would do that. However, it is possible for a junior serviceman to have his career prospects taken into consideration if he claims compensation for negligence. But I think that it is highly undesirable for junior servicemen to claim compensation for negligence by their superiors during operations, or even on exercise.
However, we live in an increasingly litigious society. In negligence compensation cases career expectations can be taken into consideration. I accept that it is not easy for the service authorities to make an objective forecast. However, unless a serviceman makes a serious mistake—that is, a career limiting move—he will normally meet the expectations. Often, performance improves with increasing maturity. Casualties often arise on operations through pure bad luck, but also as a result—I put it as delicately as possible—of a poor tactical decision.
I shall give your Lordships an imaginary example, because the real one that I know from Operation TELIC is toe-curlingly and embarrassingly stupid. Fortunately, the price was never paid, but taking that risk without complaint or question is part of the unlimited liability that many noble Lords have talked about. Supposing a commander is leading a patrol in a dangerous operational area and he returns to base by the same route six times through possible ambush locations. Due to weak leadership or possible lack of moral courage, the commander follows the same route back to base yet again. Tragically, the patrol is ambushed and a junior soldier is severely disabled. That could lead to the junior soldier claiming compensation for negligence; and it could easily succeed, as no reasonably competent, responsible officer would have taken such a course of action and made such a tactical error. I believe that it is highly undesirable for junior servicemen to claim compensation; however, he would have to do that to secure the financial position that he would have enjoyed but for his commanders' error.
My final two points relate to Territorial Army pensions for non-mobilised service. When I joined the TA from school I did not realise that TA service attracted any pay at all and my first girocheque was very welcome, because it was several times the recommended pocket money for the term. I have never regarded my TA service as part-time work—in other words, moonlighting. I regarded it as being on Her Majesty's service. I felt that that made it acceptable for my performance on Monday mornings to be a little below par and I am sure that my employer would have accepted that view if I had put it to him.
It has been suggested, as a result of recent case law, that members of the TA are entitled to some form of retrospective pension. I do not accept that view because it was not a deal to which I agreed when I started my TA service. Therefore, I have resisted all suggestions to pursue the matter in your Lordships' House, and I hope that the Minister draws some comfort from that.

479
However, I believe that the Minister should examine the possibility of some form of pension scheme for TA personnel. The TA has significant turnover and any scheme need not click in until, say, one has been certified as having served efficiently for 12 years. It needs to be remembered that TA personnel forgo significant weekend overtime earnings, and few TA personnel are immediately usable on operations before their third year of service. The training bounty helps retention, especially vis-à-vis the families, but a pension could be a very useful complement.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, this is a very important Bill. It is a small Bill, particularly compared with the Pensions Bill, which we debated at Second Reading earlier and which is about 100 times longer than this one. But I suggest that this Bill is as important as the earlier one.
An analysis of this debate could result in the conclusion that it is an absolutely awful Bill, that our Armed Forces are being treated like Aunt Sallys and that we are not doing enough for them. I want to pick out the areas where I believe that the Bill is deficient, but, in overall terms, I welcome it. I do so having talked to Armed Forces personnel. There is much to be welcomed within it.
It is a Bill that has been a long time in coming. I remember, nearly seven years ago, being asked if I would agree to be chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and being briefed that one issue that we would be facing, probably within a year or 18 months, was the new Armed Forces pensions Bill which the Government were to bring forward. The present Government have inherited it from the previous one. I remember going to see the then Secretary of State, George Robertson, and asking him directly when we could expect to see the Bill. He said, "We're not sure", and he would not pin himself down with regard to the timing. I started to hear alarm bells ring then.
However, as time has gone on, this Bill has started to look better and better when compared with what is happening with regard to pensions generally in this country. Unfortunately, we are where we are now. In addition, this is an unfortunate year. I shall not ask my noble friend the Minister to comment, but this is not a particularly affluent year in terms of resources for the MoD. Therefore, perhaps the timing could have been a little better; nevertheless, the Bill is here now and I think that it would be sad if it did not, with some changes, receive a fair wind from this House.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who understandably is not in his place at present because he is attending the Constitution Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about Armed Forces personnel not knowing much about their pensions and they questioned the line of communications.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to his experience as a young man in the services. He said that, with only 100-odd replies to the consultation
480
exercise, things have not changed much. I suggest that they have changed. Each year the Armed Forces Pay Review Body meets about 3,000 personnel. I can tell noble Lords that, over the past three years in the series of meetings that we have had, pensions have been an ongoing issue for our Armed Forces personnel.
As time has gone by, that interest has increased, and the reason for that is twofold. I guess that it is because of what has been happening in the private sector and the attendant newspaper coverage but also because the Armed Forces at MoD level have been conducting a communications exercise. The problem with that is that our Armed Forces are almost on a conveyor belt—they are never in one place long enough to reach all the people in one group.
Nevertheless, the Armed Forces have been conducting a communications exercise and pensions have been one of the issues raised. One question that has been asked—it is dealt with in the Bill—is: why do officers accrue their pensions at a different rate compared with other ranks? Certainly, other ranks take something like 37 years before becoming eligible for a pension as opposed to officers, who become eligible after 34 years. The Bill deals with that matter and it should be welcomed. I can tell noble Lords that, having talked to personnel, they certainly welcome it.
The scheme is a final salary scheme. If this Bill did not go through now, I am unsure whether we would be faced with a final salary scheme in three or five years' time, considering the way in which matters are changing in the pensions area. Therefore, I would welcome a statement from the Minister about this being a final salary scheme. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made reference to defined contributions. The first part of the Explanatory Notes states that there are no plans at present to go to defined contributions. I would like some more beef on that statement. That would be most helpful.
The move from one-and-a-half times to four times pensionable pay in the new scheme has to be welcomed. It is comparable with what takes place in the private sector. The widow's pension changing from 50 per cent to 62.5 per cent also has to be welcomed. That is indeed a welcome move.
I was very puzzled as to why there was so little detail on the face of the Bill. The Minister referred to that in his introduction and I know that it is normal in many public sector pension schemes—perhaps all of them. I understand that. If such details are not to be included in the Bill, we need some assurances in a number of areas that will provide our Armed Forces with a kind of protective coat in relation to the pension scheme. In other pension schemes, where everything is encompassed in the rules of the scheme, members can have a say.
A welcome addition to the Bill would be a reference to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body taking over the monitoring of the scheme. I have declared my former interest—I am no longer chairman—but the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is an independent body, as the Government have found out to their expense from time to time. I know that my colleagues and the current

