Sitting of 2 March 2004

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

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What the budget for reconstruction in Afghanistan is in 2003–04; and what it was in 2002–03. [157411]
    The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): More than $1.8 billion was provided by donors to Afghanistan for 2002–03. In March 2003, the Transitional Administration presented a budget for $2.2 billion to donors for 2003–04.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Minister will appreciate that one of the biggest problems in Afghanistan is security: Some 550 people have died since August, and we have unfortunately seen some suicide bombings—a brand new development. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Development announced £75 million in additional money for reconstruction. I appreciate that that is important, but should not that money come from the Foreign Office budget or the war effort reconstruction budget rather than the international aid budget, which was ring-fenced for other purposes?
    Mr. O'Brien: The international aid budget is for helping countries that need help—and Afghanistan surely needs help at the moment. The way in which the Department for International Development is funded takes account of the fact that it is responsible for ensuring that development money goes into Afghanistan. One of the primary aims that DFID is dealing with is trying to get the economy of Afghanistan going again, and we have had a number of recent meetings in the Foreign Office about that. None the less, security is a primary issue. When I was in Mazar-e-Sharif, a few weeks ago, I saw what tremendous work the UK provincial reconstruction team was doing, and I congratulate our forces on the work that they are performing.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Will my hon. Friend elaborate on what progress has been made in reconstructing the education system in Afghanistan?
    Mr. O'Brien: There have been substantial improvements in the education system in Afghanistan: 4
    738
    million children are back at school, and 37 per cent. of them are girls, compared with only 5 per cent three years ago. There has been a tremendous expansion. I should also add—and it is a great tribute to UNICEF that all this has been done since the conflict—that 12 million immunisations against polio and 16 million against measles have been given since 2002, saving the lives of 30,000 people, many of them children.
    Mr. George Osborne: Does the Minister accept that there appears to be a tension between the desire of the international community to create a strong central government in Kabul and the desire of the American-led forces hunting al-Qaeda, who use regional warlords to help them in that important fight? How does he think we can overcome that conflict?
    Mr. O'Brien: I do not accept that there is quite that difference in view between what the hon. Gentleman calls the coalition, and the Americans. President Karzai has had enormous support from the American Administration throughout, and he continues to do so. The effort is to ensure that the stability that has been created around Kabul is expanded across the country. That is why we have set up the various provincial reconstruction teams over recent months, and they have been very successful. However, particularly in the south of the country, there is clearly still an issue with terrorism: there are remnants of the Taliban, and also al-Qaeda elements, in that part of the country, and the Americans are dealing with that, with assistance from British and other forces. Increasingly, they are being assisted by Afghans from the ANA—the Afghan national army—who can help the Americans and others to deal with the terrorist threat.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: I recognise that security is the most important element in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, but will my hon. Friend comment on the position of women in Afghanistan, particularly those who missed out on education for many years while the Taliban were in government, or whatever we call it? What is being done to promote the education of girls and women in Afghanistan? Are mixed schools, or girls' schools, being built?
    Mr. O'Brien: The situation varies across the country. In some parts of Afghanistan there is a large-scale reconstruction programme. Obviously, that is more difficult in the south than in the north or in central Afghanistan. The attitudes of the regional governments tend to vary; for example, in the eastern part of the country around Herat, Ishmail Khan tends to take a more traditional view, whereby the education of girls and boys is separated. In other parts of Afghanistan, many children attend the same schools, particularly when they are younger, although they may have separate classes. The circumstances of women are certainly improving, but from our perspective, there is still a very long way to go.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I strongly support the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and it is vital to see the matter through. However, out of the overall UK contribution to

    739
    reconstruction, only £25 million a year for the next three years is focused on heroin production in the country. Given that no country can have a stable economy based on drug production and given that most of the heroin ends up on the streets of Britain, would it not be more appropriate if a greater proportion of that budget were focused on dealing with that evil, damaging trade? We would then be able to make a real dent in it.
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is just wrong. The UK has contributed £70 million over three years, and a dedicated counter-narcotics team is in place in Kabul. Additional DFID funding is going towards providing alternative livelihoods. Part of the overall strategy for dealing with narcotics is not simply to target narcotics production and focus on the interdiction itself, but to provide alternative livelihoods for people who would otherwise be tempted to become involved in the development of narcotics. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the overall counter-narcotics budget, he must include the considerable amount going into alternative livelihoods, and, indeed, into other reconstruction projects that help provide jobs and alternative incomes for many of the people of Afghanistan. The funding is therefore more than he suggests.

    Northern Uganda
    Ann McKechin: What recent discussions he has had about peace and human rights in Northern Uganda. [157412]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed the situation in northern Uganda with President Museveni during his visit to London on 29 January. We urged the President to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict, but we recognise that it is extremely difficult to negotiate with a terrorist organisation that has no known political agenda. I also met Acholi civil society representatives on 2 February.
    Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I visited Kampala two weeks ago and met several Ugandan MPs who are working for peace and reconciliation. They impressed on me that the conflict is largely about children, who are abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army, brutalised and made part of the killing machine. I ask my hon. Friend to continue to press the Ugandan Government to seek political and humanitarian solutions to the conflict rather than military ones. Will he also urge them to continue the current amnesty, which is due to expire in the next couple of months?
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. The conflict in northern Uganda is probably the largest unresolved conflict in Africa at the moment. Some of the events occurring, such as the recent massacre at Lira, are unspeakable. We repeatedly impressed on the Ugandan Government our view that there is no purely military solution to the conflict. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the effect of the war on children, and we are keen to see the amnesty
    740
    commission continue. We have provided it with material and technical assistance. About 7,200 fighters, mostly children, have been rehabilitated, and the commission has helped to resolve insurgencies in other parts of Uganda, so we are pressing for it to continue.
    Mr. William Cash: As chairman of the all-party group on Uganda, and having visited Gulu in northern Uganda, I welcome the Minister's discussions with President Museveni. However, the barbaric treatment of children, with as many as 20,000 abducted and forced into fighting and killing one another, is absolutely intolerable. As the Minister says, it is one of the worst blights in Africa at the moment. Will he be good enough to attend a meeting with the high commissioner for Uganda to discuss the matter, which we could arrange somewhere in the House, because exchanges on the Floor of the House are one thing, but proper and measured discussion, which would be more constructive, quite another.
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and everything he says about the war in northern Uganda is true. I would be glad to attend what I assume would be an all-party meeting in the House of Commons. We have constant discussions with representatives of the Uganda Government at all levels from the President downwards. In the long run, the best hope of a solution is a settlement in the Sudan, next door. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will know, the core leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army are based deep inside the Sudan. In the end, that might make the greatest impact on their willingness either to negotiate or be removed from the scene.
    Mr. Andy Reed: My hon. Friend will be aware that I raised this question some time ago. I should like to pay tribute to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Stevens, who have had an interest in this issue, and to recognise that the conflict has been going on for a long time. Once again, it is the children who suffer. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as poverty levels in the north of Uganda are far greater than elsewhere, we need to ensure that we provide humanitarian aid as well as trying to reduce conflict? It is the children and the poorest in northern Uganda who are suffering as a consequence of the conflict.
    Mr. Mullin: We already make large amounts of humanitarian aid and development aid available to the Ugandan Government. What is most pressing is to find a settlement, because until there is a settlement, all the aid in the world will not help to relieve the tragic situation in Acholi land. We receive many letters from concerned British citizens on the subject, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the impact on children.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: In recent years, Uganda has been a beacon of hope in a fairly troubled continent. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned, awful atrocities have been perpetrated by the inappropriately named Lord's Resistance Army. What help have the United Kingdom Government offered? Have we offered any British expertise to try to root out the perpetrators? Have we

    741
    offered to galvanise the Commonwealth to give practical support? That is crucial if we are to see the future of Uganda as a beacon of hope.
    Mr. Mullin: We have given a lot of help. Our high commissioner in Kampala has regularly visited northern Uganda. We have helped to sponsor an independent radio station as a way of getting a message across to the people of Acholi land. We have also made it clear that we are willing to help with any negotiations, and we have helped to fund some of the Acholi civic leaders who have been attempting negotiations. I can only repeat that it is extremely difficult to negotiate with such an unspeakable terrorist organisation, which has no known political demands. In addition, we have put in a lot of humanitarian aid for the people who have suffered from the recent atrocities.

    Iraq
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: What communications he has received from other governments regarding surveillance of delegates to the UN Security Council during the period before military action against Iraq. [157413]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The British embassy in Mexico received an official note from the Mexican Government on 19 December. Our ambassador in Mexico City gave our response to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at a meeting yesterday.
    Mr. Gerrard: In written answers, the Foreign Secretary told me that it is not the Government's policy, and has never been the policy of any Government, to respond to speculation about the operational activities of the intelligence services. Is not it a fact rather than speculation that a communication was received from the Government of the USA asking for assistance in surveillance of United Nations delegations? The question as to what action was taken on that memorandum will not go away.
    Mr. Straw: I understand and appreciate the nature of my hon. Friend's question, but I have to say that the House as well as successive Governments have always accepted that we have to ensure that there can be no speculation or no comment either to confirm or deny reports claiming details about the nature of British intelligence activities. However, I can make it clear that the British intelligence and security services operate strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and requirements laid down by the House and the other place. Those requirements take full account of our obligations under international law.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: On the subject of bugging in the United Nations, what is any judge supposed to make of any future breach of the Official Secrets Act, given that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) is patently in
    742
    breach of that Act and of her Privy Council oath and that the Government are too spineless and guilt-ridden to do anything about it?
    Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Official Secrets Act, decisions to prosecute are made not by Ministers, but by the Director of Public Prosecutions with the consent of the Attorney-General.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Has the Foreign Secretary noticed that the claims made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) have changed from day to day? First, she said that British intelligence was bugging Kofi Annan; then she said that the transcript came from someone else; and then she said the transcript dealt with Africa, not Iraq. She has probably not breached the Official Secrets Act, but she has been very irresponsible.
    Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend's summary of some of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) illustrates the sense of successive Governments in not commenting either to confirm or deny allegations relating to the security and intelligence services. I have already explained why we will not comment; we would end up doing nothing else if we were to go down that path. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already expressed the sentiment, which is widely shared on both sides of the House, that the claims made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood were utterly irresponsible.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go any further, a right hon. or hon. Member should not be criticised without a substantive motion going before the House.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: Without my asking the Foreign Secretary to comment on an individual case, does he agree as a matter of principle that the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has a special responsibility to protect the integrity and independence of the Council and to uphold the office of the Secretary-General? As a matter of principle, would electronic surveillance of other members of the Security Council, or indeed the Secretary-General himself, be a serious breach of that responsibility?
    Mr. Straw: I entirely subscribe to the first statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he will forgive me for not proceeding down the rabbit hole of his second statement. As a senior and responsible Member of the House, he knows why no Foreign Secretary of any party can ever confirm or deny reports relating to our intelligence activities.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my right hon. Friend think it more or less likely that the United States and other partners will share vital intelligence with us if we cannot keep secrets?
    Mr. Straw: One of the many reasons why we must make every effort to ensure that intelligence is kept

    743
    secret is to protect our relationships with our international partners, but there other, even more important, reasons as well.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: On the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, has any British leader been so uninformed about a selected enemy since Lord Chelmsford invaded Zululand?
    Mr. Straw: I am not quite as senior in the House as the hon. Gentleman, and I remember the details of Lord Chelmsford's invasion of Zululand less well than he does. We were well informed about Iraq's behaviour. I know that he took one view, but the House took another by a clear majority of more than 200 votes. We were in full possession of the facts: Iraq was and remained in material breach of its international obligations under a succession of Security Council resolutions, and it had committed further clear material breaches of resolution 1441. It was therefore appropriate that the serious consequences proposed under operational paragraph 13 should take place.
    David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that far from wishing to apologise some of us are proud indeed of our vote to destroy one of the most murderous tyrannies since 1945? Some who voted for the war may now want to apologise, but I do not want to be included in that category. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should be proud of what was done. If military action had not been taken, Saddam would have continued to rule for years ahead.
    Mr. Straw: I entirely commend my hon. Friend for his constancy. Let us remind ourselves before trying to rewrite history that the basis on which the House voluntarily made its decision this time last year in respect of military action was not intelligence but what all of us could see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears—the 12 years of defiance by Saddam Hussein of UN obligations. That defiance had got worse. He had thrown out weapons inspectors at the end of 1998. Resolution 1441 was passed, and it imposed clear obligations on Saddam, which he failed to fulfil. Resolution 1441 did not require a second resolution, and it said to Saddam that if he failed to meet his obligations, serious consequences would follow.
    As for the second part of my hon. Friend's remarks, there is no doubt that had we not taken military action last March, Saddam would be continuing his oppression of the Iraqi people, including millions of Shi'ites—who now have some religious freedom, notwithstanding the appalling attack this morning—and the Kurds, and he would have been emboldened and re-empowered to increase the terror for his own people and to threaten the stability of the rest of the region.
    Hugh Robertson: Returning to the question of surveillance at the United Nations, the issue originally came into the public domain as the result of the actions of a civil servant at GCHQ, an organisation for which the Foreign Secretary is of course responsible. What steps will he take within GCHQ to prevent a repetition, before
    744
    lasting damage is done both to the transatlantic intelligence relationship and the confidence and —crucially—the safety of our own intelligence services?
    Mr. Straw: Without going into details, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are taking the necessary steps. I should say that such incidents have taken place on both sides of the Atlantic and in most western countries from time to time, but they are very rare. I have no doubts about the professionalism, commitment and, above all, loyalty of all those who work for the British intelligence and security services.

    Kazakhstan
    Linda Gilroy: What discussions he has had with the Government of Kazakhstan about human rights. [157414]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights issues with both President Nazarbaev and Foreign Minister Tokaev when he visited Kazakhstan on 5 February. I have also raised those issues with the Kazakh ambassador in London
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that free, independent and democratic trade unions have an important part to play in bringing democracy and human rights to countries such as Kazakhstan? Is he aware of the work of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in Kazakhstan, and will he ensure that it gets the support that it needs to continue to play a role in enabling that country to be a force for stability in that region?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for the work that she does as the vice-chair of the all-party group, which engages importantly on those issues. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been pleased to be able to fund a substantive project for the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in Kazakhstan. Under the new criteria for the new global opportunities fund, Kazakhstan is not a priority country. Nevertheless, in direct response to my hon. Friend's concern—I have also discussed the issue with other colleagues—I can confirm that trade union work in Kazakhstan remains important, and I am prepared to consider creatively, within the criteria, future funding bids.
    Bob Spink: Since gaining independence about a decade ago, Kazakhstan has made tremendous progress in many areas and is now a good place for mutual business between our two countries. However, does the Minister agree that Kazakhstan must have the confidence to develop stronger press and media freedom?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. As is often the case in such situations, the forces of progress and reaction are present at the same time. I understand his point about press freedom; the issue was raised by the Foreign Secretary during his recent visit to Kazakhstan and there have been positive

    745
    developments, but we need to continue to press the Kazakh authorities to follow through on all such issues, whether they are to do with electoral law or press freedom.

    Cameroon
    Mr. David Chaytor: What assistance he will be providing to the international monitoring of the forthcoming presidential election in Cameroon. [157415]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): The presidential election is due to take place this autumn. The Cameroonian Government have made it clear that observers will be welcome, and British officials will observe the elections across the country. We will also work with our European Union partners and the Commonwealth on practical support for the elections.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank the Minister for that reply. I especially welcome the recent legislative changes in Cameroon that led to the strengthening of the powers of the national elections observatory. However, does my hon. Friend accept that one of the key factors in enabling a free and fair presidential election is the registration of voters? Is he concerned that, particularly among the English-speaking minority in southern Cameroon, registration of voters is an issue and that there may be reluctance among some sections of the community to register? Can he tell the House what assistance the Government will give to ensure the maximum possible registration of voters for this year's presidential election?
    Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend is right: effective registration is the key to a free election. We are encouraging the Cameroonian Government to publish an electoral timetable and to take steps to implement the transparent and fair registration process that is the key to a free election. Registration has been badly flawed in the past. The problem is not just among the English-speaking minority; we think that there are marginalised groups throughout the country, and there needs to be a free election throughout the whole country. We are giving a modest amount of assistance to the national elections observatory, including, we hope, the supply of literally transparent ballot boxes to help to ensure a free election. We are also offering some advice, and the Commonwealth, through Christine Stewart, is actively engaged in encouraging the Government of Cameroon to live up to the Harare principles.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding his welcome references to the EU and the Commonwealth, those of us in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation who visited Cameroon last year and those of us who met the Cameroonian delegation to Britain a few months ago are acutely aware of the French influence on the thinking of the President and in that country? Will he bear that in mind during bilateral discussions as well as within the EU?
    Mr. Mullin: We certainly will. I have heard from a number of sources that the CPA visit to Cameroon was
    746
    extremely successful and highlighted to the Cameroonian public the concern of the outside world about the need for free and transparent democratic processes. On my right hon. Friend's point about French influence, we are working with all our EU partners and with the Commonwealth to try to achieve a higher standard of democratic governance in the country, as there is considerable scope for improvement. We also make that clear in all our contacts with the Government of Cameroon.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Adrian Flook: If he will make a statement on progress towards a settlement in Cyprus. [157416]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Talks resumed in Nicosia on 19 February. Initial reports are encouraging. The timetable is tight, and both sides are arguing for changes to the plan on some substantive points, but we hope that the constructive spirit shown by the parties in New York will enable them to reach an agreement.
    Mr. Flook: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but that date is only nine weeks away. What is plan B?
    Mr. Straw: In a sense, there is no plan B. If no agreement can be reached, a divided Cyprus will come into the European Union. There is only a plan A. What we are saying not only to the Turkish-Cypriots and the Turkish Government but to the Greek-Cypriots and the Greek Government is that it is in the interests of no one at all for a divided Cyprus to come into the EU.
    Mr. Andrew Love: May I make a plea for flexibility in the negotiations, especially in relation to the Annan plan? As my right hon. Friend has already indicated, when the solution comes forward, it will have to be subject to a referendum of both communities. We need flexibility so that the referendum will be carried on both sides.
    Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend's interest in this issue, and the great interest that many of his constituents take in it. A spirit of compromise from both sides is required. The negotiations are being led by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his special representative, Mr. de Soto. We are not interfering in those negotiations, but we will give support when we can. I say again that I hope that my hon. Friend and all who represent Cypriots, whether from the Turkish or Greek side, will in turn urge on their constituents the need to put behind them past hatreds and animosities and recognise that for both sides—Greeks and Turks—the problem can be resolved. This is the best opportunity in two generations, but if the problem is not resolved by 1 May, it will not go away: it will just become more difficult.
    Mr. Roger Gale: All people of good will on both sides of the political divide in Cyprus would like to see a settlement prior to the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. That being so—this

    747
    point has already been made—there will have to be referendums on both sides of the green line. As a guarantor power, what steps is the United Kingdom taking to ensure that there is international monitoring of the referendums to guarantee that they, in turn, are free and fair?
    Mr. Straw: We have particular responsibilities as a guarantor power. Along with our European Union partners and, above all, the United Nations, we would participate in the necessary programmes to ensure that the referendums were free and fair.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Robert Syms: What steps he will be taking to celebrate the 300th anniversary of British possession of Gibraltar. [157417]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): As I told the House before Christmas, I look forward to the celebrations of the arrival of English and Dutch ships in Gibraltar 300 years ago. The royal family, Ministers, hon. Members, and all friends of Gibraltar will enjoy these events, which have started this morning—even as I speak—with the service of thanksgiving that is taking place at St. Clement Danes. Units of Her Majesty's armed forces will take part in a total of more than 20 events throughout the year. I spoke this morning to the Chief Minister, Mr. Caruana, and welcomed in particular his offer to fly out 500 veterans to enjoy the hospitality of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Syms: Given the Government's recent rather shabby treatment of the people of Gibraltar, the 300th anniversary of British rule is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the relationship between Gibraltar and this country. Should we not be doing more to celebrate this wonderful occasion?
    Mr. MacShane: I do not want to repeat my answer, but the celebrations will involve the royal family, Ministers, 20 different occasions in which the armed forces will participate, Members of Parliament, veterans—and myself. I can think of nothing more.
    Chris Bryant(Rhondda) (Lab): May I urge the Minister, as part of the celebrations, to visit Madrid, and particularly the Gibraltar tourism office in Madrid, to try to encourage more Spaniards to visit Gibraltar? In the end, it is only when we have a proper relationship between Gibraltar and Spain, as well as Gibraltar and Britain, that we will provide a secure economic future for the people of Gibraltar.
    Mr. MacShane: I convey that message to my opposite numbers in Madrid, and have done so consistently since I took responsibility for the area. We should not forget the more than 500,000 British citizens, many of whom live close to Gibraltar on the Andalusian coast, who live in perfect harmony and happiness in Spain. If we can move forward in a spirit of tolerance and harmony, and try to find agreement rather than making maximum cheap political capital out of the matter—as, I would
    748
    gently say, some members of the Opposition Front Bench do—we will all move forward much more successfully.
    Mr. Richard Spring: I suggest to the Minister that the best way the Government could celebrate Gibraltar's 300th anniversary would be to apologise publicly for trying so energetically and unethically to dump Gibraltar. Does he not see any irony in the fact that at a time when the Home Secretary is inviting new citizens to recognise their Britishness, 30,000 British citizens have been treated entirely differently? More specifically, will the hon. Gentleman explain why this morning's church service in London to celebrate our historic relationship with Gibraltar is shamefully marked by the absence of senior Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister? What a disgraceful snub.
    Mr. MacShane: I regret the hon. Gentleman's tone, which is not up to his normal amiable style. Last week in the Daily Mail, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary was reported as saying that he
    "regretted he would miss the service…because he would have to"
    be at the House. But of course now that the words "shameless opportunism" and the Conservative party have become completely intertwined, the hon. Gentleman has done another U-turn. There is good news for the people of Gibraltar, however. The Conservative party in Kensington and Chelsea has selected Sir Malcolm Rifkind as its candidate. When he returns to the House, as I expect he will after the election next year, he will sit on the Opposition Front Bench, and at long last there may be some consistency, principle and style on foreign policy questions from the Conservative party.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I have a better idea for celebrating the 300th anniversary of Gibraltar: the UK Government should robustly resist the temerity and audacity of Spain, which is not only trying to frustrate the construction of the franchise in Gibraltar but is seeking to deprive millions of voters in the UK of the opportunity to vote in the European elections, in Blackburn and elsewhere: it wants to prevent Commonwealth citizens voting in the European elections both in Gibraltar and in the UK.
    Mr. MacShane: That move, if it comes to pass, will be stoutly resisted. Let us not forget that in the other place we witnessed the shameless opportunism of both the main Opposition parties in trying to deny the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others elsewhere the right to a postal ballot. Unelected peers—hereditary peers—voted to stop the British people exercising their votes duly in the election. The real scandal is the anti-democratic behaviour of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Christopher Chope: How many British passport holders in Zimbabwe renewed their passports at the British High Commission in Harare in 2003. [157418]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): The high commission in Harare issued 2,143 passports in 2003, approximately 90 per cent. of which were renewals.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Will he salute the courage of British passport holders in Zimbabwe? Will he note that most of them think that the Government are being utterly feeble in standing up to Africa's Hitler? Will he accept that one way in which he could practically help these passport holders would be to change the consular fees order to allow passport renewal fees to he paid in sterling rather than in the local currency? As the hon. Gentleman will know, the local currency is subject to 600 per cent. inflation and can be obtained only on the black market. Many British passport holders in Zimbabwe are suffering badly economically, and to allow passport renewal fees to be paid in sterling would be one small way to alleviate the burden.
    Mr. Mullin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to lower the tone of what I thought was a reasonable question. I took the trouble to speak to our consul in Harare this morning. He says that he is not aware of any serious difficulty in British citizens paying for their passports under the existing arrangements. He says that there have on a couple of occasions been problems when people in this country have tried to pay for passports on behalf of relatives who live in Zimbabwe, but that it has always been possible to sort those problems out. It is not necessary for people to wheel great barrow-loads of currency into the high commission. The high commission can accept bankers' drafts, and it does. Our consul was unaware of any serious difficulty.
    Kate Hoey: On the question of passports, the Minister will doubtless have seen the appalling film on "Panorama" on Sunday night about what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe, infiltrating and intimidating groups of young people, who will be used to ensure that there are no free elections next year. Does he share my concern that many Zimbabweans leave Zimbabwe without papers, cross the border into South Africa, then eventually find their way by some means or other to this country, perhaps using a passport that is not theirs? Will he have a quiet word with the Home Secretary to ensure that Foreign Office and Home Office policies on Zimbabwe are married together so that genuine asylum seekers from Zimbabwe are not sent back to South Africa, where they suffer abuse as a result of secret intelligence from Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Mullin: I am happy to talk to my colleague in the Home Office about this issue, as I have done in the past.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Do the Government have special contingency plans for British passport holders in the event of escalating further violence in Zimbabwe? What frank and open discussions, if any, has he had with the South African Government about the impact on British citizens and other foreigners whose personal situation is deteriorating because of the lack of firm and resolute
    750
    action against the Mugabe regime? Does he agree that the so-called quiet diplomacy sponsored by President Mbeki has now collapsed, as we repeatedly forecast, accompanied by violent attacks on opponents, including British passport holders, and on the press and judiciary on top of the economic chaos. Will the Government urgently provide time for the first time on the Floor of the House for a debate on the subject?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the Front Bench that this has become quite a habit. The original question was about passports, so hon. Members' questions must relate to that matter and not go wide of it.

    Anti-Semitism
    Linda Perham: What efforts are being made by his Department and other EU Governments to combat the rise in anti-Semitism. [157419]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The rise of anti-Semitism in Europe along with other forms of intolerance, notably Islamophobia and attacks on Roma, is a frightening political phenomenon, which the Government and other EU partners are determined to combat. Ministers will attend the conference organised by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe on anti-Semitism next month in Berlin, the convening of which we have actively supported.
    Linda Perham: I am pleased to hear about that conference. As my hon. Friend knows, I represent a London borough with a large Jewish community of 15,000 people. I frequently receive representations from people who have fears about the rise of anti-Semitism. What further action can the UK Government take to address my constituents' concerns and continue the fight against anti-Semitism and racism?
    Mr. MacShane: This is a deeply worrying problem, not just in this country but elsewhere in Europe. People of the Jewish faith are frightened to wear kippas and are worried about attacks on their synagogues. Proper and due criticism may be made of the action of any Government—I am thinking of the Israeli Government—of which we disapprove, but sometimes that glides off into anti-Israeli and, frankly, in some sectors, anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish remarks. The European Union as a whole is much seized of this, and it was recently discussed by the Israeli President and President Chirac, who is concerned about it. I was recently in Vienna where, thanks to the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, we are bestowing an honorary knighthood on Simon Wiesenthal. I assure my hon. Friend that all members of the Government and, I believe, all hon. Members, are worried about this, and it is something that everyone in Europe should take very seriously indeed.
    Alistair Burt: Romano Prodi meant well when he said in February:
    "Let us…keep things in perspective. Today's Europe is not the Europe of the 1930s and 1940s."
    However, is there not a sense in which he was wrong, because anti-Semitism, just like racism, is always with us? A sophisticated diplomat in the 1920s might have

    751
    said that the Europe of that period was not the Europe of the middle ages. Is not the lesson of history that the price of protecting peoples from waves of racism and anti-Semitism is eternal vigilance, not complacency, however well meant?
    Mr. MacShane: I completely and utterly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would add that the same analysis might be made of some of the attacks that we read about, particularly in connection with the Muslim faith—Islamophobia—and on Romas. We should not forget that after the Jews, Romas were the largest group of people put to death in the death camps. All of us, including, perhaps, some gentlemen in the Gallery, should reflect that the kind of language we have seen in recent months about European citizens who are Romas has not been worthy of British tolerance and decency.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: When my hon. Friend or his colleagues next meet the Muslim Council of Britain, will he urge it to take more seriously than it has until now the recent report from the Community Security Trust, which shows the rise in attacks on Jewish people and the link between that and events in the middle east? Will he also urge the Muslim Council of Britain to take a stand against the Islamic extremists who allow their hatred of the existence of Israel to slide into blatant anti-Semitism and foment hatred of Jews in this country?
    Mr. MacShane: I have taken that stand. I have taken it, I hope, all my life. I will continue to take it, and I believe that every decent Member of the House would take exactly that position.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: May I endorse much of what has been said already on this question? But does the Minister agree that criticising the Government of Ariel Sharon is not being anti-Semitic, any more than criticising George Bush is anti-American or criticising our own Prime Minister is anti-British? Does he also agree that Mr. Sharon uses accusations of anti-Semitism to silence his critics? Would not one way forward be to put pressure on Israel to change its policies towards the Palestinians by suspending the European Union-Israel trade agreement?
    Mr. MacShane: The question is about anti-Semitism, and I tried to indicate earlier that I believe that whatever legitimate criticisms one might have about a Government should not slide into some of the remarks that I read in various parts of various engaged political communities which I consider to be anti-Semitic. I might say to the hon. Lady that I find that any language that validates or justifies scrambling the brains of young boys and girls to go and blow up innocent women and children in buses is also unacceptable. This is an area in which we all have to mind our tongue, especially this Minister.

    Iraq
    Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on the prospects for holding elections in Iraq. [157421]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): May I begin my expressing, on behalf of the whole House, our shock and outrage at the latest terrorist attacks in Iraq—in Baghdad and Karbala—which led to the killing of at least 100 people and many, many more injuries. I should like to send our condolences to the relatives and friends of those involved and great sympathy to those injured. Those attacked today in Karbala and Baghdad were exercising their religious freedom—a freedom won only following the departure of Saddam Hussein. This freedom is now enshrined in the transitional administrative law, on which an historic agreement was reached just two days ago, on Sunday. The transitional administrative law is, in effect, a provisional constitution for a free Iraq. It follows the visit to Iraq of the special envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Lakhdar Brahimi. In his report, Mr. Brahimi made it clear that preparations for direct elections would take eight months after agreement on an electoral law and the establishment of an elections commission. That would point to elections sometime in the first half of next year.
    Hugh Bayley: Elections could not possibly have taken place under the previous regime—that is clear. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the need to continue to involve the United Nations in the preparations for elections? Can he tell the House what our Government are doing to ensure that Iraqi women will be able to participate fully and freely in the elections when they take place?
    Mr. Straw: We greatly encouraged the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, to appoint a special representative to assist in the process. We were delighted when he decided to appoint one of the world's most experienced international diplomats, Lakhdar Brahimi, who had done such a good job in Afghanistan, and he will continue to get our full support.
    On the issue of women in Iraq, the transitional administrative law that was agreed on Sunday sets as a target that the political institutions of Iraq should aim for 25 per cent. representation of women. I may say that that is a higher proportion than we have been able to achieve in this country or than has been achieved in almost any other European country.
    Chris Grayling: Is the Foreign Secretary confident that none of the groups involved in the political process in the run-up to elections in Iraq has any linkages to the violence that is taking place in the country at present?
    Mr. Straw: One cannot be completely confident about that. However, what has been shown in the 10½ months since the fall of Saddam is a real burgeoning desire by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and their representatives to build a new and free Iraq. The agreement that was reached on Sunday by representatives of the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs and the Shi'ites opens with words, unanimously agreed by them all, condemning the oppression and terror that was perpetrated by Saddam—which oppression and terror would have continued had that man not been removed.

    Slovak Republic
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When he last held discussions with representatives of the Government of the Slovak Republic about the arrangements for its entry into the European Union. [157422]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Secretary of State and I regularly see our Slovakian opposite numbers at European Council meetings in Brussels and during visits here in London. British embassy officials in Bratislava also have regular discussions with Slovak Government representatives on EU matters.
    Mr. Barnes: The Roma people in Slovakia suffered from a long history of racial prejudice under the Nazis and under the communists, and, unfortunately, still experience that hatred today. Is it not the case that that should not continue as part of their fate within the European Union, which is expected to be socially inclusive? Will the Foreign Office work with the Slovak Government to assist and protect Roma people, most of whom are housed, especially in the light of the social problems created by recent cuts in unemployment benefit, which have hit them disproportionately?
    Mr. MacShane: Yes. Jointly with the Slovak Government, we have spent a couple of hundred thousand pounds on projects on housing rights, on training for Roma para-legals, on constructing a community centre and on tackling barriers in communication between Slovak police and the Roma community. It is small, brick-by-brick stuff, but I am very proud of the commitment of our embassy staff in Bratislava to that work, which is a real British contribution to easing what was, is and will remain a difficult and sensitive problem.
    Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Does the Minister agree that it is entirely normal for European nations of 5 million to secure full membership of the European Union?
    Mr. MacShane: Membership of the European Union stretches from Malta, with 400,000 people, to Germany,
    754
    with more than 80 million people; but some nations in Europe are unbelievably lucky to belong to the United Kingdom, and thus to have a much better voice and presence in Brussels than if they had 60 or 70 embassies with the hon. Gentleman's picture up on the wall.

    Ethiopia/Eritrea
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What discussions he has had with the Ethiopian and Eritrean Governments about their border dispute over Badme; and if he will make a statement. [157424]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): Most recently, I raised the border dispute with Eritrean President Isaias in Asmara on 15 January and with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles in Addis Ababa on 16 January. I reiterated to both parties that the boundary commission's decision is final and binding, and urged them to engage in a political dialogue on all the issues that separate them.
    Mr. Robertson: The Under-Secretary knows that Ethiopian Members of Parliament recently visited this country. Indeed, I was fortunate enough to host a day with them in my constituency. I had the opportunity to discuss the border dispute over Badme with the Ethiopian ambassador. Although I acknowledge the sense of what the Under-Secretary says, does not he feel that the town of Badme is inhabited by Ethiopians rather than Eritreans? Will he recognise Ethiopia's determination to settle the dispute peacefully and express some concern to the boundary commission about its extraordinary decision?
    Mr. Mullin: Both sides signed up to the Algiers agreement, which was to accept the outcome, however difficult, with their eyes open. We accept that it is difficult. However, the difficulties are not only one way; Eritrea also loses out in some respects. The boundary commission has made it clear that it is possible to iron out anomalies that arise from its decision, but that must be done by talks between the two sides, which are currently not speaking to each other. However, I made the point to both leaders—I believe that they were well aware of it—that the only war that matters in their country is that against poverty.

Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Statements in the House before the facts of a situation are fully known are deeply unsatisfactory. However, in the circumstances of what has happened in Karbala—an iman showed me around there in 1994, and I appreciate that the situation is complicated—could a statement be made tomorrow? The coalition is deeply affected by the tragic events. I do not blame the Foreign Office for not saying more today, but surely tomorrow the position merits serious consideration.
Mr. Speaker: That is for the appropriate Minister to determine. No doubt the Father of the House's remarks have been heard and noted.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that last Thursday I asked the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on Zimbabwe in the light of the deteriorating situation there and the Government's new emphasis on Africa, and in that context you will have heard the question that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) asked a moment ago. Given the urgency of the position, the importance of the subject and the new focus on Africa about which the Government have spoken, has the Leader of the House suggested to you that he wants to make a short statement to say that a debate will take place on Zimbabwe?
Mr. Speaker: I imagine that the shadow Leader of the House sees more of the Leader of the House than I do.

Fisheries Jurisdiction
12.32 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fisheries Limits Act 1976; to make provision about the exercise of functions under that Act by Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Ministers and the Secretary of State; to provide that that Act shall have effect regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972; to define Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is supported by hon. Members of all eight political parties that are represented in the Chamber, which is unusual for a politically controversial measure, and, more important, by every fishing organisation in the country, both offshore and onshore.
The Bill is a plea for fair treatment from one of the great natural resource industries of our land. Whatever the measure's fate today, the demand will return to this place until it is successful.
If there were no fish in the sea, we might reluctantly have to accept that little could be done to sustain our fishing industry, although that would still be a good reason for changing the policy that had brought about the disaster, but that is not the position. Even according to the hotly disputed scientific figures from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, many of our stocks are in a robust condition. Haddock, prawns, mackerel—the sea is teeming with fish, but it may soon be empty of our fishermen.
Last December, despite the highest haddock stock in the North sea for more than 30 years, the common fisheries policy, in which UK Ministers acquiesced, managed to produce a position whereby our fishermen are denied the opportunity to catch and market it properly. I say that in particular to the 10 current and previous Secretaries of State for the Environment who signed an ill-judged letter to The Sunday Times last weekend, apparently oblivious to that reality. It is little wonder that so many of our fishermen regard the current policy as a charade and a device to rob them of their birthright.
If we look back 30 years, to the time when this country accepted the adoption of the common fisheries policy in negotiations to enter the then Common Market, with its central provision of equal access to a common resource, we find evidence to support the view that I have put forward. For example, one of my predecessors, the late Patrick Wolrige-Gordon, wrote asking for a ministerial meeting. The internal Scottish Office paper, now released under the 30-year rule, noted:
"In the wider UK context, they—"
the fishermen—are "expendable". If we look at the other documents released under the same rule, perhaps the only surprise, given the pessimism of civil servants of that time, is that so much of our industry has lasted for so long.
It is not just that the common fisheries policy does not work; it cannot work. Common ownership of a resource means no ownership of that resource. For marine resources, that leads to disaster. It means that stock management decisions are made as part of a political

757
bargain. European Commission civil servants attempt to micromanage individual fisheries, with disastrous results. In the short term, the countries with the biggest fisheries muscle—countries that prioritise fishing—get the best deal. In the long term, there is decline for everybody. The UK fishing industry gets the worst of both the long and short term, because fishermen are a low priority, expendable in the wider European context.
Some people say that although the common fisheries policy is a disaster, we cannot just withdraw from it. However, we say that that must be done, and that it is a question of political will. The Leader of the Opposition says that we should negotiate, but I think that we should pass this measure, or one like it, and then negotiate. The Prime Minister says that we cannot opt out of the common fisheries policy and remain in the European Union, but the same Prime Minister continues to opt out of the single currency. The single currency is central to the European ideal, whereas the common fisheries policy is an albatross round the neck of the European cause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that taxation must be a red-line issue in the proposed European constitution, and he would have a dicky fit if the Commission got one pound or dollar of the oil revenues. Yet under the European common fisheries policy, an entire resource industry has been given over.
Why cannot fishing be a red-line issue? Why can it not be a priority? Why can we not delete the exclusive competence over fisheries claimed in the constitution when it moves back on to the agenda later this year? This is a question of political will and political priority. It is a question of whether this Chamber thinks that the fishing industry is expendable or not.

If we were to withdraw from the common fisheries policy, we would assume the rights established for sovereign countries under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea: the 12-mile territorial limit, the 200-mile exclusive economic zone and the jurisdiction of our own vessels on the high seas beyond that. We would assume responsibility for managing our fishery, which the Bill divests to the home nations. Could the home nations manage that? If the Faroese can make a fair stab at managing a successful fishery, I suspect that the home nations probably could.
Would that fishery be perfect? Probably not, but at least we could start with a few governing principles, such as those that the United Fishing Industry Alliance laid down yesterday. First, there should be no industrial fishing. The real obscenity of the sea, to which the 10 past Secretaries of State for the Environment were oblivious, is the fishing of 600,000 tonnes of small fish and sand eels every year from the North sea under the common fisheries policy. Secondly, there should be no discarding of dead fish into the sea, which is the key immorality at the heart of the common fisheries policy. Thirdly—and crucially—there should be a management regime that puts the fishing industry and other stakeholders at the heart of policy formation, rather
758
than locking them out behind the door of the key meetings. Those principles would be a good start for a sensible management regime.
In my Banffshire constituency, there is a small village called Whitehills. It has a beautiful harbour, but only one white fish boat left in the port. That small boat, the Budding Rose, catches fish for one dedicated processor, who is also based in the village. High-quality fish are sold straight to the market. One could search the world and find it difficult to find a more environmentally sustainable fishery than that. Yet that boat's livelihood—the last boat in that village—is now threatened by the ridiculous regulations imposed by the common fisheries policy and implemented by the Scottish fisheries department. Unless we end this madness, we shall have many more broken boats, broken businesses and broken communities.
I said at the outset that this Bill is supported by Members of Parliament of all eight political parties represented in this Chamber. Obviously, there is also opposition. That opposition is not as vocal as it used to be, but we hear it in speeches and we see it in the reality of Government policy. If that is the opinion of hon. Members, let them force this issue to a vote now. Fishing communities would like to see who is on their side in this matter. We are told by no less a body than the Prime Minister's strategy unit that fishing is small in economic terms. That reflects a vast misunderstanding of the importance of the fishing industry both in the supply industries, which depend on a viable sector, and the processing sector that markets the product. The fishing industry is not small in Scotland. It is not small around the coastline of many areas of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Above all, the industry is not small in the hearts of the people, who want there to be a fishing industry, and who want this House to live up to its responsibilities to make sure that we continue to have one.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Nigel Dodds, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Angus Robertson, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Michael Weir and Ann Winterton.