481
chairman, Professor Greenway, will ensure that that work is carried out thoroughly. It would be good to have reference to that in the legislation.
I would also ask my noble friend to assure me that the reviews that the Government have conducted and the recommendations to the MoD are put in the public domain, just as is the case with the annual report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. There is no reference to that at the moment. I believe that that is essential because it would mean that Armed Forces personnel would have access to it and be able to raise issues with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
The burden of proof has been mentioned by noble Lords and I understand that. We need to debate that because it is not as straightforward in some areas as perhaps we think, but I welcome the fact that the issue has been raised.
I am very concerned about two other areas, one of which has not been mentioned—the transitional issues. I am not talking about the legacy issues; I am talking about the transitional issues that will arise in April next year when new recruits go straight into the new scheme and current serving personnel join not later than April 2007, should they so choose.
My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, mentioned the briefing meeting that was held at the MoD. We are indeed grateful to the Minister and to his civil servants for being so open with us and giving us an absolutely first-class presentation. That was very welcome indeed. I also thank the Minister for sending me yesterday a three-page letter dealing with the transitional issue. I am sure that he will not be too surprised to know that it does not answer in full the questions that I intend to ask during debates on the Bill.
Let us imagine a situation such as Iraq. Next year we shall have personnel in Iraq—I doubt we shall be out by next year. Suppose in June next year new recruits are working in operations on the ground and someone who has just joined the services is killed. His widow and his family would receive four times the pensionable pay and, if he is not legally married, his unmarried partner would also receive recognition in respect of widow's pay. However, if he or she had been in the services under the current scheme, the amount would be one-and-a-half times pensionable pay and, if he or she is not married, the unmarried partner would not be recognised.
As regards the pension, the spouse pensioner of a new recruit will receive 62.5 per cent whereas, currently, a widow receives 50 per cent. It might be that a new recruit who gets killed has got two months' service and another person who gets killed in the same action might have 15 years' service. That situation is absolutely untenable. This is a priority issue for the Bill. It is a transitional situation, which probably needs a transitional arrangement. I am not suggesting that the Bill is changed indefinitely or that there is any extra cost to the base cost, but we need to deal with that issue because it sends out a very bad message for serving personnel.
482
Last weekend we saw the D-day commemorations. In departing from the issue before us today, I wish to pay tribute to the BBC, which for a whole week was at its best. I am not referring to the English language; but the BBC talked in many kinds of languages. During last week, the BBC broadcast something for everyone in the United Kingdom; that is, young people who do not know very much about D-day, elderly people, and all other age groups. It did a marvellous job.
On Sunday, if we had asked the people of Britain if they thought that we should triple what we give our Armed Forces, there would have been a unanimous "Yes" vote. A referendum would have obtained a 99.9 per cent "Yes" return. However, it brought home the issue to which the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, referred. It is a diminishing issue, but it is still an issue of unfairness; that is, the war widows' pensions pre-1973.
When we were discussing the 1995 pensions Bill—not Armed Forces pensions—I sat on the other side of the House because we were in opposition. I was number two to my noble friend Lady Hollis. The Opposition were supporting the Conservative government of the day by refusing to lift the war widows' pensions. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, courageously put forward an amendment. I am not suggesting that I was courageous, but I risked being thrown off the Bill team. I thought, "Technically, the government of the day are right and the Opposition are right. But actually, in fairness terms, they are wrong". I suggest that that is still the case.
Technically, it may be right to do nothing. Retrospection is very difficult in a whole range of areas. Widows' pensions pre-1973 is an area where we have to say that fairness and morality must come first, rather than give technical reasons about why they do not. Such considerations would not cost a lot of money. That may sound mercenary, but the blunt fact is that they would not. They are also a diminishing issue as regards cost. Would the Government please consider what they can do about this small number of people?
When I saw those veterans on the television and heard them talking on the radio, I was absolutely convinced. I had all the facts before me and I was already convinced, but that moved me to think that we will not see the likes of those people again in such numbers, many of whom are more than 80 years-old.
As I said, this Bill is a long time coming. It is not often that we get the chance to discuss Armed Forces' pensions, so we must try to get it as right as we can, although it will not be perfect. This is important for our Armed Forces, not just for the personnel serving but for their families. When the Armed Forces serve in operations, it is important for them to know that their families are well looked after. This is one aspect of their commitment to the nation. Accommodation for families and welfare packages are important. I suggest that pension provision is equally important.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I should like to go back to one of the legacy issues mentioned by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley, which currently is not in the Bill. But it is my belief that it should be. It is the result of a loophole which began to be closed more than 25 years ago, but which has subsequently left a very vulnerable group in its wake; that is, service widows who receive some, or in many cases no, pension regardless of how long their husbands served. I refer to the service widows of post-retirement marriages.
The women who receive no pension at all are widows who married their husbands after they retired from the services and whose retirement occurred prior to 6 April 1978. Servicemen who served through 6 April 1978 and married post-retirement are able to hand on only that part of their pension earned after that date. Servicemen who served solely after 6 April 1978 and married post-retirement are able to hand the usual 50 per cent of their pension on to their spouses. I am of course aware that there is a far smaller number of widowers in these groups, and they need to be included in the whole argument.
It is particularly urgent for such an inadequacy in pension provision to be dealt with here and now because most of those affected are old, infirm and living in unfairly straitened conditions. It will be too late to help these many women and a few men once they have died, and inevitably their numbers are dwindling. Subsequent governments have rightly ensured that future generations will not be afflicted by the same problem, although I would add that this anomaly will not be completely eradicated until 2015. The worst affected are of course the widows of those who served pre-1978. We should therefore take some responsibility for those who were penalised through no fault of their own and actually discriminated against because the scheme implemented in the past made no allowances for the uniqueness of their husbands' employment.
This Government certainly recognise that our Armed Forces are special in the circumstances in which they work. They acknowledge that these should affect future pension provision. Yet when it comes to looking at legacy issues, the Government mysteriously choose to ignore the uniqueness of service conditions and to assume that lumping the armed services together with other public services was equitable at the time; for example, when the provision for pensions for post-retirement marriages was laid down. Yet that was not the case at all.
Yes, the Social Security Act 1975 did lead to an improvement in pension provision for all public service workers. But even at the time the Armed Forces were given a raw deal because of their enforced early retirement, which made a post-retirement marriage so much more likely than for other professions in the Act. While the retirement age for the vast majority of those in the public service is 65 for men and was until recently 60 for women, the majority of service people have to retire at or below the age of 40, while even for
484
officers the normal retirement age is 55. However, fewer than 15 per cent serve to that age. These and many other factors such as long overseas postings, which reduced the likelihood of meeting a suitable partner, have applied and apply only to the Armed Forces. It is only reasonable for the Government to recognise that these differences were inadequately addressed. Our Armed Forces deserve nothing less.
One of the areas that is a mystery to those of us who have studied this problem is how much it would cost to give provision to the widows stranded with no pension. Government Ministers in 2002 and 2004 have stated that it would cost £50 million to provide for widows of post-retirement marriages, and between £300 and £500 million to extend the post-retirement marriage concession to survivors of members of all public service occupational schemes.
As I have explained, the conditions that make pensions for armed service post-retirement marriages so urgent do not exist outside the armed services, so it should be possible to ring-fence the provision. Moreover, how accurate is the estimate of £50 million? In a Written Answer in another place on 22 March 2000, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces at the time, Mr John Spellar, informed Gordon Marsden MP that:
"No records are kept of the numbers of spouses of deceased service personnel who are not eligible for a Forces Family pension … it is also impossible to calculate the notional total value of pensions which might be paid to the spouses of deceased ex-service personnel who at present do not receive them".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/00; col. 567W.]
Is it not possible that the Government have overestimated the cost?
Until now, the MoD has refused even to contemplate looking at the plight of those affected. People who write in to express their concerns are sent virtually identical letters to those sent out in 1981. This week, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, my noble friend Lady Strange and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, have already mentioned, we have been honouring the bravery of those men who attacked the beaches of Normandy 60 years ago to secure this country's continued freedom and democracy. And yet it is quite ironic that it is the post-retirement widows of such men who are more affected by this anomaly than any other.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate my conviction that the 1978 legislation was particularly unsatisfactory for those serving in the Armed Forces. If the Armed Forces' service conditions were the same as those for other public services, I would respect the Government's position. However, they are not and never have been. That is why the Government should act now to introduce a modicum of support to those whose spouses depended on the Government for equitable treatment, which has so far been denied.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, this has been an excellent Second Reading debate, which rarely happens in this House. I was told when I joined the House that Second Reading was the time when you

485
flagged up the issues over which you were going to give the Government a hard time. Your Lordships have certainly put up many flags today.
We welcome the Bill and the fact that the Minister will move that it should be dealt with in Grand Committee at the next stage. We have no difficulty with that; we believe that it will be a good forum for the Bill. However, given the number of issues that have been raised, I should warn the Government that although we cannot vote at the next stage unless the Government take a slightly more conciliatory attitude than they did in the Commons and some movement is achieved, the Bill may have a much stormier passage in its later stages.
Like almost all noble Lords and almost everyone in the country, I am not an expert on pensions. I do as much as I can to avoid reading about pensions or any issues related to them. However, one aspect of the Bill caused me immediate concern when I read it. As with most Bills, I turned to the financial effects section in the Explanatory Notes, which shows who will be paying the bill, and noticed the strange and strangely worrying line that,
"The new Armed Forces Pension Scheme is designed to be cost-neutral in comparison with the current scheme".
This causes me to worry because the Minister, having read through the many amendments brought forward in another place, referred to the benefits that the Bill will bring about. I know that there are alterations in the very nature of the scheme but, as with everything, if there are winners there are bound to be some losers. We understand that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said that in comparison to other forms of pension schemes the one in the Bill could be seen as far better than those in the private sector. I agree with her. One of the reasons we welcome the Bill is that it will give a degree of confidence to those in the Armed Forces. However, it also perhaps shows up the state of pensions outside such schemes. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said that some widows might be better off under this scheme.
However, a great number of problems have been raised, many to do with the very nature of this unusual pension scheme. The early retirement date of soldiers is a factor in the job. One of the extreme problems that is taking effect within the services themselves is that whereas in the past if you served your term with the Army you were almost guaranteed a post outside of comparable pay and status, this now is often not the case. I have spoken to a number of army officers and non-commissioned officers who are considering leaving the Army early because their skills within the Army are non-transferable. Therefore, having considered their pension and job prospects, they have decided to leave the Army far earlier than they would want to in order to enter the job market. This is affecting some of the best talents within the Army.
Army pensions also have a different status because of the nature of the job, and that is being looked at. This is one of the few jobs in which the participants put themselves in the way of danger as part of their job.
486
I shall not go into great depth into each of the issues raised because I am sure we will be debating them for many an hour in Committee, but I plan to touch on them. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, raised the issue of burden of proof, which I find iniquitous. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has been a great advocate and champion of the Royal British Legion, and we should all recognise the work that the legion has undertaken.
One of the issues concerning burden of proof that the noble Lord did not raise is of great concern to me, with a sceptical eye from the outside. Burden of proof could be seen as a form of means-testing. There would be cost implications for widows, who have to deal with so many issues in a time of stress, if they had to establish the burden of proof. I worry about that, because it might deter many from embarking on claims.
The alternative is for the Royal British Legion to take up those cases; however, there will be great financial strain on the Royal British Legion if the number of cases increases and it has to take on the burden of proof. The situation has changed from that which applied earlier, because the MoD used to have to bear the costs of the burden of proof system.
Non-attributable pensions have been mentioned. Another issue which has exercised many is that of post-retirement marriages. That is an unfortunate situation, as many noble Lords indicated. It was particularly well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. We tend to look at the technical details, but the MoD will save money only if the widows do not remarry. It is almost a form of social engineering. I know that it is a trend for many people in later life not to remarry but simply enter into relationships, but for those who find it important—and I think marriage is important—to be denied that possibility because of financial consequences seems particularly unfortunate.
The Minister raised the rights of same-sex partners, which shows that the scheme is moving forward. That is a welcome contribution, considering the many debates we have had over the years about the nature of relationships within the Armed Forces. I believe that the relevant provision will be put in place by the Civil Partnership Bill, and we welcome that.
We would like to look at full career pensions. I very much hope that at a later stage we can explore whether the situation can be improved.
As with many of the Bills that come before us, many of the provisions will be set up by secondary legislation. One issue that I hope will be strengthened on the face of the Bill, although I know that it is affected by secondary legislation, is the provision of medical expenses from one place to the other. At present, if the NHS does not provide certain medical expenses in one area, they are not met by the MoD. It is seen as an unfortunate aspect of the NHS.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the question of secondary legislation and said that we should move to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. I cannot count the number of debates I have had over whether secondary legislation should be