FISHERIES JURISDICTION
Mr. Salmond accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fisheries Limits Act 1976; to make provision about the exercise of functions under that Act by Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Ministers and the Secretary of State; to provide that that Act shall have effect regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972; to define Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 May, and to be printed [Bill 64].
Orders of the Day

  Pensions Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  12.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is an important step forward in security and confidence in pensions. It strengthens protection and strengthens regulation. It cuts complexity in the system, making it easier for firms to run pensions and helping to cut costs. It will increase choices for people over the timing and pace of their retirement. It reflects the extensive consultation that we have undertaken. Those are all crucial building blocks for confidence in pensions, rebuilding the pensions partnership for the 21st century. The Bill will, I hope, command widespread support in the House.
  I am clear that a pensions promise made should be a pensions promise honoured. That is why, for the first time ever, we will set up the pension protection fund to protect workers whose firms go bust without enough funds to pay their pensions.
  We have yet to hear whether the main opposition party supports the key measures in this Bill. The arguments in its reasoned amendment, which I will deal with later, do not stack up. I look forward to it making its position clear in today's debate. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), however, with his customary courtesy, raised in advance a number of points in a letter to me this weekend. The questions that he poses are reasonable ones, and I thought that it would help the House if I responded to each.
  First, the hon. Gentleman wanted an assurance that we would implement the levy in a way that respected risk. I can confirm that, like all sensible insurance schemes, the PPF will have a risk-related premium. This will ensure that those who pose the greatest risk to the PPF pay the lion's share of the levy.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As the Secretary of State is beginning to talk about risk, what can he tell us about his plans for the first few years of the PPF if the claims paid out of it are greater than its income?
  Mr. Smith: I shall come to the operation of the PPF. We have to ensure that its board is in a position to meet its liabilities, while ensuring that it operates within a framework of reasonable constraints, so that it does not impose an undue burden on schemes or on business. I shall have more to say later about the balance that must be struck.
  The risk-related element of the levy will be substantial. Indeed, the Bill states quite clearly that this part of the levy must raise at least 50 per cent. of total revenues, and could raise significantly more. As hon. Members will be aware, this is new territory, and we
  760
  need to collect the information to ensure that the system can work, so for the first year only we shall in effect treat all schemes as low risk, with a significantly reduced flat-rate fee. After that we shall work closely with businesses, allowing them to switch to the risk-related premium as best fits the normal triennial valuation cycle. But let us be clear: if they want to bring that forward, they will be able to do so. We are clear that we are adopting a risk-based approach and are clear about the principles on which it will be introduced.
  Mr. Steve Webb: In last week's debate the Minister for Pensions guaranteed that the risk-related element would indeed come in after a year. If I read the Bill correctly, it allows the Secretary of State to delay it beyond a year. Will he accept amendments in Committee to withdraw that provision, because if he is confident that that element will come in within a year, why allow himself the power to delay it further?
  Mr. Smith: There will be ample opportunity in Committee to explore all these matters in greater detail, but if we are to refer closely to the Bill now we shall see that the initial period is defined as the period between when the measures take effect and the following 31 March or the following 31 March plus 12 months. Anyone looking at the timing factors can see why that is necessary. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), we are bringing in a new institution, and want, as everyone does, to get the protection in place as quickly as possible, because it is needed and wanted by workers, while wishing, of course, to ensure that it operates sensibly and does not impose undue burdens on schemes. Therefore, there must be that measure of flexibility, which is provided for in the Bill.
  Mr. Frank Doran: In January 2002 more than 900 workers at the Richards textile factory in my constituency were told that the company pension scheme, a final salary scheme, was to be closed. All have been told subsequently that the best they can receive is between zero and a third of what they expected. I gather that about 60,000 pensioners throughout the country are in a similar situation. The scheme that my right hon. Friend is outlining is extremely welcome, but those pensioners have lost out because they took Government advice to join a pension scheme. What proposals does my right hon. Friend have for my constituents?
  Mr. Smith: First, I understand and echo my hon. Friend's concern about workers affected by the dreadful impact of insolvency on their retirement prospects. As I said at length in the debate last week, and as I have set out on previous occasions, we are looking very closely at what may be done. I have to tread a very fine line here, on the one hand not closing down the possibility of some discretionary assistance and on the other not raising expectations that might subsequently not be fulfilled. I shall have more to say about this matter later.
  I was responding to points raised in the letter from the hon. Member for Havant. The Bill is explicit about what we mean by risk. In setting the risk-based levy, the PPF board must take into account scheme underfunding. It will also be able to consider other specified factors such as credit rating and investment strategy.

  761
  As I have said in reply to interventions, the PPF's independent board must have operational freedom, within this framework, to use its expertise and judgment effectively to meet its obligation to keep the fund's finances on a sure footing in evolving economic conditions. The board will consult closely with business in developing the levy, and—here I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Havant—it will publish the detail within the first year of operation.
  Mrs. Lait: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me again, but I am afraid I remain mystified. If I have correctly interpreted the brief from the Association of Consulting Actuaries, the association believes that a number of pension funds are, shall we say, saving up claims against the fund until it is established. That indicates to me that it is highly likely—especially given a flat-rate contribution system for the first year—that the fund could go bust before it was up and running.
  Mr. Smith: It sounds to me as though the hon. Lady supports the fund's establishment in principle, although she is equivocating a little. We look forward to hearing from Conservative Front Benchers whether they really support it or not.
  The hon. Lady mentioned demands in the early period of the fund's existence. Then and subsequently, the fund will take over the remaining assets of any schemes that have become insolvent. It should also be borne in mind that in the early years the fund will almost certainly need to pay out less than it will in subsequent years. I approve of the balance between the timing of its liabilities, and the extent of those liabilities, and the income that it can raise. I approve of the arm's-length relationship that will operate: we are giving the board responsibility for sorting out its affairs, within the general constraints that I mentioned earlier.
  The hon. Member for Havant referred to the estimate of the amount that the levy would need to raise. The estimate is based on actuarial modelling of PPF finances over the next 20 years given a range of assumptions about several factors, including pension scheme funding levels and rates of insolvency. The baseline scenario, in which a £300 million levy is required each year, involves some rather gloomy assumptions: for example, it includes the risk of several insolvencies among the largest FTSE companies over the next two decades. In the extremely unlikely event that things turned out even worse for the PPF—this too relates to the question asked by the hon. Member for Beckenham—the fund would still have the capacity to fulfil its duties, as it has the right to increase the levy above the baseline should that prove necessary. Indeed, it has the right to double it.
  Let me now deal with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran). As I told the House in last week's debate, and have made clear on previous occasions, I am—like many other Members—acutely aware of the awful plight of workers whose companies have gone bust and left their pension schemes underfunded. That is, in fact, an important reason for the House to get on and establish the PPF. It is sometimes suggested that we should make it operate retrospectively, but I do not think that that option bears serious scrutiny. The PPF is essentially an insurance
  762
  scheme, and no insurance scheme can protect against events that have already happened. None of us, taking out car insurance next week, would expect it to cover us for an accident that we had last week.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend is aware of the plight of the HH Robertson pensioners in my constituency, which dates back to just before the 1997 general election. Will he consider carefully the issues I raised with him in a parliamentary question, the reply to which can be found in column 697W of yesterday's Hansard? Without proper research into the background information, it would be extremely difficult to develop a cogent system to support workers whose schemes have already gone down. Will my right hon. Friend undertake such research?
  Mr. Smith: It is already being undertaken, and I shall report to the House on the outcome when I am able to do so.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that the current data on insolvency wind-ups leave much to be desired. What is available is collected by the pension schemes registry, but it is lacking in three key respects. It does not record whether a scheme in wind-up has a solvent or an insolvent sponsoring company, it does not record the level of funding that a scheme has on wind-up, and it does not record the make-up of a scheme in terms of how many members are pensioners and how many are deferred. We are exploring with industry representatives the basis on which we can establish, given the available evidence, the extent of the problem, the number affected—as I have said, I think that 60,000 is a good rough estimate—and the potential scale of losses. I shall report further when I am able to do so.
  Sandra Osborne: I am glad that the research is being done, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the time he has devoted to meeting my constituents, the former UEF workers who have been so badly afflicted by this problem. What is his current response to the proposals of Dr. Ros Altmann, who, as he knows, has done a great deal of work on this and has suggested a possible solution?
  Mr. Smith: I do not want to prejudge any conclusions that we might reach, but I think that there are weaknesses in Dr. Altmann's proposition. We must examine carefully, for instance, the idea that schemes could simply be allowed to run on with no requirement for annuitisation, with the Government being left to pick up some unspecified and uncosted liability somewhere along the track. I have heard Dr. Altmann and others say rather casually—perhaps that is unfair, but it is the impression I have had from some interviews—that this would cost "only" £100 million a year. That is a not inconsequential sum.
  Any Government must examine liabilities very carefully, not just in relation to the specific workers whom Members think should be helped—and I understand the case they are making—but in terms of the potential read-across to others who might form a queue at the Government's door asking for similar assistance. There must be a clear set of principles informing any decision to assist some who have been

  763
  hard done by, and not to assist others. I should also point out, as I did in last week's debate, that legal action against the Government on this matter is outstanding.
  Annabelle Ewing: The UK Government have been in office for nearly seven years. Why are they coming so late in the day to an examination of the plight of the thousands of people who, through no fault of their own, have lost out in their pension entitlement? Surely the Bill should be used to bring that sorry saga to a close?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady will know that there have been a number of inquiries over the years. For example, the Goode committee evaluated the establishment of what was then called a central discontinuance fund, and recommended that such a fund would not be operable and or necessary. In more recent years, it is clear that the pressures on funds have changed, thanks to the decline in the stock market and to FRS 17. Moreover, the rather belated realisation by some actuaries that we are all living longer is also placing demands on schemes.
  As I have explained to the House before, one question has struck me since I began looking at this matter, and at the dreadful plight of the workers affected—why on earth was no protection in place for pension schemes run by insolvent employers? After all, there is protection for people who book their holidays through travel agents belonging to the Association of British Travel Agents, and people quite properly expect their motor insurance to remain intact even if their insurance companies go bust.
  We need to get the PPF up and running. That is why we need to get on and put the Bill into effect.
  Mr. David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to hearing from him whether the Conservative party will support the PPF.
  Mr. Willetts: We support the principle of pension insurance, but we are asking about the problem of pension wind-ups. That problem led us to call last week's debate, and it has caused people to protest again today. The Secretary of State has dismissed the Ros Altmann proposal, but will he consider the proposal from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? He suggests using the unclaimed assets of banks and insurance companies as the basis for endowing a fund to help people who have lost out because their pensions have been wound up. Would not that be an imaginative approach? It is a great pity that the Government opposed the right hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill last year. Is there any prospect of them looking at that proposal in a fresh light?
  Mr. Smith: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne), in connection with the suggestion by Dr. Altmann—and without prejudging the Government's conclusions on this matter—we had several exchanges with my right hon. Friend the
  764
  Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on the matter of unclaimed assets. The House should take careful note that the fact that assets are unclaimed does not mean that they do not belong to someone, and that it is becoming easier to trace assets. Secondly, if such a fund were to be established, does not the hon. Gentleman think that there would be a long queue of other people, also with compelling cases, who would seek access to it? There may be unclaimed assets, but it is not clear that that would establish the case for hypothecating them for the purpose of a fund.
  Mr. David Watts: I welcome this Bill, which is overdue. I am pleased that it will offer a level of protection to a range of workers who do not have it at present. I have two questions: are the Government prepared to pay for those workers who need some form of compensation, and what limits will be imposed? I understand that the Government want to erect a firewall to ensure that other claims are not made for similar compensation packages, but will my right hon. Friend write to the Opposition parties to ask for clarification of their positions? It would be helpful if we could achieve consensus among the political parties as to who would be entitled to compensation.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes some good points. I do not want to go over all the matters that we explored at some length in last week's debate, but the Conservative party has been long on regrets and condemnation, and short on specific proposals. I was pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Havant had to say. He could not bring himself to say that his party supported the establishment of the PPF, but he did say that he supported the principle of insurance in this area—or words to that effect. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition have tabled a so-called reasoned amendment that would deny this Bill a Second Reading. There would therefore be no PPF, nor any help in the future for those workers whom he claims to want to help because of what happened in the past.
  Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend will have noted that the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to reposition the Conservative party so that it appears less fanatically right wing. However, was he not as startled as I to hear the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) tell the House with a straight face that today's Conservative party believes that it is appropriate for the state to expropriate private assets without compensation? Is not it true that only new Labour now stands between the bourgeoisie and the revolution?
  Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend makes his point with his customary wit. It could be that, in trying to reposition themselves towards the centre, the Conservatives have overshot the mark a bit.
  The final question in the letter from the hon. Member for Havant had to do with the replacement of the minimum funding requirement. As hon. Members will appreciate, the MFR proved to be an inflexible approach that increased the costs for some employers while not giving members the level of protection that they expected.
  In part 3 of the Bill, we are replacing the one-size-fits-all approach of the MFR with funding arrangements that will allow schemes to adopt funding strategies

  765
  suited to their particular circumstances. Under the new scheme's funding arrangements, trustees and employers will work together to agree a funding strategy to reflect scheme-specific characteristics such as the trustees' investment policy, the age profile of members, staff turnover and life expectancy. That will mean that schemes with high liabilities will face tough standards. However, it will also give some schemes opportunities to save on funding by taking a longer-term approach to investments. The Bill will do much more besides establishing the PPF. Further measures will be introduced to provide increased security and confidence in the system.
  Clauses 1 to 80 provide for the establishment of a new, proactive pensions regulator. Its new powers will enable it to step in early where workers face real risks, and it will adopt a lighter-touch approach to well-run schemes that will make it easier for firms to get on and run those schemes.
  Clauses 203 and 204 will extend TUPE-like protection to private sector transfers, for the first time. As the unions and other commentators have pointed out, takeovers have been used in the past as excuses to scrap pension contributions. That cannot be right. Addressing that problem is overdue, and the Bill will do so.
  We will insist that, where there is a pension scheme in the original company, the new employer will have to keep the pension going or provide a worthwhile alternative. We will also table Government amendments that will provide security for a more mobile work force. We will help people to build up rights in short-stay jobs by enabling them, for the first time, to take the pension that they have built up with them to another scheme. On average, workers who take advantage of that opportunity will gain around £1,000 of extra pension rights to go towards their final pension pot. That will benefit many women workers in particular.
  Mr. Clive Betts: My right hon. Friend said that we must ensure that employers who have established a scheme cannot simply walk away from their responsibilities and leave people without a pension when they had expected a decent one. The regulations brought in last June will certainly protect people, and my right hon Friend has already agreed that the Government might consider further the question of workers whose pension entitlements were dissipated because their firms went into insolvency. However, will he also look at the position of workers whose pensions were diminished as a result of the actions of their employers prior to June 2003? Those workers receive substantially smaller pensions than they were expecting because their firms' pension schemes were wound up.
  Mr. Smith: Within the terms on which I have already said that I am examining these matters, I shall, of course, be happy to examine those instances too. They illustrate the problem and the challenge of drawing boundaries around groups and deciding who might receive help and who might not. I repeat the warning that I emphasise on every occasion: I do not want to raise false hopes. Certain things may turn out not to be possible, and although it is right to consider such proposals carefully, we must not raise expectations only to dash them.
  766
  In a voluntary system, the protection of rights that I have been talking about must go hand in hand with measures that make it more attractive for companies to provide pensions. That is the focus of the second key area of the Bill. We welcome the commitment of many employers who remain committed to providing pensions for, and with, their employees.
  The Bill will achieve a number of cost-cutting simplification measures, such as streamlining the requirements on member-nominated trustees and introducing more flexible dispute resolution procedures and less bureaucratic reporting arrangements, particularly in respect of late payments.
  The Bill will also change the cap on mandatory inflationary insurance, bringing it into line with current long-term expectations. At 5 per cent., it is out of line with expectations and has grown disproportionately expensive, which raises the risk that some employers will respond by closing schemes altogether. In deciding to make that change, we took the view that most people would readily trade some measure of inflation protection for the security of knowing that they would get a meaningful pension even if their firm went bust. All the inflation protection in the world is useless if there is no pension left to protect.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend is going through the details of the Bill, which are all very welcome. For instance, he talked about the first 80 clauses—but only 10 of those will apply to Northern Ireland. He also mentioned clauses 203 and 204, and Northern Ireland is excluded from those, too. Why is so much of the Bill not applicable to Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland measures do not appear in the Bill—those that will affect Northern Ireland will be introduced through the Order in Council procedure. Could not the excluded measures be dealt with in the Bill itself? Then, we could discuss why particular measures are not applicable to Northern Ireland. There may be special reasons why they are not, but those should be made clear to the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises some important points, especially for the people of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the answer to his questions depends on the constitutional arrangements. If it would be helpful, I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions specifically to address the extent of coverage in Northern Ireland, and what the procedure is for establishing corresponding rights for people in Northern Ireland where those are not provided in the Bill.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend consider freezing the current acquisition of annuities by pension funds under the Pensions Act 1995, so that when his provision for 2.5 per cent. is introduced, annuities will inevitably be cheaper, which means that the funds available for people coming up to pension age will be substantially increased? That might solve some of the problems

  767
  associated with people being deprived of pensions for which they have paid during the whole of their working lives.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises an interesting and constructive proposal, and I am pleased to assure him that we will examine it further.
  Clause 212 changes inflation protection, which gives schemes and their members more flexibility to agree together on the form of pension that suits them best, and eases the funding of future liabilities. It is important to stress the fact that there will be no effect on the value of today's pensions; the change affects only future accruals. Together, those reforms will make substantial cuts in red tape and free schemes to offer and operate pensions more cost-effectively.
  We are determined to put people in control of planning for their retirement, and that is the third key area of the Bill. We want to raise awareness and make sure that people clearly understand the choices that they face. The measures in part 4 will help people to plan for retirement through the online retirement planner and the planning advisory service, which will for the first time give people the opportunity to see information on all their pensions together—the state pension and the occupational elements—and to explore their options in order to get the retirement that they want.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State must be aware that there is some concern among pension providers and employers about trying to encourage people to start saving for personal pensions, when the increase in means-testing for pension credit makes it impossible to be certain that people on low incomes and people with debts will be better off in a pension plan in the long term. The industry is worried about that. Will there be scope, either in Committee or later, to make the Bill address that problem more directly than it does now?
  Mr. Smith: If I recall correctly, part 6 contains the clauses that deal with the state pension system. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may want to explore what they can do within the terms of those clauses.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: Is that an invitation?
  Mr. Smith: No, that was not an invitation; it was helpful advice. As for the guts of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, if we start looking several decades ahead we can make many different assumptions about the basis on which extra assistance for poorer pensioners might operate, but one thing is absolutely clear: in introducing pension credit we have offered a reward for pensions savings, whereas before there was a pound-for-pound withdrawal penalty, which we inherited from the previous Government.
  Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Smith: I shall take my hon. Friend's intervention, but then I would like to make some progress.
  Kevin Brennan: Would it not be further protection against the risk of people deciding not to take out
  768
  occupational pension schemes, but to rely on pension credit instead, if the people who have lost out had been assisted? There would not then be thousands of people advising others not to take out occupational pensions because the promises made in the past were not worth the paper they were written on. In any case, should we not offset the cost of any assistance that might be offered against the amount of pension credit that the Government will inevitably have to pay out to those people if they are not assisted?
  Mr. Smith: The logic of both those points is impeccable. Of course, what is happening to schemes now, and what has happened to schemes in the past, has a bearing on confidence in the future. That is why we are creating the pension protection fund. In exploring the cost-benefit implications of any proposals, it makes sense, as I said in response to interventions in our debate last week, to judge such matters in the round.
  To support our wider aim of increasing the coverage of personalised pension information, we will take powers in the Bill to allow us to require pension schemes to issue combined pension forecasts, where experience and evidence suggest that that is a necessary and effective step.
  I must tell the House that, in several areas, we shall need to table amendments. The time factors that have made that necessary stem at least in part from the late publication by the European Union of the occupational pension directive; from the need, which the House will understand, to co-ordinate some of the provisions with the tax simplification measures to be included in the Finance Bill; and from the complexity of the underlying legislation that the Bill replaces or amends. I assure the House that it remains our intention to introduce, as Government amendments, measures such as the immediate vesting for short-term workers and the ending of the requirement to offer additional voluntary contributions. Subject to ongoing work, we shall also introduce easements in section 67 of the 1995 Act to allow the rationalisation of accrued rights.
  I can also tell the House today that we will table an amendment to require employers to undertake consultation when they make major changes to pension schemes. I can assure the House that it will be more than a rubber-stamping exercise—it will involve recognised trade unions or approved workplace information and consultation arrangements.
  Alan Howarth: Would the Secretary of State go further than simply requiring consultation on the part of employers? Would he consider requiring them to give adequate notice before they close a defined benefit scheme and, in cases where they do close such a scheme, preventing them from using it for themselves?
  Mr. Smith: Sensible and proper consultation must involve the giving of notice, so I am sure that the spirit of my right hon. Friend's suggestion will be taken into account.
  Sir John Butterfill: Did I hear the Secretary of State say that he would end the obligation for employers to provide AVCs? If so, I am very glad to hear it.
  Mr. Smith: Indeed, I said that we would want to introduce amendments on that matter.
  Mr. Willetts: The further amendments are obviously important, so can the Secretary of State tell the House

  769
  when he expects us to be able to see them, because we must have enough time to reflect on them before they are debated in Committee?
  Mr. Smith: I would be pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman, Liberal Democrat Members and others to discuss how best to handle the matter in a timely fashion. I understand the impatience and frustration of the House when substantial as well as technical amendments—often necessary in Bills such as this—have to be considered. I want all hon. Members to have a reasonable period of notice and decent briefings in respect of the amendments so that we can debate them properly. I apologise in advance for the demands that that will make in Committee and on Report, but I believe that it is important to cover those further areas of debate. I do not think that any of our constituents would thank us, whichever part of the House we sit in, if we were to delay necessary measures or hold back the Bill.
  I have read the Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment for declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, but I have to say that their arguments do not stack up. They advance four reasons for declining a Second Reading, which I shall answer in turn.
  First, the Opposition say that there is no encouragement to save or for firms to keep schemes open, but what could be more important to encourage saving than the confidence that people are going to get a pension that they have saved for, with the protection against insolvency or fraud that the pension protection fund provides? Encouraging people to plan for the retirement that they want is the whole point of the improved information and advice set out in part 4, which I understood the Opposition supported.
  Secondly, the Opposition talk yet again about a means-testing culture, so let us remember the big difference between the system that the Conservatives operated and what we are delivering through the pension credit. Under their system, there was pound-for-pound withdrawal of benefit for those with modest savings and occupational pensions, while the pension credit gives rewards for saving.
  Thirdly, the Conservatives pint to measures on simplification, but they should reflect on all the simplification measures that appear in the Bill—on nomination of trustees, on disputes, on scheme-specific funding and on proactive regulation, as well as the further simplification measures to which I have referred. Fourthly, they point to the estimated 60,000 people who have lost out through insolvency but just as last week, they make no constructive suggestion as to what should be done. Again, we have seen stories spun in the press that they are going to support retrospection, but when it comes to making any commitment as to what they would do, none is forthcoming. Now that their shadow Chancellor has committed them to spending less than the Government, anyone who believes that workers would do better under the Tories than under Labour has forgotten their arithmetic as well as their history.
  To conclude, if the Opposition decline to give the Bill a Second Reading, they are positioning themselves against extra protection for more than 10 million members of final salary pension schemes. They are positioning themselves against increased security,
  770
  against making it easier for companies to run schemes and against giving people more choice about when they retire. In short, they are against simplicity, security and choice in pensions.
  The Bill complements the other steps that we are taking to renew the pensions partnership such things as informed choice, much of which does not require legislation; the work of the employer taskforce in identifying and recommending best practice; the independent Pensions Commission in examining the question of compulsion for the future; and everything we are doing through pension credit and the new Pension Service to tackle pensioner poverty all have a crucial part to play.
  In extending TUPE, putting a proactive and tough regulator in place, cutting through the layered cake of complexity, opening up new choices for retirement and, crucially, through the pension protection fund, the Bill provides a major step forward for pensions security and confidence, and I commend it to the House.
  1.26 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Pensions Bill because it fails to provide encouragement for individuals to save for their retirement or for companies to keep open existing pension schemes or start new ones and does nothing to mitigate the effect on the savings culture of the expansion of means-tested benefits in retirement; it omits measures permitting simplification and amendment of pension schemes' terms, abolishing compulsory AVC provision, simplifying anti-franking provisions, permitting people to continue working part-time for a company after retirement, abolishing or modifying Guaranteed Minimum Pensions, and new vesting arrangements; and further fails to provide help for the estimated 60,000 people who have already lost all or most of their pension entitlement.
  First, I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  I welcome the opportunity to set out my party's approach to the Pensions Bill and the wider pensions crisis. We tabled the reasoned amendment because it is a most unsatisfactory Bill. One reason is that it has taken so long in coming. At least we now have a feeling of relief that it has finally appeared. The minimum funding requirement, which it replaces, has been under almost continuous review since December 1998. The Pickering inquiry was set up in September 2001 and we had a Green Paper in December 2002.
  We have heard today that important provisions that are not in the Bill before us are still to be added. The Secretary of State was suitably apologetic about the various aspects that will require further amendment, but I have to say that he has consulted on these matters for years. He is like an ill-organised teenager who knows that the exam has been due for years, but is still in a panic when he suddenly realises that he has to sit the test in few days' time. The Bill manages to be both late and panicky—an unusual combination, but that is what we have before us.
  The Bill is very long, but it also contrives to be, on close inspection, sadly lacking in the substance and detail that we require properly to appraise it. Many of the clauses set up frameworks and committees or appoint bodies, but lack crucial information about the substance of the key provisions. There is much on administrative mechanisms, but little on the tough

  771
  choices that any Government have to take in tackling a crisis as serious as the one we now face. Inside this rather fat Bill, therefore, is a rather thin Bill trying to get out. It has surprisingly little in it, and Ministers cannot expect the House to do its proper job of scrutinising legislation unless we receive more crucial information. It is most disappointing, to make the point again, that the House will vote on a programme motion in a few hours' time, fixing a timetable for the Bill, when we have heard from the Secretary of State that we shall have to wait for amendments to be tabled on many crucial aspects of it.
  Let me turn to the measures at the heart of the Bill. Above all, there is the issue of insurance for pensions. We support the principle of pension insurance, but we are not satisfied that the Secretary of State has set out the correct way of implementing it. I wholly agreed with him, however, when he remarked that it is odd that we insure our holidays with the Association of British Travel Agents, that we insure our bank deposits, yet we do not insure our pensions. The principle of having some insurance for our pensions is wholly right and we fully support it.
  It would be interesting to hear from the Secretary of State why, on his watch, the Government's approach to pensions insurance has changed so radically. In October 2002, the then pensions Minister his right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), came to the House for an Adjournment debate on this very subject. I shall quote him at some length, because we need to hear from the Secretary of State exactly why the Government have changed their minds in the subsequent 15 months.
  The right hon. Member for Makerfield said:
  "My hon. Friend"—"
  I do not know whether he was referring to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who was present at that debate, or another hon. Member—
  "called for the introduction of a form of pension benefit guarantee. The Government have previously considered … schemes … Both issues of a central discontinuance fund and compulsory insurance were consulted on … Both options received little support. That is mainly due to two factors. First, the majority of schemes are well run in this country. Those who are members of schemes and the trustees who represent them were not supportive of the idea that they should top-slice their well run schemes to assist the underfunding of poorly run schemes."
  Has the Secretary of State decided that the schemes are not well run after all?
  The right hon. Member for Makerfield went on:
  "Nor was there any great support for the idea of a fund linked to an insurance-based system. An insurance system would have to be created to re-invest in the risk associated with it."
  I think that he meant equities.
  "There was little support when we consulted on that."
  Mr. Miller: It is important that we understand where the Opposition are coming from. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservatives want to dismiss those two precise points, which were subject to discussion during the passage of the 1995 Pensions Bill, which became the Pension Act 1995, and that they have fundamentally changed their mind since the Committee stage of that Bill?
  Mr. Willetts: I am trying to find out what has happened to the Secretary of State's thinking since he
  772
  took office, because 15 months ago he sent his Minister for Pensions to the House of Commons to explain about insurance and central discontinuance funds. The Minister said:
  "There is therefore no possibility at this stage of the Government acceding to such a request."
  I want to know what has changed.
  The right hon. Gentleman, who is now the chairman of the Labour party, said that
  "the issue of compulsory assurance arrangements raises the potential for abuse and a moral hazard. Some schemes may neglect their responsibilities and obligations to their members, in the knowledge that their liabilities will still be met in the event of insolvency."—[Official Report, 16 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 441–42.]
  The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asks me about legislation in 1995, but I am asking the Secretary of State about what his team were saying 15 months ago.
  Mr. Miller: Was the hon. Gentleman wrong in 1995?
  Mr. Willetts: I have made it clear that we recognise and accept the principle of insurance. What has gone wrong—
  Mr. Miller: It is the hon. Gentleman's fault.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. There should not be interruptions from a sedentary position. The hon. Member is answering the question that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) put, and he should let him do so.
  Mr. Willetts: I do not recall seeing the hon. Gentleman in the House last week when we debated pension wind-ups at some length. I explained clearly what I thought had happened since 1995.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West was present in the Chamber when the former Minister for Pensions made those comments, so I would be happy to accept his intervention.
  Kevin Brennan: Is it not fruitless to pursue this line? It is a bit of debating fun, but the truth of the matter is that, like the Government, the Conservative party has changed its mind on this matter. The Government have been informed by events, and they consulted on their Green Paper and had a pretty clear answer. The moral hazard is present in all forms of insurance, but Governments should act on the immoral hazard of people losing their pensions.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman says that I am raising debating points, but I am trying to find out what is going on within Government about this matter. The fact is that there has already been one significant change of course in the past few months. I always study The Scotsman carefully, but it particularly caught my eye when I saw the headline "Brown hit by revolt over Pensions Bill" in today's edition. The article says:

  773
  "A source close to Mr. Smith said he was furious that a Bill which 'should have been a triumph for him personally and the government' was being blocked by someone who was supposedly his ally."
  I think that that is a reference to the Chancellor.
  '"Andrew is frustrated that his flagship piece of legislation is being overshadowed by a row over providing compensation for 60,000 people."'
  It would be interesting to hear from Andrew whether he is frustrated, and what is going on.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: That story is utter rubbish. Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), is not the truth of the matter that the Conservative party is changing its mind, and it is being dragged kicking and screaming in the direction that we. have set, because we have shown leadership on this issue whereas the Tories showed none?
  Mr. Willetts: No. The Secretary of State has shown followership: he has not shown any leadership. We are all trying to tackle the serious pension crisis in the light of changes, including the tax imposed by the Government and the reductions in the value of the minimum funding requirement.
  I appreciate that the Secretary of State addressed some of the questions about insurance that I put to him in the letter that I sent him in advance of the debate. He did not answer all of them, but he referred to it, and I am grateful to him for that. I make it clear that we support the principle of insurance, because we think that it can bring security into this sensitive and important area. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, if it is mishandled, it can make a bad situation worse? That is why it is important that the design is right. A badly designed insurance scheme could make the situation even worse than it is now, which is saying something.
  Sandra Osborne: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been referring to my Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. I am pleased that the Government have changed their mind on this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that there is an urgency about this situation? He says that he supports the principle of insurance, so why is he not supporting the Bill on Second Reading? Will he explain his party's position on how to ensure that workers who have already been deprived of their pensions get justice?
  Mr. Willetts: I make it clear again that I strongly support the case put forward by the workers who have suffered in wind-ups. This is an important subject, and it is why we had a debate in Opposition time last week, when we raised a variety of points and put a variety of suggestions to the Secretary of State. One of the problems with the Bill, and one of the reasons why we think the Bill is defective, is that it does nothing to tackle the problem of wind-ups. For the record, the Adjournment debate from which I was quoting was initiated by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about this subject.
  I repeat what I said in the debate last week. A clear majority of Members have signed either early-day motion 66, to which I do not subscribe—sorry, I do
  774
  subscribe to early-day motion 66, as it is our EDM. It is early-day motion 200, tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West to which I do not subscribe. I must get it round the right way—we were there first. By subscribing to one or other of those two EDMs, just about a majority of hon. Members are saying that we cannot leave those 60,000 people with nothing. I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of that widespread feeling on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Watts: Many Labour Members will be pleased to hear that commitment to help to form some compensation package for the workers who have already lost a large chunk of their pensions. Will the hon. Gentleman set that out in writing? Will he send it to the Secretary of State and place a copy in the Library so that we can all be clear about his party's proposals to deal with this important issue?
  Mr. Willetts: I am one of the Secretary of State's more regular correspondents. I am sure that he always enjoys receiving my letters. I wrote to him in January 2003 offering cross-party consultation on the specific point of the priority order in wind-ups. That does not magic any new money into existence: I do not claim that it does. However, it solves the cliff-edge problem of complete protection for pensioners and little, sometimes zero, protection for workers, however long they have been working for a company. I wrote to him in January 2003 saying that we would support measures to tackle that problem. It could have been done in an afternoon by amending regulations. It has still not been done. The right hon. Gentleman has tabled draft regulations, but we have still not been told when they will be implemented.
  Mr. Andrew Smith rose—
  Mr. Willetts: If the right hon. Gentleman is about to tell us, I will welcome that.
  Mr. Smith: On the priority order, I made it clear in last week's debate that we sought to pursue the solution originally advocated not by the hon. Gentleman but by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), which gave greater priority to those who had been in schemes for longer. After the consultation on the regulations, we found that the measure was not possible because such information does not exist for a significant proportion of schemes. We will introduce an amended priority order shortly that will give a higher priority to older members, and that is the truth.
  Mr. Willetts: I am pleased that that will happen shortly, but I shall remind the Secretary of State of the history: I wrote to him in January 2003; the draft regulations appeared on 22 October; and the deadline for responses was 3 December. We have still not seen a response on the regulations, and meanwhile every time a pension scheme is wound up, the existing workers lose out as a result of the current priority order. I fully accept that the priority order must be changed—all hon. Members accept that it must be changed—but I do not understand why it is taking so long, because it does not require extra money.
  Richard Burden: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making on the priority order. However, I may have missed something, because I have still not heard what the Opposition would actually do to create the funds necessary to compensate workers who have already lost money. I want to see such compensation; what is his suggestion?
  Mr. Willetts: Yesterday, I signed the early-day motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) introduced his private Member's Bill last year, we supported it and voted for it on Second Reading. It was defeated on Second Reading because the Government talked it out.
  Mr. George Osborne: We know who did it.
  Mr. Willetts: That is right; I remember the hon. Member who did it.
  We have been trying to be constructive and have indicated a constructive way forward, and I accept the constructive approach put forward by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. We voted for his proposals on Second Reading—what more can we do to show that we think that they are constructive? Of course, the matter requires further detailed work by the Government, who have had a long time to do it. Instead of long waits after consultations for straightforward matters such as the priority order to be tackled, it is about time that we had some practical assistance. Meanwhile, every time a pension scheme is wound up, there is no help for existing workers. Constituents, including a Ballast UK employee, have come to my surgery and discussed such cases. No hon. Member can tell constituents who face such financial distress, "I am sorry, there is absolutely nothing that can be done for you." That is why we had last week's debate.
  Miss Anne Begg: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not promise any Government money for any solution that his party proposes for those who have lost out because of insolvency in their pension funds?
  Mr. Willetts: We could not support early-day motion 200 because it was an unconditional and retrospective commitment of public expenditure. The hon. Lady is smiling as if she has scored a great triumph. Some hon. Members are calling for everything to be done, but as a responsible Opposition we cannot say that. The Secretary of State has done nothing; all we say is that something—even if it is not perfect and even if it is not everything—should and can be done. We have proposals on the table to make that possible.
  One of the reasons why we called last week's debate on the winding up of pension schemes was to give the House an opportunity to concentrate on that specific subject because of its importance. I recognise the subject's importance, which is why Labour Members
  776
  have intervened so often. However, I have other points to make on other aspects of the Bill that go beyond the winding-up crisis, and after I have taken an intervention from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I hope to move on to other aspects of the Bill.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman says that its retrospective nature was one reason why he would not sign early-day motion 200. Two days ago, he was quoted in The Independent on Sunday:
  "We will be tabling an amendment to enable the pension protection levy to provide retrospective compensation".
  Was he misquoted?
  Mr. Willetts: It is not possible to use the insurance levy collected by the fund to pay compensation retrospectively for funds that have already wound up. One constructive suggestion is that, when the administrative framework of the pension protection fund is set up, it should be possible to operate a levy on current employees for future security—setting up administrative arrangements is one of the Bill's main provisions. At the same time, it should be possible, for example, to endow a compartmentalised fund with some of the unclaimed assets after a suitable period has elapsed, and the administrative arrangements of the pension protection fund could then be used to help people who have lost out from the winding up of pension schemes in the past. A future levy could not be used to compensate people retrospectively. When the administrative arrangement is in place, I envisage that it will be possible to endow it with funds from the source suggested by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead in order to help tackle the problem. I apologise if the quotation in the press did not make that clear.
  Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with part of the problem because he is trying to identify where the resources may come from to set up such a fund. He has not involved himself in the question of who would be eligible to claim from that fund. It is difficult for the Government to sign up to that agenda until they know who will be eligible. It would help if his party introduced its own proposals on who would be entitled to compensation and how a firewall could be built.
  Mr. Willetts: Conservative Members have introduced more proposals and have tried to be more constructive than the Secretary of State. All we ever get from him is, "No false hope," We heard it again today. We have been doing our best with the limited resources of opposition to contribute constructively.
  One crucial problem, which the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey mentioned, is how little information we have received. We established the 60,000 figure in a written answer only last week, when we had been asking for that information and tabling parliamentary questions for months, if not years—it is a bit like getting blood out of a stone. We have done our bit: we have made it clear that we recognise that there is a problem, we have offered cross-party support on the priority order; and we supported the proposal from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on Second Reading. It is about time that the Secretary of State came forward with some ideas.
  Sir John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems that Dr. Altmann identified is that schemes are more heavily in deficit if they are required to buy annuities? There is merit in exploring alternatives to the purchase of annuities, and there may be other means of securing that capital more efficiently for those who are adversely affected, which is a point that I shall deal with later if I happen to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Willetts: As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that he has an opportunity to develop his argument.
  Will the Secretary of State provide more information about one aspect of the insurance scheme? He covered several aspects in responding to my letter, but I should like him to address the important question whether the Government stand behind the scheme: he mouths the word, "No". It is not a matter of what the Secretary of State says in the Commons but of the underlying reality of the arrangements. What matters is the substance, not the words. I remind him that the scheme is being created by a vote in the House of Commons. He will appoint the chairman of the scheme, fix a ceiling for the levy that the fund can charge and fix the value of the benefits covered by the scheme. Can he really say that it would have nothing to do with the Government if such a scheme were to fold? Would he dare to try to get away with saying that the insurance scheme had to fold in the only circumstances in which that might arise—if several large companies had seen their pension schemes collapse and been unable to meet their pension promises?
  If the Secretary of State would be willing to walk away from the scheme in such circumstances, because it could not be guaranteed by the Government, why is it that the action plan he published last June stated:
  "The Government will improve the security of pensions by …introducing a Pensions Protection Fund to guarantee"
  I stress that word—
  "members a specified minimum level of pension when the sponsoring employer becomes insolvent."?
  How can the Government advance proposals that state that they guarantee a specified minimum level of pension and then say that they would not stand behind the scheme?
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I have made it clear that it would be the responsibility of the fund to meet its obligations and make good a decent pension for the people uncovered. The risk cannot be nationalised, and I suggest that it is not wise to nationalise it. The hon. Gentleman makes the case for underwriting. If the pension protection fund were established, with the approval of the House, would he commit a Conservative Government to underwriting it—yes or no?
  Mr. Willetts: I am not talking about whether we say that it should be underwritten. I am asking the Secretary of State, who has to take responsibility for his own proposal, how he can promise people a guaranteed benefit at the same time as claiming that it will not be supported by the Government. That is the question that he needs to answer about his proposals.
  778
  Other proposals should have been in the Bill, but they are not. The Secretary of State gave a long list of such proposals when he identified several areas on which he would table amendments. A cause close to his heart is the so-called cliff-edge effect for people who retire and go from full-time employment to no employment. We all remember his soundbite—at least, his sound-nibble—on that, and I agreed with him. He made a fair point when he said that people should be able to go back to work part-time and also collect their pension. The Bill says nothing about that. What will he do about that proposal?
  I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said that section 68, which rationalises the treatment of accrued rights, would finally be tackled. It has been an issue for a long time and it is time that it was addressed. We look forward to seeing the further provisions when they are announced.
  Mr. Smith: On the issue of the ability to work part-time and draw down a pension, the bulk of the legislative change required will be for the Finance Bill. It is a tax legislation issue and I envisage that it will be covered by other measures that we will introduce to bring pensions legislation in line with the provisions in the forthcoming Finance Bill.
  Mr. Willetts: I welcome the Secretary of State's clarification and his assurance that the matter will be included in the forthcoming Finance Bill.
  Behind the omissions and the subjects added to the Bill lies a theme. What began as a measure to simplify matters and ease the burdens on pension schemes will instead add to them. Alan Pickering's inquiry was set up in September 2001, and when the Secretary of State reported on its publication to the House, he said:
  "Pension simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision. We need to deal with the complexities built up over the years by successive Governments."—[Official Report, 11 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 1053.]
  That was right, but his agenda of simplification and cutting the burden of regulation has disappeared from view. The problems began on the day that he made that statement. The Conservatives made it clear that we were willing to support deregulation, but the Liberal Democrats—typically opportunistically and immediately—said that they would oppose any tactical proposals that might be made.
  The Bill fails to implement Pickering. Instead, it will add new burdens to business. The National Association of Pension Funds has said:
  "'The Bill makes life more complex, not simpler, for those running Defined Benefit pensions in the UK. It fails to deliver on many of the positive proposals recommended by Alan Pickering in July 2002."
  The Association of Consulting Actuaries has said:
  "Much of the simplification agenda designed to ease burdens on employers and schemes—the original reason why legislation was planned—has failed to reach the Bill at this stage."
  Instead of easing the burdens on companies running pension schemes, the Bill will place an even greater burden on them. Nowhere is that more starkly demonstrated than in the provisions on the obligations

  779
  of trustees. The extra obligations and duties on trustees run the risk of detaching pension funds from their members, and we do not want to see that happen. The provisions will professionalise the trustee function and make it even more difficult for representatives of employees, or other people with a legitimate interest in a company pension scheme, to serve as trustees because the task will be professionalised. The ACA also said:
  "there are real concerns that this proposal could lead to many trustees 'walking away' from the role due to the onerous obligations being placed upon them."
  One of our biggest concerns about the Bill is that the whole trust model on which British pension funds have been based for so long is under threat because of the burdens that will be placed on people who continue to try to run pension funds on a trustee basis.
  Sir John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that leading firms of pensions lawyers now take the view that the responsibilities that would be imposed by clause 200 would make it impossible for anybody other than a firm of professional trustees to serve as trustees, with all the cost that that involves?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Labour Members wish to encourage employees to become involved in company pension schemes, and many trade unions try to get their members to serve as trustees of pension schemes, but the view of many experts is that these proposals will make it less likely that employees of companies will be willing to serve as trustees. Members on both sides of the House agree that that would be undesirable.
  Tony Lloyd: I chair the trade union group for Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but in fact the trust model is under threat and that is why we have the Bill. It is the failure of the trust model to do anything other than replicate the establishment view of the pensions experts that has led to the crisis in many areas of pension activity. He asks about the right balance between imposing duties on trustees and recognising that they must have such duties imposed on them. Part of the answer must be that trustees should receive adequate training. What proposals does he have in that area?
  Mr. Willetts: One can always agree that training will help, but how much training, would people be willing to undergo it, how onerous would it be and what time commitment would be involved? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) put it, we will soon reach the stage at which the function will need to be contracted out to professional advisers, but that is the last thing that any of us want. Trust funding of pensions is under threat.
  There is an alternative approach, which is for the Secretary of State to sort out the mess in his own backyard. It is no good him telling everyone else involved in pension provision what they have to do if the
  780
  Government will not do their bit by sorting out the complexity of the state benefit system. I ask the Secretary of State to recognise that there is a problem with the state benefit system. He is almost alone in believing that the spread of means-testing to more and more pensioners is a desirable or sustainable long-term approach for state benefits for pensioners. Let me quote from Alan Pickering, whom the Government invited to produce the report on which the Bill was supposed to be based. He said:
  "I hope that the government will realise that it is in the minority of one that thinks means testing is sustainable. It is not a firm foundation for building a pension … Before we can modernise the world of private pensions we need to modernise the state pension."
  That was what Mr. Pickering said, and he is right. It is no good for the Government to impose more and more obligations on the funded pension sector when they do not reform benefits.
  As so many Labour Members are in their places, I should tell them that although this is not the occasion for a full exposition of our policy, I shall none the less make two simple points. First, if they are concerned that increasing the value of the state pension to roll back the spread of means-tested benefits will be badly targeted because the money would go to large numbers of affluent pensioners, I invite them to look at the figures for income distribution among pensioners.
  I shall give the gross incomes for pensioner couples in fifths. The income for the poorest fifth is £165 a week; for the next fifth, it is £221, for the middle fifth, £276; for the next fifth,£373; and for the top fifth, £889. The average income of pensioner couples—385—is higher than the income of the poorest four quintiles; in other words, most pensioners have modest incomes and there is only a relatively small number of pensioners on high incomes on whom such a policy would be "wasted", although they have paid their national insurance contributions. I should rather tax them at 40 per cent. than have means-tested benefits withdrawn, a minimum rate of 40 per cent. and rates that go up to 90 per cent.
  Mr. Watts: Can I be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is proposing? As I understand it, he is not proposing an overall increase in pensions but a flat rate rather than a means-tested system. Would not that mean a dramatic cut in the income of the poorest pensioners in Britain?
  Mr. Willetts: There will be no reduction in anyone's income. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman about the poorest pensioners—it was the second point that I wanted to make. Last week, we received the latest figures on the take-up of means-tested benefits. I have to tell the House that there is an increasing problem among the poorest pensioners—those who do not claim the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled. A higher and higher proportion of the eligible non-recipients, the pensioners entitled to means-tested benefits but who do not claim them, are in the lowest sector of income distribution. The most devastating statistic in the report was that we have reached the stage where, even before disability benefits, 65 per cent. of the

  781
  pensioners entitled to means-tested benefits, but who do not claim them, are in the bottom quintile of income distribution—they are among the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners. They are the people who are not helped at present. Either the Secretary of State will have to bring us to a fantasy world where everyone claims the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled or he will have to accept that a large number of the poorest pensioners are not being reached by his means-tested benefits.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Having quoted those statistics, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that people were not being reached at present. He should accept that the statistics are outdated and precede the introduction of the pension credit.
  Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State finally got round to publishing the figures last week. so I can only tell him that I would be very happy to use more up-to-date statistics; all he has to do is provide them. Meanwhile, I shall work on the basis of the best statistics that he can offer—the take-up statistics that he produced last week.
  Alan Howarth rose—
  Mr. Willetts: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman—that distinguished defender of the rights of the bourgeoisie.
  Alan Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He expresses concern about the interests of the poorest pensioners, but is not his policy—to introduce an earnings link for the basic pension, but remove the earnings link from the minimum income guarantee—regressive?
  Mr. Willetts: We shall have to wait to hear from Ministers what their plans are for uprating the pension credit. I have regularly asked the Secretary of State what his plans are for its future. Labour Members assume that the pension credit will be earnings-linked in future, but we shall have to wait and see. So far, we have heard no statement from the right hon. Gentleman about his intentions for the pension credit if he were re-elected.
  It is not simply that we need that information so that we can assess our proposals against his but that it is very relevant to the Bill. How can he require private pension providers to deliver pension illustrations stretching way into the future when he will not even come to the Dispatch Box and tell us what may happen to the value of means-tested benefits in two years' time? How can there be proper modelling of people's pension prospects without a reliable and authoritative statement from the Secretary of State about what is to happen to the uprating of means-tested assistance for pensioners?
  One of the omissions in the Bill is that it fails to tackle—
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I should like to make some progress, as I know that many Members want to speak.
  There are no provisions in the Bill to reform state benefits, although I welcomed the modest encouragement from the Secretary of State to table
  782
  amendments in Committee to try to address that serious omission. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who will be fighting energetically in Committee, will, I am sure, have taken note of the Secretary of State's remarks.
  The other failure in the Bill is that it contains no new incentives to save. Over the past few years, the Government have been systematically stripping away incentives to save. Contracted-out rebates are no longer set on an actuarially fair basis and a £5 billion a year tax has been imposed on our pension funds.
  Mr. Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I should like to conclude my point.
  In a rash moment, when the Secretary of State was challenged on how he expected people to save for the future, he said:
  "The answer is the ISA, a more flexible vehicle which is attracting more savings, especially from younger people."—[Official Report, 2 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 103.]
  Since the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, a new 10 per cent. tax has been slapped on our individual savings accounts. Whenever people start to save, including in the ways in which the Secretary of State says he believes, they promptly have a new tax put on them.
  Sir John Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the Government have reduced the limits on ISAs?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. The limits have been reduced and now the 10 per cent. tax credit is being withdrawn. In equity, I must now give way to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan).
  Mr. Tynan: The hon. Gentleman is most generous. Does he accept that the Conservatives were in power for many years and created the poverty that meant that people could not save for retirement, but that we are changing that culture and he should be ashamed of what happened in the past?
  Mr. Willetts: I am afraid that what has happened is that the savings rate—the amount that we save as a nation—has not risen since 1997; it has been declining since 1997. There are many reasons for that, but among them, I am afraid, are the Government's policies. Taxing our savings and spreading means-testing is not the way to encourage people to save. That is why, sadly, the Bill will not tackle the savings crisis facing our country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Willetts: Many Members on both sides of the House want to speak, so I shall conclude.
  Of course, the Opposition support the need for insurance for pensions, but because the Bill fails to improve incentives to save, fails to tackle the need to reform the state benefits system and fails to answer crucial questions about how the insurance scheme will

  783
  work, we have proposed our reasoned amendment, which is a far better approach than the one taken in the Bill. I therefore commend our amendment to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now on.
  2.8 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I rise to congratulate my colleagues on the Treasury Bench on the Bill. In my short contribution, I want to set out four cautions about the Bill, but I do not want anybody to interpret my remarks as criticism of the strategy that the Government are adopting in this aspect of pensions policy.
  No great Department is a free agent in any Government. Under this Government, we know that the imperial power of the Treasury has an extensive interest throughout Whitehall, and especially in Work and Pensions, so we should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on what he has been able to bring forward today within the limits set on him.
  I hope that we will have changed the Bill in some important respects before it passes into law, but I doubt whether we will be able to deal with the subject of my first caution. Although we cannot expect those on the Treasury Bench to acknowledge this fact publicly at present, we know that we do not have a satisfactory long-term policy on savings and pension provision. One of the reasons for that—it is a paradox—is because the Chancellor, in his proper enthusiasm to help the poorest pensioners, has concentrated help in the form of the minimum income guarantee and pension credit. If help continues to be concentrated in the form of a means test that stands alone with no other measures, it will undermine the long-term confidence of perhaps 40 per cent. of the population in providing for themselves. I do not believe that any free society can operate in the longer run if most working people know that it is not in their interest to save. At some stage, the House will have to return to the consideration of our long-term strategy on pension savings.
  The Government expect to receive a report from their Pensions Commission. I appreciate that there might be some logic in believing that when the commission reports in July, although perhaps that will be delayed until the autumn, the Government will ask it to deliver a report on its proposals and suggestions for long-term reform a year hence—after a general election. My caution for those on the Treasury Bench is that the results of the first period of operation of the Pensions Commission, which is exclusively concerned with collecting a coherent set of data on long-term savings for the first time, might be so shocking to us and our constituents that the voters will not give the Government another year in which the commission may think of what fine schemes it would like to commend.
  Let us consider what is happening in all our constituencies. The turnout of people below pensionable age at elections has fallen dramatically.
  784
  Turnout is falling most gently among people who are approaching retirement age or beyond it, so the next election will probably be the first ever in this country in which the majority of people who vote will be pensioners. There will certainly be a majority of voters who are five years from retirement or retired. Although pensions do not play in the Gallup polls that are useful guide to all of us, long-term savings and security in retirement might be concerns below the surface that will have a joker-type effect when the ballot boxes are opened after the next general election. I make a plea to those on the Treasury Bench to think about long-term reforms. We need to back up the success of the Government's short-term policies of helping the poorest pensioners now.
  My other three cautions relate to the Bill, and my first refers to the risk factor and its weighting when working out the levy. I make a plea to those on the Treasury Bench to take a totally different approach to working out the levy. The people who are most interested in seeing the scheme up and running are not employers, but our constituents who are members of pension schemes. I happen to believe the trade union line that pension savings are deferred wages. The logic of that position means that those who will benefit from a pension should pay the levy, which should be related to the number of years for which they contribute and the size of the pension that is being insured.
  It would not be wise to try to put a risk-based levy on employers, especially given what the Secretary of State said about that possibly taking a firm's credit rating into account. If we go down that avenue, the markets will eagerly wait for the Government to approve the publication of the risk-based levy, after which they will start to punish firms with a low credit rating on the Government's list. The need for an insurance scheme thus might become that much greater because more companies could be driven over the edge as a result of the publication of the information than would otherwise have been the case. I know that such a change to the Bill would be large, but I ask the Government to determine whether there is an alternative way of raising the required funds—we all agree that they are necessary—for an insurance-based scheme before we reach Committee.
  My next caution relates to the loss of pensions, which many of our constituents have already suffered and that many more may suffer before the Government's scheme comes into operation. I agree with all those, especially Labour Members, who have said that if the Secretary of State fights his corner in government and comes forward with a scheme to compensate people who have already lost their pensions—I hope that he will be able to do that—all hon. Members will have a duty to ensure that none of us use that scheme to try to ensure that our favoured group is covered.
  I was disappointed by Opposition Members the last time we discussed the matter because they immediately jumped up and said, "What about. Equitable Life?" I declare an interest because I saved with Equitable Life. That was a foolish decision, in retrospect, but no one made me save with Equitable Life. We are talking about our constituents who, as a condition of employment, were made to join their pension schemes. Even after that

  785
  requirement was dropped, most people in pension schemes did not know that the Government had changed the law.
  Mr. Miller: I put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the help that he has given me with the Robertsons' case. Is he arguing that such compensatory arrangements should be based on the date of Royal Assent of the Pensions Act 1995, or that they should go back prior to that date?
  Mr. Field: If my hon. Friend had received answers to the questions that he tabled for answer today, I could probably have given him a more definite answer. Most of the cases about which we know are fairly recent and as we look further back, the number of cases is smaller. I would not want to draw an arbitrary line at this stage without seeing the figures. However, I make a plea that we do not try to entice the Secretary of State into introducing a compensation scheme for a group of workers that somehow passes its cost on to future generations. If we are not prepared to meet the cost by asking the Chancellor to levy taxes, or, as I would prefer, by introducing a levy on unclaimed assets, we do not have the right to suggest that future generations, some of whom are not yet born, should meet a bill that we are not prepared to pay.
  The Secretary of State has given two outings to his view that just because assets are unclaimed, that does not mean that they do not belong to people, so perhaps we should not touch them. Most people in this country know what their income is, and the Chancellor thinks that it is totally proper to tax us. If we agree to that, surely we can start to consider unclaimed assets that go back more than 100 years. I know that several Scottish Members are slightly jumpy at the thought of placing a levy on unclaimed assets in case they mistakenly own some, but given that some go back 150 or 200 years, we can start at the end of the queue and work forward. I make a plea: let us not try to impress any proposals on the Secretary of State unless we are prepared to suggest where the money would come from.
  My last plea is about parking pension liabilities, which have already been touched on. However, before I move on to that point, may I say that I am sure that the my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State picked up the mood of the House when hon. Members discussed meting out justice to our constituents who were forced to save yet now face the horrendous prospect of a retirement with little or no pension? I want to strengthen my right hon. Friend's hand in the negotiations in which he will be involved. If the Government are unable to introduce suitable measures on Report, I hope that my right hon. Friend has picked up the feeling that at that stage, while the rest of the Bill may be secure, the Government might find difficulty in holding to their line when the vote takes place. Even if we do not manage to persuade the Government in this place, there is the revising Chamber. I do not say that in a threatening way. However, my right hon. Friend faces some tough negotiations and we all want him to be in as strong a position as possible when he takes on the powers that we are discussing.
  The last issue and caution is whether, on Report, we can put into the Bill some measures that prevent unscrupulous employers from trying to park their
  786
  pension liabilities in companies that then sink. I say that because last week I was debating the impact of the actions of a firm in Birkenhead. Although that firm paid all its insurance to Chesterstreet Holdings to cover its workers on asbestosis claims, Chesterstreet Holdings decided that it would leave all its liabilities for asbestosis cover in its main company. It took away all the said firm's profitable business and placed it in another company. That company still trades. Many constituents suffered considerable shock and alarm when the insurance cover for asbestosis went down with what was then nearly a cardboard firm.
  I hope that the Government will be open to comments and suggestions about reform from us all when we come to consideration on Report, to ensure that those employers who want to rid themselves of their pension liabilities and then continue trading in another guise cannot do so. We must somehow link the responsibilities that are built up to the company that collected contributions and invested them on behalf of employers.
  This is an important day for the Secretary of State and his team. I thank them for the huge amount of work that they have done to get the Bill in its present form. However, I remind my right hon. Friend of my four cautions. I hope that before the general election we shall set out to the electors a choice about long-term pensions reform. A risk-based levy on employers might bring down some companies, and in that event people will point the finger at the Secretary of State. Could we devise some way of preventing people from walking away from past pension liabilities, as Chesterstreet Holdings did with its insurance claims?
  Lastly, before the Bill receives Royal Assent, I hope that the Government will give us the opportunity to ensure that those of our constituents who did everything that was required of them to save for their old age and who have been wickedly robbed of that inheritance will be given some justice.
  2.23 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful for the chance to make a Front-Bench contribution and to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who, as has been said, has often been the person to come up with innovative ideas, proposals and suggestions for tackling pension problems. With no disrespect to those on the Government Front Bench, it is a shame that he has to do so from the Back Benches.
  We owe it to those who have lost their pensions and to those who are currently saving for pensions to be clear where each of us in the House stands on this issue. I wish to make it clear that I and my colleagues reject the Conservative reasoned amendment. I shall be asking my colleagues to support the Bill on Second Reading.
  In my view, the Conservatives have behaved in a slippery and evasive manner. To read the press, one would think that they were tremendously sympathetic to the problems and had an entirely positive agenda. Yet, this evening, they will be trying to block a Bill that will provide protection for future workers' occupational rights. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) says that he supports the principle of a central insurance system, but he did not say anything about future workers, future pension rights and the sort of insurance-

  787
  based scheme that he want to see, let alone mention provision for those who have already lost out. The reasoned amendment says that we should not give the Bill a Second Reading because of what it does not contain. I accept that it does not contain a great deal, and there is plenty in it that is flawed, but there is good enough in it. It provides for a proactive regulator—a long overdue provision. It provides for a scheme, albeit flawed, but it represents the basis for such a scheme, to protect future pension rights. That is why I shall be encouraging my colleagues to support the Bill on Second Reading.
  As I said, the reasoned amendment gives a long list of concerns about things that are not in the Bill, but surely the Opposition cannot say that they do not support the proactive regulator. They cannot say that they do not support central insurance. So what is it in the Bill to which they object? I do not understand.
  Reflecting further on the approach that the Conservatives have taken, I refer the hon. Member for Havant to his quotation from The Independent on Sunday. He is also reported in the press as saying that the Conservative plan is to table an amendment to enable the pension protection levy to provide retrospective compensation. Apart from having said that that is not an accurate reflection of his position, I do not understand how one can table an amendment to a Bill after it has been defeated on Second Reading. I am rather puzzled. Obviously the hon. Gentleman has no confidence that his reasoned amendment will be agreed to this evening. After all, if it were agreed to, he would not be able to amend the Bill. I know that I have not been in the House for as long as the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot work out his position.
  The central proposal before us is the pension protection fund, and I shall concentrate my remarks on it. There is a paradox. The Secretary of State uses the analogy of holiday insurance and car insurance, and says that this is pension scheme insurance. He says that essentially we are talking about an insurance scheme, but the Bill contains a raft of measures and provisions that obviously do not make it an insurance scheme.
  The first factor is the risk-related premium. To use the analogy of the boy-racer, in the first year of operation he will be paying exactly the same premium as the staid middle-aged driver who never has an accident. There will be no distinction between those who are extremely likely to make a claim on the fund and those who are unlikely ever to do so. We have been told that after a year there will start to be a risk-related element. I understand that that will be phased in over a period of years. We have the bizarre situation where a company that does well out of the risk-related premium—for example, BT, a big, solvent company that works hard fully to fund its liabilities—can opt for the RRP, and presumably not pay very much, while a dodgy company that has not funded its scheme properly, and is probably teetering on the brink of insolvency, can defer moving over to the RRP for several years. That is a wacky sort of insurance scheme, where the bad risk as well as the good risk can pay low premiums. I have not worked out how the sums add up. It is an odd transitional process.
  788
  This is not really an insurance scheme. Instead, it is a messy hybrid. Many of these issues need to be resolved as we examine the details in Committee.
  There is a further reason why I am concerned that this quasi insurance scheme is not what it appears to be at first sight. There is the idea that it guarantees people's pension rights. We know, broadly speaking, that the plan for the PPF is that a person will get 100 per cent. of their rights if they are already drawing a pension and 90 per cent. if he or she is still a worker. However, that might not be the case. If the fund is in trouble, what is the first thing that happens? The fund may set a higher levy for the following year, but the Bill contains a provision for a cap. The levy can be increased only by a specified percentage. What happens if finances are seriously in trouble? For example, early on many companies that are limping along to 6 April 2005 might suddenly make their claims on the fund. All right, the assets of the schemes will go across to the PPF, but if scheme funding becomes seriously in difficulty and the levy has increased against the cap, what happens? The next thing is that the PPF will cut the benefit that it pays out. It will get rid of the indexation of pensions in payment. It will get rid also of the uprating of pensions that have been deferred.
  What if the scheme is still in a mess at that point? Buried in one of the schedules is the Secretary of State's right to cut the protection that is offered by the PPF below 100 per cent. and below 90 per cent. We have the bizarre situation where a so-called insurance scheme might not pay out.
  John Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that there would be a blank cheque when firms wind up their pension funds? If so, would that not encourage some firms to wind up their pension funds, as they would know that the Government would bail them out, no matter what?
  Mr. Webb: Given the political difficulty for the Government if they do not honour the insurance, I suspect that that is precisely what will happen in practice. If the Government face the prospect of a big company going to the wall, a crisis in the fund, which did not contain enough money, a jacking-up of levies to the ceiling, the scrapping of indexation rights, and the need to get an affirmative resolution through the House to cut the protection offered by the pension protection fund, they may well opt for a bail-out. We should plan rationally, not so that the public sector puts money in that it never sees again, but so that it is a lender of last resort. Although the pension protection fund has borrowing rights, they are limited. The Government are trying to claim that the insurance scheme will protect people's pensions and is operated at arm's length, but the Secretary of State has his mucky paws all over it—he can tweak it, cap the levy and change the benefit rights. It is essentially a public sector or Government scheme.
  It would be preferable to avoid a panic when the pension protection fund suddenly runs out of cash and things are desperate by planning rationally. How would any Government lending of last resort work, how long would it last, and on what terms would it be repaid? We must plan now, instead of panicking when companies go to the wall. The public are in danger of being misled, as

  789
  they may think that the pension protection fund protects their pensions at 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. In fact, if the scheme gets into trouble, the Secretary of State may come to the House and cut those rates. If someone insured their car and it crashed, they would not want Direct Line to say, "We haven't got much money this month, so we will only pay for half the repair." However, that is what the Secretary of State is proposing in the Bill, which surely is not right.
  Lynne Jones: In view of the uncertain nature of the scheme at the outset, the Association of Consulting Actuaries has suggested that the benefits from the insurance fund should be set at a lower level—100 per cent. for pensions up to £10,000 a year, and 80 per cent. for pensions between £10,000 and £20,000. The poorest pensioners in the scheme are therefore protected when the scheme starts, but benefits can be increased later. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on that proposal?
  Mr. Webb: I have some sympathy with the notion of a capping mechanism, although I am not sure about those levels. However, our priority is to make sure that, first, people are not left destitute and, secondly, have a reasonable return on their savings Trying to define that in statute is extraordinarily difficult, but our first priority is to make sure that people are not left destitute. After that, if money is left in the fund, we could look at the allocation of the balance. However, it is certainly well worth considering a cap when there is pressure on funds. There are capping components in the proposals, but they would operate at quite a high level.
  The Government say that they are saving occupational pension schemes money by reducing their obligation to index pensions in payment post-retirement. However, they may have greatly overestimated the amount that pension funds will save as a result. Although pension funds may have a 5 per cent. requirement post-retirement, the evidence is that many of them are not providing, for 5 per cent. because they do not expect inflation to be anything like that. The amount that they may save by not being required to meet that 5 per cent. rate may therefore be less than the Government think. Some schemes, in any case, have an obligation that is greater than 2.5 per cent., which they will continue to meet, even if the statutory requirement goes down to 2.5 per cent. because the terms of the trust may require them to index by more than 2.5 per cent. They, too, will not save any money as a result of the change.
  The money that the Government claim that they are saving company pensions may be less than they expect, and the premiums that they will require of schemes may be substantially higher than the £300 million that they estimate. It is important that we are given such information. We would not reject the entire Bill because we do not know such things yet, but we should receive reliable information. I hope that the Secretary of State will place in the Library a copy of the projections on which his figure of £300 million is based, as well as the alternative scenarios with different outcomes. He suggested that even £300 million was a pretty gloomy scenario, so perhaps he can assure us that he will place in the Library both the basis of the figure and the alternative scenarios that the Government have looked at.
  790
  The issue that, quite properly, has attracted the most attention is the position of people who have already lost out or will lose out before 2005 and will not be in the system established by the Bill. A number of them are visiting Westminster today, and I want to put on record the appreciation that I share with a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House for the work of Ros Altmann and others for the pensions action group. Members who represent constituents with ASW pensions, along with other hon. Members, appreciate the fact that that group has maintained a high profile for the issue and, in addition to campaigning, has submitted evidence, arguments and positive ideas to the debate, which it needs. The Bill, I hope, will provide a chance for us to put something on the statute book to deal with the problem.
  I have reservations about muddying the issue by linking it to the pension protection fund—in my view, tackling it is a separate exercise. If we try to bring those individuals within the scope of the pension protection fund, the straw man of retrospection will be brandished, and people will say that insurance cannot be available retrospectively, so the whole argument for the Bill is weakened. We will not help our case by saying that money should be made available from the pension protection fund. A separate system of compensation is required. I do not mind if we talk about providing assistance, as long as the people who have worked and saved hard, listened to Government and official advice, and did what was expected of them get justice. That should be our priority.
  The Secretary of State was a little light-hearted about the suggestion that £100 million was affordable and not a substantial sum of money. It clearly is a substantial sum, and demonstrates that many people have lost a lot of money. We would not be talking about payment of £100 million a year if many of our constituents had not lost out badly. To say that £100 million is such a large sum that that one could not undertake action is not acceptable. If many people have lost a lot of money, doing something about it will result in a big bill. We may be able to find the money in the assets of people who died 200 years ago, and we are all attracted by the notion of a free lunch. If free lunches were available, even if they were 200 years old, I would join the queue. I maintain an open mind about the early-day motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. If there is credible evidence that that proposal would cover the substantial costs of action, my colleagues and I would be willing to look at it.
  I fear that that proposal would not operate on the scale required, although I am open to persuasion. If it does not, we must look at the Department's existing spending plans. When it draws up those plans, it identifies what it spends on pensions, benefits and so on. However, there is also a line headed "unallocated", which is money that it has not decided how to spend, and which is £150 million., £200 million or £250 million over the planning horizon. That is usual practice for Government Departments, especially Departments that spend £100,000 million. They tend to allow 0.1 or 0.2 per cent. for unplanned expenditure. The Secretary of State might argue that if there were a fight over unclaimed assets, every Government Department and good cause would queue up for a share. However, people who have lost company pensions must be close to the front of the

  791
  queue for money that his Department has not allocated. There is a profound case for providing justice for them, and when the Department allocates unallocated expenditure, it should put them at the top of the list.
  Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman said that a lot of money has been lost, but does he acknowledge that although that is the case, the sums for the individuals concerned are relatively modest? For the average active pensioner, the sum is probably about £8,000, for the average deferred pensioner, it is only £3,000 a year, and for people with pensions in payment it is about £6,000 a year. We are therefore not talking about fat cats.
  Mr. Webb: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that I was not implying that they were fat cats. If the cost is £100 million a year over a generation or so, that suggests that a lot of people are affected—the estimate is 60,000. For the individuals concerned, the money represents most or all of their pension. There is a danger that we will be caught up in the fine print, and will lose our anger at the injustice. The Secretary of State is a decent man, and wants such losses to be prevented in future. I hope that in examining the minutiae of the Bill he and other hon. Members will not lose sight of the fact that it is not right to allow people to work and save hard, reach the brink of retirement, only to have everything taken away from them and be told, "Sorry, although we sympathise, there is nothing that can be done."
  That cannot be an acceptable outcome. I hope the Secretary of State would agree with that basic principle while he tries to work out exactly what he intends to do, and I am not sure that he does. He says that he does not want to raise false hopes, but does he accept the principle that the one outcome that is not possible and should not be possible is that nothing is done? I am happy to give way if he wants to give us the assurance that that is his starting point—that it is unacceptable that nothing be done in response to the injustice. I am slightly disturbed that he does not want to take that opportunity.
  The pension protection fund is central to the proposals, but there are various difficult issues about how the fund relates to the rest of the pensions architecture that the Secretary of State is setting up. Schemes will have to follow a scheme-specific funding requirement. That makes a lot of sense. For a scheme with a large number of people who have already retired, the investment strategy and the funding rules will be very different from a scheme with most of its workers still active in the labour market. But there is another funding requirement knocking around—the pension protection fund funding requirement. The PPF will not just sit there: it will be active, keeping an eye on what companies are doing and how much money they are putting in. Presumably the PPF will be interested not only in whether they meet the scheme-specific funding requirement, but in whether they meet the level at which, if the company became insolvent, it would not make a claim on the PPF.
  Is there a danger that two funding requirements are being operated in tandem? There is a scheme-specific one, but then the PPF comes along and says, "Well, you may satisfy the scheme-specific one, but you don't
  792
  satisfy ours, because if you went bankrupt, you would make a claim on us, so we want you to put money in to satisfy that funding requirement as well." Is there a danger that there will be annual actuarial valuations for the risk-based premium and two different funding requirements, making the whole thing extremely complicated? Has the Secretary of State thought through the open question whether we need a scheme-specific funding requirement if there is a PPF funding requirement? How do the two interrelate? Is there a danger of duplication?
  There is a raft of other measures in the Bill which I will not go through in detail, but I shall pick up on two other issues. The first concerns the trustees of the schemes. Like other hon. Members, I meet regularly with retired members of occupational pension schemes. They feel that they are excluded from the running of the occupational pensions on which they depend. One of the things that they value enormously is trustee rights—retired members drawing pensions being entitled to serve as trustees.
  The Government considered two options for choosing trustees of occupational pension schemes. They rejected the option known as "fair and open". It is strange that the Government rejected the fair and open selection of trustees for occupational pension schemes. That makes me rather nervous. Retired members say that they want to have a say about the scheme that is as much theirs as anybody else's. They have no mechanism for contacting the electorate—the members of the scheme—and there ought at least to be a fair and open method of selecting trustees. The Government have rejected that for fear it would be bureaucratic and for fear of "vexatious scheme members complaining". Scheme members get vexed if they think they are not being listened to. I hope the Secretary of State will review that decision. It is important that workers, deferred members and retired members are properly represented in a fair and open way. I am not convinced that that is the case.
  Finally, I shall touch on the part of the Bill that deals with the state pension. In general, we must be in favour of measures that give people new choices about retirement and new flexibility. Anything that allows them to take their pension later and get an enhanced accrual rate or a lump sum would seem to be attractive, but as was pointed out when we discussed the matter last week, the choice is complicated. When pressed. the Secretary of State seemed a little hazy about how lump sums would be treated. I looked on the Department's website, where there is a fact sheet—a sort of idiot's guide, which I found helpful and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will as well.
  Under the heading "Pension Credit", the fact sheet states:
  "We also want to make sure that the lump sum is ignored when most people claim Pension Credit".
  One's heart sinks at that sentence. It creates yet more complexity. People defer their pension, get a lump sum, which is taxed at their marginal rate at the time, and for most people it will not count on their pension credit, but presumably for some it will. Who are they? How are we supposed to assess that? Nobody seems to know how it will work. How will someone aged 65 judge whether at 70 they will be one of the people who have the lump sum taken into account or not?

  793
  Part of the Bill is about information on the internet, combined pension forecasts and so on—telling people more—and another part creates a new, complicated choice that makes it extremely difficult for people to know what is the right thing to do. Once people have drawn their lump sum, does the Department say, "We'll always ignore £30,000 of your capital", or does the Department say, a year on, "Well, it is legitimate for you to have used £1,000, so we'll only ignore £29,000"? If people have other capital, does the Department distinguish between that and the lump sum capital? One begins to see how complicated matters become.
  Yes, the Bill is a missed opportunity to simplify matters. It has been calculated that somebody who retires from a money purchase scheme after April next year and who has been a scheme member since before April 1997
  "may need to buy six different types of annuity with what is effectively one pot of money",
  because of all the different rules about when it was saved and how much it has to be indexed by. The Bill was a chance to simplify matters, but it has made them far more complicated. However, I return to my opening point. We need a regulator who is proactive in looking out for problems. We need protection for future workers. That is why we will support the Bill tonight, but I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that we will not be satisfied until the Bill also provides for the people who have suffered the greatest injustice of all in that respect.
  2.46 pm
  Kevin Brennan: I, too, welcome the Bill and join in the praise that has been heaped upon the Secretary of State for introducing it. It is a brave, timely and necessary measure. At the same time as praising the Government for introducing the Bill, it is important to praise the workers from Allied Steel and Wire and other companies, many of whom travelled to Westminster today and whose triumph is that they have campaigned, made the case for, used persuasion in a responsible manner—often with great assistance from their trade unions and constituency Members—and persuaded a Government prepared to listen that something must be done about the problem of pension protection. The Government should be praised for changing their mind, having listened to the evidence.
  Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that for those who have been active in the campaign for the introduction of the pension protection fund, it would be rather silly not to support the Second Reading of a Bill that would achieve that for the future, no matter how concerned we are about those who have already lost out?
  Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend makes an important case. I was surprised when I heard last night that the Conservative Opposition intended to oppose Second Reading. By doing that—it is becoming more common under their new leadership—they reveal that they have forgotten the distinction between responsible opposition and irresponsible opportunism. That is what we see in their opposition to the Bill on Second Reading. They are opposing it only because they are grandstanding on the issue. I regret that, because we
  794
  need some measure of cross-party discussion of the matter and some measure of agreement across the House about how we fix the problem, which affects so many of our constituents.
  Tony Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Kevin Brennan: I am happy to give way. Last week, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) called me "the intervention king", so I am happy to show him that I am also prepared to give way to other Members.
  Tony Lloyd: The intervention king has taken two interventions in not many more minutes. I found the speech from the Opposition spokesman interesting because it contained so little that was positive about what the Opposition were proposing, and so little that was negative about what the Government were proposing, that it was hard to understand why they intend to vote against the Bill. My hon. Friend made an important point. We need some cross-party agreement on the future, particularly if there is to be a rescue scheme for the pensioners who have lost out. It must be guaranteed not only by the Government who announce it, but by all successive Governments. May I, through my hon. Friend, press the Opposition spokesman who is to reply to the debate to make it clear that they will be members of that all-party grouping, so that we can give those outside the confidence that their pensions will be guaranteed?
  Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that the Opposition's position will be clarified during the wind-ups, although I suspect that Labour Members are not holding their breath.
  My interest in this matter was triggered particularly by the case of Allied Steel and Wire, which affects many of my constituents. Speaking from personal experience, as the son of a steelworker who worked at Llanwern steelworks in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), I would have been outraged had my father been subject to what has happened to many of our constituents—if, after working for 20 years in those steelworks, he had left only to be told that his pension was worthless. We would all be outraged if that happened to a member of our family, and we are similarly outraged when it happens to others, whether they are our constituents or those of other hon. Members.
  The Bill is an excellent step forward. I particularly welcome the establishment of a pensions regulator with teeth, which is a part of the Bill that we do not talk about enough, but which is very important in making the pension protection fund work properly. We need to rid occupational pensions of their dodgy reputation and give them a reputation for being safe, sound places where people can put their savings for retirement.
  There are three basic reasons for giving some sort of assistance to workers who have lost out as a result of their company becoming insolvent: the moral case, which hon. Members have outlined: the legal case, which we cannot talk much about in this place—I sometimes think that we have too many lawyers here when I read amendments that are framed in dry legalese instead of addressing real human concerns—and the public interest argument, which is ultimately unbeatable.