487
affirmative or negative. I remember a particular debate when the Law Lords got involved, when I moved the amendment. The situation was so difficult that I lost the legal aspects of the argument and found it difficult to sum up. However, it is important for noble Lords to consider carefully whether secondary legislation should be allowed to do all the work or whether certain aspects should be mentioned in the Bill itself.
I mention that matter because of recent events. On Tuesday night I called a Division in this House on a Motion of regret on the Licensing Bill. It was a shot in the dark—it was not an important Division, as all noble Lords who were there knew. But it highlighted the fact that it is almost impossible to alter secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when summing up certain aspects of secondary legislation said, "Ah well, it is unfortunate that because it's not in primary legislation, we cannot deal with it in secondary legislation". I give fair warning that we shall push for certain aspects that would be considered areas of secondary legislation to be mentioned in the Bill itself.
Finally, I turn to the issue of deterioration of disabilities. The MoD made some conciliatory noises at an earlier stage that it would reconsider the acceptance of ongoing review rather than factoring average or standard deterioration. That is an important point, especially with the ongoing nature of medical disabilities. I know that amputations have very different effects on different cases and to call them average would be almost impossible. In addition, although the Minister will say that the case of Gulf War syndrome is not applicable because the MoD does not accept it, if it were ever accepted in future it would have to be reviewed on an ongoing basis.
I end with a question, which was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. It is one of those questions to which I did not know the answer; in debate, one should pick up those points and ask the Minister. Paragraph 17 of the Explanatory Notes says:
"There are no plans at present to introduce a defined contributions scheme".
The Minister will say that because there are no plans at present he cannot comment but, if such a scheme were brought in, could it be done through secondary legislation or would it need primary legislation?
6.3 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of the Earl Haig branch, and the Kent branch of the Royal British Legion. Also, as a former Regular Army officer, I was awarded a war disablement pension for service-attributed hearing loss in the form of a gratuity payment.
Our country takes great pride in its Armed Forces. As other noble Lords have said, that was very evident last weekend with enormous public support for, and interest in, the D-Day commemoration. I congratulate the Normandy Veterans Association, the Royal British Legion, the MoD and 102 Logistic Brigade on
488
their outstanding organisation. Having spent most of the weekend in front of the television, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, in complimenting the BBC.
We owe the people of our Armed Forces a debt of honour. So far as that debt can be met in monetary terms, Parliament must make that possible. The Armed Forces are a special case. They are expected to fight, and sometimes to die, for their country. It is vital that they serve confident in the knowledge that they will receive a pension that is up with the very best of modern good practice pension conditions and, should anything happen to them, that their families will be provided for.
This is essentially an enabling Bill. It is indeed the barest of enabling Bills and little more. It includes some minor specific provisions. The main focus of what I say will be on mainstream points that the Bill should address but which, as the text stands at present, it avoids.
First, the Bill says nothing about the particulars of the schemes that it will enable the Secretary of State to establish. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out the need to reassure the Armed Forces by entrenching key benchmarks about the new schemes on the face of the Bill. We support that. We cannot sign a blank cheque and give the Government powers to do something not adequately defined.
Secondly, although the Bill includes the reserves within its Long Title, it does less than it could, and should, for those who serve in the reserves. That is a service that is willingly given but which disturbs personal financial planning. My noble friend Lord Attlee gave the example of forgoing weekend earnings. The House has given considerable time today to debating, in the Pensions Bill, what can best be done to help people generally to save for their retirement in a secure manner. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hodgson on his stamina in speaking in both debates. If what the Government are doing in that Bill is right, they should specifically recognise and protect the reserves in this Bill. In Committee, we shall certainly propose the inclusion of specific enabling powers for the Secretary of State to protect the personal financial planning of reserves.
Another issue that is seemingly omitted is the matter of effective oversight of the working of both the pension and compensation schemes to be set up under the Bill. The assignment of responsibilities to the AFPRB is a step in the right direction but the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, questioned, rightly in our view, whether it goes far enough. We believe that it does not and we will return to this in Committee. We agree with the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that the AFPRB's involvement should be on the face of the Bill. Unlike in other pension schemes, the interests of participants are not represented by trustees, nor are they, or can they, be represented by trade unions. As a result, they look to us as parliamentarians to protect their interests.
The legacy issues, which will still remain in effect for so many beneficiaries, have been raised by many noble Lords. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, highlighted the