  795
  On the moral case, we have here, in effect, a case of breach of promise. One has to ask what steps any reasonable, rational human being would take if they were saving for a pension in their retirement, and what is the minimum protection that they would have the right to expect from the state in that regard. A worker from Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff who joined its scheme 25 years ago would have been compelled to do so as a condition of employment. As the state permitted that compulsion, it bears some responsibility for the consequences. If the worker was of a sceptical nature, he might think, "Hang on a minute; I don't like buying a pig in a poke", and take a deeper look at what they were getting themselves into. A reasonable, rational human being might think that he should do a bit of research to see what, for example, the National Association of Pension Funds says about the subject. One of its recent leaflets says that defined benefit schemes make
  "a promise of a guaranteed pension based on the number of years you are a member of the scheme".
  If the person read on, they would be told:
  "The promised pension is not affected by the level of investment returns or interest rates as all these risks are borne by your employer."
  I think that that would be enough to satisfy me, but if I was a doubting Thomas I might want to see more evidence about these so-called guaranteed pensions and go on to read a leaflet from the Financial Services Authority called, "FSA Guide to Pensions: Reasons for joining an occupational pension scheme if you can". It states:
  "In a final salary scheme, you know broadly how much pension you'll get (as a proportion of your earnings before retirement). This makes it easier to plan for retirement."
  That further reassurance might have satisfied me, but I might have gone on to look at what the Department for Work and Pensions had to say. I am not sure what it said in the distant past, when many people would have taken the trouble to find out, but it said recently:
  "Should I join my employer's occupational pension scheme?
  Occupational pensions are usually a very good deal".
  That might have satisfied me, because although I would not necessarily want a very good deal for my pension, a good deal or a reasonable deal might be sufficient. But that information nowhere states: "You should be very wary, because if you join a final salary occupational pension scheme you are betting your retirement on one share—namely, the share of your employer." That is what the current situation permits. People who were originally compelled to join a scheme could have read all that advice, but never have been given a health warning that they were effectively being asked to bet their retirement on one share.
  If the worker was still sceptical, he might read his own company's documentation. The leaflet from Allied Steel and Wire in Sheerness, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), says:
  "What benefits does the Fund offer?
  The benefits of the ASW Sheerness Steel Group Pension Fund are comprehensive:
  A guaranteed pension on retirement, which increases each year to help protect it from inflation".
  796
  I defy anyone reading that body of evidence to point to the health warning It represents a promise, implicit if not explicit—I think that it was explicit—from Government, from quangos, from the Financial Services Authority and from employers. Any reasonable, rational human being who looked at that evidence would anticipate that their pension benefits were guaranteed.
  Leaving aside the moral question for a moment, I turn to the legal question. Workers' pensions are supposed to be protected under the European insolvency directive. I shall not go into detail on that because the case may well end up in the courts. I merely ask my hon. Friends this: why should we line the pockets of lawyers in taking this case on, whatever the legal advice turns out to be; pay double the financial penalty in having to do so; and ultimately face a political penalty for not having assisted when we had the opportunity?
  The third reason for giving assistance is that it is in the public interest. I recognise the danger that this issue may drown out the good news about the measures in my right hon. Friend's Bill and undermine public confidence in occupational pensions at a time when he is trying hard to strengthen it. I do not want to do that. However, public confidence will not be restored if, after the passage of this Bill, 50,000 or 60,000 workers say to their colleagues of the pension protection fund: "Don't believe the promise that you will get a guaranteed pension if things go wrong—look what happened to me." That is what they will say if there is not some form of assistance and some acceptance of responsibility.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the double injustice meted out to the former employees of Irish Fertiliser Industries? Workers in the Northern Ireland plants will receive only about 20 per cent. of their entitlement while those who were based in the plants in the Irish Republic will get their full entitlement. Should not the Government press the Irish Government to ensure equity?
  Kevin Brennan: I doubt whether the hon. Lady is making an argument for a united Ireland, but I take her point and sympathise with the workers whose cases she eloquently highlighted in her intervention.
  I believe that the Government accept, and have great sympathy for, many of the arguments. They have given tremendous attention to cases, met many affected workers and been genuinely moved by their stories. They have shown a willingness to help if possible. However, I understand the concerns that they have raised. Worries about cost and how one draws a line are not to be baulked.
  Although it is easy to make the sums appear and sound large—huge amounts of money are involved—let us be clear: the state provides tax incentives to private pensions. We cannot pretend that the state has nothing to do with private pensions. It provides them with tax incentives of up to £14 billion a year. Half of that goes to the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers and a quarter to the top 2.5 per cent. We could reduce the costs if we stopped buying annuities—Dr Ros Altmann made that point well—and allow the pension funds to fulfil their current commitments, until the point when they need more funds. Some pension funds might recover in that period

  797
  if. as expected, the stock market recovers. During that lull, the Treasury could set aside funds for an occupational pensions assistance board of some sort. I do not mind whether it is associated with the pension protection fund, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned, or whether it should be insulated from that so as not to confuse matters.
  Whatever the method, it should be possible to provide some sort of assistance board, for which we would not have to pay out for many years. I appreciate that the costs may, according to one estimate, eventually be about £100 million a year. Another estimate from a TUC pension adviser is that it is likely to be closer to £50 million a year. Although that is a large sum, it is a small proportion when compared with Government involvement in subsidising private pensions. We must bear it in mind that many workers will claim the pension credit if they do not receive some form of assistance. They do not want to do that when they believe that they have made all the necessary provision for their retirement and that they should be paid accordingly.
  Let us consider the point about drawing a line. It would be helpful if we all acknowledged—I make a special plea to Conservative Members to do so—that we are not considering Equitable Life but a completely different issue. It is neither Equitable Life nor Maxwell. There are two main reasons for that: compulsion was involved for many of our constituents and there was a lack of a proper health warning. The problem has largely developed since the Pensions Act 1995, and all those who have been affected by a specific date should be permitted to apply to an occupational pensions prior claims assistance board.
  We are not considering fat cats. A medal should be struck for Dr. Ros Altmann for all her work on the matter. She estimated that for the average worker—the active pensioner—we are talking about a pension of a maximum of only £8,500. We would not let that happen to our parents or to us, and Ministers would not let it happen to them. We should not let it happen to our constituents.
  3.4 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: What on earth have the Government been doing for the past six and a half years? The pensions industry is in a mess, pensioners are worried and Ministers appear to believe that serial consultation, with no results, is an adequate substitute for the serious radical reform that we need of our private and public pension provision.
  In December 2002, the Government set out, in response to a question, the list of Government consultations that had taken place since August 2001. Yet, unbelievably, Ministers were unable to provide details of their consultations between May 1997 and August 2001. They gave the following reason for not providing the information:
  "A detailed list of consultations before this date"—
  before 2001—
  "is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 140W.]
  Pensions are a difficult and thorny subject, but such an answer is straight out of Alice in Wonderland. Ministers have displayed a stupendous lack of grip on the matter since 1997. Meanwhile, British pensions are in crisis, which is intensifying.
  798
  Adair Turner, chairman of the Government's Pensions Commission, said that in the past five years
  "Sixty per cent. to 70 per cent. of private sector defined benefit schemes—weighted by number of employees—have closed to new members".
  More than 55,000 occupational pension schemes were wound up between 1997 and 2003. Since 2001, nearly 4,500 schemes have begun the process of winding up, but have not yet completed it. The parlous state of occupational pension schemes contributes to the general collapse of public confidence in long-term saving.
  In our naivety, we might have supposed that a new measure called "Pensions Bill 2004" would, after all this time, include some radical and effective provisions. It is any Government's duty to supply them in circumstances in which pensioners cry out for effective action. Such reform was not to be. The Bill fails on several counts. It contains no serious proposals to reform and improve the basic state pension provision, especially in a way that will rein in the pernicious effects of means-testing, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has often spoken so eloquently.
  The reform of the basic pension is a prerequisite for encouraging employees to make more private provision through personal or occupational pensions. One needs a solid platform of basic state provision from which to float pensioners off means-testing and give them the confidence to invest over and above state provision without the risk of the means test kicking in and making their extra and responsible private savings throughout their lives of nugatory value.
  Alan Howarth: Has the hon. Gentleman estimated the level of the basic state pension necessary to float pensioners off means-testing, and how much it would cost?
  Mr. Riffley: I did not say that we would devise a scheme in the first term of a new Conservative Government—[Interruption.] Labour Members should listen. I never said that we could devise a scheme to float all pensioners off the means test in the first term of office. Change would be incremental. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant has described relinking the basic state pension with earnings in the first four years of any Conservative Administration. That would deliver approximately £8 to £10 a week for the average pensioner. That is a start, which would get rid of the bottom end of the means test. The election of successive Conservative Administrations would mean that we could make even more progress on whittling away the disgraceful means test.
  John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a figure of £8 to £10. Where would that leave the 3,000 beneficiaries of pension credit in Havant. who receive more than £40 extra a week?
  Mr. Ruffiey: The hon. Gentleman should refer to the excellent pamphlet, "A Fair Deal for Everyone on Pensions", which is on the Conservative central office website. I do not have time to go into that now, but he will there discover the answer to his question. We will also find savings from the administration of the means test, and there are many other ways in which we can ensure that no pensioner who is currently at or just

  799
  above the level of the old minimum income guarantee, or the guaranteed pension level, will be a loser in any shape or form.
  The elegant insight into cutting into the means test that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant supplied shows an imaginative and simple solution. That elegant solution is to boost the basic state pension in ways that would provide more incentives to save, and fewer disincentives to do so. Although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) mentioned the pension credit, I stress to him that there would be no losers under my hon. Friend's proposal. The hon. Gentleman should have faith in the brilliance of my hon. Friend who, unlike Labour Members, knows what he is doing. My hon. Friend has displayed imagination in coming up with his idea. Labour Members might find counterintuitive the idea that the Conservatives want to restore the earnings link, but the proposal works and the numbers stack up—in the first instance, for the limited period of the first four years.
  The other problem with the Bill, apart from the lack of imagination to which I have referred, is that it makes no constructive proposals for reforming occupational pensions in a way that would prevent future losses of the kind that we saw in Allied Steel and Wire and other depressing cases.
  Lynne Jones: I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman's desire to reduce means-testing, but would not the Conservative proposal, while restoring the link between the state pension and earnings, do away with that link in relation to the means-tested benefit? In other words, the Conservatives intend to hold down the means-tested benefit so that the state benefit can catch up. That would affect many poor pensioners, especially women.
  Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Lady has obviously not read our proposal for the eventual abolition of the pension credit. I suggest that she look at it.
  Vera Baird rose—
  Mr. Ruffley: I shall give way in a minute, but I wish to make progress.
  The constructive proposals for tackling the losses of those who lost everything—
  Mr. Nigel Waterson rose—
  Mr. Ruffley: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend should not feel at all abashed in the face of the last intervention because. as he will be aware, the Government have gone out of their way to decline to answer the question of whether, if by some mischance they were re-elected to Government, they would link the pension credit to earnings or prices. My hon. Friend should expect a helpful intervention from the ministerial Front Bench if he were asked to deal with that issue.
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend the Member for Havant asked a question on that. Will that link be restored after
  800
  the next election, according to the commitment first announced, I think. by the Chancellor? We do not know. Most people think it highly unlikely, given that he is trying to save money in his next comprehensive spending review.
  What is to be done about the individuals who have lost everything? Before moving on to that, and to the proposals of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I want to mention the Bill's most important proposal, which is not entirely without merit: the pension protection fund. I have some sympathy with the Government over their task of setting the right level of protection. If that is set too low, future pensioners will not get the cover that they need, but if it is set too high, the premiums will be too crippling and prohibitive for companies.
  At first blush, it might seem that the Government have gone for a practical compromise in the Bill, essentially saying that existing pensioners will get 100 per cent. cover and future pensioners will get 90 per cent. of their benefits. Current pensioners will have a reduced indexation of 2.5 per cent. for post-1997 benefits, with no indexation before 1997. So far, so good—one might think. However, the question that has not been answered is how reliable is the Government's estimate of the total cost of the levy. They have put that at about £300 million, but under FRS17, Watson Wyatt has calculated that the whole of British industry's current deficit could be £60 bill on. In that context, £300 million does not look terribly realistic.
  That does not bode well for a successful pension protection fund. Moreover, the Government do not have any estimate of the number of pension funds that are cheerily waiting for the creation of the pension protection fund so that they can make a claim. Add to that the fact that in the first year the fund will be collecting only the fixed-rate levy, and one can well envisage how the fund might be in deficit at the start of its life.
  Clearly, a flat-rate levy on its own will bring moral hazard, because cross-subsidisation from the healthier to the weaker funds will provide a powerful disincentive to giving greater contributions to the weaker funds. That is why the Government have introduced a risk-based element to the levy. Again, that seems reasonable, until one starts to ask how it will be assessed. It seems that the assessment will take into account the surplus and discount of the pension fund, the company's solvency and the fund's mix of assets and liabilities. However, I thought that the Government were arguing for abolishing the minimum funding requirement provisions precisely so that funds could return to higher-performing equities with higher returns when they wished to. That is not likely to happen if there is a risk-based element, because that is likely to lead, on average, to a higher levy.
  Another devilishly difficult problem for the Government, to which the Bill contains no answer, is that the risk test will require actuaries to make various judgments. Current opinion in the actuarial profession, depending on to whom one speaks, is not entirely sure whether bonds are the best means of matching pension liabilities these days. The consensus among professionals is that the risk element in the levy will be difficult to assess reliably and consistently. Perhaps the most obvious problem with the risk-based element is

  801
  that the weakest funds will pay the most. The weaker they get, the higher the levy. That could well exacerbate problems for a weaker fund, even given the transitional arrangements that seek to obviate the need to tackle that problem.
  The fund is no panacea. The model that the Government have borrowed—the US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation—is running at a deficit of more than $11 billion. The only logical outcome for the model that the Government have come up with is for the pension protection fund to reduce benefits to below the proposed level of 90 per cent. for current or 100 per cent. for existing pensioners. It is a matter of logic that the Government will have to cut those benefits because they have capped the levy. Had they not done so, any deficit in the fund could be closed or reduced by raising the levy, but they have expressly ruled out that policy option. The Government seem to have boxed themselves in.
  The fund should come with large health warning for future occupational pension holders. Presumably, that will come with the further information to be sent out as a result of part 4 of the Bill. The fact is that this is not a guaranteed scheme, and the Government would be duping future occupational pension holders if they were to pretend that it were.
  I would like to touch on the points raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. I seek a point of clarification from the Minister as to what legal advice he has received—perhaps he would care to publish it—on the status of the unclaimed assets that would form the basis of the scheme proposed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. That would involve an endowment quite separate from the fund in the Bill, and it would be hugely useful to get a definitive ruling on that status.
  Mr. Frank Field: Would it be a good idea to ask the Attorney-General?
  Mr. Ruffley: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated the gag that I was about to make. I know that legal advice is a sensitive subject for Labour Members, and I also know that they have different views on the matter. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether there is anything in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that is worth looking at—the Secretary of State was very unclear on that—or whether the Government can give a definitive ruling that it is not a runner, and that it is a free lunch that will, frankly, not be available. Clarification of that issue would assist all of us in our deliberations on the Bill.
  The Bill as a whole does too little, too late. As a result, current and future pensioners are being let down, and the Bill needs to be voted against.
  3.21 pm
  Alan Howarth: The first responsibility of any Government is to ensure the provision of a universal state pension. At the moment, the state is not doing so, as the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs notes in its excellent report, "Aspects of the Economics of an Ageing Population". Because eligibility for the state retirement pension rests on the contributory principle, large numbers of those who are currently retired do not
  802
  qualify for a full basic state pension in their own right. Conspicuous casualties, both now and prospectively, are women on earnings below the level for national insurance contributions, and carers in households not in receipt of invalid carers allowance.
  The system has been stretched and patched to support varieties of people whose national insurance contributions fall short but who are considered deserving. I think that the Government are now proposing accrual of pension rights for people on paternity leave. The House of Lords Select Committee says trenchantly:
  "We see little purpose in this contribution system, which appears to be a now largely dysfunctional legacy of the post-war Beveridge welfare plan."
  It concludes, quite rightly in my view, that
  "the basic state pension should be paid on the basis of citizenship rather than contribution record."
  The Green Paper discussed the basic state pension at length but did not embrace that idea. Given the plethora of credits already available to older people on low incomes, it would not be unaffordable to provide fairly and squarely that every citizen should be entitled to a basic pension, and I would have hoped that such a provision would be in the Bill.
  After establishing the platform of a decent basic pension, the Government have a responsibility to encourage and assist everyone of working age to build on that platform.
  For all too many people, defined benefit schemes have turned out to be a snare and a delusion. The Government can levy taxes and are therefore in a position to honour their commitment, expensive though it is. When private sector employers felt that they should emulate the public sector, a fuse was lit.
  Representing a constituency in south Wales, I am intensely aware of the grievous plight of the ASW pension scheme members. Naturally, I would like to see the Government help them, perhaps in the same sort of way in which they helped the Maxwell pensioners by readmitting them to SERPS and forgoing for the time being the NI contributions otherwise owed. However, the Government cannot confine themselves to helping selectively in the highly publicised cases. The Government would need to offer equivalent relief to members of all occupational schemes, including defined contribution schemes—to some of which employees were required to belong—that have suffered a ruinous collapse in the value of their pensions. Pace my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), I ask how could they not then, in justice, help savers in Equitable Life and other personal pension schemes that have experienced catastrophe? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has established a definition of "catastrophe", the period of time that should be taken into consideration, the numbers of savers whose pensions have been ruined and the cost of rescuing them on the same basis as the Maxwell casualties.
  Among the lessons of these calamities must be that it would be a mistake to commit further to defined benefit schemes. Employers have already understood that.
  Sir John Butterfill: I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I think that he

  803
  might be in danger of over-egging his pudding. Is he aware that some 4.6 million British workers are still in defined benefit schemes, and that we are talking about 60,000 people who are affected by the calamity of ASW and other such cases? It is therefore necessary to keep this matter in proportion.
  Alan Howarth: I shall come to some of my concerns about the commitment of British industry to defined benefit schemes a little later in my speech.
  The Government's main administrative and legislative effort at this stage, as we see in the Bill, is to create a pension protection fund. I understand, of course, why they want to do so, but the proposal bristles with difficulty, morally and practically. Even if the badly run schemes have in due course to pay a bigger levy, why should the well run schemes be required to contribute to a fund to bail them out? In any case, might not the fund indeed offer false hope? The so-called Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in America has gone sharply into deficit, with all concerned crossing their fingers and hoping that a rising stock market will float them off the rocks. The scale of payments that will need to be levied from UK pension funds to provide the guarantee that the Government proclaim may be such as to drive more employers into abandoning the very model—the defined benefit scheme—that the Government want to prop up. The bureaucracy involved in a scheme of differential levies—as in the supervision of scheme-specific funding—will surely be onerous.
  It seems to me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the pensions Minister may be expending their powder and shot in fighting the last war. Instead, we should be welcoming the shift to defined contribution schemes and concentrating on devising an appropriate regime for them.
  There will be no reversing the trend away from defined benefit—DB—schemes. With the altering age balance in the workforce, the maturing of schemes, the disappearance of surpluses and greater longevity, more and more companies will be unwilling to shoulder the cost and risk of final salary schemes.
  Policy by successive Governments—the taxation of surpluses; regulations far more burdensome than in the USA; FRS 17, which means that volatility in the value of pension funds affects balance sheets; and European Union discrimination legislation—has been driving employers away from DB schemes. Nor need we lament that. It is not in employees' interests to be in unsustainable DB schemes or for their firms to be rendered uncompetitive by the cost of a DB commitment. Final salary schemes make less sense with the need for many people to work for more years and to retire gradually. Defined contribution—DC—schemes make more sense in a flexible labour market and for individuals who expect to change jobs relatively frequently, or who are low earners, or who depend on overtime or other payments which are not consolidated into pensionable pay. For all these reasons, the change to DC is happening.
  Adam Price: I can think of few professions in which people would
  804
  expect to change jobs more frequently than this one. Would the right hon. Gentleman support a motion in the House to move our pension scheme from defined benefit to defined contribution?
  Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down an interesting avenue, but I shall resist the temptation.
  For all the reasons that I have just outlined, the change to DC is happening, and I would have hoped that the Bill would be focusing on the urgent need to provide a framework and standards for DC schemes so that they can perform as they could do and need to do. There is an obvious agenda here. We need to ensure that sufficient contributions are made by employers and savers, that appropriate investment options are available, that information, financial education and financial planning advice are available, that the regulation of DC schemes is simplified to replace the four distinct regulatory regimes that we have at the moment, that there is ease of transferability, and that people are helped to buy the right annuity at the right rate. It is vital to raise the standards of DC schemes if we are to avert widespread poverty in retirement and huge rises in public expenditure.
  The Association of British Insurers calculates that, on present trends, 80 per cent. of the population will rely on means-tested benefits by 2050. If that is correct, this is the impending pensions crisis. Twenty per cent. of workers are not saving at all, and many more are not saving enough, either because they lack the money to do so, or because they are baffled by the complexities of pensions, or because they do not realise how important it is for them to save.
  The DC regime that I want the Government to bring in will be strongly paternalist. I welcome the provisions in the Bill for a new regulator, but I want the regulator to do more than the Government may wish.
  To build up a pension large enough to prevent a painful fall in disposable income during retirement, people need, at any rate from their early 30s, to put in not less than 15 per cent of gross earnings annually. The responsibility should be split fairly between saver, employer and Government. The ABI has found that when an employer contributes at least 5 per cent., the proportion of people saving for pensions rises from 13 per cent. to 69 per cent. Employers should be compelled to contribute a minimum percentage of pay, and incentivised by Government, through a tax credit or relief of national insurance contributions, to contribute more. Employers' contributions have of course been falling in the transition from DB to DC: the average employer's contribution to contributory DB schemes is 10.1 per cent., but to DC schemes it is 5.8 per cent. The Government should also contribute, but by way of grant rather than tax relief. As Sandler, Altmann and others have noted, tax relief is highly regressive. In 2002, of £14 billion worth of tax relief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West noted in his superb speech, half went to the richest 10 per cent. and a quarter to the richest 2.5 per cent. It is neither just nor efficient to provide the biggest tax relief to those who are most able and most disposed to save. Grants would enable the Government to provide extra incentives to save for people on lower earnings and would have a flexibility which tax relief does not have.

  805
  If the Department for Work and Pensions thinks that that would be sensible, I wish it well in its negotiations across Whitehall. The Department of Trade and Industry no doubt thinks that compulsory employers' contributions would be an unacceptable burden on business. To be sure, we should not impose social costs on the scale of Germany and France, where they destroy jobs. After all, near-continuous employment is the precondition of building any decent pension. But we should say plainly to employers in the UK that they should make a certain level of contribution to pensions as part of our social contract. Good employers already do that. Why should they be undercut in the labour market by bad employers who do not?
  We also need a more extensive, energetic and urgent programme of action from the Treasury. I look forward to the Finance Bill. The Treasury needs to intervene far more decisively in asset allocation. Pension funds, as experience has miserably shown, have been excessively exposed to equities and the risks inherent in equity investment. I am dismayed to read—I hope that it is not correct—that Ministers now propose to change the solvency rules to allow fund managers to invest more in equities. Can it be right for the Government to encourage pension scheme trustees, so many of whom lost their fiduciary gamble in recent years, to stake yet more of other people's money in the equity casino? Compounding untaxed interest and capital gains on fixed interest investments in a low-inflation environment will provide a considerable return, and a safe return, on savings over a working lifetime. The Government should be explaining that and steering savers towards sensible asset allocation.
  The Government should ensure that regulations comparable to the American "safe harbour" regulations for DC schemes are put in place and that best practice guidelines are issued. Prudential supervision needs to be exercised to ensure that a sufficient variety of investment products is available to individual savers to match the variety of their personal needs. Trustees, as has been noted, need training. Savers need financial planning advice—Sandler is dangerously wrong to suggest that the creation of simple and "low risk" products, not all of which are so low risk in reality, obviates the need for advice. The Sandler products may not be suitable at all for people who would do better to pay off debt or buy an ISA. People will need advice both on whether they would be wise to buy any Sandler product and, if so, which. As Dr. Ros Altmann has put it, there is a danger of a new "misbuying" scandal. Besides, such is the lack of confidence in pension products because of their complexity, past scandals and the highly publicised collapse of schemes, that people will need to be encouraged to invest in any of these new products. The Government must ensure that everyone receives financial education, information in intelligible terms about their pension options, and competent independent advice. I am glad that the Government recognise the importance of "informed choice". They must not underestimate the scale of the exercise required to achieve this. The cost will have to be met. Are the Government willing to provide a tax credit for employers who make suitable education, information and advice available in the work place? At present, not only can employers not get tax relief on the cost to them of providing pensions advice, but such advice may be treated as a taxable benefit for employees.
  806
  While DC occupational schemes are preferable to DB, there is a case to be made against occupational schemes altogether—whether DB or DC, they inhibit the labour market. We need people to be able to move as flexibly as possible between employers and sectors. Occupational schemes are predicated on an obsolete model of lifetime employment in one particular occupation.
  It would be better if everyone built up their own personal and portable pension. Chile and Singapore have adopted such a policy. The 401k schemes in the USA, which the Bush Administration have encouraged and which are increasingly popular, offer another model, which is likely to be more applicable here. I believe that we need a fully fledged system of personal and portable pensions as the centrepiece of provision. This would require strong incentivisation and intrusive regulation in the approval of funds, in ensuring a suitable diversity of funds and to enable risk to be spread, in safeguarding savers' interests against imprudent investment by fund managers and trustees, and in ensuring competition between funds. It would require full transparency of commissions, charges, transactions, valuations and projections. An inescapable obligation would have to be placed on employers to pay at least 5 per cent. of pay into each worker's individual fund. Similarly, the Government must oblige the self-employed, 28 per cent. of whom are making no personal pension provision, to save.
  Among the virtues of the PPPs that I advocate is that, having their individualised pension pots and taking such responsibility for themselves, people would take a closer interest in their pension and would be better able to make their own judgments as to the sufficiency of their accumulated pension, and whether they needed to carry on working, at any rate part time, for longer. There will be the more need for people to extend their working lives now that they will have to repay university fees in the earlier years. Of course, if the Barker review of supply and demand for housing leads to policies that will reduce the British incubus of mortgage costs, that will make it easier for people to build better pensions. Meanwhile, since such a large proportion of personal wealth in Britain is tied up in bricks and mortar, we need properly designed and regulated home income schemes.
  The Government should stop discouraging saving for personal pensions by relaxing their rule requiring commutation of personal pension funds for annuities by age 75. There is no such requirement in the US, I understand, on DC schemes. It is fair enough to require provision of an annuity sufficient to ensure independence of publicly funded benefits. Beyond that, people should be free to keep their personal pension funds until death, and indeed to bequeath them to their heirs provided that tax relief and inheritance tax are paid to the Exchequer from their estate.
  Meanwhile, there are many useful things in the Bill—the introduction of the regulator, the extension of the transfer of undertakings principle in the private sector, the drive towards early transferability, those areas in which the Government are taking the axe to red tape, the encouragement to the provision of better information, and, as I anticipate, the change to the priority order in wind-ups. But we do face a savings crisis and an urgent need for pension reform in a variety of respects not encompassed in this particular Bill. We

  807
  need to look beyond the thickets of immediate pressures, decaying orthodoxies and vested interests. The Government have set up the Turner review, and no doubt Ministers are waiting for that report. I look forward to the Government unveiling their wider vision of a new pensions landscape and showing us how to arrive there.
  3.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. and repositioned Friend, as I suppose that I should refer to him in the light of his remarks about my party's change in position. I was not sure whether he disagreed with that in principle or was bemoaning the fact that it made his move unnecessary. Anyway, his speech was extremely interesting and will well merit rereading.
  I want to concentrate on one problem that is addressed by the Bill and one problem that is ignored by it. The problem addressed by it is that on which most Members have commented: the problem of providing compensation when pension funds fail and the company is bankrupt.
  I understand the conflicting pressures on Ministers, since I experienced similar pressures when I became Secretary of State for Social Security and immediately faced the problems bequeathed to us by Robert Maxwell, when he was found dead in the Atlantic and his funds were found to be short of several hundred million pounds. I refer to these issues solely because I believe that we may be able to draw lessons from that experience in coping with the similar—though, I accept, different—problems that we now face from a number of failed funds. The House will recall that several hundred million pounds were missing from all the Maxwell pension funds, that some 30,000 pensioners were as a result left at risk of losing all or part of their pensions, and that some faced immediate destitution, as their funds would be unable to continue paying their pension at all.
  I therefore faced two conflicting pressures very similar to those that Ministers now face. The first was a desire to help those facing destitution and the loss of the expectation of a pension that they had confidently looked forward to receiving. The second was a reluctance to accept an open-ended responsibility for events that were not the fault directly of Government.
  I decided that humanity had to override rigidity of the financial rules, and that we had to cope with the problem of people losing their pensions. We had to be imaginative about it, so we invented something called a non-reimbursable loan, which was immediately made available to continue the payout of pensions of those who would otherwise have lost them. A small sum, just £5 million, was created by that rather unusual financial instrument, but it bought us time, during which we were able to do a number of other things, including deferring the state earnings-related pension scheme contributions and thereby effectively making more money available from public funds to meet the problem. We also appointed my noble Friend Lord Cuckney, who, with the backing of the Select Committee and in particular the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and
  808
  indeed of all parties, helped regain the money and plug the gap so that pensions were secured for all those 30,000 pensioners.
  Subsequently we set in place a number of protections against a repeat of such a fraud, and, as a last resort and long stop, powers to impose a levy to compensate pensioners in the event of a fraud being perpetrated on a pension fund. What we did not do, rightly or wrongly, was to set up an insurance fund against failure resulting not from fraud, but from insufficient funds being put into the pension scheme and from the eventual failure of a company.
  We did not do so for three reasons. The first was that such a coincidence of events, both a shortfall in the fund and the insolvency of the employer, was exceedingly rare; it scarcely ever happened on a major scale. Secondly, we had reduced the likelihood of its happening in future by introducing the minimum funding requirement. Thirdly, we wanted to avoid any possibility of moral hazard that such an insurance scheme, like all insurance schemes, can create.
  What we certainly did not foresee at the time was that the Government would twice relax that minimum funding requirement and would impose a £5 billion a year tax on pension funds, siphoning that money off from them. On the day it was introduced I described it as the Robert Maxwell memorial tax, because it had such echoes of the very problem that brought about the crisis in the Maxwell funds. The tax has contributed to, though it is by no means the sole reason for, the crisis in pension funds generally now.
  Kevin Brennan: The right hon. Gentleman is informing many of us in the House about the details of the Maxwell incident. Before he leaves that, will he acknowledge that the major reason for the shortfall in funds that we are discussing today is the performance of the stock market, rather than the other issues he has raised?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman must remember that the performance of the stock market is not unaffected by the siphoning off of £5 billion a year from pension funds, which are major holders of equities.
  I should like to draw the positive lessons from the Maxwell experience. First, a Government cannot ignore the current victims of a crisis that has provoked them into taking action to help future victims of similar crises. They cannot do so on grounds of avoiding being retroactive, especially as the fund that the Government propose to create will itself be partly retroactive in its effect; it will compensate people for problems that have built up in recent years, when the fund did not exist, if those problems are crystallised in the years immediately ahead.
  The second lesson is that the Government must be imaginative. We invented the non-reimbursable loan and the postponement of SERPS contributions. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested using a portion of unclaimed assets. We have had no imaginative thought from the Government as to how assistance can be provided for those who are affected by the collapse of their employer and their pension fund simultaneously.
  The third lesson is that it is surely better, probably cheaper and certainly fairer to keep pensions in payment rather than to make an upfront purchase of annuities for

  809
  future pensions, which may cost a great deal. By keeping the pensions in payment out of an ongoing fund, one buys time, spreads the cost over time and may reduce the ultimate cost if, as the right hon. Member for Newport, East said, the market recovers in the meantime.
  I accept the Government's point that taxpayers cannot be relied on to provide support for everybody in an ongoing scheme; when many taxpayers are not themselves beneficiaries of defined benefit pension funds, that would be unfair on them. The fourth lesson, therefore, is that ideally the cost of insurance premiums for any protection should fall on the beneficiaries, the members of those pension funds, rather than the shareholders of the companies concerned, and this provision should be extended to the members of pension schemes underwritten by the state: members in public sector defined benefit schemes whose benefits are guaranteed by the taxpayer. They include Members of this House. It is very odd that we should be narrowing the burden of the cost of support to private sector members and employees belonging to defined benefit pension funds, saying that those in the state sector, including Members of this House, should make no contribution towards that insurance scheme.
  Fifthly, I accept that there is moral hazard and that therefore we may need to have an only partial—less than 100 per cent.—insurance provision for the collapse of a company and its pension scheme, and conceivably even less than the 90 per cent. for ongoing schemes that the Government propose. It is, however, important to provide at least some protection. There is a precedent in the form of the financial services compensation scheme, which covers deposits, investments and a number of other things. In most cases, although the arrangement for investments is slightly different, it will provide 90 per cent. payments up to a certain level of deposit or investment. So the issue has been dealt with elsewhere, and the Government are right to consider trying to tackle it in the Bill.
  Sir John Butterfill: If all the costs of the premium payable to the fund were borne by employees, would there not be a much greater danger of moral hazard? Surely employers would be tempted to behave badly, because they would not be bearing any of the costs.
  Mr. Lilley: I do not think that the impact on employers would be hugely different if the premium were compulsory, because they cannot avoid it in any event. There is of course a distinct possibility that employers will refuse to contribute a penny more than the minimum funding requirement or whatever replaces it, because they will know that if they do they will be protecting themselves unnecessarily—that if the company goes bankrupt and the fund is temporarily insolvent, the state will deal with the situation. I do not think that the risk—which does exist, and must be coped with—would be increased by making the beneficiaries, namely the members of the pension fund, pay the costs of the scheme.
  The Bill does not deal with one problem. It does nothing to rebuild the pensions system from the rubble into which it has been cast. Those are not my words; it was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead who said that the Government had inherited the strongest pensions system in Europe, and had reduced it to rubble.
  810
  We accept that other factors besides Government actions have contributed to that, and I am not here to blame the Government particularly for creating the problem: rather, I am here to blame them for doing nothing to solve it. The culture of saving has been undermined by the problems affecting pension funds, but above all by the pernicious effect of means testing. We must restore that propensity to save.
  As I said the other day when presenting a ten-minute Bill, I believe that three actions are needed. First, we must require people to save enough during their working lives to provide a pension that will avoid their being dependent on means-tested benefits when they retire. Secondly, we must enable them to do that by providing rebates from their national insurance contributions, incorporating large flat-rate rebates which, along with their basic pensions, will be sufficient to lift them above any dependence on means-tested benefits. Thirdly, the Government should guarantee the fund up to that basic level for each individual, while not including any extra savings that he or she might be encouraged to make, and should establish appropriate rules to prevent the exploitation of that guarantee by those investing on their behalf.
  I think that if we introduced those three rules—compulsory saving by everyone, the provision of rebates to enable the basic level to be met, and a guarantee of that basic level—we would secure a system that would encourage people to save, enable them to save more than the basic minimum, and allow them to choose when to retire, once they had enough in their funds, so that they would no longer depend on means-tested benefits. At the same time, ownership should again be spread throughout the people of this country. That has not happened since the extension of home ownership.
  Sadly, the Government have failed to take the opportunity presented by the Bill. I therefore support my Front Bench, whose amendment has fired a warning shot across their bows.
  3.54 pm
  Sandra Osborne: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on his very interesting speech, and I agree with what he said about compulsion. He used his own experience to set out some of the reasons why the present problems exist, and the lessons that hon. Members of all parties should learn. No party has a monopoly of wisdom on this matter.
  I congratulate the Government on the measures that have been taken on behalf of pensioners, and on the pension credit in particular. I recognise that a balance has to be struck between meeting the needs of today's pensioners and encouraging people to save in the future, but more than 4,000 pensioners in my constituency have benefited from the pension credit, with an average payment of £40.74 a week. People who are ultra-critical of the pension credit should try to explain to those pensioners why it is not a good idea. I should be interested in accompanying them as they did so. I have had 22 meetings in my constituency

  811
  about the pension credit and spoken to more than 500 pensioners. I can tell the House that they are absolutely delighted with it.
  Sir John Butterfill: Would not it be ironic if the people suffering in the way described by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) were recompensed for their loss by the Government, only to find that the money was clawed back through the withdrawal of means-tested benefits such as pension credit?
  Sandra Osborne: That is certainly a consideration that I hope that the Government will take into account in their deliberations, but I know that those of my constituents who have lost out with their pensions do not want to have to depend on the pension credit, or on any other means-tested benefit. They saved in what they thought was the sure and certain knowledge that they would have a pension to live on.
  I want to talk about the question of a flexible retirement age. There is, of course, no retirement age for hon. Members—unless the electorate decide otherwise. I have worked since I was 16, and have also raised a family and had access to education. I have no intention of working until I am 70, even if the electorate were to allow me to do so.
  Out of necessity, many people work in jobs that are neither easy nor especially enjoyable. Some jobs are physically exhausting, with long or antisocial hours. People look forward to the day when they can get off the treadmill, relax a bit and enjoy family life. Of course, some people want to work on, perhaps on a part-time basis, and they may welcome the prospect of receiving a lump sum.
  I do not know whether other hon. Members have come across this problem, but some people seem to be under the unfortunate impression that the Government intend, at some stage, to make it compulsory for people to work beyond the present retirement age. I am raising this matter today because constituents have approached me about it. It needs to be emphasised again that people have a choice when it comes to working beyond retirement age, and I hope that Ministers will make it clear that the Government intend that that will remain the case.
  The trade union movement fought long and hard to secure terms and conditions that would give people a fair deal, both at work and in retirement. The aim was to ensure that people had decent incomes so that they could make the most of that time of life. In the past few decades, there has been a tremendous rise in the number of people with occupational pensions. That must rank as one of the most progressive achievements since the welfare state was established.
  The number of people who have occupational pensions is nothing like the number who ideally should have them. In fact, I did not have a pension until I entered the House. As was pointed out earlier, for people who did as they were bid by successive Governments and deferred part of their wages until retirement—and we must make no mistake about it, that was what they did—the outcome has in general been very good.
  812
  Those people took advantage of a tremendous opportunity. They were able to enjoy security in their old age, knowing, in this uncertain world, that they did not have to depend on family or state benefits to survive. They might even have been able to help out family members now and again as they faced changing circumstances.
  I warmly congratulate the Government on introducing the pension protection fund. Never again will workers be left with their dreams of a secure retirement shattered. That happened despite the guarantees that people were given, and even though they followed Government advice to the letter and their trade unions argued for a good pension entitlement in every year's wage settlement negotiations.
  As I said in earlier interventions, I will support Second Reading and the principles of the Bill, because it would be plain daft not to, as I have been campaigning for some time for just such a provision as a pension protection fund, and now the Labour Government are introducing one. However, I am bitterly disappointed that that provision is being made only for the future, and not for those who need it most, and who need it now.
  By introducing the Bill, the Government have conceded that there is an injustice now. I disagree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, doubted the Secretary of State's commitment to trying to find a solution to the problem. I have had many discussions both with my right hon. Friend and with his Ministers, as have some of my constituents who have found themselves in such a predicament. My right hon. Friend has been very open to suggestions, and—putting him under no undue pressure, of course—I am perfectly confident that, if there is anything that can be done, he is the very man to do it.
  By introducing the Bill, the Government are saying that it is unfair that people can lose their deferred wages—that is, their pensions—just because their employer goes bust. The Government are conceding that that is the issue, and that is precisely what has happened to the former employees of United Engineering Forgings—UEF—in my constituency, and to 1,300 others throughout the UK.
  When a Member speaks in emotional terms in the House, it is sometimes said that they are wearing their heart on their sleeve. I accept that none of us has a monopoly of concern on this or any other issue, but I admit wholeheartedly that, when I speak on this subject, I am wearing my heart firmly on my sleeve. I make no apologies for giving the House examples of the consequences that that terrible situation has brought about for UEF workers, and for 60,000 others in the UK.
  An important factor in the demise of the UEF pension fund was the abuse of early retirement benefits as a carrot to entice people into voluntary redundancy. Many employees aged over 55 received their fully accrued pension entitlement when they accepted redundancy. It is often said that there are added pressures on pension funds because of increased life expectancy, but if more people receive pensions at an earlier age even when ill health is not a factor, the assets of the fund cannot withstand the pressure. That is what happened with UEF.

  813
  The employers were allowed to operate that policy without due regard to the fund's ability to sustain such a rapid drain on its resources. In this and in other ways, the UEF workers suffered from bad governance and maladministration, but apparently that was not illegal, so the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority took no action. Those people had no protection. I sincerely hope that the new pensions regulator will have powers to intervene much earlier, and communicate far better with the members of such schemes. I support what several other hon. Members have said on that subject. If such arrangements had been in place before, perhaps we would not have to spend time today pleading for those who have lost out, and we could concentrate more wholeheartedly on the positive aspects of the Bill.
  With the trade unions, I organised a pensions summit in Glasgow to highlight the plight of those affected in Scotland. Unfortunately, the Scottish print media paid scant attention to that meeting, as they have done throughout the whole sorry tale. The meeting was attended by people affected from UEF, Motherwell Bridge, Dexion, Richards, and Melville Dundas; I know that many of my Scottish colleagues hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, to talk about their constituents. I sincerely thank all the Scottish Members who attended that meeting, and also those affected, some of whom travelled a considerable distance to tell us their stories.
  As those people recounted their experiences, only someone with a heart of stone could have failed to be moved. In the west of Scotland, it is not the norm for men to cry in public, but on that day, we saw a grown man cry. His tears were tears of anger, but also of frustration and sheer disbelief that such a thing could not only happen, but was not illegal. To pay into an occupational pension scheme for 37 years in the belief that it was entirely safe and would lead to a lump sum of £50,000 and an annual pension of £18,000, only to be told that he would be lucky to receive even a quarter of that, is likely to traumatise anyone. The effects of such life changes coming out of the blue include having to sell a home, depending on state benefits and having to work much longer than previously anticipated—perhaps on any job that can be had, whether he was fit enough to do it or not. Those are just some of the examples that we heard at the meeting, and I know that many hon. Members' constituents have recounted similar tales at surgeries. I agree with those who say that this matter cannot be ignored. There is a fundamental issue of justice here that must be addressed.
  We should not forget that many people did not top up their occupational pensions with other savings or investments, simply because the Government continually told them that they were safe. There are many reasons why the problem came about, but it is widely accepted that legislation had some part to play. The Pensions Act 1995 was flawed legislation that contributed to the problem, so I believe that the Government should now right the injustice.
  At the same meeting, we heard Dr. Ros Altmann explain her proposal for retrieving those pensioners' rights at a relatively low cost to the taxpayer. We have already heard that, of the £14 billion tax relief provided on UK pensions each year, 50 per cent. goes to the top 10 per cent. of earners. I am not saying that £100 million is not a lot of money, but it pales into insignificance in comparison with that.
  814
  I heard what the Secretary of State said about Dr. Altmann's proposals, and I will be blunt with the House. We have heard many measured speeches about where the money could come from—whether it could be found through unclaimed assets, whether taxpayers should provide it and so forth. I will be perfectly honest. I do not care where it comes from, but I want the Government to do something about it. My constituents expect that from a Labour Government. I want the Government to tell us how they propose to solve the problem. I am open to suggestions and discussions, but that is the bottom line. Those people are looking to the Government to save them from an horrendous situation, and I certainly hope that something can be done for them.
  As Dr. Altmann spoke that day, I saw hope rekindle, where previously there had been only despair. I am not talking about false hope, to which my right hon. Friend frequently refers—I know that he does that for good reasons—because a coherent and possible solution is available here. If he does not believe that it is appropriate, let us talk urgently about what else can be done.
  When the Prime Minister was in Scotland last week, he said that, in our world of uncertainty and rapid change, we could achieve more by working together than we could alone. As far as I am concerned, that is, always has been, and always will be the value base of the labour movement. The Prime Minister rightly said that individuals expect Governments to help them and offer support when they have to deal with unexpected events that are no fault of their own. There can be no more glaring example of such people than those whose pensions disappear overnight when their employer goes bust.
  If the Bill is not amended or some other way found to deal with people whose time of need is right now, every time the pension protection fund kicks in to help future victims, instead of being a reminder of something to be proud of, it will simply add to the pain of those who have lost their pensions and need help now. I am aware that there is an issue of precedents, but there are plenty of precedents, and I shall mention one that my constituents continually mention. I refer to the compensation—to the tune of millions of pounds—received by farmers after the foot and mouth crisis. My constituents simply cannot understand why such compensation is perfectly all right for farmers, but not for others who are left destitute. We must have an answer to that.
  The Government are acting to stop the problem happening in future, but I hope that they will amend the Bill to give collective support to those who must not be punished now for the actions of others. We should remember that Governments encouraged workers to join schemes and allowed them to be compelled to join them as a condition of employment. They even used the word "guaranteed". By any definition, that can mean only one thing: not just for future but for present workers, a pension promised should be a pension paid.
  4.10 pm
  Sir John Butterfill: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne). Few right hon. and hon. Members

  815
  could fail to be moved by her clear sincerity and her concern for her constituents. However, in examining the Bill, we must consider whether the Government are doing enough and whether it is appropriate to deal with the problems that confront pensioners.
  I am one of those who think that the Bill is capable of improvement, and that, if sufficiently amended and seriously scrutinised in Committee, it can provide the basis for a valuable move forward. The Government could have consulted better, and could have produced a much superior Bill. That is shown by the level of criticism from trade unions, the trade bodies associated with pensions, the professional institutions and others.
  I should like to summarise what I think the Bill does do—although it does not always do it clearly—and what it does not do. It is an enabling Bill with far too much left to regulation. I would be much happier if the regulations were more transparent. Unfortunately, we live in a parliamentary world in which we are all too often asked to rubber-stamp legislation without knowing the details that will come later. We certainly do not know what the detail of the regulations will be. Even more importantly, we do not know the detail of the Finance Bill that will be with us all too soon, although not soon enough to make it clear what will happen on certain important issues that the Bill should address. The Secretary of State touched on the changes that will need to be made pursuant to what happens in the Finance Bill. I think that that is regrettable.
  There are a number of issues concerning the regulator, some of which are minor and some major. A minor issue relates to clause 2, which contains provisions to appoint the chairman and other members of the board of the regulator. It does not make it clear whether the chairman is executive or non-executive. Under clause 8, the chairman will chair the non-executive committee, which implies that the chairman will be non-executive, but that should have been made patent in clause 2.
  Much more important are the functions of the Bill, which gives wide powers that will make the regulator extremely powerful. Clause 62 deals with disclosure of information by the Inland Revenue. I am worried about whether that function will comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Subsection (2) removes the secrecy that is usually inherent in Inland Revenue information under section 182 of the Finance Act 1989. It leaves it to the opinion of the regulator as to whether such information should be appropriately revealed. I find that worrying. Lots of things in the Bill are left to the opinion of the regulator. Most of us want to safeguard the population in respect of the transmission of secret data. The Inland Revenue has walls that prevent one side, such as the valuation division, from obtaining money from the other side, the tax collection department. Presumably, the Bill will destroy those important safeguards. The Minister should reflect on that.
  The opinion of the regulator does not apply only to that provision—I supplied that as an example. In many areas of these extraordinarily wide powers, the opinion of the regulator is the defining issue. The House should consider that.
  816
  The compliance required with schemes under the Bill is onerous and costly. For example, clause 118 requires annual actuarial valuations—the current requirement is triennial. I accept that the Bill goes on to say that the requirement for annual actuarial valuations can be overcome if written actuarial reports are produced every year. However, the cost of obtaining such reports and of the scheme actuary conducting annual valuations is enormous and will be another unnecessary burden on employers that still provide such schemes.
  There should be clarity about what is contained in those reports. The Occupational Pensioners Alliance says that there should be transparency and that their contents should be available to scheme members and their trade unions, and I sympathise with that view. I do not sympathise with the need for what amounts to continuous re-evaluation. We are concerned by the current situation because the stock market has recently crashed, and we forget that pensions are a long-term business extending over many years. We should not therefore be motivated to legislate on the basis of a snapshot.
  Clause 200 has already been mentioned. It contains the requirement for trustees to have "knowledge and understanding" of all the issues, which include not only legal matters and pensions legislation but valuation and investment. Leading firms of lawyers say that that is not sustainable, because no individual trustee could be so qualified. That would inevitably lead to the appointment of professional trustees at great expense to schemes, which is not necessary.
  The regulator will have powers under clause 64 to define that point more clearly, and should use a light touch. Trustees should, of course, be informed, and anybody who takes on the job of a trustee should be required to acquire a level of knowledge. The regulator will need to specify the sort of knowledge required; I would prefer it if the Minister specified the required knowledge in the Bill. Perhaps the certificate of essential pensions knowledge issued by the Pensions Management Institute would be an appropriate benchmark, but there may be others. I hope that the Minister will move in that direction, otherwise trustees will either be deterred from serving or huge additional costs will be imposed on schemes.
  The minimum funding requirement has been mentioned many times today, and its specification in previous legislation is fundamentally flawed. There is a huge emphasis on bonds and bond yields. The hon. Member for Ayr mentioned Ros Altmann's views on that point. Ros Altmann is right: one can do many things apart from buying annuities, which are propped up by bonds that are in short supply and that have historically provided grotesquely low yields.
  Hon. Members may be interested to know that, if investments were made in, for example, commercial property instead of bonds, the situation would be transformed. A few weeks ago, I attended a seminar run by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which showed the yields in commercial property over the past 12 months, the past five years and the past 30 years. Over those periods, commercial property was much more stable and much less prone to fluctuation than bonds. The average yield

  817
  on all commercial property over the past 12 months is 10.7 per cent.; over the past 5 years it is 10.6 per cent.; and over the past 30 years it is 12.1 per cent. That is double the yield from bonds and annuities. If the Allied Steel and Wire pensioners' funds were invested in property, there would probably be no need to wind up the scheme because they could be paid out of the income from property.
  Those figures refer to the overall yield rather than the net income yield. Even after allowing for inflation, the real income yield is still 7 per cent., which gives one some idea of the need to re-examine the components of the minimum funding requirement. That also shows the need for the Government to pursue the establishment of real estate investment trusts—I am pleased that they say that they will do so—that contain unitised property, which gets over the problem of illiquidity that has always bedevilled property investment in the past.
  What will the Bill not do? It will not get rid of complexity, as the National Association of Pension Funds and the Association of Consulting Actuaries have said. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it fails to deliver on Pickering. It will not sweep away all the old legislation, as we were promised and which was why I welcomed the Bill when it was first mooted. It will not reform section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995, in relation to the simplification of existing schemes. It still leaves us with retained benefits, annual limits, contracting out, guaranteed minimum pensions and all the other old rubbish that could have been swept away by the Bill. That would save a huge amount of effort and worry for the civil servants who have to administer them and for the scheme trustees. It will not reform tax policy or establish the new priority orders that were discussed earlier. I am pleased to hear that it will abolish the compulsory additional voluntary contribution provisions, which were a bad investment for those who took them up, especially given that alternative investments existed that were less risky, did not involve annuity purchase and would have produced better returns.
  The Bill does not make it clear whether the PPF will have any indexation, which is another issue raised by the Occupational Pensioners Alliance. Most importantly, it will not provide an incentive for employers. It is ludicrous to expect employers to do things but provide no incentive for them to do so. The Association of British Insurers has suggested a pensions contribution tax credit for employers, which is the least that the Government could do to encourage employers to provide that facility for their workers. If that does not happen, more and more employers will opt out of defined benefit schemes altogether. If that happens—if schemes are closed to new employees and employers do not continue schemes—it will reduce the pool of money from which the PPF can draw. It will be left only with the income from schemes that are in trouble, and that will mean the inevitable doom of the fund. It is in the Government's interest to encourage employers to provide such schemes.
  The Bill does not clarify the situation of the PPF. Pensions World says that the Bill may be "too steep". Its costs have clearly been underestimated. For example, Watson Wyatt estimates that the present cost of administration of schemes is £90 a member, but Professor Blake says that the PPF will add another £80
  818
  per member. I think that that is a conservative estimate. The Government must consider the totality of the cost and then allocate it. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that the contributions should be made by the members—I have some sympathy with that view—but they should not pay the whole amount. That way lies a moral hazard. We need both the members and the employers to make a contribution, so that the employers can see that they will risk increased premiums unless they behave properly.
  How will the regulator assess the schemes? That is not clear in the Bill. Who will make the assessment? It would not be appropriate for the scheme actuary to do so. Will some other external actuary make the assessment? Will civil servants make it? It is vital that we know how the assessment of funding is to be made and on what criteria it will be based. If it is based on the present minimum funding requirement, it will be a total disaster. We need a rethink of the whole basis of the assessment of schemes and their future liability. If Allied Steel and Wire had invested in property, it would have done well and it would not need to go down the pan in the way that is suggested.
  The whole basis of assessment is key to the way in which we will view the Bill in the future. At the moment, we have insufficient detail to make an accurate assessment and there are many lost opportunities in the Bill. I hope that that will be corrected in its later stages.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who has a deep knowledge of this subject. I shall read his speech, as well as those of other Members, with interest tomorrow.
  Nearly two years ago, I had trouble with occupational pensions. Indeed, I could barely spell the words, let alone understand what on earth they meant. However, the events at ASW Sheerness raised my knowledge of occupational pensions from about two to six on a scale of 10, although every time that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) speaks, my score goes back to three. He has an uncanny knack of unnerving me by presenting yet another scheme or another set of ideas, but he has profound knowledge.
  I am sorry that the Conservatives will not be joining us in the Division Lobby this evening, as we all share the problems of pensions. The above-the-line issues of current concern to my constituents are planning regulations, council tax and asylum. Pensions are below the line at the moment, but at some stage this year they will go above the line; they are a huge issue in our community. There may not be much press recognition of that, but that is not to say that people do not talk about the problems when we knock at their door.
  I make no excuse for talking about ASW Sheerness. I want to reflect on what is happening there in relation to the proposals in the Bill. First, however, I express huge thanks to past and present Secretaries of State and Ministers with responsibilities for pensions. People sometimes say that their door is open, when in fact it is closed, but pensions Ministers always have an open door; they meet my constituents at every possible

  819
  opportunity and never turn them down. They are a beacon in Whitehall. If Secretaries of State in other Departments took such an interest and treated people with such care and sensitivity, this place would be better.
  I also thank Dr. Ros Altmann, who has been mentioned previously. I am slightly wary of describing her as a national treasure in case she is nationalised, privatised or PPP'd, but she has freely given us an amazing amount of her time. She has never sent us an invoice. She has made an unbelievable number of journeys and attended many conferences and we are grateful to her for giving us that time. She has also educated us, which has been important—especially for me.
  I represent good people. They work hard, have a trusting nature and are committed to their community. They also read Government advice pamphlets with great care. Although everyone expects constituencies in the south-east to be flush with money, there is a necklace of poverty along the south-east coast that stretches from Woolwich to Southampton. Part of my patch includes the Isle of Sheppey and the port of Sheerness, so we have lived with poverty for most of the 20th century. As Members will know, financial poverty can be compounded by poverty of ideas and of leadership—we have had a fair smack of that, too.
  In earlier times, the work force in Sheerness depended entirely on the docks—their university of life. But the docks were closed in 1960. There were no redundancy payments, no retraining grants and no pension—there was nothing. One day, people were working, the next day they were out of work. In 1960, after 200 years of industrialisation, the good people of Sheppey were thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment in what we laughingly described as a civilised society.
  To alleviate that large-scale unemployment, eventually—unbelievably—a steel mill was built on port land at the edge of the town. It has had several names and several owners. When I arrived in the area in 1997, it was known as Co-Steel and owned by a Canadian company based in Toronto. In 1999, it was sold to Allied Steel and Wire and became ASW Sheerness. At its height, it employed more than 500 people.
  I was a regular visitor to Co-Steel, as I supported the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation in its desire for recognition at the plant. During my visits, I took time out to remind the workers that their pension fund was special because it was so generously endowed. That was because, as other Members have pointed out, it was a condition of employment that workers had to take out an occupational pension. We refer to such a scheme as "deferred wages". When my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions sums up the debate, will he tell us whether, at the very minimum, those deferred wages could be repaid? It seems to be a crime above all crimes that deferred wages that were given to someone else to invest were stolen, in a sense. There is a case for us looking again at whether we could, at the very least, help on deferred wages.
  Hon. Members will know that in early July 2002, ASW Sheerness and ASW Cardiff were placed into receivership with their pension schemes placed into
  820
  administration—that was what we called a double whammy. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) nor I knew that a pension scheme could be put into administration so quickly, but that happened.
  Hon. Members who did history A-level will remember catch-all essays titles such as, "Compare and contrast this and compare and contrast that." Compare and contrast, then, the treatment of the workers in Sheerness docks in 1960 with that of the steelworkers of 2002—what is the difference? On the compare register, as one would expect under a Labour Government, we have offered the workers redundancy pay and retraining, and the ISTC has been exemplary in its support for its members. On the contrast register, however, what has changed? Nothing; people are still on the scrap heap without their pensions. How has civilisation changed over 44 years? How have we treated our people better or worse over that period? The answer is a huge disappointment, and although what happened was not the Government's fault, the situation is their responsibility.
  A group of workers got together and came to see me about the problem. We did not know what we were going to do, and although we never thought that we would launch a national campaign, we have done that. I pay tribute to Keith Plowman, Andrew Parr, Phil Healey, Pat Wiggins and Tom Butler, some of whom are listening to the debate, for what they have done to create an organisation to make the case nationally and internationally. I also thank the Secretary of State because at least the circumstances surrounding administration will change.
  We have no idea where our wretched pension is at the moment—we cannot get access to it because the administrator has his own rules. It is somewhere in the cyber world of insurance administration. It is untouched, or more likely out of touch. It is out of touch for who knows how many more years. Only 20 months have passed, but it is anticipated that it could be three, four or five years until we get even a minimum payment back from the pension I am pleased that aspects of the Bill will change that situation. The regulator has been out of touch, and the pension has been out of touch of its members. Administrators belong to a private club that makes its own rules.
  We have done our best to redress the issue. We marched up Whitehall twice, stripped off our clothes at the Labour party conference in Bournemouth and held a pensions summit. M ore recently, we have been holding up traffic in London. In the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I have secured Adjournment debates and tabled early-day motions that have been signed by more than 50 per cent. of hon. Members. We have tried to win time for private Members' Bills. We have asked questions at Prime Minister's Question Time, and appeared across the media, especially in those Labour heartland newspapers The Mail on Sunday and The Daily Telegraph. Without the help of the journalists on those newspapers, the issue would not have risen up the political indices, so I compliment the papers money pages on their help and encouragement.

  821
  In the end" has that effort been to any avail? Will the Minister tell us how often the ASW case has been raised in Cabinet? Has it been raised in Cabinet? If ASW has not been raised, have the other 200 cases been raised? I think that we should be told. It is important that our people feel that the case has not been blocked in one Department and that No. 10 understands its importance.
  We seek election to this great place because, irrespective of party, we want to make the world better. I still believe that to be true, so it is time that we did that. A Government without the wherewithal to find a solution to the occupational pension problems facing ASW Sheerness and the other 200-odd schemes are morally bankrupt. I find the situation especially difficult given that a Government formed by the Labour party of which I am a member have not come forward with a single suggestion in 20 months on how to resolve the retrospective element of the occupational pensions funding crisis.
  Miraculously, we could find £2 6 billion for foot and mouth and another £3 billion for an unnecessary war in Iraq. We overspend on every major computer contract in Whitehall, but we simply cannot find £100 million a year over perhaps 25 years for our workers who have given their lives for the wealth of the nation. It is difficult to believe. After all, £100 million is less than one day's GDP. It is small change.
  Even at this late hour, and before amendments are moved on Report or in the other place, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a statement that he is minded to hold an inquiry, as I asked of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, to examine both the extent of the problem and the solutions. I am aware that the Bill is a milestone because it will provide an insurance policy for future occupational pensions. We should be grateful for that. However, until the issue of retrospective compensation is resolved, a shadow will hang over the Bill.
  4.35 pm
  Adam Price: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who with characteristic modesty has downplayed his role in the campaign to get justice for former workers at ASW Sheerness. He has played an important role in deftly co-ordinating some of the parliamentary co-operation that has gone on so far—some more choreography may yet be needed in the weeks and months ahead. I am grateful to him for the role that he has played.
  I say on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party that we welcome the Government's change of heart on the issue of pensions insurance. There may or may not have been a change of heart on the part of those on the Opposition Front Bench as well, but the Government's position is greatly to be welcomed. It is a major step forward for the Government, and for any Government, to accept such an important principle, however belated that acceptance may be. It is clear that the Bill is the only game in town for anyone who wants to achieve justice for 60,000 workers. On that basis I shall be proud to vote for the Bill on Second Reading so that it can be amended in Committee.
  822
  It is important that we approach the debate with a touch of humility. The reason that we are debating the Bill and the reason why we have been lobbied today by 60,000 families whose lives have been devastated is that the House, the Government and previous Governments got pensions policy so badly wrong on so many previous occasions.
  The Government refuse to accept complete responsibility, as Governments often do, for the genesis of the crisis. It is said that no one could reasonably have foreseen or forestalled the current crisis. I am not sure that that claim bears scrutiny of the facts. The Government knew that there was a problem as early as June 1998, when they considered the minimum funding requirement. They instituted what was effectively a quick fix in terms of the reduction in MFR liabilities, but they knew that there was a problem. Over the next few years, as we have heard, there has been a rash of Green Papers, reviews and consultations, ending up where we are now, with the Bill.
  Four times in four years the Government examined specifically the idea of some form of mutual insurance or discontinuance fund.
  Sir John Butterfill: I am following the hon. Gentleman intently. To be far more realistic, on two separate occasions it was not the components of the MFR that were reviewed; given the decline in bond yields, the requirements for MFR were progressively reduced on two occasions. That was entirely the wrong thing to do. The right approach would have been to maintain value while changing the components. That is what the Government significantly failed to do on two occasions.
  Adam Price: I certainly could not compete with the hon. Gentleman given his expertise on these matters.
  A rash of mistakes have been made over a fairly short period, and, specifically on insolvency insurance, the Government explicitly rejected their current approach as an option in what were, effectively, four separate policy pronouncements over four years. It is remarkable, therefore, that such insurance should now be embraced as a core principle of Government policy.
  John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the European Insolvency Directive 1980 has saved some companies, and certainly saved some pensions? To say that everything has happened in a short space of time is not strictly true.
  Adam Price: I was coming on to the previous Administration's responsibilities, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I have not seen counsel's advice to Amicus and the ISTC, and we do not want to tread on that territory too much. There is a case to answer, as article 8 of the directive makes plain. In other European jurisdictions—there may be a question mark over the Netherlands and the safety net in situ there—there is a pensions safety net, which is why, in the case of Irish Fertiliser Industries, there is such a discrepancy between the experience of employees in Belfast and employees in the Republic of Ireland, which has transposed article 8. I have met the official in the European Commission responsible for the directive,

  823
  and he said that if the Government's legal argument relies on the fact that in 1995 the Commission gave the UK a clean bill of health, that would be a weak defence. The Commission has written to the UK Government asking for clarification of the way in which the directive has been transposed in UK law, so it obviously has doubts about the matter.
  Those difficulties could have been avoided if the directive had been transposed in 1983. Clearly, there were serious problems with Conservative policy, as we have heard, including the Pensions Act 1995, particularly section 73, which does not take account of the age or length of service of a member when determining the priority of his pension rights. A pensioner with three years' service could be paid in full, whereas an active pensioner with 30 years' service could receive little or nothing. That is not right or proper, nor is it fair to treat people aged 64 with pension benefits worth many thousands of pounds, in the same way as people aged 26 with pension benefits worth only a few hundred pounds.
  The legislation was therefore seriously flawed. The Secretary of State referred to the Goode committee. I am not sure how good it was, but two proposals for a central discontinuance fund were subsequently presented, including one from the Government Actuary, to the pension law review committee. Unfortunately, the Government did not see fit to act. We should remember that when the Labour party were in opposition they tabled an amendment to the 1995 Act to create a central discontinuance fund. Unfortunately, however, they have not instituted such action until now.
  As for non-feasance by the present and previous Governments, we need to consider the issue of retrospection, which has been used as an argument against intervention. When it suits Governments, they act retrospectively. For example, the House had a free vote in 1996 on its own pension fund arrangements. It overturned the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body and backdated a 26 per cent. pay rise for pension purposes to MPs who left the House before the pay rise came into effect. There may have been good and honourable reason why that was done in respect of Members who would retire at the subsequent election, but it was a clear example of retrospection and backdating, and seven current Cabinet Ministers voted in favour of it. If retrospection can apply to our pension fund, surely we should not argue that the principle of non-retrospection prevents us from providing justice for workers at ASW and other companies. It is vital for the reputation of the House and our democracy that we are seen to be scrupulously applying the same standards.
  There are other examples. On 11 June last year, when the Government announced the proposal for a pension protection fund, the Secretary of State also announced that to prevent solvent employers from winding up their pension funds and walking away from the schemes, as in the case of Maersk, he would require them to buy out in full. I support that, but the statutory instrument in question, the deficiency on winding up regulations, was not laid before Parliament until 23 February this year,
  824
  and it will not come into force until 15 March, yet we read in article 2 of those regulations:
  "This regulation shall apply in the case of a scheme which begins to wind up on or after the 11th June 2003".
  That is an example of legislation in this very area that has nine months' retrospective effect and places a burden retrospectively on employers. I do not disagree with the Government on that, because there is substantial public interest in seeking to ensure that there is no stampede of closures before the regulation takes effect. My point is that the Government accept the need for retroactive measures when they perceive there to be an overriding public interest. In a parliamentary answer on the subject of retrospective legislation, the Solicitor-General stated that the Government's policy was
  "to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest."—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 410W.]
  Clearly, where there is a general public interest, the Government are prepared to act retrospectively. We can all name examples, such as the windfall tax and the infamous bank tax of 1980, I believe. We have heard eloquent speeches from hon. Members in all parts of the House pointing out that there is a general public interest, quite apart from the injustice suffered by 60,000 families. There is the issue of confidence in savings, in pensions provision and even in the guarantee provided by the pension protection fund, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) argued.
  The Government have been forced by the sheer strength of the public outcry over the pension crisis finally to act, but if the Secretary of State will forgive me—I do not think it is his fault—there may be an accusation that they are trying to do so on the cheap. They need to appear to be doing something, but they are doing nothing to right past wrongs, and they may not be doing enough to prevent recurrence of the problems in the future. As we have heard, the model for the pension protection fund is the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in the United States, which to all intents and purposes is a Government-sponsored enterprise, in the same way as is Fannie Mae—the Federal National Mortgage Association. It is essentially a Government agency. We realise that there are significant problems with the PBGC. In the last financial year, single employer insurance programmes went from a surplus of $7.7 billion to a deficit of $13.6 billion. In 2002, they received more claims than the total amount in their previous 28 years of existence. That is why both Houses of Congress passed a Pension Relief Bill to stave off what is seen as the inevitable bankruptcy of the guarantee corporation. People are asking whether this is going to be another Savings and Loan.
  Sir John Butterfill: It is interesting to note that although the figures that the hon. Gentleman gives are correct for single employer schemes, the part of the fund that is reserved for multiple employer, or collective, schemes, whereby employers group together, remains substantially in surplus. Does that send a message to us and to the regulator that in future we should have collective schemes instead of single employer schemes?
  Adam Price: I was not aware of that point—it is certainly interesting to consider pooling funds within the overall umbrella of support.

  825
  If the guarantee corporation is to be the model, there are clearly lessons to be learned from its current position. The situation in the United States is not dissimilar to that here. We have experienced what is called in the US a perfect storm —a fall in interest rates at the same time as a fall in equity markets and, on top of that, an economic downturn in certain mature sectors: in our case, manufacturing, in its case, airlines and steel. The doomsday scenario that is being mooted in the US is highly relevant to the pension protection fund. There is a danger that a run on major defaults will put pressure on the fund, which means that levies have to be raised. That in turn creates further pressure that is analogous to a run on a bank. I have been reliably informed that at least one major company with thousands of employees has a £1 billion deficit in its pension fund and is trying to hold off until April 2005 in order to fall within the terms of the provision.
  If true, that is worrying. It raises the question whether there should be some form of support for the pension protection fund. Government-backed annuities would be an option, but there are problems with the annuity market, which has only two providers, one of whom is withdrawing from the market. Bond rates are currently unsustainable. Perhaps we should consider employing special Government-backed bonds at a rate of around 9 per cent. to create a sustainable future for the PPF; otherwise, we might find ourselves having the same debate some years down the line following the collapse of the PPF and similar suffering by many people.
  4.53 pm
  Richard Burden: Like other Labour Members, I give a broad and warm welcome to the Bill, which will make important improvements in providing security in retirement. It is fair to say that most Opposition Members—certainly, most non-Conservative Opposition Members—have reservations about the Bill, but despite that recognise that it at least goes in the right direction. The nature of the debate has been generally constructive.
  I approach my remarks with a degree of trepidation that I, too, will be intervened on by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of pensions. I wonder what question he will put to me: whatever it is, I am sure that the answer is yes. Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is not in his place, so he will not be able to do the same.
  Most of my remarks will be about the pension protection fund and the pensions regulator., but first I should like comment on the broader picture and pay tribute to what the Government have already done. We should not lose sight of the fact that we pay £9 billion more than the previous Government to pensioners every year. I do not emphasise that only to pay tribute to a Government whom I support. I want to remind Conservative Members that although there may be a legitimate debate about the relationship between the basic state pension and earnings—if I were making a party political point, I could say that we are spending £5.7 billion more than if the link were established—let us conduct it in a way that does not mislead or confuse pensioners.
  826
  A couple of months ago, a pensioners' lobby of Parliament took place, during which I talked to a group of pensioners from my constituency and those nearby. We discussed the pension credit and the group said that it did not like the idea and that people wanted the earnings link. One woman said that the pension credit was only for those who would otherwise be on income support. She said that she could not gain from it because it was means-tested and that she had heard about the means test, which she did not like. I asked why she said that, pointing out that I knew nothing about her circumstances. She replied that she had a small occupational pension and that the pension credit was therefore hopeless for her because it was a disincentive. I told her that although the pension credit provided help at the bottom end—what used to be called the minimum income guarantee—the other end was introduced precisely to benefit people in her position.
  There are cut-offs, upper limits and so on and I could not therefore say whether the woman would benefit, but I stressed that she should check. I gave her the Pension Service telephone number and, a couple of weeks later, I received a letter from her thanking me for giving her the information. She had checked and was receiving extra money through the pension credit. She said that she had not understood what it was all about and that she had been told simply that the pension credit equalled means-testing, which equalled something that she did not like.
  Although there are legitimate arguments about whether the pension credit is a good or bad idea, let us remember that pensioners hear our debates. If they are conducted in the wrong way, it can mean that pensioners do not receive their entitlement because they have got the wrong end of the stick.
  Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Government's working assumption or target that 1.4 million pensioners will not get around to claiming the pension credit, to which they would otherwise be entitled? Does not that underline his point that the complexity and intrusive nature of means-testing may put people off?
  Richard Burden: It underlines the need to be careful about the way in which we discuss such matters.
  The hon. Gentleman's comments lead me to my next point, which is a tribute to the Pension Service for its imaginative methods of trying to demystify pensions and what is available. It conducts more home visits and transactions and gives information over the telephone. That is genuinely important. We must acknowledge the way in which the Bill takes the process of providing information a stage further. It is good that 2.5 million pension forecasts and more than 1 million combined pension forecasts have already been made. We should not bemoan but welcome the Bill's ambitions to create a position whereby future pensioners can have an online retirement planner to ascertain their position and what is available.
  I do not deny that we all face big questions about the shape of our future pensions policies. We cannot ignore the failures of several private pensions to perform in the way in which perhaps all parties expected or the

  827
  problems that have taken up much of the discussion today, such as what has happened to several defined benefit schemes and final salary schemes.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the serious collapse of the UPF GKN Thompson Chassis pension plan in my constituency? Hundreds of workers there are likely to receive only a small percentage of their pension and thrift entitlement, even though the former directors, as trustees, granted themselves enhanced pensions purported to be worth £1,000 a week. Surely that company's pensioners are entitled to some retrospection.
  Richard Burden: My hon. Friend makes a valid and powerful point. I shall come in a moment to the pension protection fund and the need to address the issues surrounding employees who have already lost out, but I know that he is a powerful advocate of the employees involved in that particular scheme.
  Looking at the bigger picture for the future, we need to take seriously some of the comments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made. We will have to re-examine fundamental questions on the balance between public and private provision, and issues of compulsion. I welcome the Government's willingness to look at that, and the setting up of the Pensions Commission is a valuable initiative in that regard. However, it is important to heed my right hon. Friend's point that once the commission has reported, the information that it provides will be one thing, but the inevitable demand for answers to the questions that it poses will be another. There will be an obligation on all parties to consider and provide those answers with some dispatch.
  Issues of pension protection have rightly, and not surprisingly, occupied much time in the debate so far. The pension protection fund, the centrepiece of the Bill, addresses the important issue that it is wrong for an employee who has done everything that we have asked—saved for retirement and entered a scheme regarded as safe and secure—to be left high and dry at the end of the day, through absolutely no fault of his or her own. That has been brought to our attention not because we have worked out that, theoretically, it could happen at some time in the future but, sadly, because it has happened to real people in our constituencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) have referred to Allied Steel and Wire. I pay tribute to them for the way in which they have forged and led the campaign to bring that issue to the fore. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has added his voice to that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) spoke powerfully about the situation in Scotland among her constituents and those of many of our hon. Friends.
  The problem will not go away, and we must address it. I should like to put on the record an example of a firm in my constituency, Kalamazoo. It is an interesting company, which was highly successful for a while, offering computer and print-based products to industry and commerce. It was in existence for more than 100
  828
  years and the irony, given what happened to it, was that it used to be regarded as a model employer and company. Its roots were in the Quaker tradition, and its employees enjoyed excellent facilities and working conditions. There was a profit-sharing scheme and, yes, a final salary pension scheme. In the 1990s, the company suffered a downturn in its fortunes for various reasons, some of them its fault and others not. The end result was that it had to sell quite a lot of its assets, including land and buildings. In 1997, its profitable printing business, Kalamazoo Security Print, was sold to a group based in Ireland, the Adare group.
  The trustees of the final salary scheme met the employees who had gone to Kalamazoo Security Print to assure them that although they had left Kalamazoo Computer Group and were now deferred pensioners, their pensions were safe and secure. They were told that the company would not touch their money, and that their pensions would not be affected if the company went bust. Well, Kalamazoo Computer Group continued to lose money, and in August 2001 the company gave notice of its intention to cease payments of service contributions to the pension scheme. The trustees were therefore duty bound to put the company into wind-up.
  The company owed the pension scheme more than £7 million against its minimum funding requirement, and the trustees were able to recover only about £5 million. The company went into voluntary liquidation towards the end of 2001, and its assets were sold off to an American company, UCS, in January the following year. The pension trustees continue with the winding-up of the scheme, but the predictions are that the employees who remained at Kalamazoo Computer Group and those who went to Kalamazoo Security Print will be left with a major shortfall in the money due to them. Unless we address the issue of the employees who have already suffered and lost out, the Bill will not achieve what it needs to achieve.
  The employees at Kalamazoo, and many of the others that we are talking about, had no option but to join those pension schemes. In many cases, it was a condition of their employment. The schemes were created and operated without any health warnings. No one said to the people involved, 'Remember, the value of these schemes can go down as well as up." They were meant to be safe and secure. I recognise that there are problems regarding retrospection, and that if we were able to do something about these cases, the limits would have to be carefully drawn. There cannot be an open-ended commitment. However, we have to do something. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) talked about the importance of getting accurate estimates of those involved, and that is certainly true, but when we have made those estimates something must be done. Some kind of fund must be put into effect; some kind of protection must be put in place. This must happen for two reasons. First, the credibility of the Bill—and there is a lot of credibility to it—will be undermined in the public eye unless we do something. The standing of the Bill will be affected if we do nothing. Secondly, and more importantly, it is the right thing to do.
  I would like to say a few words about the pensions regulator. In the majority of schemes that we have talked about in relation to the pension protection fund

  829
  and the losses incurred so far, there has been no suggestion of bad governance, as in the Maxwell pension scheme, or of sharp practice. Of course, there are and have been schemes about which there are real questions to be asked about governance, about the way in which they were administered, and about how that led to a shortfall in the pension funds. In my constituency in the early 1990s, there was the case of the Teampace pension scheme. Then there were the Warwick group, the Debenholt and the Cheney pension schemes. Legal proceedings are still going on in the Cheney case, so I shall not go into any detail about it.
  I hope that the creation in the Bill of a proactive pensions regulator will not only build on the good work that the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority has done, but allow the regulator to do some of the things that OPRA was unable to do. That will be very important in the future. I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell me three things in this regard. First, will he provide updates on what is happening to the Teampace, Cheney, Debenholt and Warwick pension schemes? Those issues are still there, and information on them is in short supply at the moment.
  Secondly, will my right hon. and hon. Friends consider the fact that when we look at such schemes, what strikes us time after time is that a shortfall in a pension scheme gets compounded and recompounded by the fees that are charged by independent trustees and several of the other firms dealing with that scheme? I know that there is no easy answer to that, and that some of the provisions in the Bill will help in that, but I ask them to think a bit more about how we deal with the issue of fees, as it means that workers who are already losing end up losing even more.
  Thirdly, will my right hon. and hon. Friends consider the fact that although the Teampace, Cheney, Warwick and Debenholt schemes are not in the same situation as Kalamazoo or ASW—and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead rightly says, we need to draw lines in relation to what is appropriate for which kind of loss—they have still faced losses? We need to ensure that the protections that I hope will be available, for instance, under the pension protection fund, operate effectively. In those and other schemes, real people also stand to lose very large amounts of money that they can ill afford. It is up to our Government to stand by them.
  5.11 pm
  Paul Holmes: I want to concentrate most of my comments on the need to restore confidence in the pensions system, which was referred to earlier by for example, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). In large part, this Bill is trying to restore that shattered confidence by plugging loopholes and rectifying mistakes that stem from the Pensions Act 1995, which in turn was trying to deal with the shattered confidence after the Maxwell scandal.