489
widows who get only one third of the pension. My noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, mentioned the pension problems faced by many widows. The Royal British Legion, the Forces Pension Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain—to all of which I am grateful for the mass of briefing that I have received on the Bill—have pointed out the demonstrable unfairness that no attempt has been made to correct past injustices, leaving many of today's pensioners severely disadvantaged. These have accumulated over time, unremedied and often unrecognised. We need to prevent such a situation from recurring and to be able to remedy such injustices piecemeal as opportunity offers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who until recently was such a vigorous and effective chairman of the AFPRB, largely welcomed the Bill. There are aspects of the Bill that we also welcome. Like the noble Baroness, we welcome the equal treatment given to officers and other ranks. We particularly welcome the increase in death-in-service benefits from 1.5 to 4 times pay and the improvements to dependents' benefits, which will come much closer to good practice.
I turn to two specific issues that are addressed in detail in the Bill and its schedules. Like my noble friend Lord Hodgson, we accept the Government's view that the future of the Royal Patriotic Fund should be settled by primary legislation and that this Bill is an appropriate route to that.
The second issue is the appeals procedure. Schedule 1 has a provision that alters the appeals procedure that has been in place for more than 60 years. It has stood the test of time and provides an efficient, accessible and cheap method for fairly determining appeals on time. What is proposed is an added layer of complexity which is likely to cause delay and leave claimants aggrieved that they have not had the legal issue determined by a High Court judge. We see no reason to change a well established procedure. The greater mischief is that the Bill makes no provision for the claimant's legal representation to be met.
The noble Baroness, Lady Strange—the wonderfully proactive president of the War Widows' Association—raised some of the concerns and problems of the war widows. The War Widows' Association has also raised with me the point that pensions and the GISW should be indexed to the retail prices index and not any lower index. That is particularly important for war widows, many of whom are widowed with young children and remain widowed for a very long time. The impact of low indexation is particularly punitive for them. We look to the Minister to give a firm assurance on that.
At Committee stage we will be confronting the problem faced by existing widows who are not benefiting from the Bill, extending to widows with non-attributable pensions the same level as that received by those with attributable pensions. Thus the MoD is about to create wilfully and unnecessarily a new group of disadvantaged people. Quite rightly the MoD has conceded the principle that widows'
490
pensions for life is an appropriate policy. It introduced it in 2000 for attributable service widows and included retrospectively existing widows—the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange.
The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Redesdale, rightly highlighted the problems of post-retirement marriages. My noble friend Lord Attlee raised the compensation problems faced by junior NCOs and servicemen. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, highlighted very eloquently the problems raised by the proposal to change the burden of proof for compensation from "reasonable doubt" to "balance of probabilities".
As the noble Lord said, the Commons Defence Committee was sceptical of a change that appears to make the Government's job appear easier and the claimant's harder. As my noble friend Lady Park pointed out, the committee also said that because of the "special risks" those personnel undertake, the onus of proof should remain with the MoD. That has been law for 60 years and for very good reason. It has hitherto been government policy to ensure that no valid claim is likely to be rejected. We will be very strongly supporting the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on this issue at Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the five-year time limit for claims under the compensation scheme. My honourable friend the Member for Ruislip Northwood pointed out at Second Reading in the other place that radiological illnesses often take a number of years to develop; similarly with cancers and various pathological conditions arising from severe trauma.
The brief given to those conducting this review was in important respects the wrong one. They were told to come up with something that would be cost neutral, not something that corrects past shortcomings and sets a fair structure for the future. There are indeed some improvements and I have welcomed those, but essentially money is to be saved by particularly deferring payments from 60 to 65. There is one winner—the Treasury. The Royal British Legion pointed out that the majority of ex-service people will be negatively affected. The costs of the present scheme show up in the defence budget at more than £4.5 billion a year—one-eighth or more of the total defence budget. No one can grudge those payments as such but there must be questions whether better benefits could be provided if the systems were organised in line with best modern practice. The Bill must provide a mechanism for getting these things right for the future. It is in that spirit that I look forward to working constructively to improve the Bill in Grand Committee and thereafter.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we have had a very good debate. As other noble Lords have mentioned, it has been extremely well timed, occurring in the week of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of D-Day. That event should quite rightly affect us all in what we have had to say.

491
These are proposals of very major importance to the Armed Forces and to the country which they serve. I should like to start by saying how grateful I am for the contributions from all noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about flags being raised. Certainly, a number of them have been raised on a rather wide range of topics, some of which are perhaps more relevant to the Bill than others. However, I look forward to seeing how they develop in the weeks ahead.
The debate demonstrated very well the knowledge and concern that this House traditionally has to uphold the interests of the Armed Services. I do not believe there is fundamental disagreement about the basic objects of the Bill. The arrangements that we put in place for pensions and compensation should be fairer and more responsive to the concerns of serving personnel and should be properly in line with wider good practice. My view is that the plans that we have debated today will achieve that.
I shall try to address as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as I can. Some I shall deliberately not reply to because of time constraints and because I believe they concerned topics that will emerge when amendments are tabled. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made a number of very interesting points from his great experience as someone who serves in the Armed Forces as a reserve. I believe—I think that he said this in effect—that many of his points may be dealt with at a later stage.
In the same spirit I shall not deal tonight with the points that my noble friend Lady Dean made about transitional issues, if she will forgive me. It would take too much time and I am sure that they will emerge at a later stage. However, I should like to try to get some points out of the way, if I may. The first is one that was made by my noble friend Lady Dean and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, regarding what assurance I can give that the scheme will remain a defined benefit scheme. Of course, I welcome the recognition from around the House of the value of a defined benefit scheme. As Ministers we were aware of the broader trends in the economy when we decided that we should go down that route. We are confident that that was the right decision and noble Lords' comments backed us up in that. The scheme provides the high level of assurance that Armed Forces personnel deserve. Of course, we cannot guarantee that future generations will maintain that position for all time. What government can ever do that? A government cannot bind their successors. However, we do not consider that a defined contribution scheme would be the right course for the new scheme. I think that we have made that clear.
I turn to a smaller but important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. He wanted to know about the guaranteed income stream in the Armed Forces scheme. That income stream will be uprated by the retail prices index.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked me a direct question about the incorrect taxation of ex-service personnel. We recognise the error, which
492
dated back to before World War II. We have received all the files at risk and identified all those affected. Refunds have been made, including simple interest. At the end of last year, we announced a generous compensation package to cover the effects of inflation on the refunds, and the first payments have now been made. The process should be completed before the end of the year. I am sure that the noble Baroness will check with me to see that it has.
Some issues were raised that go under the heading of "legacy issues". The siren calls for dealing with legacy issues were made with incredible skill and persuasiveness today. Of course, those who make them have lots of experience in making them. Any government must be prepared to listen carefully and consider such calls, but they must also sometimes steel themselves against giving way too easily to what, on the face of it, sound like extraordinarily attractive arguments. One overrides the principle of retrospection only in very extreme cases, if at all. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, would say that, if he were standing here, as would the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Governments of all parties and shades have stuck with the view that to change the law retrospectively is, for the most part, an error.
I have no doubt that some of the issues will arise again at later stages, and I hope to deal with them as sympathetically as I can. However, I do not want to give the House any impression that I am in a position to offer any alleviation of the real issues that have been raised.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester made a point about non-attributable widow's pensions for life. I must point again that one of the great benefits of the Bill is the fact that we have taken forward what the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, succeeded in doing in what I can only describe as a tour de force a few years ago, effectively changing the position for widows. Under the Bill, widows will be able to keep their pension for life on remarriage, whether or not death is due to service. I am not sure that that change has got the praise that it deserves.
The rules on remarriage were common across public service pension schemes. The changes made in 2000 were exceptional, for a special group of war widows. To grant pensions for life in the current pension scheme to existing non-attributable widows is not affordable and would be in breach of the policy of successive governments on retrospection.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Minister says that it is not affordable. Can he give the House any indication of the sums involved?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am about to do so, in general terms. The Government believe that it is not possible to distinguish between the widows of doctors, policemen or firemen whose spouse dies from natural causes not due to their employment. The financial implications of making a change throughout the whole public service would be very high, running, we believe, to several billion pounds. I mention the figure of £3 billion—in very broad terms.