  The position for pensions is predicated on an insufficient state pension, which for some is topped up by the complex means-testing of the pension credit. For a growing number, however, the Government hope that it will be supplemented by private pensions. The Government make a virtue of the fact that the state pension is insufficient—the Chancellor recently eulogised abut the fact that pensions will take about 5
  830
  per cent. of our gross national product in future compared with 15 per cent. in some western European countries. Having such a low state pension means that people must save for private pensions. If they are to do so, they must have confidence in the system—confidence that a lifetime's savings and investment in a pension fund will not be wiped out at the drop of a hat.
  With the pension protection fund, the Bill proposes some measures to try to restore that confidence. Issues have been mentioned, which will be pored over in detail in Committee, such as the relationship between a flat-rate levy and the introduction of a risk-related levy, and whether that will be underwritten by the Government. In the USA, a similar scheme has run well for nearly 30 years. It was introduced initially in the mid-1970s to restore confidence after a major company in the American economy—Studebaker, I believe—went bust. Recently, after nearly 30 years of successful running, it has hit a crisis owing to the state of the stock market. As one hon. Member suggested, it may well have to be or already has been underwritten by the Government. Inevitably, that issue will need to be considered for the UK system. If the pension protection fund, either in its first year or 30 years down the line, hits similar problems to the American one, why crisis-manage at that stage rather than plan for it in the Bill in Committee?
  The other area in which confidence must be restored is with regard to those who in good faith accepted the Government's urgings and promises over the years and saved for an occupational pension, but have found that they have lost most or all that money. That was first brought home to me just a few weeks after I was elected in 2001, because United Engineering Forgings put its six companies across the country into administration. Chesterfield Cylinders, in my constituency, was one of those companies. It is now trading profitably and successfully under new ownership, with the same excellent work force and local management, but without its pension.
  As a result of meeting Chesterfield Cylinders pensioners in Chesterfield, and another company that shortly afterwards arrived at the same process—Dema Glass in Chesterfield—I first wrote on this issue to the Minister for Pensions on 26 November 2001. I have been raising the issue since then, both in oral questions and in debates in the Chamber. Incidentally, looking back over that letter, I note that one of the four points I asked him to consider was whether actuaries should be required to provide annual rather than triennial reviews and forecasts. I made that request specifically because workers at both Dema Glass and Chesterfield Cylinders had been persuaded by their employers to keep paying into the pension fund when the firm was beginning to hit problems. Moreover, in the case of Chesterfield Cylinders they had been asked to increase their contributions. Had they had the benefit of annual projections from the actuary they might well have chosen not to go down that route, because in a fairly short time those companies went bust and they lost most of their pension. I am interested to see in the Bill a suggestion that actuaries will be required to report annually rather than triennially.
  Following Dema Glass and Chesterfield Cylinders, the issues continued to develop around the country. Most recently, late last year Coalite, a very large company just outside Chesterfield employing many

  831
  people in my constituency, went the same way. The workers in those three companies form just part of the estimated 60,000 pensioners across the country who have lost all or most of their pensions in that way. About 90 per cent. of the companies affected, including those in my constituency, have been in manufacturing—in the ex-coal industry, the steel industry and the glass manufacturing industry—but that is a side issue, a debate for another time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) rightly said that we should not become too lost in the statistics, however we look at them. Whether 60,000 people have lost their pensions or whether the £100 million a year it might cost to compensate them is a huge sum that the Government cannot possibly meet or, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) described it, is small change, should not dominate too much. We should remember the individuals involved and their anger. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) gave eloquent examples of constituents who have gone through the process.
  I should like to add examples from my constituents, real individuals from Chesterfield, who illustrate the points that have already been made about broken promises and the need to restore confidence in the system. The first, whom I met in 2001, was a Labour councillor in Chesterfield—this is a cross-party issue, not a partisan issue. He still works for Chesterfield Cylinders. He told me that he had worked in the steel industry for his entire working life. When he began work, membership of the works pension scheme was compulsory, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members relating to firms in their constituencies. Over the years, Governments of various political complexions promised that such schemes were safe, especially after the Pensions Act 1995 and the Maxwell scandal. However, my constituent found in 2001 that he had lost between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the money he had saved for 40 years. Approaching the end of his working life, he was too old and it was too late even to contemplate starting to save any worthwhile sum to replace the money of which he rightly felt he had been legally robbed. He had done all the right things, he had made all the provision that had been asked of him, and he feels bitter and angry that he has lost his private pension.
  Later that year I visited a constituent on her 60th birthday. When her children were very young, she had become a single parent, but she had not sat back and said, "The state will look after me and my children." She had done all the things that various Governments over the years had urged her to do. She had gone out to full-time work, for Dema Glass, and successfully raised two teenage daughters single-handedly. She had saved and managed to pay off her mortgage. In the last 10 years of her working life, she had even saved towards an occupational pension, only to receive two days before her 60th birthday a letter explaining that all or most of her pension had disappeared and she would not receive the money for which she had worked so hard.
  Those are two examples of people who lost their money. I have an interesting third example: the daughter of the lady I have just mentioned. She was aged 26 at the time in question. She works for a well-known large
  832
  national and international retail company, which is nearly 100 years old. It seems an absolutely rock solid, safe bet. She was about to start paying into the works pension scheme, but then she witnessed what had happened to her mother and heard what had happened at Chesterfield Cylinders. She asked me, "Why bother? What is the point at my age, in my 20s, starting to save for a lifetime for a private pension, even with a firm that seems absolutely rock solid?" As I have said, 30 years earlier, when her mother started working for her pension, Dema Glass had seemed rock solid too. It was one of the major employers in Chesterfield—a really safe company that dominated the market. "Who knows?" she said. "Twenty or 30 years down the line, this might happen to me."
  We must provide justice for those who have lost their pensions in that way, and we must restore confidence to the younger generation. Were these people acting in good faith when they felt that they had been promised—guaranteed—that their pensions would be safe? The pensions action groups, which have received many tributes, have proved very good at unearthing documents to illustrate the way in which people feel they were misled.
  One action group member sent some quotations. The modern version of the document produced for trustees of pension schemes by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority states on page 39:
  "The purpose of the minimum funding requirement is to try and make sure there are enough funds in the scheme at any one time"
  to meet various obligations, which it lists. It continues:
  "However", it is not designed to guarantee that the trustees could secure or buy out all benefits…if the scheme discontinued."
  Let us go back a few years, though, to the version published after the 1995 Act. The introduction says:
  "OPRA has been entrusted by Parliament with enforcing some very detailed provision introduced by the Pensions Act 1995 and associated regulations. These provisions are designed to help members have justified confidence in their scheme."
  Page 28 says:
  "The minimum funding requirement refers to the minimum amount of funds that should be in the scheme at any one time, in order to meet the scheme's liabilities if it were to be discontinued."
  Trustees felt that the old version provided a pretty firm assurance that the money was there, and that the 1995 Act would ensure that it was protected. The modern document rather hedges its bets.
  Other documents and speeches make interesting comparisons. Someone from the Dexion group, for instance, sent a quotation from a company document which stated:
  "All benefits which have been earned in the Dexion Group Pension and Insurance Scheme are protected by the law and by the Trust Deed and Rules."
  Speaking here on 3 November 1993, as Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said:
  "We aim to create a framework for occupations pensions that is secure, stable and fair, and to encourage people to make provision for their retirement…It is a remarkable thing that individuals in this country, through their pension schemes, have such an immense ownership of wealth. It is good for them and the economy, and we want to make sure that that wealth is not only safe but is recognised as part of the rights that people have as a

  833
  result of their savings during their working lives … we must not trade off security to achieve lower burdens on business."—[Official Report, 3 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 358–64.]
  On 13 March 1995, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said that the minimum funding requirement
  "will mean that members can be confident that the value of their accrued rights is secure, especially in the event of the scheme or the employer company winding up."
  That would apply to Chesterfield Cylinders, Dema Glass, Coalite, ASW or any of the other examples of which we have heard. Lord Mackay continued:
  "It is only right that the members' investment, and their accrued pension rights, should be properly protected. Our proposals are designed to provide that protection."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 684.]
  We have statements from Ministers in both Houses at the time of the 1995 Act saying "This will protect and guarantee your funds." We have documents from the Dexion group and from OPRA that seem to imply to people that by saving with such schemes they will be guaranteed safety, and that the financial sacrifice they are making to invest in their future will not be wasted.
  In conclusion, I repeat that the Bill needs to do two things. First, it must provide justice for the estimated 60,000 people who have lost out in the past few years. Those people believed that they had a guaranteed and protected pension, for which many of them had saved for 30 or 40 years. Secondly, the Bill must restore the confidence of the younger generation. To ensure a good retirement with an inadequate state pension, young people must save and invest more than any previous generation, but they are telling politicians and parents that the problems of recent years mean that they see no point in doing so.
  5.25 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I welcome this important Bill, which has been long awaited. I am disappointed, but not surprised, by some of the churlish comments from Conservative Members this afternoon.
  Since I came to the House, debate in this Chamber on pensions legislation has predominantly concerned people who are pensioners today. The Government's track record in respect of them is very good, not least with the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) said, the people in all our constituencies who have benefited from the pension credit are delighted with it. They do not want it to be put under threat.
  I listened with interest to the proposals made by Conservative Members. They seem to have forgotten that the old age pension is not a universal benefit. About 1.5 million pensioners, mainly women, either have no state pension or only a partial one. They are the ones most threatened by any changes to the pension credit proposed by Conservative Members, and it is they who would have to pay for any spending promises made by the Opposition.
  The debate, however, has rightly moved on to the pensioners of tomorrow. We need to address the question of what will happen to them. Pensions should be an issue not for the elderly, but for the young. I agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) that we must restore the confidence of young people in
  834
  the value of providing for their old age. The young people who do not do so will inevitably place an extra burden on those who are working when they get older. We must ensure that the pension system is secure, and that people can be guaranteed that the pension that they invest in throughout their working lives is safe.
  I serve on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which published a report last year on the future of UK pensions. We concluded that there was not a crisis in the pension industry as a whole, but that there certainly was a crisis of confidence. If left to fester, that could be equally damaging. I welcome the Bill because it goes some way towards providing the security needed to make pensions safe in the future. The PPF is getting a lot of attention today, and I believe that it will make things better in the future. I shall return to that matter later in my remarks but, before I do, I want to highlight some of the Bill's other provisions.
  I am glad that the Government have adopted some of the Select Committee's recommendations. Some of their solutions are not quite as we proposed, but at least they have paid attention to the matters that needed considering. The Bill has had to reflect the fact that the country's work force is changing. People need to plan for retirement, as the Bill makes clear, but the Government must be able to reconcile people's different desires for their old age.
  In the past few months, I was contacted by one of my former teaching colleagues. He is afraid that the Government's proposals mean that he will not be able to retire, and so take advantage of his Scottish teacher's pension, at the age of 60—a possibility that he regarded with some horror. I do not know whether he wants to get out of the classroom because of what the children do to him, or because he feels that he has taught for long enough and deserves to retire at that age. By contrast, when I told the stewardess on the British Airways flight to London earlier this week that I was hoping to speak in this debate, she asked whether the Bill meant that she did not have to retire at 55. How are the Government to reconcile the wishes of someone who desperately wants to retire by 60 with those of someone who does not want to retire at 55, and ensure that the opportunities that their employers present to them, and the occupational pension schemes in which both employees have invested, are flexible enough to allow them to do whatever they choose? That is quite a difficult balancing act for the Government, and I hope that the Bill will address it.
  There are different working patterns nowadays. and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say in his opening speech that the Government would table an amendment to rationalise accrued rights. That is a problem for people who have moved from job to job, sometimes through short-term contracts, and who have often been forced to invest in occupational schemes that they will not be in for very long. It is important to make such arrangements simple and understandable for people.
  The Bill will change the arrangements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. It is important to enable people to transfer their pensions, especially in the private sector, and I know that the trade unions welcome that idea. Another of the Select Committee's recommendations was that the regulator should be more proactive, and

  835
  that is crucial. The minimum funding requirement is to undergo radical change, and that can only be for the good.
  It is the pension protection fund that has captured most people's imagination, and that is what most Members have spoken about today. Like many other people, I would have liked such a fund to be introduced sooner. However, it is wrong of the Opposition to say that they will vote against the Bill just because the fund did not appear sooner, and did not protect people in the past.
  I cannot understand that rationale. It seems peculiarly perverse to cry out for help for those who have already suffered because their pension schemes have gone into liquidation, but at the same time to vote against the measure that will protect people against such threats in the future. The logic escapes me—but logic is often absent from the Opposition's arguments. I listened hard to their speeches because I hoped to hear some admission that they created much of the mess that we see now in private pension provision. Indeed, Dr. Ros Altmann attributes the genesis of many of the problems that we are having to address in the Bill to the Pensions Act 1995, so I would like to hear a bit more honesty from the Opposition, and an admission that those problems originated with them.
  I accept the Secretary of State's arguments that the pension protection fund cannot be made retrospective, as it is an insurance scheme. I accept that it is difficult to make legislation retrospective. However, that does not mean that there is not something that we should be doing. When the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was asked to pin down what the Opposition would do, he did not come up with anything; he just said, "We must do something." He has two brains and that is all he can think of; I only have one brain, so my plea to the Government is simply to do something, whether they adopt the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), or what has been suggested by Ros Altmann, or a combination of the two, whereby, rather than the Government having to pay the £100 million a year, the money would come out of the unclaimed funds that my right hon. Friend has identified—or even something else altogether. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, I do not really care which option the Government choose, but it is important that workers who have lost out as a result of a company going into liquidation should be helped in some way.
  I have several constituents in this position. In an intervention on the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) mentioned Richards, which is in his constituency. A number of the people affected by the collapse of the Richards pension fund are my constituents, and nothing concentrates the mind more than individual constituents coming to tell one about injustice and unfairness. That puts everything in perspective: the situation is unfair, and those people have done everything that the Government wanted them to do, so it behoves the Government to do something about it.
  The Bill does the right thing; and the Government are doing the right thing for those who may be affected in the future. My appeal today is for the Government to do
  836
  the right thing for those who in recent years have suffered from what has happened in the past. It is a good Bill, and we should all support it. I hope that it will be amended in Committee to help those who have suffered in the past as well as protect people in the future.
  5.35 pm
  Tony Lloyd: The Minister for Pensions should be delighted that there has not been a serious speech made in opposition to the Bill today. Conservative Front Benchers have not made such a speech, and Conservative Back Benchers have not even tried to pretend that they are opposed to the Bill. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) came up with no sensible or coherent reason for opposition. That might be an expression of a fact that the House should take more seriously—that the impact of pensions on all our lives is so long term that we must build consensus around where we are going with pensions issues.
  I certainly hope that Opposition Front Benchers have taken note of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. West (Kevin Brennan). If any package can be made available to rescue the 60,000 people whose various schemes have been abandoned, we need all political parties to make it clear that they would support movements in that direction. It would be irresponsible to make party politics out of something that is based so centrally around individual human tragedies. I would like to hear something about that when Conservative Members make their wind-up speeches.
  In common with many of my hon. Friends, I should like to step back from the immediacies of the Bill to say that the Government have gone a long way towards helping people who are already pensioners. Pension credit actually works: it is not a means test, but it needs identification, which is a very different process. Labour Members are proud of the fact that we are now helping many millions of pensioners. There are many pensioners in my constituency, and pension credit makes a material difference to their lives. I trust that we shall intensify our efforts to find imaginative ways of helping people with particular needs.
  I want to tell the Minister that we nevertheless need to examine the basic pension in our society. It is not high enough, even though the Government have made some increases. If we look at the projections for gross domestic product spending on state pensions, we find that they are at a fairly low level—about 5 per cent.—by western European standards. The projections for the next 50 years are worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made the point that many people, particularly women, do not benefit from the state pension. About six out of 10 women do not have occupational pensions, and about one in six do not have full access to the state pension. We need to examine access to the state pension more fully: with the continuation of differential incomes in our society, the state pension will remain an important part of many people's basic income in retirement. I therefore hope that we can look into the whole basis of funding the state, as opposed to the occupational, pension in the round.
  Like many of my hon. Friends, I hope that one of the consequences of the present review of the pension system will be a commitment to compulsion in pensions.

  837
  Without it, the 20-year-olds mentioned by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) will take decisions based on short-term gain, when we need to persuade them that it is in their best interest to make contributions to the pensions system.
  I want to join the call from hon. Members on both sides of the House for a proper rescue package. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West made a powerful moral, economic and legal case for providing it. The Government should consider seriously the fact that the law is likely to push them in a particular direction anyway, so it would be far better for them to get there first, long before the lawyers take a large slice.
  We must address the question of trust in the private pension system. Hon. Members have talked about restoring trust in the system, but I do not think that there ever was much trust, as the odds have been stacked against employees in pension schemes for many years. Although the Labour Government have changed that balance, the Bill will finally begin to put some sanity into that equation. Even the professional advisers have let down pensioners. In the various schemes that have failed, it was not the professional advisers who made people aware that the situation was becoming dire. I do not want that to sound like an attack on all professional advisers, but those who represent the interests of long-term pensioners were not able to get access to information or to the trust structures that are important if we are properly to change the balance and restore confidence in pension schemes. I welcome the Government's commitment to proper employee consultation.
  I hope that the Minister will make it clear in his winding-up speech or as the Bill progresses through the House that, with regard to nominated trustees, there will be a transparent and open process, so that employees are properly represented. I urge him to give proper recognition to the value of trade unions in this area. There should be no conflict between the political parties, as this is not a matter of trade unionists fighting for something that is against the interests of the employer. This is employees' money: deferred wages, as Labour Members have clearly stated. In that situation, the people who can give the best possible advice are from trade unions that have properly trained their trustees, can provide access to an adequate information base and have experience that is invaluable to people serving on boards of trustees.
  The pensions regulator must be tough and competent, and will be well served if the regulatory process includes access to trade unions at the highest level to reflect the interests of working people through their representative organisations. This is not an ideological plea: just a commonsense recognition of the profound role that trade unions can play and have played across the pensions debate.
  I should like to draw the Minister's attention to particular issues on which I hope we will have a change in the law, or at least a recognition in the Bill of the need for change. I urge him to consider the implications of the Bradstock judgment, which was a court judgment that ruled that when employers significantly change the
  838
  terms of their debts to the pension fund, they can do so by negotiation with the trustees. I shall refer to two companies that did so, massively to the disadvantage of long-term pensioners.
  The pension trustees at Merchant Ferries accepted a £400,000 payment in lieu of a debt of £8 million. The company argued that without agreement it would become insolvent. The trustees agreed—almost with a gun to their heads. Six months later, the company declared itself insolvent anyway, and the trustees lost all entitlement to the other £7.6 million. They were not even considered to be a creditor along with other unsecured creditors. That is not fair and it is not right. That situation could have been improved if the trustees had had to take the matter to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, as they no longer had to do under the Bradstock judgment.
  I urge the Minister to provide that one of the duties of the regulator should be to examine the process of renegotiation by trustees, not because there are no circumstances in which the trustees should agree to such a change—perhaps they should, in the interests of the survival of the company—but because agreement should not be reached by the trustees if the work force whom they represent are in total ignorance of what is going on. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to re-examine that matter.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister also closely examine the operation of the new TUPE arrangements? Although employee protection is welcome, where there is a transfer of undertakings the Bill will oblige employers to match employees' contributions up to the level of 6 per cent. That is a big improvement, but I urge him to re-examine whether contributions should be equivalent, because otherwise we will build in a financial incentive to companies to take over other companies, when we should simply be making sure that pension funds are economically neutral.
  I wish my hon. Friend the Minister the best of luck with the Bill. As I have said, there have been no serious arguments against it, and it is important that the protections that it contains should be available to current and future pensioners.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: There is much to welcome in the Bill, which will protect members of pension schemes. The Bill contains new rights for those who have been let down and suffered badly because of the insolvency of a scheme. To lose a pension after a lifetime of hard work is devastating, especially when it hits those who are close to retirement and who do not have either the energy or the opportunity to pull it back.
  We should be doing everything that we can to persuade young people that it is important to make financial provision for their old age. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) said, there can be nothing more damaging to that case than young people who know a relative or friend who has suffered the fate of losing their pension.
  It must be unacceptable in a fair-minded, 21st-century system for employees, through no fault of their own, to find themselves without a pension after a

  839
  lifetime of hard work simply because their employer mismanaged or misunderstood their pension or went missing with the money. With that in mind, the new pension protection fund is extremely welcome, but it is long overdue. It will undoubtedly help to restore confidence and protect future generations from a miserable old age. As many hon. Members have said this afternoon, there are tens of thousands of despairing victims who should have been protected before now.
  It was as clear as the nose on one's face that, as the stock market boomed and employer after employer took long, luxurious contributions holidays, there would be a day of reckoning. The day of reckoning has come for many, and the Government should have predicted it, because it is not those who encouraged the contributions holidays who will pay the price but long-suffering employees who continued to pay their contributions throughout those years.
  Mr. McWalter: Does my hon. Friend accept that many honourable companies took those holidays because they had reached the threshold of 105 per cent. of liabilities and were forced to take a pensions holiday? That is an important component of this debate.
  Mr. Crausby: I accept that that is an important point, but such companies had the opportunity to increase benefits.
  We should remember that, until the early 1980s, many workers were forced to join pension schemes as a condition of their employment. With that in mind, the Government have a responsibility to backdate the protection that should have been afforded to those who have already suffered so traumatically. The 1980 European insolvency directive placed a clear responsibility on Government to protect workers, and we have both a moral and a legal responsibility to put things right for that relatively small group of people.
  Mr. John Taylor: I apologise if I have intervened at a clumsy moment. The hon. Gentleman was rightly and persuasively discussing pensions holidays and the stock market's decline. Does he agree that the Chancellor's £5 billion tax on pensions helped neither pensions nor the stock market?
  Mr. Crausby: That is a matter of opinion. It is clear that there was some justice in the measure as employer after employer took the massive benefits of contributions holidays. The question of the effect on the stock market will always be debatable.
  I urge Ministers to look to the future and to talk constructively to those groups of pensioners and their trade union representatives to establish the size of the problem, with a view to funding retrospective compensation.
  Before I was elected, I was a pension trustee. appointed by my fellow employees in a medium-sized engineering company. I tried to persuade the management of the day that it should not take contributions holidays, but instead improve benefits to bring the funding below 105 per cent. Management defended the non-payment of contributions—
  840
  reasonably, at the time—saying that, when more difficult days arrived for the equity markets, the company would be forced to carry the liability and top up the fund with higher contributions. The company is now insolvent, and the pension fund has no one to cover excess liabilities. Those who enjoyed the contributions holidays have long gone. Management had no need to take any notice of me, and they did not, because they always had a majority of tame trustees, appointed by the directors, who had little choice but to do as their American owners insisted. Those trustees understood that, if they did not toe the line, their masters would find someone who would. Change will need more than just education and support for trustees. Sometimes it takes courage and independence, and it is easier to say than do when people feel that their jobs depend on how they act.
  The 1978 legislation on pensions was a tremendous piece of work. It was a great step forward, but perhaps it was a little naïve, with too much concentration on management-appointed trustees. The Pensions Act 1995 took an important step in the right direction by providing a general requirement for members to have the right to nominate their own trustees. I understood—although I did not agree with it—why the previous Government introduced a constraint that only a third of trustees should be member-nominated. It would probably have been a little early—and possibly too risky—to rush into too much change in a hurry. However, almost a decade has passed now and I would have thought that it was time for members to take control of their own money with at least half the trustees being appointed by pension scheme members themselves. I am disappointed that the Bill does not provide for that.
  The people best qualified to protect pension schemes are those who have the most interest in the prudent management of a fund. That group must be the pensioners and prospective pensioners themselves, not people who have no long-term personal interest. Far too many schemes that are now in trouble would have been much better protected out of the hands of unscrupulous employers and under the eye of pensioner-appointed trustees with control.
  I welcome the legislation, which offers greater protection to existing scheme members, but I am deeply concerned about the lack of motivation for employers to continue to provide pension benefits. I worry that more Government legislation that introduces protection will mean that employers are less inclined to continue their provision, especially of final earnings schemes. We are forced to leave scheme members unprotected or to watch as the number of occupational pension schemes declines. The third option, which I very much favour, is to introduce a measure of compulsion on employers and employees to provide and join pension schemes. It would be much nicer if we could achieve that by persuasion and education, but it will always be difficult to persuade poorly paid young people that they should contribute to a pension from an early age. In a competitive market, employers will also come under pressure.
  The Bill is a good one, but it fails to tackle some important questions, especially on compulsion. I am convinced that we shall have to return to those

  841
  questions, and it will be a great shame if we leave it too late and act in panic when there are even fewer schemes and even fewer workers opting to save for their old age.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. John MacDougall: I, too, welcome and support the Bill and recognise the excellent work that the Government have done over the years to improve the quality of life for pensioners, not only in my constituency but throughout the country.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne), I welcome the pension credit. In my area, it has benefited pensioners by about £40 a week on average. Things do not end there, however. Mention has been made of the possibility of tying the basic state pension to earnings, but we should consider the broader initiatives introduced by the Government. For example, thanks to the winter fuel allowance, we no longer hear of elderly people dying of hypothermia to the same extent. Such initiatives add up to £9 billion of benefits for pensioners. Ironically, that is almost £6 billion more for pensioners than if we had merely linked the basic state pension to earnings—a point worth making.
  I am aware of the time and conscious of the fact that other Members want to speak, so I shall be brief, especially as much of what I wanted to say has already been said. Like everyone else, I want to refer to the pension protection fund. In the light of recent events, it is important to take steps to help to protect vulnerable people. Various Members have told us of constituents who have experienced appalling circumstances owing to the lack of pension protection.
  In their contributions to the debate, many Conservative Members suggested improvements, yet, sadly, if they were successful in the action that they plan to take this evening, they would not be able to make such improvements. That would mean that the 10 million people who would benefit from the Bill would be left with the status quo, completely unprotected. That is not good enough.
  Even with its imperfections, which can be amended and improved during its progress through the House, the Bill will offer something that does not exist at present, and that will be an improvement. Half of something is better than the whole of nothing.
  I have little to add to what has already been said, other than to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his tremendous work and the brave way in which he has tackled a difficult situation. I am grateful, too, that the Liberal Democrats, although they have some concerns, will support the Bill and give it the opportunity to go into Committee, where I hope that it will be improved so that it can benefit people who have been left unprotected.
  I fully support the Bill.
  5.59 pm
  Vera Baird: May I add my voice of welcome to the Bill, yet also add my voice to those of colleagues who asked the Government to consider options for compensating people who have suffered in recent years by losing out on pension after their firms had gone bust? I am a member of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and represent a constituency with
  842
  a steelworks. My constituents are highly unlikely to find themselves in the position of the Allied Steel and Wire workers, but they and I stand in solidarity with those workers in requiring justice for them.
  The Bill is good, but I am a tad disappointed that it does not do more, and especially that it will not tackle the poverty of those with incomplete contribution records and limited opportunities to save—they are usually called women. Women and pensions are a key political issue. Research from just before Christmas showed that three quarters of women aged between 55 and 64 said that they were unhappy with the Government's performance on pensions. The survey also showed that 91 per cent. of women believed that the Government should make a higher and better basic state provision a priority, and that 64 per cent. said that that should be their top priority.
  It is not surprising that pensions represent an issue for women. Pensioners' incomes have increased by £7 billion a year since 1997 and, primarily through means-tested benefits, poverty among pensioners has been reduced by one fifth. However, one in four single women pensioners still live in poverty, and only 13 per cent. of women have a full state pension. In a moment I shall suggest a couple of matters that could easily be added to the Bill.
  The future to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) referred will not be significantly better for women. The Government's approach on improving women's pensions—it is commendable—is to try to get women out into the labour market so that they may make their Beveridge contribution. They rightly point to better and cheaper child care provision, the reconfiguration and improvement of parental rights, increased maternity rights and significant support for one-parent families as having advanced women in the labour market. However, that is a slow way of proceeding toward getting good pension provision for women.
  The Fawcett Society calculates that at the current rate of progress, it will take 80 years until women have equal pay. It is quite clear that it will take even longer until women who start their careers on equal pay 80 years hence—they will thus have the opportunity to contribute equally—will receive a pension provision equal to that of men. I must tell my daughter when she is about 20 that she will probably be poorer than her brother in retirement. She will have to tell my granddaughter the same thing, and my granddaughter will have to tell my great granddaughter that she, too, will probably be poorer in retirement than a man. It will be only my great, great granddaughter who will be able, in about 2084—that is not as cathartic or resonant as 1984—to tell my great, great, great granddaughter that she will have a chance of equal pay that would give her the opportunity to contribute to a pension that would be equal to that of men.
  May I suggest a couple of small quick steps that could be taken through the Bill to accelerate the process ahead of 2084? The principal reason why women have poorer pensions than men is because they spend more time out of the labour market owing to their caring responsibilities. It is outrageous that there is no clear simple credit for national insurance contributions during that time. Two overlapping systems exist. Credit can be given weekly to people who are paid a carer's

  843
  allowance for looking after a disabled person for more than 35 hours a week, but that does not apply to the care of children. However, many women with children work less and reduce their pay below the lower earnings level, so they cannot get a stamp, yet they do not get the 35-hour carer's allowance.
  A second way of compensating women for being out of work is home responsibilities protection, but that is not a credit, so it does not give a stamp equivalent. It reduces the number of years that must be worked to qualify for a pension, and applies to parents of children aged up to 16 for the basic state pension and up to the age of six for the state second pension. However, it covers only a full tax year, so if a person goes back to work on 2 March after being at home with her children for the rest of the year, she will lose the entire year's home responsibilities protection and thus be a year light on her pension provision. I have to tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that babies do not arrive on 6 April or whatever date is the commencement of the tax year. Nor do they mature at a rate that happily coincides with those intervals to allow women to comply with the discipline of home responsibilities protection. Is it not long overdue that we recognise that there should be a simple credit for caring of all forms. Surely society values caring at home these days just as much as it values going out to work. Is it not time that a Bill represented that by introducing a simple single credit system?
  Could not the Bill easily allow more low-paid people to build up a state pension? The majority of people in low-paid, part-time work are women. Under the current system, anyone who earns less than the lower earnings limit—LEL—makes no national insurance contribution for that week and, therefore, does not build up any right to benefits. They are outside the system. Big changes have been made but 1.4 million women are still prevented from making national insurance contributions because they earn less than £77 a week. It is illogical that people can work an ordinary part-time week as half a normal working week and earn the national minimum wage but still not be within the lower earnings limit to be within the national insurance system.
  If we lowered the LEL to £65 a week, 200,000 women and 60,000 men would be brought into the system. If we pulled it down to £60 a week, 570,000 more women and 178,000 more men would be allowed to contribute. There is a further complexity linked to that. Many women have several part-time jobs. For instance, a woman might be a dinner lady at her child's school, or a care assistant at that school, and then, when her partner comes home at night, go out to work in a pub or a late-night shop. If none of those jobs gets her into the LEL, they cannot be aggregated to enable a contribution to be made. Surely it would not be difficult to make a change.
  Sir John Butterfill: The hon. and learned Lady is making an interesting speech. I wonder whether it would not be simpler to say that everybody should be entitled to a pension regardless of their working record. We
  844
  could help to pay for the increased cost by making everybody receive the pension at 65 rather than at 60 or 65.
  Vera Baird: I have not considered the issue of age. I would be obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he did not steal my denouement from me.
  Those two small steps would speed up the journey to 2084 for women. Even if equal pay occurs then, a woman's pattern of work will still make it extraordinarily difficult for her to accrue full state pension rights on the current contributory basis. Those small steps would be only the start. If the Bill were to try to tackle these issues, a series of more extensive and more sophisticated carer accounting provisions would be required—pseudo contributions of one flexible sort or another would be necessary to try to fit women into what surely is now a redundant contributory mould.
  The problem is not confined solely to the 87 per cent. of women who do not pay sufficiently on the Beveridge basis to get a full pension. In fact, 50 per cent. of current pensioners do not have a full state pension because they do not have the necessary contribution record. Complex knock-on effects follow from even the little steps that I have suggested to try to tweak the edges to improve matters for women and the poor, let alone the knock-ons from trying to take a more systematic and sophisticated approach. In addition, as the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs says, in order to work the system it is necessary to operate a complex accounting system to track national insurance contributions and credits over each person's working life to enable them to qualify for a full or basic state pension, which in any event will be supplemented in retirement by means-tested benefits for between half and three quarters of all retirees.
  The Government's success in operating an active labour market policy to extend employment opportunities to all groups and ages means that few people can now shirk their responsibility of contributing positively to the economic welfare of the country.
  The House of Lords report adds:
  "Virtually all citizens make positive contributions to the economy and society through their paid and unpaid work in the period between the end of their formal education and their retirement."
  It concludes:
  "We therefore recommend that the basic state pension should be paid on the basis of citizenship rather than contribution record."
  I do not expect such a provision to be included in the Bill, but on behalf of all women, including my granddaughters, I agree.
  6.10 pm
  John Robertson: In the 1950s, when Richard Titmuss analysed the post-war welfare state, he drew a distinction between state and occupational welfare—the benefits that people derived from the state in which they are citizens and those that accrue through their employment. The growth of private pensions in recent decades has established that as a false dichotomy. Our population is ageing, and by 2021, about 20 per cent. of the population will be over 65. In my constituency, the figure will be closer to 40 per

  845
  cent. More private pensions alleviate some of the projected welfare costs of an ageing population, but they do not reduce the state's responsibility to ensure that all our citizens have the opportunity to have pensions sufficient to maintain their dignity in retirement.
  That responsibility requires the state to act, not always as provider, but sometimes as regulator or guarantor. The Bill establishes a framework to meet those changed realities, and right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in considerable detail about the way in which that duty is exercised. Since 1997, the state has done much to tackle pensioner poverty by increasing the basic state pension, and providing winter fuel payments, free television licences and sight tests, and the pension credit. The Bill tackles the other side of the equation, and as Members have said, the pension protection fund is a welcome means of preventing further pension losses.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) could not accept that in 1995 the Conservative party got it wrong. Once again, we have had not had an apology, and the amendment reveals the politically opportunistic party that the Conservatives have become. They have not provided any help in looking at the problem of pensions, and only wish to attack and cause as much mayhem as possible without trying to solve the nation's problems. They have shown that they care not one jot for poorer pensioners. The hon. Member for Havant cannot even look after his own pensioners. In his constituency, 3,382 pensioners receive pension credit, gaining an average of £40.29 a week extra over and above the minimum income guarantee. In my own constituency, 4,418 pensioners receive an average of £46.46 extra a week. The Conservative party would introduce a blanket increase of between £8 and £10 across the board, so that people most in need would lose £30 to £38 a week. That is what we call politics.
  Mr. Waterson rose—
  John Robertson: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not give way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) wishes to have 10 minutes to make a speech. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) sums up, he will manage to put the record straight.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said that since 1997 there has been a lack of consultation by the Government. I asked myself what good things happened in the 18 years between 1979 and 1997, then I realised that there were none. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and as he knows, ignorance is no excuse. He was happy that his hon. Friend's constituents would lose between £30 and £38 a week. I ask members of his Front-Bench team to give the hon. Gentleman a better brief and a smaller shovel.
  The pension protection fund is in many ways the antithesis of the laissez-faire Thatcherism newly reclaimed by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) which, as I witnessed at Defence questions yesterday, caused so much discomfort for the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). The PPF shows the importance of judicious Government intervention to protect those who suffer through no fault of their own.
  846
  The Government did not become insolvent, the Government did not employ the people concerned, yet the Government will step in to protect their pensions.
  The House should deal with pensions as a cross-party issue, but today we have again seen Opposition parties indulge in opportunistic petty point-scoring. The saddest thing about the debate is the fact that the Opposition tabled an amendment. One of the problems discussed earlier by Front-Bench spokesmen was that cost seems to be a sticking point for the Government. Perhaps I could suggest a solution that I have not heard today to cover some of the costs. Why do we not take a windfall tax from the banks, which seem to think nothing of ripping off their customers? The billions of pounds that they have made in profits in the past year would, could and I say should be used to help the people of this country. In that way we would at last see the banks meeting their moral responsibilities, which they have sadly failed to do over a number of years.
  There are a few points on which I would appreciate clarification from the Minister. Does the Bill cover measures to protect pensions when trustees compromise a pension fund's debt in an attempt to prevent insolvency? Will the Bill place members of a pension fund higher up the list of priority creditors at insolvency? The other substantive aspect of the Bill on which I would like clarification is the extension of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to private sector transfers. The degree of protection on offer from the Government appears to have been reduced since the launch of the initial consultation document in 2001. What is the Minister's estimate of the sufficiency of the 6 per cent. requirement for a transferee matching an employee's contributions? After all, that could still allow considerable damage to be done to individuals' pension funds. Under such circumstances, my own pension fund with BT would be halved.
  Can my hon. Friend clarify whether acquiring employers will have to provide the 6 per cent. maximum contribution, even if the tranferer's contribution was lower? I have said on many occasions that I would support compulsory contributions of about 9 per cent. from employers and of 6 per cent. from employees. Until this or any other Government introduce that, the future financial concerns of an ever-aging population will not be met.
  The different ways in which people provide for their retirement and the number of people unable to make such provision require the Government to take a holistic approach to pensions. That has, I believe, been done. First, Labour began tackling pensioner poverty, then we assisted pensioners with modest savings. The Bill addresses many of the concerns of people who have a private pension but lack security. It is the product of considerable thought, it tackles problems of long-term importance and exemplifies the Government's commitment to our pensioners. It may stop short of what I personally would want, but it is a considerable step forward. I am glad the Liberal Democrats will support us in the Lobby tonight, although it is sad that there will be a Division. That says more about the Opposition than about the Government.

  847
  In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They have done an excellent job. They must consider compulsory contributions and retrospective payments, as I am sure they are intelligent enough to recognise.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Security and confidence, protection, complexity and increased choice in place as quickly as possible—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has made it clear to pensioners that those are his objectives. I certainly support those ideals and ambitions and welcome much that is in the Bill.
  This debate should not be a point-scoring exercise because it is too important. Having listened to hon. Members' contributions, I believe that the Bill can be springboard to encourage people to make provision for their retirement. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge in his response the many fears and concerns that have been expressed.
  The issues involved in pension provision are complex, as is the nature of pensions. The Bill is to do with the past, the present and the future. In the past, it is true that many of my constituents lost their pensions through the failure of a pension scheme and that that has created an enormous void in their current situation. It is important, however, to place on the record our congratulations to the workers who have kept this issue in the minds of the people, including trade union representatives and Members of this House. I pay tribute to the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) in ensuring that all. Members recognise the problem.
  We need to encourage employees and employers to work together to create a pension for their retirement. The state pension was never designed to make up for an absence of savings when we retire or to be a substitute for what we earn in full-time employment. Various people who have been unable to save have been given the support of the pension credit. I remind hon. Members that the state second pension offers 20 million people—including 2.5 million carers, 2.5 million long-term disabled people and 13 million low and moderate earners—the prospect of building better pension entitlement than previously. That is important in terms of how we move on.
  The Opposition decry the pension credit and the minimum income guarantee, but I believe that those initiatives have been invaluable in protecting pensioners. I hope that the Government will continue to increase pension credit in line with average earnings—that is an important factor that must be taken on board. The loudest voice among pensioner organisations calls for the restoration of the link with earnings. The Conservatives scrapped that, but now that it is popular they have decided to reintroduce it. My advice to pensioners would be to beware because those promises might never take effect—they should never trust a Tory.
  Is it possible to restore the link and to maintain the pension credit, but to use the taxation system to recover funds from those pensioners who do not need the basic
  848
  pension to ensure that their standard of living is maintained? Some company directors and MPs have a pension that is way beyond that which some pensioners could ever hope to receive. I ask the Minister seriously to consider that proposal. However, it should not be paid for by condemning young jobless people to a lifetime of unemployment through scrapping hugely successful schemes such as the new deal. If we are to convince young people to involve themselves in pension schemes, we have to create the opportunity for occupational schemes to be re-established and to grow.
  There is currently a crisis of confidence in pension schemes. There are many reasons for that, including pensions mis-selling in the 1980s, the problems of Equitable Life and the squandering of pension scheme surpluses by companies. Many companies raided pension schemes in the halcyon days of stock market growth. Indeed, they were aided and abetted by the previous Government, who legislated for any surplus of more than 105 per cent., based on actuarial assessments, to be taxed at 40 per cent. That encouraged companies to become predators, remove surpluses and take contribution holidays irresponsibly, without caring or recognising that stock markets can go down as well as up.
  I had practical experience of such matters when I worked at Hoover. When Chicago Pacific bought the company, the first thing it considered was the £200 million surplus in the pension scheme. It attacked that and tried to take it from the scheme. That sum was more than it had paid for the company.
  Many current deficits are the product of earlier over-eagerness by pension schemes. Previously, they adopted a balanced investment strategy, but in the 1980s and 1990s there was a dash towards equities. By the mid-1990s, pension schemes held the majority of UK shares—then the bubble burst. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) made the point that we must have a balance between contributions and investment in pension schemes.
  There is hope. A survey that Hewitt Bacon and Woodrow published on 9 January showed that pension scheme shortfalls halved in 2003 owing to the increasing value of the stock market. It suggested that if the FTSE 100 reached a level of. 5,000,
  "then leading companies on average may find that their pension deficits have gone".
  It is important to take that on board when pension schemes are wound up in the next few years. We must recognise that if the FTSE 100 reaches the required level, the deficit will be wiped out.
  The Minister must consider how best to implement good investment practice. Perhaps we will decide to ensure that pension schemes should hold a more balanced portfolio of bonds and shares, or at least that they should be more transparent in decision making. We must take account of that.
  I welcome many of the Bill's proposals. The new regulator, which the Pickering review initially proposed, will focus on issues of greatest concern and have real teeth, which will be an important step forward. However, there are several matters about which I should like reassurance.
  I have several concerns about the working of the pension protection fund. The Department for Work and Pensions stated that it expects the cost of the fund to be

  849
  offset by savings in administration costs that will be brought about by the range of simplifications in the Bill. Discussions that I have had with representatives of pension schemes suggest that they believe that there will be few, if any, cost savings through the simplifications. I should like reassurances from the Minister that he is convinced that there will be cost savings.
  Concerns have been raised that the cost of the fund will be prohibitive, with costs of up to £40 per scheme member a year. Given that Watson Wyatt estimates that the average cost of administering a large pension scheme is currently about £28 per member, I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that.
  I also hope that the Minister can reassure me that the fund will protect an adequate level of benefit rather than simply an arbitrary percentage, that safeguards will be established to ensure that the fund is not allowed to slip deeper into the red and that the risk-based levy will not be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the pension schemes of companies that are already struggling to provide final salary schemes. It would be tragic if providing the fund destroyed some occupational pension schemes.
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that he would not normally expect the powers to enforce a freeze period on a pension scheme to freeze pensions that were already being paid. Although I welcome the proposals on member-nominated trustees, I hope that the Minister will outline the way in which the Government will encourage ordinary employees to take on that role, educate them about fulfilling it and ensure that individual trustees are adequately protected, for example, through periods of grace, with regard to the requirement for knowledge.
  I have one point to make in conclusion. I should like the Minister to instruct his civil servants to conduct a thorough audit of those affected by pension schemes that have wound up in deficit since 1995, the value of the pensions lost and the circumstances in which those schemes have been wound up. Although I understand his point that it would be wrong to give false hope, he must look at what can be done to solve the problem of the people who have lost their pension entitlement. Morally, that is the correct thing to do.
  I shall close on that point, because I am sure that the Minister needs time to resolve the problems that we have raised.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I begin by declaring an interest, in that I have some private pension provision—[Interruption.] Well, I had the last time I checked, anyway.
  We have heard some interesting debating points today on the wording of our reasoned amendment. The whole point, as the House well knows, is that although we will not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, we have profound reservations about it. We welcome the new regulator—we hope that he will end up with teeth and that he will use them where appropriate. We also support the principle of the pension protection fund, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said in his opening speech. However, we have many reservations about the Bill not least based on the many crucial details that are absent from it.
  850
  Fortunately, the Secretary of State agrees with me on that, because he said in his opening speech, in a slight flurry of embarrassment, that the Government propose to try to amend their own Bill on a whole raft of issues, perhaps even in Committee. We welcome his invitation to a meeting to try to work out how we will get the Government out of that mess.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: We will not have one, then.
  Mr. Waterson: That invitation seems to have been summarily withdrawn. However, we look forward to hearing at what point the Government amendments will be tabled and, even more importantly, whether the people who actually matter—those who will be affected—will be consulted on any of those amendments, let alone the myriad regulations that I hope we shall see in draft in Committee.
  With our reasoned amendment we are saying to the Government, in a nutshell, that they have got six out of 10 and must try harder. It is not just we who have those reservations. In last week's debate, I said that the Bill had been greeted with a chorus of disapproval, and I shall quote just some of the comments made. The Daily Telegraph described the Bill as "Half-baked". The Observer said:
  "In short, it is not facing up to the gravity of the situation and is not framing policy for the long term."
  The National Consumer Council said:
  "The Bill only tinkers at the edges of occupational pensions".
  Mr. David Frost—[Interruption.] Hon. Members must have a little patience. Mr. David Frost—not "the" David Frost, but "a" David Frost, who is director general of the British Chambers of Commerce and a very eminent man in his field—said:
  "Employers, burdened by ever-increasing costs, will choose either to close their schemes or reduce the size of their contributions."
  The Consumers Association said that
  "it will take a lot more than this Bill to encourage savers to put their money back into pensions."
  Help the Aged said that the Bill
  "will do little to stem the tide of pension scheme closures."
  Alan Howarth: On employers' contributions, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, has he had the opportunity to study the GMB research? It shows the remarkable variation in employers' contributions, rising from 2 per cent. with Kingfisher Trust and Asda, to 8 per cent. with HSBC and John Laing, and to as much as 12 per cent. with CGNU. Does he have any observations on employers who make derisory contributions to their employees' pension funds?
  Mr. Waterson: If I may say so, the real concern that we all, including the right hon. Gentleman, should have is with the schemes that are closing to new members and the schemes that will not be opened as a result of the Bill.
  Barnett Waddingham, the leading actuary, has said:
  "It could take just one company with a large pension scheme to become insolvent for the PPF to become untenable."
  The National Association of Pension Funds described the claims of 100 per cent. compensation under the Bill as "a bit of kidology" a point picked up by the