493
A plea was made for the pre-1973 widows, who receive a one third-rate pension. Effective pleas were made by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. Half-rate widows' pensions were introduced without retrospection to most public sector pension schemes in 1973. To uprate the provisions of this group of widows would be unaffordable and in breach of the policy of successive governments that there should not be retrospection.
Those serving in the Armed Forces when half-rate widows' pensions were introduced were given an option then to buy back the extra pension provision to increase their widows' pension to half-rate. I do not know how easy that was for them to do. In the gloom of what I have had to say, perhaps I may cast a little light: we are currently investigating whether it might be possible to offer a buy-in option for those now retired to improve widows' benefits from one third to a half rate. No doubt, we will discuss that again.
On legacy issues generally, I fully accept that former service personnel and their families feel aggrieved that they have not always benefited from subsequent improvements to pension provisions, but that must not delay or deter us from bringing about improvements for future pensioners. I have taken on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others about post-retirement widows' pensions. I have no doubt that we will return to the issue.
Perhaps I may make a couple of remarks on what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and others have said on a number of issues. Like the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lady Dean on having the perseverance—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, meant to do that—to spend a whole day on pensions in this House. It is beyond the call of duty. I recognise their expertise in this sometimes arcane field.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked about those leaving mid-career and having to accept lower salaries with lower pensions. I recognise that there can still be career penalties for those leaving the Armed Forces before a full career. Obviously, that can affect later pension earning capacity. However, our resettlement work shows that the majority of servicemen and servicewomen leaving the Army mid-career get good, sustainable jobs, not least because of the skills training that they have had, most importantly the skill of having been a successful member of the Armed Forces. In many cases they choose to leave earlier than we in the Ministry of Defence would wish, but we are confident that the new early departure scheme, which gets more generous the later the departure, provides security for those entering a second career.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and others made the point about communication. We do not underestimate the challenge that we face in ensuring that all servicemen and servicewomen, wherever they are serving are sufficiently informed about their options. As my noble friend Lady Dean mentioned, we have begun work on our communications exercise. We will build on the experience of those who introduced
494
the new Civil Service pension scheme and our own exercises in relation to ethnic monitoring in the Armed Forces and pay legislation of 2000.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. The noble Lord might like to look at Ministry of Defence Policy Paper 6, which has just been sent out to us all, on individual training and education in the Armed Forces. It does not mention pensions anywhere.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; he will understand that it is, of course, my bedside reading. The choice between pension schemes will be determined by individual circumstances. Service personnel will need to make a judgment; they will be given a window of opportunity. Accessible information about the new scheme will be made available in booklets, briefing material, road shows and on our websites. We will also target service personnel and their spouses through magazine articles. We are examining how we might best facilitate access to independent financial advice, but it must be independent, as the noble Lord will understand clearly, which makes life slightly difficult.
I have heard the extremely powerful remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Redesdale, and many others, about wanting to see more on the face of the Bill. We have looked carefully at that. We believe that it would be impractical. It is not possible to include principles in primary legislation without getting into considerable detail because the commitments would need to be legally clear. For example, a clause on the rate for dependants' benefits would need to cover accrual rates and the definition—and it is not an easy one—of pensionable pay, including arrangements for dynamisation.
Many other public service schemes are drawn up on the basis of enabling primary legislation with rules in secondary legislation. It follows that if we saw that principle through, we should end up putting everything in the primary legislation that is in secondary legislation.
I have to say that just for a moment I slightly resented the noble Lord's suggestion that the Ministry of Defence was hiding the fact that there is an abatement of pay each year because of pensions. I do not think that the Ministry of Defence have ever hidden that away. Many members of the Armed Forces know precisely how their pay is made up. It would certainly be possible for them to find out. There is no hiding away here. I am sure that is not what he meant.
A powerful point about the Armed Forces Pay Review Body being mentioned on the face of the Bill was made by my noble friend Lady Dean and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I am afraid that we disagree about that. We see no reason to include the role of the AFPRB in primary legislation. We understand that it has performed its role on pay with

495
great ability—not least under the chairmanship of my noble friend—for many years without provision in primary legislation. If its role and remit were now to be placed in primary legislation, that would reduce the flexibility with which it could be used in the years ahead.
One reason we do not want to put too much detail on the face of the Bill is because every time we need to change it in any regard we have to move primary legislation in this House. That is a problem. I am sure we shall return to the issue in due course.
We believe that there is a special status for the Armed Forces. We think the Bill shows that in two ways. In overall design terms, this measure is well up to good practice outside. I remind the House that we commissioned independent reviews before finalising our designs which confirm that, and we have included featured designs specifically to address the special demands of hazards of a service life. These include the exceptionally early age for a full pension, retention of a defined benefit scheme, still generous benefits for those who have to leave in mid-career, valuable lump sums and income paid to those injured as a result of service—with improved focus in this Bill on the more severely disabled—and the major improvements to dependants' benefits reflecting the particular risks of military service. So we believe that the special status of current and ex-servicemen is recognised in the Bill.
I conclude with the standard of proof. I know this is an important issue for a number of noble Lords. Balance of probabilities is used widely elsewhere, including in the civil courts. My noble friend said that in our legal system there were two standards of proof—beyond reasonable doubt and on a balance of probabilities; one for the criminal system that we enjoy and one for the civil system that we enjoy. I have to remind him, as he knows very well, that the balance of probabilities standard is adopted in civil cases in this country. The issues we are talking about are civil rather than criminal in nature. That is one reason we believe that this change, which was the law for many years, is the right one to continue with.
496
We have listened carefully—we will continue to do so—to the concerns of the Royal British Legion and others that a large number of claims will fail as a result, but we do not believe that to be right. We have explained carefully why we think that that is based on a misunderstanding. The basic issue for us is that we will ask claimants to offer evidence on why they think that a condition is more likely than not to have been linked to service. In today's world, that must be right. Many injuries arise at home in private social life. The department simply cannot have visibility of those.
The responsibility to furnish evidence is not all one-way, however. As a department, we must disclose the medical and other service records that will help to reveal whether a condition has a history arising from service. We make it clear again that we recognise the seriousness of our role in that respect. We also accept that there have been errors in the past in medical records; we believe that that position has improved. If there is a lack of medical records in any such matters when they arise, it certainly will not do the department's case any good at all in the real world. I am confident that no claim would fail where there was reasonable evidence that disablement was due to service.
I have spoken for quite long enough. We have a further opportunity to discuss the issues during the remaining stages of the Bill's passage. Believe it or not, I actually look forward to that. Some of the issues are complex and all are important. They raise strong emotions, touching as they do on the lives of a group of men and women to whom we, in this House and in the country generally, owe a very great responsibility. I have commended the principles behind the Bill to the House enough times already this afternoon. We believe that the schemes are good, so I commend the Bill to the House for a final time today.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, before we conclude, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for not being eagle-eyed enough to pick up the fact that she had spoken in both debates.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before seven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Ex-prisoner support groups
  Northern Ireland: Ex-prisoner support groups
  Northern Ireland: Childcare
  Northern Ireland: Childcare
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Republic of Ireland: Official Languages Act
  Republic of Ireland: Official Languages Act
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Language Implementation Body
  Language Implementation Body
  Northern Ireland: Hospitals
  Northern Ireland: Hospitals
  Northern Ireland: Long-term Care of the Elderly
  Northern Ireland: Long-term Care of the Elderly
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Recruitment
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Recruitment
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Remuneration
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Remuneration
  Northern Ireland: Education
  Northern Ireland: Education
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Olympic Advisory Group
  Olympic Advisory Group
  Afghanistan: Narcotics Production
  Afghanistan: Narcotics Production
  Israel: Illegal Settlements
  Israel: Illegal Settlements
  Passports
  Passports
  Future Joint Combat Aircraft
  Future Joint Combat Aircraft
  Bilateral Defence Acquisition Committee
  Bilateral Defence Acquisition Committee
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
  Right-to-Buy Scheme
  Right-to-Buy Scheme
  Department for Education and Skills: Recruitment
  Department for Education and Skills: Recruitment
  British Grand Prix
  British Grand Prix

  Mainstreaming Gender into Foreign Policy
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The FCO has today published a booklet entitled Inclusive Government: Mainstreaming gender into foreign policy, prepared by its Gender Advisory Group. Copies of this booklet have been placed in the Library of the House. From 23 June it will also be available on the FCO's website at www.fco.gov.uk.

  Mainstreaming gender is about considering fully the impact on men and women of a particular policy, project or service, and taking steps to ensure that those impacts are positive for both sexes. Mainstreaming gender is crucial to the work of the FCO.

  This booklet draws together the work the FCO is already doing on gender, and serves as a toolkit for FCO staff to mainstream gender more fully into their work. I hope it will help to ensure that the FCO can devise more effective policies, and make better use of resources, leading to positive outcomes for the UK.

  Iraq: Service Police Investigations
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 4 May, I told the House that 33 cases of civilian deaths, injuries or alleged ill treatment in Iraq have been investigated by Service police. The Secretary of State repeated this figure in the House on 10 May as did the Prime Minister on 12 May.

  A detailed verification exercise was put in place to ensure that all cases were being properly investigated and centrally reported. As a result of this continuing exercise it has come to light that the figure given on 4 May failed to incorporate details of investigations from all branches of the Service police.

  The correct number of investigations into civilian deaths, injuries or alleged ill treatment undertaken at 4 May was 61. Of these 23 were still in progress, 31 had concluded with no further action being taken and seven were pending a decision whether to prosecute. None of these additional 28 cases relates to detention facilities.

  We have initiated a further 14 investigations since 4 May. These new investigations can principally be attributed to the high operational tempo over the past
  WS 16
  month, and a small number of new allegations made by Iraqi civilians relating to earlier incidents.

  Steps have been taken to ensure that information on all Service police investigations into incidents in Iraq are now held centrally. I will continue to update the House on significant developments as appropriate.

  Government Indemnity Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or bringing into the public domain the conclusions of any study.

  In the six-month period ended 31 March, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under Section 16 by the relevant departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Numbers

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  687

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  179

  The National Assembly for Wales

  229

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under Section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 31 March is:

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  3,177,492,071

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  607,547,273

  The National Assembly for Wales

  76,817,843

  The value of non-statutory government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March is £4,975,000.

  The value of non-statutory undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March is £170,937,987.