  851
  Occupational Pensioners Alliance, which points out that because of the indexation proposals there will not be increases for pensioners who retired before 6 April 1997. That could mean in practice that they receive only 70 or 80 per cent. of the value of their pension promise.
  Let us remind ourselves of the scale of the problem. A new employee joining a company now will have a less than one in five chance of finding a final salary scheme still open for him to join. Mr. Adair Turner, the chairman of the Government's own Pensions Commission, reckons that 60 to 70 per cent. of private sector defined benefit schemes have closed to new members in the past five years. We have also heard, quite rightly, from a number of hon. Members about the 60,000 people who have lost all or some of their pension rights in the past few years.
  We believe that the Bill raises issues of over-bureaucracy and over-regulation. We are to have a pension protection fund with a board, a quite separate fraud compensation fund, a regulator with a determinations panel, a pension protection fund ombudsman and a pensions regulator tribunal. That represents a great deal of new bureaucracy, which will need to be examined very closely in Committee.
  We bid a cautious welcome to the proposals to defer state pension in certain circumstances, but we will be keen to examine the small print relating to tax and the interrelation with means-testing. We touched on those issues last week—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), really must contain herself. We wish to ensure that the Bill will contain a cast-iron guarantee that anyone thinking of participating in this particular deal should have all the relevant information made available to them by the Government before taking the plunge. The provision merely underlines the truth that, under this Government, we are all going to have to work longer to be able to afford a decent pension in retirement.
  We have had a good debate today, and I apologise to those hon. Members whose comments I cannot deal with in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) gave his usual magisterial performance, as befits a man who holds the future of our own pensions in his hands. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) also showed a good grasp of the subject, as befits a member of the Treasury Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), as a former Secretary of State, brought his great expertise and original thinking to the problems that we are facing. He also described in a very helpful way the background to the Maxwell saga and the 1995 legislation.
  The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) made an extremely interesting speech, particularly on the importance of defined contribution rather than defined benefit schemes. He made the point, which I entirely endorse, that the Bill will not reverse the trend of the closure of defined benefit schemes. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who has a distinguished record in pursuing these issues, particularly on behalf of his constituents who have lost
  852
  out, talked about a Government being morally bankrupt if they did not tackle the problems of those who have lost their pensions.
  I was delighted that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) did not content himself merely with making interventions on this occasion. He had a great deal to say on these issues, much of it very helpful. I am surprised, however, that he feels able to support the Bill in its present form, as it conspicuously fails to deal with the problems of the ASW workers and others. He put forward a convincing moral, legal and public interest case for compensation for that group of workers. I hope to say something of interest on that subject to him in just a minute. Of those three arguments, perhaps the most important for this purpose is the public interest case, relating to the 60,000 ghosts at the banquet who, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said, cast a shadow over the Bill. They will continue to do so until the Government grasp this particular nettle.
  Typically, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made an excellent contribution, in which he made it clear that the Government have no satisfactory long-term policy for pensions and savings. He again expressed the view—rightly, in my opinion—that means-testing undermines confidence in saving and pensions. We look forward to him being appointed to the Standing Committee.
  The central provision of the Bill, of course, is to set up a fund on the model of the American Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation That model has been going for 30 years, and now seems to be getting into real trouble—at a time when it is getting into severe difficulties, with an $11.5 billion deficit the Government are trying to follow a similar model. When I was in Washington recently, I met people such as Steve Kandarian, to discover some of the problems that they have faced and continue to face. Of course, the central theme of all those meetings was, "For goodness' sake, whatever you do make sure you have a totally risk-based levy, not a flat-rate levy." We now hear from the Secretary of State that not only will we have a flat-rate levy for at least the first year, but a period of possibly several years will follow of phasing in the risk-based elements of the levy.
  The new fund will be extremely vulnerable, especially at the time of its birth and for some time thereafter: first, because of the question of its funding; and secondly, because of the potential for claims that have been stored up to be made against the fund. When the American model was set up, it waited for four or five years before it started paying out on particular claims. In fairness, the Secretary of State could not have been clearer when he said that there is no basis on which this Government will stand behind the fund The fund therefore sinks or swims on its own.
  We had the news only today that Marks and Spencer is starting a trend of issuing bonds to make up the shortfall in its pension fund. The experts tell us that such large companies, which find it easy and relatively cheap to borrow, will use that mechanism to make up any shortfall in funding. If that happens, it will merely accelerate the trend, when we move to a risk-based levy, of the larger companies being able to deal with their shortfall in that sort of way, leaving the somewhat

  853
  dodgier companies—companies that are not in a position to have that kind of bond issue—struggling and paying a higher and higher levy into the fund. In other words, in the pensions Titanic under this Government, the first-class passengers, as in the real Titanic, will have lifeboats, but the steerage passengers—the less strong companies and schemes—will be trapped below decks as the vessel's inherent instability drags it inexorably under the water.
  I have some news for Labour Members who have been chiding the official Opposition all afternoon about our proposals. I can tell them—[Interruption.] I knew that they have been waiting for this moment, especially the Under-Secretary, who can barely contain herself. At the end of the Divisions this evening, I will be tabling a series of amendments, to which I invite all right hon. and hon. Members who expressed concerns about the 60,000 and derided the official Opposition to append their names tomorrow. If they do not do so, their constituents should ask why. Basically, the proposals are to set up a separate interim pension protection fund, still administered by the pension protection fund, to be endowed with any remaining assets of the schemes in wind-up and drawing on those unclaimed assets that we have debated.
  I commend our amendments to the House, and I acknowledge with thanks the partial inspiration of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. Those amendments are not the last word by any means, however. If the Government accept the principles that underlie them, I will happily withdraw them so that the Government can redraft them. I trust that all those who have expressed sympathy for the cause of the ASW workers and so many others will add their names to those amendments tomorrow.
  As I have said, there is much in the Bill that we welcome or on which we believe that we can improve in Committee. As it stands, however, does the Bill pass three acid tests? First, will its central provisions encourage employers to keep open existing schemes, let alone new ones? The answer is a resounding "No". Secondly, can the Bill achieve the Government's stated objective of altering the balance between private and state pension provision from 40/60 to 60/40? Again the answer is a resounding "No". Does the Bill set in place a simplified, clear and overarching pensions vision fit for the challenges of the 21st century? Against a background of a system that is complex, difficult to understand and often contradictory, with the savings culture being fatally undermined by an inadequate state pension and the inexorable growth of means-tested benefits, again the answer can only be "No".
  I commend our reasoned amendment to the House.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): This has been an interesting and often thoughtful debate, dominated numerically and in other respects by Labour contributions. Before I say anything else, I should like to acknowledge the contributions of many hon. Members on all sides of the House: my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field); my hon. Friend the
  854
  Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan); the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley); my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth); the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley): my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne); the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill); the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price); my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden); the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes); my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg); my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd); my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby); my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall); my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird); my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson); and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). There were also notable contributions from the Front Benches, some interesting in what they did not say and others in what they did say.
  Let me start in this way. Mr. Johnson is 58. He has been working for the same employer for 30 years and has been contributing to his occupational pension throughout this time. Last year his employer went bankrupt, but Mr. Johnson knew that his pension was safe. So far, so good, but Mr. Johnson is an American. The US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation meant that his pension savings had been protected, as had those of others like him, since the mid-1970s. We on this side of the House are saying, as I hope others in the House are, that what is good enough for American workers for over a quarter of a century is certainly good enough for British workers and British company pensions.
  I have met people like Mr. Johnson in the United States, and I have seen the difference that this real security makes. The House should be proud today to be offering this protection to the people of Britain. When we vote this evening the House has an opportunity to take the first steps to make the Pension Protection Fund a reality, a major social policy innovation, a consistent piece of pensions architecture, to build confidence that a pension promise made will indeed be a pension promise honoured.
  Mrs. Lait rose—
  Malcolm Wicks: I shall give way, but I shall not do it too often, because I need to respond to the debate.
  Mrs. Lait: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talked about the American experience. He will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) say that the American pension fund is $11.5 billion in deficit. What proposals does the hon. Gentleman have, should the United Kingdom fund go in the same direction?
  Malcolm Wicks: This matter has been a feature of the debate, which I think the hon. Lady has mainly missed. I shall come to that later.
  When I was in the United States, no one I met on either side of the political spectrum, certainly not Republican politicians, saw the end of the Pension

  855
  Benefit Guaranty Corporation. They recognised it for the important institution that it is, as we will in the years to come.
  I shall return to the fund in a moment. I should first like to make a few remarks to explain the Bill in the wider context of this Government's overall strategy for meeting the demographic and economic challenges facing all pension systems today. This is touched on in the Opposition's amendment, and several hon. Members have touched on this context. Certainly, the subject of pensions is rising up the agendas that count, in this House, among citizens, among trade unions, which are playing a major role, and among employers.
  Our approach is to be fair to the poorest, fair to those who have saved, and fair as between generations, not least by not imposing big tax rises on future generations.
  Thanks to the reforms of this Government. from April we shall be spending around £9 billion more in real terms compared with the 1997 system. This includes around an extra £4 billion on the poorest and most hard-pressed pensioners.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar talked importantly about the position of women. Pension credit, which now benefits 2.4 million people—and the number is increasing every week—will mainly benefit women, who constitute two out of three pension credit beneficiaries. The state second pension is also particularly important to women. About 20 million people have gained from its introduction in April 2002, including 5 million carers and people with long-term disabilities.
  Pension credit is rewarding those who have made a major contribution. It is already helping the attack on pensioner poverty. By 2001–2 absolute poverty was down 60 per cent. on the 1997 figure, with 1.6 million pensioners lifted above the poverty line. We have banished the past—the Tory days of 2.7 million pensioners in poverty, and pound-for-pound withdrawal undermining the whole system by showing that it sometimes paid not to have saved. Conservative Members talk about savings. 'We have not talked about them; we have acted.
  We have more to do, however. Simplicity, security and choice underlie the Government's approach to moving from present to future. We have already taken significant steps. We are tackling complexity across the pensions agenda. Older people can now make a single telephone call to the pension credit hotline, rather than having to fill in a 40-page form. We have drawn up tax simplification proposals to sweep away the existing eight different tax regimes and replace them with a single lifetime allowance. We have bolstered security. Last week we presented full buy-out regulations enabling trustees to require a solvent employer who wants to wind up a pension scheme to buy out members' rights in full. Our Command Paper on informed choice set out the action we are taking to empower individuals to take more control of their retirement futures.
  The Bill is the cornerstone of our whole approach. It is about bolstering security, strengthening member confidence, minimising burdens, cutting red tape and expanding choice. We have heard some notable speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for North-
  856
  East Derbyshire (Mr Barnes), for instance, asked about the implications for Northern Ireland. In general the Bill extends only to Great Britain, but there are exceptions, including the pensions regulator—most importantly—and the protection fund. Northern Ireland legislation will bring those provisions into effect in Northern Ireland.
  It is worth reminding the House of just what an opportunity the new fund offers. For the first time ever, individuals in defined benefit pension schemes, commonly known as final salary schemes, can rest assured that they will always receive a meaningful pension, even if their company goes bust and leaves the pension scheme underfunded. A risk-related levy will mean that those who pose the greatest risk to the fund pay the lion's share of the levy. There is a benefit cap of £25,000 a year, which will be simple to operate and which is a change in policy from a salary cap. That is a direct result of advice from key players in the pensions world, not least the employer taskforce established by the Secretary of State.
  We have developed our policy in conjunction with expertise across industry, learning lessons from the United States and other countries in the process of building a pension protection fund that can bring security and peace of mind to those in defined benefit schemes. How many people like America's Mr. Johnson could benefit in this country? We know that there are about 10 million active and deferred members of private sector defined benefit pension schemes. In addition, about 5 million pensioners could benefit. That comes to 15 million. Inevitably, there is some double counting: an individual may be a member or beneficiary of several schemes. That is why we have always talked of at least 10 million individuals. Of course, not only individuals but their families stand to gain, so the number of people who could benefit from the security and peace of mind that the fund will bring is much greater than 10 million, and probably much greater than 15 million.
  Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister agree with Mr. Adair Turner, the Government's pensions tsar, that in 20 years the number of workers in final salary schemes will have fallen from 10 million to 1.5 million, at most?
  Malcolm Wicks: All we are trying to do is bring security to pension schemes of different kinds. I believe that the Bill will bring security to people in final salary schemes.
  There has been much talk today about the levy, so I shall clarify what members will pay for pension security. The figures that I give are by way of illustration. In practice, they may vary to a small extent, but I hope that my examples will help the House.
  We estimate that each member will pay about £10 for the first year, assuming that the £150 million estimated cost of the initial levy was spread evenly across all members. It is expected that each member will pay an average of only £20 per year thereafter, assuming that the £300 million estimated cost was spread evenly across all members. However, different schemes will pay different amounts because of the introduction of the risk-based levy from the second year.
  Those costs pale into insignificance when compared with the typical cost of household insurance of about £350 per year, or even with the cost of holiday insurance

  857
  for a family of four for a two-week trip to Spain. I am advised that that insurance might cost double the £20 per year figure that I quoted.
  The amounts involved are relatively small, when compared with the degree of assurance that they will afford to members.
  Sir John Butterfill: Does the Minister accept that other estimates, such as those made by the firm Watson Wyatt and the chairman of Boots, suggest that the figure will be about four times what the Government have quoted?
  Malcolm Wicks: I am giving the House the Government's estimates, which I hoped would be helpful even though I acknowledged that they might be subject to some variation. The arithmetic on which they are based means that they carry a certain authority.
  Understandably, much of the debate has centred on the circumstances of those workers who are in very great difficulties at present. Notable among the speeches on this subject were the ones made by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). Both contributions offered well informed and passionate arguments in favour of the Government's proposals. However, the House will understand that I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier about this very important matter.
  In Standing Committee, we will need to talk about the pensions regulator, which in many respects will be as important as the PPF. The regulator will be flexible and proactive. It will have a light touch with schemes that are in good shape, but real teeth for schemes that are not. There will be simplification, and I look forward to talking about that, and our proposals on limited price indexation, in Committee.
  I am pleased that Liberal Democrat. Members support the Bill, and I am sure that their reasoned amendments will be discussed in Committee. However, I simply do not understand the position adopted by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. In an extraordinary statement, they have just told the House that they will not vote against the Bill, even though they have tabled a so-called reasoned amendment that begins by stating that
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Pensions Bill".
  The Opposition have brought to the House proposals that they have sketched on the back of an envelope. They pretend that they are working up a scheme to help today's workers, but decline to give a Second Reading to a Bill that will set up a pension protection fund that will help more than 10 million people in the future. We estimate that that total will include 15,000 to 16,000 people in the average parliamentary constituency.

  That is simply not credible. Opposition Front-Bench Members tell their colleagues to vote for their reasoned amendment, which would decline to give the Bill a Second Reading, and the shadow Secretary of State—which is what he will remain—will lead his confused troops into the appropriate Lobby. However, Opposition Members will be told later to support the Bill.
  858
  The Government have the proposals for the future. Her Majesty's Opposition are in a total shambles. They are an example of opportunism at its very worst.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal):Order. Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay?
  The House having divided: Ayes 154, Noes 388

  Division No.68]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Baldry, Tony

  Hendry, Charles

  Barker, Gregory

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Howard, rh Michael

  Bercow, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hunter, Andrew

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jack, rh Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Surrey)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burns, Simon

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burnside, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Cameron, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cash, William

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Barnet)

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Clappison, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Collins, Tim

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclean, rh David

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, rh David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Maples, John

  Howden)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Dodds, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Page, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paice, James

  Francois, Mark

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Goodman, Paul

  Redwood, rh John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Grayling, Chris

  M-Kent)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gummer, rh John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hague, rh William

  Rosindell, Andrew

  859

  Ruffley, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tredinnick, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simmonds, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Walter, Robert

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Mark Field and

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Angela Watkinson

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Allan, Richard

  Fife)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Caton, Martin

  Darwen)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Challen, Colin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chaytor, David

  Austin, John

  Chidgey, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Baird, Vera

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Banks, Tony

  Pentlands)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barrett, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Chryston)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cohen, Harry

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Coleman, Iain

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Colman, Tony

  Bennett, Andrew

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Cooper, Yvette

  Blackman, Liz

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Borrow, David

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cruddas, Jon

  Breed, Colin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Cummings, John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Wallsend)

  (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bryant, Chris

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burgon, Colin

  David, Wayne

  Burnett, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Burnham, Andy

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burstow, Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Cairns, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  860

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Doran, Frank

  Highgate)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jamieson, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Edwards, Huw

  Hatfield)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Etherington, Bill

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Fisher, Mark

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Foster, rh Derek

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Keetch, Paul

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Inverness)

  & Rye)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Foulkes, rh George

  Kidney, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Gardiner, Barry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bow)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Gilroy, Linda

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lamb, Norman

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lammy, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Grogan, John

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Hain, rh Peter

  Lepper, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hanson, David

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Linton, Martin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Harvey, Nick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Love, Andrew

  Rhymney)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Healey, John

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Heath, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hendrick, Mark

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Heppell, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hermon, Lady

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hesford, Stephen

  McDonnell, John

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  MacDougall, John

  Heyes, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hinchliffe, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  McKechin, Ann

  Holmes, Paul

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  McWilliam, John

  Sefton E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hutton, rh John

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Shettleston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  861

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sawford, Phil

  Martlew, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Merron, Gillian

  Sheridan, Jim

  Michael, rh Alun

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Miliband, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith rh Chris (Islington S &

  Mole, Chris

  Finsbury)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Moran, Margaret

  Lunesdale)

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Rachel

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stevenson, George

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Lochaber)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Stewart Ian (Eccles)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stringer Graham

  Olner, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stunell, Andrew

  Öpik, Lembit

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Picking, Anne

  Teather Sarah

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas,, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Thomas., Gareth (Harrow W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas,, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thurso, John

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Todd Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pound, Stephen

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  E)

  Trickett Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prescott, rh John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Dinefwr)

  Kemptown)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tyler Paul (N Cornwall)

  Purnell, James

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Ward, Claire

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rendel, David

  Watts, David

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Weir Michael

  Anniesland)

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willis Phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Winnick, David

  Chester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  C)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wishart, Pete

  Salter, Martin

  Woolas, Phil

  Sanders, Adrian

  Worthington, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Anthony D, (Gt

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Yarmouth)

  862

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Vernon Coaker

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  PENSIONS BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Pensions Bill:
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Standing Committee
  2.Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 22nd April 2004.
  3.The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
  Consideration and Third Reading
  4.Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  5.Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
  6.Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  Other proceedings
  7.Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  The House divided: Ayes 378, Noes 153.

  Division No. 69]

  [7:18 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Berry, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blackman, Liz

  Allan, Richard

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Darwen)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Breed, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brennan,Kevin

  Austin, John

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastke E

  Baird, Vera

  Wallsend)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Barrett, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Bryant, Chris

  Battle, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Burgon, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burstow, Paul

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cairns, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  863

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Gerrard, Neil

  Fife)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Casale, Roger

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chidgey, David

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hanson, David

  Chryston)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Rhymney)

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Heath, David

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heyes, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Holmes, Paul

  Cranston, Ross

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Crausby, David

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Sefton E)

  (Copeland)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hutton, rh John

  David, Wayne

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Highgate)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jamieson, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jenkins, Brian

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Doran, Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Doughty, Sue

  Hatfield)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Etherington, Bill

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Farrelly, Paul

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fisher, Mark

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Flint, Caroline

  Keetch, Paul

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Inverness)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Kidney, David

  & Rye)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foulkes, rh George

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Bow)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  864

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Perham, Linda

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Picking, Anne

  Lamb, Norman

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lammy, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Plaskitt, James

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lepper, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  E)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Prescott, rh John

  Linton, Martin

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Dinefwr)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Love, Andrew

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Purchase, Ken

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Purnell, James

  McCabe, Stephen

  Quin, rh Joyce

  McCafferty, Chris

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  McDonnell, John

  Rendel, David

  MacDougall, John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  McIsaac, Shona

  Anniesland)

  McKechin, Ann

  Rooney, Terry

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruane, Chris

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McWilliam, John

  Chester)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Salmond, Alex

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Salter, Martin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Shettleston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Sheridan, Jim

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

  Merron, Gillian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Singh, Marsha

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miliband, David

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Finsbury)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Mole, Chris

  Lunesdale)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Julie

  Soley, Clive

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Lochaber)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Olner, Bill

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  865

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Watts, David

  Teather, Sarah

  Webb Steve (Northavon)

  Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

  Weir, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  White Brian

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Thurso, John

  Wicks Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Williams., Roger (Brecon)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Willis, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Winnick, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wishart, Pete

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Woolas. Phil

  Kemptown)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ward, Claire

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

  Vernon Coaker

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Grayling, Chris

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Greenway, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gummer, rh John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Hague, rh William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hendry, Charles

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Hermon, Lady

  Surrey)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Brady, Graham

  Horam. John (Orpington)

  Brazier, Julian

  Howard, rh Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burnside, David

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cameron, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Barnet)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chope, Christopher

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clappison, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Collins, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Leigh, Edward

  Curry, rh David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Howden)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lidington, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Loughton, Tim

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Luff Peter (M-Worcs)

  Evans, Nigel

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, rh David

  Flook, Adrian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, rh Eric

  Malins, Humfrey

  Francois, Mark

  Maples, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Garnier, Edward

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Mav, Mrs Theresa

  866

  Mercer, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Norman, Archie

  Streeter, Gary

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Trend, Michael

  Randall, John

  Trimble, rh David

  Redwood, rh John

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Tyrie, Andrew

  M-Kent)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Walter, Robert

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Whittingdale, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wiggin, Bill

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Ruffley, David

  Willetts, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wilshire, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard

  (Macclesfield)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Angela Watkinson and

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mr. Mark Field

  Question accordingly agreed to

  PENSIONS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and way and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under the Act, and
  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.

  PENSIONS BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and way and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the levying of charges under the Act—

  (a) for the purpose of meeting expenditure of the Secretary of State relating to the establishment or expenses of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund;

  (b) for the purposes of the Pension Protection Fund maintained under the Act;

  (c) for the purpose of meeting expenditure payable out of the Fraud Compensation Fund maintained under the Act;

  (2) the levying of charges under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 for the purpose of meeting—

  (a) the expenses of the Pensions Regulator (including the expenses of establishing it);

  867

  (b) the costs of the legal assistance scheme established in connection with proceedings before the Pensions Regulator Tribunal;

  (c) the expenses of the Pensions Compensation Board;

  (3) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

  The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 20.

  Division No. 70]

  [7:33 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainger, Nick

  Cotter, Brian

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Allen, Graham

  Cranston, Ross

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Cruddas, Jon

  Darwen)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cummings, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Baird, Vera

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Banks, Tony

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barnes, Harry

  David, Wayne

  Barrett, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Battle, John

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Beard, Nigel

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Doughty, Sue

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Borrow, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Buck, Ms Karen

  & Rye)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burgon, Colin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burnett, John

  Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

  Burstow, Paul

  Gardiner, Barry

  Byers, rh Stephen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cairns, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Casale, Roger

  Gidley, Sandra

  Caton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Pentlands)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hanson, David

  Chryston)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Cohen, Harry

  Rhymney)

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Heath, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hepburn, Stephen

  868

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Heyes, David

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Holmes, Paul

  Shettleston)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Martlew, Eric

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley. N &

  Michael, rh Alun

  Sefton E)

  Miliband, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mole, Chris

  Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hutton, rh John

  Moran, Margaret

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Morgan, Julie

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mudie, George

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn

  Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

  Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Jones, Martyn(ClwydS)

  Owen, Albert

  Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

  Perham, Linda

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Plaskitt, James

  Kidney, David

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Greer. & Bow)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

  Prescott, rh John

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Price, Adam(E Carmarthen &

  Lamb, Norman

  Dinefwr)

  Lammy, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Purchase, Ken

  Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

  Purnell, James

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lepper, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

  Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

  Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, Angus(Moray)

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Robertson, John(Glasgow

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Anniesland)

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

  Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

  Lyons, John(Stiathkelvin)

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Chester)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

  McDonnell, John

  Salmond, Alex

  MacDougall, John

  Salter, Martin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sanders, Adrian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McKechin, Ann

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sheridan, Jim

  869

  Simon, Sion(B'ham Erdington)

  Twigg Derek(Halton)

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  Twigg. Stephen(Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  Tynan Bill(Hamilton S)

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S &

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Finsbury)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe &

  Ward, Claire

  Lunesdale)

  Warei tg. Robert N.

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E,

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts David

  Soley, Clive

  Webb Steve(Northavon)

  Squire, Rachel

  Weir, Michael

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  White Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Wicks;, Malcolm

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams,, Betty(Conwy)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Willian:,, Roger(Brecon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Willis, Phil

  Tami, Mark(Aiyn)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  C)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

  Wishart Pete

  Teather, Sarah

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt

  Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

  Yarmouth)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Vernon Coaker

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

  Steen, Anthony

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Surrey)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Dodds, Nigel

  Trimble, rh David

  Hermon Lady

  Turner. Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Tyrie Andrew

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Nigel Evans

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
    Question agreed to.

  EU Citizens (Freedom of Movement)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  7.43 pm
  Keith Vaz: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the issue of the freedom of movement of citizens of EU states. The matter has suddenly become unnecessarily controversial, and I hope that tonight we have an opportunity for a far more balanced debate. On 1
  May —in fact, in 61 days' time—the EU is set to embark on an historic journey by considerably extending its size and capability. The European Union has been a success story from the very beginning. It has secured peace on the European continent, given member states the benefit of free trade and economic prosperity and set an example of co-operation to the rest of the world.
  It is now time to welcome 10 new members We have planned long and hard to prepare Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to enter as full and equal members of the Union. While in Government, I had the great pleasure of visiting each of those states and seeing for myself, despite the pain of the negotiation process, the enthusiasm that Governments and citizens alike have for full and equal membership of the EU.
  Over the past couple of weeks, a number of short-term solutions have been suggested as a remedy to a number of thought-up scenarios, and the longer-term benefits to the whole of the EU have, sadly, been completely forgotten. It has been predicted that on 1 May masses of people from the eastern European countries will come to Britain to take advantage of our benefits system. The truth is that all the anecdotal evidence suggests that we will not see a mass migration to the UK, and therefore it would be foolish to expect the worst of countries and citizens that are to live and develop side by side with us.
  I believe that the people who are coming to the UK are coming to work, not to go on benefits. The accession countries have a troubled past and have not always had the benefit of freedom of movement and speech. Being members of the European Union means that countries as well as citizens should be treated equally. That is the fundamental basis on which the EU has been built. I ask the Minister tonight why we should treat a citizen from Poland any differently from a citizen from Sweden or Portugal when both come here to work, pay tax and make their living. What gives a German or a Spaniard more right of access than a Pole or a Latvian?
  The Home Secretary's statement on 23 February was welcome in that he did not pander to the worst prejudices of those who in reality do not support enlargement or the EU, but it was disappointing because he chose to create an unnecessary new piece of bureaucracy —the workers registration scheme. The scheme can only be a deterrent to anybody wanting to come to Britain. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister exactly how the registration scheme will work.

  871
  The immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office—the organisation that supposedly would have to deal with the policy and its implementation—cannot be described as a Rolls-Royce service. The backlog of asylum and immigration cases has become something of a clich?. The Minister knows that herself because, before she became a Minister, she was among the fiercest critics of delay. Is it seriously suggested that the public inquiry office at Lunar house will be able to cope with the introduction of regulations to vary leave, when it takes the public inquiry office months to answer letters from MPs and sometimes years to reply to solicitors' cases?
  Can the Minister tell us the answers to the following questions? When people arrive in the UK, where and when will they register for work? Will they be put on parole until they have stated the purpose of the visit and produced employment documentation? Will the police handle the inquiries or will that fall on the already overburdened and overstretched Home Office or will it be handled by a jobcentre? Will people then require a certificate? If an accession national should change employer within the time frame of the scheme, will he or she have to re-register? What burden will fall on the relevant post abroad, and what guidance have staff there received? What are the possibilities of reviewing the scheme, and will it be abolished if implementation proves impossible? Will there be a registration fee? If so, how much will it be? If not, what will be the final cost for taxpayers in this country of implementing a scheme that has clearly not been thought through? What sanctions will there be for those who do not register to work?
  In the past few weeks, the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands have changed their minds and imposed restrictions, although they had promised that there would be no transitional arrangements. Ireland has followed the British example and is set to implement rules, despite the fact that until 23 February its position was to wait and see. Germany and Austria are the only countries that may have reasons to impose transition arrangements of some kind, as 80 per cent. of eastern European migrants currently live in those two countries. For the rest of us, there are no legitimate reasons to blow the issue out of proportion, as has been done.
  Politicians and commentators from Vilnius to Bratislava have been more saddened than stunned by the way in which the UK has appeared to dance to the tune of the right-wing agendas of the tabloid newspapers and of the Leader of the Opposition. Sadly, the Government have drawn back from their very clear position on the freedom of movement of labour. It is a surprise that the tabloids have not suggested that we lock up our daughters in case of the predatory actions of Roger from Riga. But it is no surprise that the Leader of the Opposition jumped on the bandwagon. The Conservatives cannot talk seriously about Europe because it tears them apart. That is why they have to reach for the box marked "race and immigration": it gives them headlines without having to stake out an intellectual case. Only
  872
  a few months ago, they were calling for a referendum on the Nice treaty—that was their way of blocking enlargement—yet our country was not given a referendum on Maastricht.
  We have to remember that the enlargement process owes its momentum to Britain. The enlargement accession negotiations began under the UK's presidency of the ELI in 1998. In October 2000, in Warsaw, the Prime Minister was the first Head of Government to call for the new member states to participate as full members in the 2004 European Parliament elections. In December 2002, the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Foreign Ministers of the applicant countries confirming that the UK would open its borders to free movement of workers from all new member states as of the date of accession. The Prime Minster and the Foreign Secretary played an enormous part in ensuring that enlargement was on track. Indeed, I observed for myself the pivotal role that the Prime Minister played in the process. Without him, I do not believe that enlargement would be taking place on 1 May. I also pay tribute to the work of Gunter Verheugen, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, for all the good work that he has done.
  Successive UK Ministers have highlighted Britain's laudable position as the only big country to accept all as full EU citizens. We staked out a clear position, and that delighted our future EU partners. Our policy was different from, and better than, that of the others. It confirmed the UK as the champion of enlargement and gave the Prime Minster huge moral and political authority. A new Europe was emerging. British companies were warmly welcomed in the capital cities of the applicant states. Since 1990, the UK's trade with future member states has increased nearly 10 times as fast as with the rest of the world. Freedom of movement of labour is crucial for British business. New labour from eastern Europe will boost British gross domestic product, fill vacancies and, most importantly, contribute to the welfare system by allowing those people to pay tax on earned income. That is why it is so irrational to place obstacles in the way of freedom of movement of labour to Britain.
  It is a myth that in 61 days' time millions of citizens from the new member states will start up their caravans and head for Dover. A few cases involving asylum seekers have been blown up into major tabloid soap operas. If one speaks to any Pole or Czech in this country working or studying, they will say that their ambition is to get full-time work, not to go on benefits. There is clear evidence of an influx of professional labour into this country, and very little evidence to suggest that Britain's shores will be invaded by benefit tourists. That is simply scaremongering.
  A study prepared for the European Commission in 2000 estimated that 850,000 people living in the EU—0.2 per cent. of the total population—were from the 10 accession countries. A second study in 2002 shows that those who declared a firm intention to migrate constitute approximately only 1 per cent. of the working-age population of all 10 countries. That is hardly an overwhelming figure or a threat.

  873
  Those shrieking to protect the benefit system from abuse should consider why the system, after all the reforms and reviews, should remain open to abuse in 2004. If there is something wrong with the benefit system, we should change it.
  The recent debate also ignores the fact that new member states will receive £26 billion from the EU between 2004 and 2006. That will boost their economies, with a consequent pull on their domestic work force to stay in those countries rather than seek work elsewhere. The desire to work rather than seek benefits will take advantage of chronic skills shortages in Britain and allow our eastern European partners to contribute to the economy and, through returning remittances, to their countries of origin. The new member states mostly fear the brain drain from their countries to western Europe.
  Our skills shortages will be soaked up by the highly trained doctors and nurses coming from anywhere between Prague and Cracow. The workers registration scheme should not be used to undermine the fundamental principles that underpin the values of the EU. That should also apply to the solution that is currently being trailed that the scheme should be monitored, with perhaps further changes, if the numbers arriving are greater than expected.
  Britain needs the good will of the new member states if it is to move Europe towards the reform agenda. From the breath of fresh air that the Prime Minister and the new Government provided on European issues in June 1997, we have reached a stalemate. To modernise Europe, we need not only to harness the enthusiasm of the new members but to earn their votes around the summit table. Reforming Europe will not be achieved with the support of only France and Germany because their interest is to keep running Europe the way that it is currently run.
  I shall go from the debate to join the ninth birthday party of my son Luke. In four weeks, my daughter Anjali will be seven. The Europe in which my children will be citizens will be very different from Europe now. In 10 years, when Luke and Anjali are 19 and 17 respectively, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, and probably even some of the Balkan countries, will have joined as full members. Perhaps even Russia will be applying for membership.
  Europe is work in progress, and that is one of its great strengths. It is constantly developing and the countries are moulded by giving and taking and learning from each other. It is a melting pot of ideas and cultures. I am proud to represent part of the great city of Leicester. It is a microcosm of Europe, with many cultures and languages. We already have a Polish centre in my constituency. The people are proudly British but also proud of their heritage.
  Leicester is a truly European city with a majestic past and a bright and ambitious future. The city uses all the talents of all its citizens. That is what we must do with Europe: use all the talents of all its peoples. There is so much left to do in reforming Europe, and the new member states are our natural allies in that process. The reform agenda is Britain's agenda. That is why the commitment made to the applicant countries for freedom of movement of labour is so important.
  874
  The best thing that the Government can do is stand by what the Foreign Secretary said in December 2002 and what the Prime Minister has said on numerous visits to the new member states, where he is genuinely and rightly treated as the only pan-European political superstar. Writing in June 2003, the Prime Minster said:
  "It is right and fair that the new Member States should enjoy the same rights to work in the UK as existing EU citizens."
  In closing, I urge the Minister, whom I consider one of the best Ministers in the Government, to reconsider the decision and to stand firm on Britain's commitments to the accession countries. Only if freedom of movement is encouraged will the success of Europe be secured. The basis of that success is equality and freedom. Those are the fundamental cornerstones of the EU and they must never be compromised.
  7.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Fiona Mactaggart): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for providing us with an opportunity to debate these important issues. I appreciate his passionate commitment to the enlargement of the European Union, which no one listening to him could have missed. The Government share his commitment and vision. EU enlargement is extremely welcome to our country, which is why, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, our Prime Minister was at the forefront in calling for early accession for the 10 countries and is widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent European leader. After 1 May, citizens of the accession states will be free to travel across all EU borders. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made clear in December 2002, we believe that the United Kingdom will benefit from new EU citizens coming to this country, working legally, and paying taxes and national insurance.
  The United Kingdom has one of the most dynamic and successful economies in the world. While America, Japan, and much of the euro area have suffered from recession, the British economy has grown uninterrupted for every quarter and every year since 1997. At the same time, unemployment in Britain is now significantly lower than in all other major European states, at 5 per cent., compared to an EU average of 8 per cent. and a rate of 9 per cent. in Germany and France. Migration both contributes to and has been driven by this success. By increasing labour supply and reducing domestic skills shortages, migration helps to raise productivity and boost economic growth.
  In the United Kingdom, migrants make up just 8 per cent. of the total population, yet they generate 10 per cent. of our overall wealth. Similarly, 15 per cent. of trend UK growth stems from predicted migration flows. We currently have more than 500,000 vacancies in our labour market, and we will benefit from the skills, flexibility and willingness to work of these new migrant workers, as we have in the past. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirmed on 23 February in the House that we are allowing workers from the eight central and eastern European accession states access to our labour markets, subject only to a straightforward registration scheme.
  When we first set out our position, back in 2002, only those countries with high levels of unemployment were planning to introduce restrictions on work for accession

  875
  state nationals. Since then, other countries have changed their stance. That must influence the way in which we implement our commitment, but let me be clear: our commitment remains. It clearly makes sense for us to ensure that our approach does not leave us exposed.
  My hon. Friend is concerned that the workers' registration scheme can only be a deterrent to anyone wanting to come here. I do not believe that this one will be. Under the scheme, accession country nationals will be free to enter the United Kingdom and to take up any employment here without restriction. When they find and start a job, they will need to apply immediately to the Home Office to be registered as a worker. There is no parole period; they will just apply, having found a job. They will do this by post, to our offices in Sheffield. They will need to provide information about what job they are doing, at what wage, and where in the country it is. They will be issued with a registration certificate, as evidence that they have registered. The registration will last for 12 months, provided that they stay in that employment. If they change jobs, they will need to apply to renew their registration.
  I am aware that my hon. Friend is concerned about backlogs in processing applications by the immigration and nationality directorate and he referred to some of my past concerns about these matters. He will know, however, that steps are in hand to reduce those backlogs, and I am sure that he will be reassured by the fact that, for this new scheme, the Department is gearing up to provide an efficient and responsive service. We want to encourage maximum compliance with the scheme, and there is no reason why any worker from the accession countries should not comply with the registration requirement, as it will be in their interests to do so. We therefore need to ensure that the scheme works well.
  The scheme will be administered within the framework operated by Work Permits (UK), whose performance standards I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend. It turns round more than 80 per cent. of applications for work permits within 24 hours. "Ah", my hon. Friend will think. "What about the other 20 per cent?" Nearly all of those, however, are done within a week. Only 2 to 3 per cent. of applications take more than a week, and none takes more than a month. We can aim to achieve the same standards in the workers registration scheme, and I hope that he will find that reassuring, as I do.
  We are looking to recover at least some of the costs of the scheme, so there will be a modest fee to cover administrative charges. The cost should be outweighed, however, by the benefit to the workers of access to our labour market. We do not expect the costs to the taxpayer to be significant. Obviously, my hon. Friend is concerned about the details of the scheme and how it will work in practice. Further details will be made available shortly, along with detailed guidance, which he rightly expects, for nationals of accession countries and employers. I will ensure that he is kept in touch with how those are developed.
  Keith Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for all the information that she has given so far. What is the
  876
  position of someone who makes an application but does not get the certificate back for a certain period? Can they carry on working while they are awaiting the certificate, or must they cease working until they get the certificate?
  Fiona Mactaggart: In the scenario that I have just described, such a person would be working before they had applied—they would have found and taken a job. Therefore, this process does not prevent people from working; it is merely a monitoring mechanism.
  The purpose of the scheme is to allow us to track properly our commitment. It will give good information to the authorities and the Home Office about how, in practice, the right to work of people from accession countries is operating. They will be able to join our legal labour market in an open way, enjoying equal rights as well as contributing to our economy and society. That will allow us to monitor what is happening to our labour market, and where in the country and in what sectors accession country nationals are finding work. It will tell us where those paediatricians, dentists, dustmen and plumbers from Poland, to whom the Home Secretary referred in his statement, are working. Are they filling that gap in the dentistry market in Scarborough, evident from the long queue that we saw reported in many of our newspapers? We have a good pattern of what is happening, and if, against all expectations, there were adverse impacts on our labour markets—let me reiterate that we do not expect that—we could act immediately to re-impose restrictions.
  My hon. Friend may make a reasonable point when he says that a better arrangement for administering our benefits system might have dealt better with these issues. That is not what happened, however. We need to take steps to safeguard our benefits system and ensure that it is not exploited. Accession state nationals who are not working will be expected to support themselves. If they cannot do so, they will not have a right of residence here and will have to return to their own country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will bring forward regulations to prevent access to benefits by those not working, and my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will bring forward regulations to prevent them from claiming child benefit. Access to other benefits, such as social housing, will also be restricted. That is clearly the right course of action. It would not be fair for accession country nationals to come to this country purely to access benefits to which they had not contributed.
  I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will agree that, overall, the package announced last week is fair and balanced. It will send a clear message to the Polish community centres in my constituency and in his constituency, which, like us, will be welcoming these new migrants, that they are welcome, that they have absolute access to our labour markets, that we welcome their skills, that we recognise what they have to offer Britain, and that we are providing a sensible and balanced package within which they can offer those skills.
  They will be welcome to Britain, to work openly and honestly, and to support themselves. Those who wish to find a job can do so. Those who wish to come for short periods will have to have the means to do so. So the UK will enjoy the benefits of enlargement and the accession

  877

  countries' citizens will enjoy the benefits of enlargement, but we shall still maintain the ability to control its impact on our labour markets, if necessary.
  I believe that that is the wise and practical way to proceed. I do not think that there is any diminution of our commitment to free access to labour. There is merely a sensible process for managing it.
  878
  I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to describe further how that will work in practice.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[DAVID TAYLOR in the Chair]

Museums
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—.[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Mr. Michael Portillo: I feel very fortunate indeed to have the opportunity to open this debate on membercontribution the important subject of museums. Next week. the national museums and galleries will launch a series of reports in which they draw attention to some of their good work and achievements and the problems that they face. I have a strong interest in the matter because my constituency contains three national museums. It is an enormous source of pride for me to represent them, such is their great excellence, and as I near my retirement from Parliament, I know that I will miss my association with them.
The debate provides the opportunity for the Chamber to recall the importance of the work of our national museums and galleries. We are fortunate to have collections of such quality and it is important that they be maintained in excellent condition, that they be restored when necessary and, in particular, that academic research make the most of them so that we may understand more about our environment, our history and human achievement, Our museums and galleries make a huge contribution in the broadest sense to the culture of this country and to its reputation for excellence and scholarship.
The reports that will be published next week make it clear that museums and galleries make a great contribution to our economy. They have been undertaking a great deal of work to adapt to the world in which we now live. They have made great strides in welcoming new visitors, in particular people from this country who, because of their background, would in the past have seen galleries and museum as places that they did not want to enter. The museums and galleries have created new environments and new sorts of exhibitions that will be attractive to both traditional and new visitors. In addition, they are king the most of electronic links so that many people who are not in a position to visit galleries and museums is can be connected with them through the internet, or can supplement their visits by continuing their learning electronically.
The museums and galleries are responding to several targets laid down for them by the Government—I think in particular of targets relating toC2, D and E category visitors and ethnic minorities. It seems, however, that the museums are expected to under take such extra work on the basis of grant in aid from the Government that has been rising only in line with the retail price index. That means that the museums and galleries have not had an opportunity to participate in the rising wealth of the country. To make that point more clear, I refer to the Government's decision to do away with admission
184WH
charges: in many senses, that is welcome, but it means also that the institutions have no opportunity to participate in the country's rising wealth through admission charges that might otherwise have increased from year to year.
The reports have been commissioned by the National Museum Directors Conference, the first of which is called "Valuing Museums". Written by Tony Travers of the London school of economics and Stephen Glaister of Imperial college, the report details the economic, educational and broader cultural impact of the national museums and galleries. The report finds that that sector in this country has a unique, international scale and standing, and that it has an annual impact of £2 billion on the economy, which is significant. Beyond that, the extent of the contributions that the institutions make to the cross-Whitehall agendas for education, social inclusion and the regions are highlighted in the report.
The second report is "Creating Engagement". Written by Ricky Burdett of the London school of economics cities programme, it demonstrates the extent, variety and often surprising nature of the roles undertaken by national museums and galleries. It is based largely on case studies and it illustrates how those institutions engage in a range of innovative activities with different communities across the UK, from business and science to youth and fashion. The third report, "National Dimensions", is written by AEA Consulting and examines the many forms of collaboration between national museums and the rest of the museums and galleries sector, noting how much joint activity is under way at any one time.
I think that our museums carry out their basic functions extraordinarily well. Their collections are remarkable, as is the scholarship involved in their operation. Using examples from my constituency. I shall illustrate some of the ways in which museums and galleries are adapting the way in which they exhibit their material. The Natural History museum now has the Darwin centre, a splendid new building and a superb piece of architecture, which not only offers an opportunity to re house an extraordinarily large collection, of insects in particular, which in other circumstances might have been in danger of deteriorating, but offers the public a great opportunity to enter the museum and engage in dialogue with scientists. Scientists are available to the public, with whom they can hold discussions in seminars.
At the Science museum, the new Welcome building provides an opportunity for members of the public to engage in discussion and view evidence about matters of scientific controversy, allowing them to make up their own minds at the end of the day. For example, there have recently been special exhibits on the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and genetically modified crops—two great controversies about which the public would naturally like to be better informed.
At the Victoria and Albert museum, we have recently seen the inauguration of the British galleries, which enable the V and A to take existing collections and update the manner in which they are displayed, making them more accessible and understandable to a broader public. The V and A has been involved in many other extraordinary enterprises. A number of its exhibitions are closely linked to contemporary fashion and it has made a point of giving modern British fashion designers

185WH
an opportunity to show some of their work. The V and A has entered into an agreement with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about funding, which states that in future there will be certain types of exhibition designed to broaden the categories of people who visit the museum. As part of that agreement, the V and A will put on an exhibition in the summer called "Dressing Black Britain". The agreement states:
"The exhibition aims to celebrate the presence of black people in Britain and to stimulate the debate about the importance of clothing and style in the telling of a history of a cultural group… It will create a series of narratives on fashion and style among Britain's black inhabitants and by extension promote an understanding of the dress culture of the African diaspora…The intended audience for this exhibition will be people of all ages from the black British communities as well as anyone—from academics through to schoolchildren—with an interest in fashion and the diversity of contemporary British culture."
The V and A, which receives about £37 million in public funding, is expected to increase the number of visits by children to 315,000 in 2005–06, and the number of C2, D and E visitors must increase by 8 per cent. to 180,000 by the same time. All that is in the agreement with the DCMS.
The V and A recently held an exhibition entitled "The Arts of the Sikh Kingdoms". Of the people who visited that exhibition, half were making their first ever trip to a museum, and some 70 per cent. were from ethnic minorities. An exhibition last year on Indian cinema, "The Art of Bollywood", drew 80,000 visitors. In September 2004, the V and A will put on an exhibition entitled "Exotic Encounters: the Meeting of Asia and Europe 1500–1800". Those are examples of the way in which exhibitions are changing to fit in with the realities of contemporary Britain.
Let me again draw on the Natural History museum to illustrate excellence. That museum has a biomedical sciences group that is a world leader in research, particularly into diseases. It is a world leader in investigating the causes of, and possible cures for, river blindness, malaria, schistosomiasis and leishmaniasis— deadly diseases that afflict the African continent in particular. All the museums continue to demonstrate their commitment to research and the spreading of knowledge. One way in which that can be measured is through the number of articles submitted to learned journals: the number of articles published by NMDC institutions that have been tracked down by the reports that I mentioned is 1,173, of which the Natural History museum contributed 535, the V and A 146, and the Science museum 48. I use examples from my constituency, but of course there are many others. The national museums and galleries in general are the subject of about 1 million educational visits a year by schoolchildren and, extraordinarily, more than 6 million private visits by children are made in addition to their educational visits. To give one example, the Victoria and Albert museum has 220,000 educational sessions either on or off site. That is a fairly substantial contribution to the education of our children.
The economic impact of the sector is by no means the be-all and end-all, but the point is worth exploring. Museums and galleries make a substantial contribution to the British economy. The overall turnover of members of the NM DC is —715 million—that represents
186WH
a combination of Government grants, income that they generate themselves through things such as their restaurants and shops, and money that they receive in sponsorship. That is a substantial sum in itself, but the reports make further calculations—they can, of course, be debated, but the reports say that they have erred on the conservative side. The reports take the turnover, add to it the money that people spend because they are visiting a museum or gallery, and introduce a multiplier to calculate the total effect on the British economy of people visiting must ums and galleries. I shall not go into the detail of the methodology, but I have already mentioned the result: the total effect on the economy is estimated to be about £2 billion a year. As a subdivision of that, the external benefit to the United Kingdom economy, commonly called the export value, is thought to be at least£320 million, and thus similar to the external benefit that the UK economy derives from the musical, visual and performing arts sector.
One should also s although I will do so only briefly, that there is a relatively close match between expenditure and grant in aid by the national museums and galleries per head of population throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The reports that I mentioned detail the contribution that galleries and museums make to employment throughout the regions and to urban regeneration, the contribution made by touring exhibitions and by institutions based in London opening museums in other regions, and the great importance of the large number of exhibits that are on loan from institutions at any one time.
As for the amount of money provided by the Government, the reports include a series of useful tables. Under the heading "Recent History", the grant in aid given by t le Government to museums and galleries from 1997–98 to 2003–04 is outlined. To quote examples from my constituency, the Science museum received an increase of 12.3 per cent., the Natural History museum an 18.6 per cent. increase, and the Victoria and Albert museum a 7.7 per cent. increase. Those figures are typical of the whole table. The British Museum received an increase of 18.1 per cent., and the National Gallery an 11.5 per cent. increase.
Let us compare those increases with other figures. United Kingdom public expenditure in the same period increased by 40.8 per cent., which is an enormous contrast. The RPI rose by 18.8 per cent. in the same period, so museums and galleries have enjoyed increases that, on average, are not far off the RPI. However, average earnings increased by 34.2 per cent. in that period. Broadly speaking, the museums and galleries have received an increase that is not far out of line with the RPI, but vastly below the earnings index and even further below the it crease in UK public expenditure.
Plans for the future do not show an improvement in the position. The planned increases for 2003–04 to 2005–06 are 2.6 percent. for the Science museum, 5.2 per cent. for the Victoria and Albert museum, and 5.2 per cent. for the Natural History museum. Those figures, which are typical of the whole sector, are in middle to low single figures. However, the departmental expenditure limit for the DCMS will increase by 10.2 per cent. during that period—twice as much as the increase in the grant to the V and A and the Natural History museum, and four times as much as the grant to the Science museum. Whitehall Departments as a whole will

187WH
do even better, receiving an increase of 13.9 per cent. There is a contrast between the general level of the increase in public expenditure and the amount of grant in aid to the museums and galleries.
The contrasts within the DCMS are also interesting, because the Department has decided to increase some lines of expenditure markedly. Before I embark on this argument, I should point out that I do not object to increases for arts, broadcasting and media, and I should immediately declare an interest in that respect. Between 2001–02 and 2005–06, the arts will receive an increase of 63 per cent., broadcasting and media 18 per cent., and sports 91 per cent. However, over that same period, museums, galleries and libraries will receive only 26 per cent., and the NMDC members will receive only 17 per cent. Within the arts, there art some remarkable increases: the Royal Opera House will receive an increase between 2003–04 and 2005 –06 of 14.3 per cent., the Royal National Theatre 16.5 per cent., and there are numerous similar examples.
It seems odd that there is a shift away from museums in favour of other types of public expenditure and other types of client within the DCMS, and odd that such a shift is happening at a time when so much more is being demanded of museums and galleries, and they are demonstrating that they are on course to do what the Government are asking them to do. I understand that institutions are expected to produce more self-generated income, but that argument applies to everybody—to arts and sports institutions as well as to museums and galleries. Yet subsidy per visitor to museums is falling, and it seems implicit—although I have not investigated in detail—that it is to rise in the a arts. In other words, productivity is rising in galleries and museums, but falling in the arts.
To be frank, the gap between the grant in aid and the earnings index is especially important because galleries and museums have to pay people one of their main items of expenditure is salaries—paid, I hope, at competitive rates. The gap suggests that we shall suffer a loss of expertise from our museums and galleries, and the report bears that out. It will be difficult to maintain levels of service, and museums should be planning an orderly decline. They will have to consider closing galleries while exhibitions are being planned—if galleries shed people, of necessity they reduce the number of activities that they can pursue.
I should like to quote a recent article that makes rather grim reading. It refers to attendance figures for 2003, which in certain institutions were rather disappointing, and was published in The Times of 23 February 2004. The writer, Richard Morrison, states:
"The virtually new Imperial War Museum North in Trafford seems to have lost more than half its public in a year. Could that be because, once visitors have done the obligatory double-take and gawp at Daniel Libeskind's 'accident in a tin-can factory' architecture, the permanent exhibition inside is pretty thin stuff? … the once trendy Tate Modern —cathedral of pickled cows, unmade beds, copulating dolls and all the other tatty absurdiana of Brit Art—has also lost more than half a million visitors in a year, perhaps because nobody needs to see the emperor's new clothes twice. It will be fascinating to note whether Tessa Jowell's Culture Department, which was so quick to attribute the rising museum attendance figures of the previous year to the Government's expensive 'free admissions' policy, will be quite so keen to shoulder the responsibility for the falls in 2003."
188WH
He continues:
"The truth is that the cultural leisure industry expanded far more than was prudent in the 1990s, partly because of the vast lottery grants that suddenly became available. To keep all these attractions solvent, every man, woman and child in Britain would need to visit at least two of them each week. Unfortunately, the trend is in the opposite direction…I wouldn't be surprised if some of Britain's most famous museums, zoos and theme parks crashed out of business in the next few years."
I do not subscribe to every word of that article, but there is something to the argument, and the Government must recognise what is happening.
The museums are calling for an extra £50 million above inflation in future years. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I shall not labour that point, but the Government must recognise that they face the following options: they can pay more for the museums and galleries; they can adjust the balance between the museums and the other clients of DCMS; or they can watch the gradual overall decline of these institutions or allow some institutions within the sector to go to the wall so that others can flourish. That is a realistic assessment of the choices.
Although I support the Government's ambitions for the way in which the sector should expand and attract audiences—very good work is being done in that respect—there is a danger that as we push museums and galleries in that direction, we neglect that which is fundamental: their excellence, and contribution to scholarship and culture, which must never be neglected.
Several hon. Membersrose—
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. A number of hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. They should bear in mind that I intend to call the first of the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30.
9.56 am
Mr. Chris Smith: I warmly welcome the opportunity that this debate gives us and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) on securing it. I also offer a warm welcome to the reports that have been commissioned by the National Museum Directors Conference, which helpfully illuminate our discussion.
As the right hon. Gentleman forcefully reminded us, the starting point for any debate on this subject has to be a recognition of the huge importance of museums to our society and culture. It is worth reflecting on the way in which the role of museums has changed and grown in the course of the past hundred years. Many of the great museums were founded in Victorian times. They had two major purposes, the first of which was the holding of great collections: museums were the storehouses of the best of our past and the nation's inheritance. Alongside that was the purpose of education: the Victorians believed passionately in the value of the collections and the way in which they could inform and educate the population. Those two purposes remain fundamental to the ambition of the great museums in this country, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts when she enters into negotiations with the Treasury in the next few months to emphasise

189WH
again, as she has done before, the huge educational importance of the resource that this country's museums represent.
The two fundamental purposes of stewardship and curatorial excellence and of education have broadened in recent years. Museums are now pursuing two further ambitions, which do not diminish the first two, but have simply been added. The first of those is the engagement of ordinary visitors. The way in which museums draw in visitors and stimulate their interest, and perhaps encourage them to think about things that they have never encountered before, has developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. In addition, museums offer us the possibility to of developing at neighbourhood, city and national levels a sense of identity based on our cultural inheritance. Anyone who doubts the importance of that function need only look at the overwhelming importance to the people of Iraq of the desecration of the national museum in Baghdad. One of the noblest things to come out of the tragedy of the Iraq conflict was the imaginative role played by the British Museum in providing global leadership for the effort to restore Iraq's heritage after the war. We must therefore recognise not only the national, but the international importance of the great institutions of this country.
Museums of all types across the country, not just the national museums, are vital to our society. I have three brief points to make about what is needed. First, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's assessment that in the coming spending round, museums should be given priority. I am pleased and proud that, in the past six years, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has managed to improve dramatically funding for the performing arts. I do not gainsay that decision, but museums have, quite patently, not done as well as the performing arts. In addition, the increases that the museum sector received were, in the initial stages, quite rightly chiefly directed at the policy objective of again securing free admission to the national museums and galleries—a policy by which I firmly stand, and which has been a great success.
However, it is now important that the Government consider the funding profile of museums and their needs. In particular, I hope that the Government will look at those museums that kept the faith on free admission throughout the years when others were drawing in money from the general public in admission charges. Some struggled against difficult financial odds to maintain free admission and did so extremely effectively. I hope that the museums sector will get an improved settlement in the forthcoming spending round, and although I recognise that it will be difficult for my right hon. Friend the Minister to secure that from her Treasury colleagues, if she emphasises the museums' importance in cultural and educational terms and the contribution that they make, I am sure that, with her excellent negotiating skills, she can secure some benefit from the Treasury.
My second point is that we should not talk about the national museums alone: regional museums are also of huge importance. Anyone who doubts that should visit the pre-Raphaelite landscape exhibition down the road at Tate Britain, where they will see loans generously made by some of this country's great regional museums
190WH
in Birmingham, Manchester and our other great cities. Those institutions house great collections, which are part of our inheritance. It is important not to forget the regional museums in our understandable and necessary rush to support the national museums.
My third point relates to the gift aid arrangements for tax relief from which many small and independent museums across country have derived substantial benefit. The Treasury has signalled that it is likely to withdraw the provision—which the Inland Revenue has, until now, encouraged small and independent museums to use—whereby visitors, instead of paying an entry charge, make a donation to the museum and the museum claims gift Aid on that donation. It has been a real financial lifelines to many museums with no public funding and no other access to public support.
I declare an interest as the chairman of the Wordsworth Trust which has an excellent small museum in Cumbria. With the encouragement and assistance of the Inland Revenue, we recently instituted a gift aid scheme for visitors from the UK visiting Dove cottage and the Wordsworth museum. As I said, the Treasury has indicated that it is likely to withdraw that provision, which will deal a severe financial blow to many small museums throughout the country. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will persuade her Treasury colleagues to reverse their decision to withdraw the concession.
I hope that this debate will enable Parliament to put firmly on record the importance that it attaches to the role played by this country's museums and the fact that we, as a united Parliament across all parties, urge the Government to pay attention to the financial needs of museums as we approach the forthcoming spending round. I fully support my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts in the battles with the Treasury that lie ahead. She should know that she has support from all parts of the House in those battles and in securing a safe, secure and bright future for these important institutions.
10.6 am
Mr. Robert Key: We in this great nation can be proud indeed of our great museums and galleries, but I am passionate about our small ones, too. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) on securing the debate, which provides us with an opportunity—which we do not always have in the House—to air such issues.
I am passionate about museums because at an early age I started collecting for my own. I was encouraged to do so from the age of eight, and in the basement of our house in Salisbury cathedral close I assembled an extraordinary and wide variety of coins, arrowheads, documents, feathers artefacts, oil lamps from Ur of the Chaldees, and goodness knows what else. The pleasure for me was in sorting, classifying, labelling and learning, which so many children love doing and which I was particularly privileged to be able to do. I recall being asked on my 10th birthday what I would like to do for a birthday treat: we had a picnic on top of a barrow beside the Roman road from Salisbury to Dorchester. That was all part of my education.
Just up the road from my home was the famous Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum, whose curator, Hugh Short, used to allow me to stand at his knee and

191WH
observe what he was doing. Later I became a Minister at the Department of National Heritage—now rechristened the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—which was responsible for museums and galleries. There, with enthusiasm and joy, I took a particular interest in that area of Government responsibility.
Although my passion is still for what I did as a child, the functions and objectives of museums have changed; now, access and learning, including interactive learning, are far more important. We in Salisbury are fortunate to have not only the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum, but the Wilton Town museum and Wilton Carpet Factory museum in a restored part of the old factory, which is a fine example of what a small community and a town council can do to bring together the social and economic history of a community. We also have the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire regimental museum. Regimental museums are part of the rich tapestry of museum in this country, but that museum receives no grant from the Government, let alone from the Ministry of Defence—although the MOD helps to pay for the services to the building, because some civil servants share the offices, the museum receives no formal grants That is one of the museums that will be badly affected, by the Treasury's thoroughly mean-spirited decision, which the right hon. Member for Islington. South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) commented on, to withdraw an option that was offered freely in the gift aid improvement; introduced in the 2000 Budget.
Salisbury is a centre of excellence for museums and conservation. In addition to the museums I have described, we have the Wiltshire county council conservation service, which is an, integral part of the process, and the Wessex Trust for Archaeology, which is commercially self-supporting and is by far the biggest such trust in the country, undertaking an enormous amount of work. I strongly support the campaign started by the National Museum Directors Conference, which is to launch its project on 9 March with a manifesto for museums.
The funding position of local museums is grave indeed. My local authorities, Wilts hire county council and Salisbury district councilor, to increase their council tax by about 6 per cent., but they are to cut their grants to museums. I regret that very much, although it is their decision to make, not mine. They are being forced to make severe expenditure cuts, but I hope that next year they will take a political lead and not be driven by management objectives. I hope that the district council will decide that local education, the local economy and the cultural scene are worth a little more than £3.03 per head, or 2,95 per cent. of its budget. The county council is to cut its budget by 5 per cent. this year.
It is not as though my district council is unaware of its responsibilities to our cultural heritage. It is true, but perhaps surprising, that Salisbury district council does not have a legal remit to look after the heritage of Salisbury. However, I well recall flit arguments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea and I had to listen to v hen we were both Ministers at the Department of the Environment, with responsibility for local government finance. This year, Salisbury district council's expenditure on legal costs as
192WH
the planning authority for the Stonehenge A303 improvement scheme—the famous tunnel past Stonehenge—will run to more than £100,000, and it has forked out £100,000 for a totally pointless local government comprehensive performance assessment. A small district council has to spend some £200,000-plus on those responsibilities, which were imposed by central Government, yet its budget for arts and museums for the whole district is only £348,000. Something is out of kilter; the sums simply do not add up.
The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to the announcement of the proposed changes to gift aid. The provision is not a loophole: museums were approached by the Inland Revenue and asked whether they were aware that they could use it, and they did so. Its withdrawal will probably reduce the revenue of the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum by about £4,000—a dire impact. When the cuts from the county council, the district council and gift aid are taken together, they represent the equivalent of the salary of one person per year at that museum. I hope that the Minister will talk to the Treasury seriously about that problem.
Let me briefly mention an issue connected with my role as Chairman of the Select Committee on Information. Parliament established the British Museum, and there has been a development that the House might like to know about. Almost all the House of Commons Library's holdings were acquired after the 1834 fire in the Palace of Westminster, in which most of the stock was lost. During the second half of the 19th century, the spacious shelves of Barry's Library had to be filled, and the Library Committee and successive Librarians sought to create something like a country house library while maintaining the essential collection of parliamentary and other official documentation. As part of that process, the Library acquired, through a mixture of purchases, gifts and legacies, a wide range and collection of books, including some that are now of considerable antiquarian or scholarly interest. In the early 1990s, the Library recognised that many pre-20th-century holdings were not relevant to the everyday needs of modern parliamentarians, and looked for a way to make them available to a wider public.
In 1992, the British Library put the Library in touch with Nicholas Barker, a well known antiquarian book specialist. Coincidentally, he had been asked to find suitable books for the King's Library at the British Museum, which was built in the 1820s to house George III's personal collection, which formed the core of what became the British Library. It was due to be vacated with the move of the British Library to St. Pancras, and British Museum officials were already thinking about how the magnificent, 100-yd long room—the finest and largest Greek revival interior in London—might best be used. After a comprehensive review of the Library's older holdings and prolonged negotiations, the House of Commons Commission approved an agreement in 1999 whereby approximately 16,000 books would be sent on permanent loan to the Enlightenment gallery that was, by then, being planned by the British Museum for the restored King's Library.
That agreement marked a renewal of Parliament's long-standing connection with the British Museum, which dates back to the museum's 18th-century origins.

193WH
When the physician, naturalist and collector Sir Hans Sloane bequeathed his personal collection to George II for the nation, the King did not show much interest but Parliament did. Led by Speaker Arthur Onslow, Parliament was persuaded to accept the gift, and an Act of Parliament establishing the British Museum and its trustees—the first time that trustees had ever featured as a way of administering an institution like a museum-received Royal Assent on 7 June 1753. In 1757, King George II donated the old royal library of the sovereigns of England to the museum, and with it the privilege of copyright receipt that was part of the foundation of what is now the British Library.
George IV's gift to the nation of his father's library the original King's Library—in 1823, provided the catalyst for the construction of what is now the Enlightenment gallery, as well as for the rest of Robert Smirk's quadrangular building. The books were finally moved from the Library in June 2003, when the restoration of the King's Library was completed. There is a wide-ranging selection, including many treasures, such as the complete Blaeu atlas in its original 17th century binding in good condition, and Lord Kingsborough's "Antiquities of Mexico", which unfortunately was rebound in the 1950s but whose original pages are in near-mint condition. The Library has kept any books with parliamentary connections that hon. Members might need at Westminster as part of its normal service, and all the books that have been moved remain in the Library catalogue and can be used at Westminster if required. They also appear in the British Museum's central library catalogue and are available for last resort public use in the museum under supervision. That is a great gain, as there are no facilities for public access in the Library.
That has involved a great deal of work, but the outcome has been satisfactory. The books are in magnificent surroundings and I encourage hon. Members to visit them. Not only do they form an important element of the British Museum's new Enlightenment gallery, but they look extremely handsome in their new surroundings—far happier than they were in the Library's underground store, where most of them had previously been kept. I am grateful for having had the time to put on the record my appreciation for the work that the Library staff have put into that dramatic project, which restates Parliament's long-standing relationship with the world of museums and galleries.
10.18 am
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that we all endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has just said. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I remind hon. Members that the books remain in the possession of the House of Commons. That decision made by the Commission was important. I regard the stripping of the original collection from the King's Library as an act of cultural vandalism. To put them into a large glass case in the new British Library was not the most sensible thing to do when we had a truly unique library with its original books in a marvellous, properly designed, magisterial setting.
194WH
My hon. Friend reminded us that Parliament established the British Museum. Last week I hosted a reception to mark t he 30th anniversary of the all-party arts and heritage group, which most of the directors of our great museums and galleries attended. In his words of thanks, Neil MacGregor—the brilliant director of the British Museum who did a wonderful job with the National Gallery—eminded everyone that all our great national museums and galleries were established by Parliament. That is not always remembered. We therefore have a continuing role and responsibility, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) for initiating the debate, and I congratulate him on placing before us so many salient facts and figures, which we should take to heart.
I will be brief. I apologise to you, Mr. Taylor, and to the right hon. and hon. Members here present, as I already have to my right hon. Friend, for having to leave shortly before the close of the debate. Those of us who are attending the service to mark the tercentenary of Gibraltar have to be in our pews by 11.10 am. My right hon. Friend was kind enough to encourage me to speak in this debate none the less.
I shall concentrate, on the educative role of museums and galleries and their economic impact. I have reservations about the way in which the national curriculum has worked, and I am extremely concerned that young men am' women can emerge into the world with almost no chronological knowledge of their nation's history and little knowledge of how it relates to the history of the wider world. I regret very much that now, 20th-century history and themes and projects are over-emphasised, and there is no proper teaching of history as there was when I way a history master 35 years ago. Last week, I had the privilege of giving the keynote address at a special conference convened by the Council for British Archaeology to try to bring historians and archaeologists closer together and to ensure that the curriculum in schools and colleges is more truly comprehensive.
Many young people obtain their knowledge of English history not from what they are not taught in the classroom, but from going to museums and galleries and seeing the objects and artefacts that relate to this country's history. Those who live in London have the most wonderful opportunity to do that at the Museum of London, which is one of the finest museums of its kind anywhere in the world. All our museums and galleries teach in a most graphic and wonderful way, and their contribution to the educational life of this country, backed by t he scholarship of their curators and keepers, is incalculable. The economic impact is calculable, and immense, and it is short-sighted of any Government to ignore it, although I make no personal criticism of the Minister for the Arts and certainly no attack upon the present Government. I also pay tribute to what the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) did when he was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
No Government have sufficiently recognised what a massive contribution our museums and galleries make to the economy. The millions of tourists who come to this country and the millions of our own people circulating in the country on holiday often visit museums and galleries as part of their recreation and, in so doing, make an immense contribution to the

195WH
economic life of the regions and to the country as a whole. That is something that Government need properly to acknowledge when deciding how much money to allow our museums, which provide a glittering display at tiny cost.
Tomorrow morning—God willing—I shall take the all-party heritage group a few hundred yards from this building to the National Gallery to see the El Greco exhibition, which could be mounted only because of the Government indemnity. We should pay tribute to the successive Governments who have maintained that. The exhibition is a wonderful visual feast, as is the exhibition of the pre-Raphaelites up the road at Tate Britain and the exhibition at the Royal Academy. We in this country are so lucky that at almost any particular time there are marvellous exhibitions supplementing the permanent collections in museums and galleries. The institutions put them on from their own resources with the aid of Government indemnity, and it would be appalling if regular galleries had to be regularly closed—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea referred to that in his speech—when we have these wonderful exhibitions.
I ask the Minister for the Arts to fight her corner with the feisty skill for which she is well known in political circles. She must tell the Chancellor that we need a better recognition of the central role of museums and galleries. She must also tell the Chancellor, who is a civilised man with a real regard for scholarship, just what a terrible thing it would be if, as is threatened', the gift aid scheme were to be hit on the head. The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to that, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. I do not have the pleasure of knowing the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum—perhaps my hon. Friend will take me there one day—but I do know the Wordsworth museum. To place such a wonderful museum in jeopardy when the Revenue itself has encouraged it to take advantage of the scheme and the museum has budgeted accordingly is an act of short-sighted meanness. I hope that the Minister will tell the Chancellor that this is something up with which she will not put, and that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that in the Budget.
I have one final comment. Reference has been made to the great gems in our regional and provincial museums. I am sorry that my friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is no longer in his place. For a year or more now, he has been entertaining us in the columns of Country Life with wonderful descriptions of treasures in individual museums. The articles are the precursor of a book which, I am sure, deserves to be bestseller, and which we shall all acquire when it comes out. He has done more than any other individual to awaken the nation to the fact that all over this country in museums great and small are wonderful treasures.
That underlines the fact that not only in my right hon. Friend's wonderful constituency of Kensington and Chelsea, but throughout the length and breadth of the land, there are museums that play" a vital part in the educative process. They make a fantastic contribution to the economy of this country and are partly responsible for tourism being our greatest single earner. The Minister has a tremendous challenge and a tremendous responsibility. I very much hope that she will rise to it. I am sure that she will.
10.28 am
Mr. Don Foster: I hope that I can follow the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in demonstrating to the Minister that there truly is all-party agreement about the vital role that museums and galleries play in the life of the nation. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has just said, they make an immense contribution—one that, I hope, none of us will ever underplay. I was delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has completed his book and is now at the final editing stage. We can all look forward to reaping reasonably soon the benefits of his many years spent gathering that information.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) on securing the debate and on drawing our attention to the three major reports that are to be formally launched in a week's time by the National Museum Directors Conference. The reports provide impressive statistics about what our national museums and galleries have been doing. They show, for example, that in one year more than 50 per cent. of all children in this country visited one of the national museums. They also demonstrate the work that is yet be done, and the willingness of the national museums to develop their work further.
I am delighted that the debate has not concentrated solely on our national museums and galleries. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, many excellent museums and galleries are run by local authorities, charitable institutions and other bodies. The reports referred to by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea state that the national museums make a contribution of some £2 billion to the national economy. In the south-west, museums run by local authorities and charities have a huge impact on the economy: the 250-plus registered museums employ some 1,000 people, involve more than 5,000 volunteers and are visited by more than 6 million people a year; they contribute £50 million or more to the regional economy. One of the reasons why those museums have been able to make such a contribution is that the southwest region has been one of the beneficiaries of the funding provided under "Renaissance in the Regions". I hope that the benefits that have been demonstrated in the south-west and many other regions will be extended to the regions that have so far missed out, and that the Minister will today make a clear commitment to spread the benefits of that scheme more widely.
The south-west has done particularly well. It is worth noting that, nationally, 22 per cent. of the adult population visit a museum at least once a year, whereas in the south-west, 37 per cent. visit one of the regional museums and galleries once a year. We have the highest percentage of visits to or uses of museums per thousand of the population—four times the percentage of the population of London that do so, and nearly twice the percentage in the south-east.
There is no doubt that our museums play a crucial role in our society. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have rightly referred to their economic impact. The national museums employ some 10,000 people directly and a further 20,000 indirectly, so their economic impact cannot be doubted, but their impact is much greater than that. They have an impact on cultural life and help to develop creativity and enjoyment. As the

197WH
hon. Member for South Staffordshire rightly said, they have developed a range of learning opportunities, and they provide tourist attractions, particularly to tourists from overseas, which brings further economic benefit.
It is increasingly clear that our museums and galleries, whether national or regional, play a far wider role than might at first be assumed. On Friday, I visited the excellent learning facilities at Bath's Roman Baths museum and saw youngsters from as far a field as Oxford doing innovative and exciting work. An increasing number of our museums and galleries are developing learning opportunities through the various virtual facilities that they offer. The statistics given in the reports referred to by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea are fascinating: they show that while 3 million learners participate on site in learning activities in our national museums and galleries, some 5.6 million people— nearly double the number—participate in learning activities off site provided through a range of virtual facilities. Furthermore, the combined number of hits to national gallery and museum websites in one year is some 53 million—a staggering development.
The museums and galleries work effectively to achieve social inclusion. During the millennium year, for example, the Victoria art gallery in Bath ran a wonderful exhibition to which The Big Issue sellers from Bath made a major contribution. That gallery is currently developing exhibitions that directly involve young people from our foyer project in Bath. Museums are also involved in regeneration projects outside my constituency. In Radstock in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris), there is an excellent mining museum, which has played a huge role in acting as a new focus for that community and in giving it back its pride.
The important benefits that museums bring have been emphasised. I have no doubt that we will hear much more during next week's National Museum Directors Conference launch. I hope that we will hear some exciting development proposals, and I would love to hear about proposals that involve our museums making better use of their reserve collections. There are wonderful exhibits in the cellars of many museums, and ways could be developed to make more effective use of them. Some museums already have imaginative schemes, but I hope that there will be progress in this area.
The immense contribution that our museums and galleries make to the life of the country has been highlighted, and I wish to raise three crucial issues regarding the funding of their work. Museums and art galleries do lots of innovative work, but the DCMS is keen that they do even more to broaden their outreach and civil society activities, particularly in the regions. I share that desire. However, there is compelling evidence that although they have the capacity and readiness to broaden those activities, they will not be able to do so without appropriate and secure funding. The benefits of the "Renaissance in the Regions" scheme could be spread nationwide, and I hope that we will hear more from the Minister about that.
198WH
Secondly, we need to ensure that the DCMS works closely with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Funding from local authorities for our museums and galleries is under threat. One of many examples is Somerset, which has a Liberal Democrat council: because of funding difficulties there is now talk of the sad necessity of reintroducing admission fees to major museums. Those two Departments need to liaise much more closely.
Finally, although gift aid has been referred to, no specific mention has been made of the Treasury statement that

"It was not the intention of the exemption"—
referred to by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)
"to treat admission charges as donations which attract Gift Aid… The Government is determined to maintain the integrity of the Gift Aid scheme and will close this loophole in the legislation."
The Treasury claims that the scheme is a loophole, even though in 2000 the Inland Revenue produced a note that specifically informed museums and art galleries of the opportunity it offered. I have spoken with several of the affected organisations in the last 48 hours; several have categorically stated that they directly contacted the Inland Revenue to seek assurance that they could use the scheme in this way and they were given that assurance—indeed, some of them were encouraged to use the scheme. That is not a loophole; it is what was intended. Its removal by the Chancellor will do huge damage to the funding integrity of our museums and galleries. I hope that the Minister will assure us that when the Chancellor says he is going to consult on an alternative, there will be a scheme that reinstates that vital funding to our museums and galleries.
10.40 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) on securing today's debate. It is both opportune and timely.
I start by addressing two issues that have been raised in the debate. The first is gift aid. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has just said, it is true that many of the people involved in museums and visitor attractions were in communication with the Inland Revenue about the scheme; that is well documented. The Revenue encouraged them to make use of gift aid on admissions to museums, galleries and visitor attractions. London zoo, for example, has, an extremely sophisticated system, and has just spent a lot of money on computerisation to make it even more efficient, yet at a meeting that I had with ALVA—the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions—the other week, it emerged that London zoo is likely to lose £1 million in revenue as a result of the removal of gift aid on admissions. We realise that gift aid is an issue for the Treasury rather than the DCMS, but what has been said this morning shows how important it is that the Minister recognise what a blow its removal would be to many of our museums and galleries. She must take that argument to the Treasury. The institutions should at least be given plenty of time to readjust-the measure should not be introduced in one go, because that will cause great difficulties.
Secondly, let me pick up on what has been said about regional museums. Back in 2000–01, the DCMS "Renaissance in the Regions" report recommended a

199WH
new integrated framework for museums in the regions based on a network of regional hubs. Significantly, it called for investment of public money from the Government the order of £170 million, with £100 million identified as the bare minimum. In his spending review in July 2002, the Chancellor vowed to end two decades of decline in the regions that had left many galleries and museums across the country in a parlous state. It was therefore disappointing indeed when the DCMS finally announced funding for the regions of a mere £70 million over four year consisting of £30 million of new money added to the previously agreed £10 million a year allocated to resources. Even the headline figure was £100 million short of the sum that the report estimated was necessary, and some £30 million short of the bare minimum identified. That is causing serious difficulties for the smaller regional and local museums, and it is something that I hope that the Minister will explain.
Today's debate has been called principally as a result of the anticipated launch next week by the National Museum Directors Conference of the three reports that it commissioned, which have been referred to at considerable length by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea. We know that many of our museums and galleries were formed between the mid-18th century and the early part of the 20th century. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) rightly pointed out, some of the museums—certainly the national ones—have been formed by Acts of Parliament, and various pieces of legislation passed over the years have charged them with preserving, exhibiting, researching and adding to the objects that make up their collections for current and successive generations. However, the collections are not only there to be viewed and catalogued; they are there to form an important base for education and research. We must not overlook the fact that museums perform those two significant functions, and it is important that those functions are covered in any consideration of their funding requirements. Because of those functions, museums attract some of the very brightest academics that this country produces.
Perhaps less well appreciated is the extent to which our museums and galleries make an important and often surprising contribution in many other areas. They are important to subject experts, educators and businesses, and—as has been mentioned more than once today—as mass tourist attractions. They enhance education and learning opportunities and cultural and economic life, and are a source of creativity and enjoyment for everyone in this country and beyond. The international importance—even pre-eminence— of our museums has already been mentioned.
The NMDC, by commissioning the three major independent reports, has brought together a great wealth of evidence that strongly makes the case for increased state funding of our national institutions. The reports describe a sector of unique international scale and standing that has an annual impact of some £2 billion, which is of great economic significance. The reports, as well as pointing out the obvious, reveal extensive and impressive achievements and demonstrate
200WH
that the sector contributes to the whole spectrum of the Government's agenda across many Whitehall Departments. They also emphasise that that has been achieved against a background of the institutions having to broaden their skills to meet increasing demands—demands that have, for the most part, been accompanied by funding that rises only at the rate of retail price inflation.
The sector's capacity to raise additional resources is limited. No doubt the Minister will restate the evidence that shows that since free admission was reintroduced, the number of visitors has increased. However, that has put great pressure on some of our larger museums and institutions. At the other end of the scale, without some means of charging, many of our smaller museums will suffer quite seriously unless they get the resources they need through regional policy. We Conservative Members have had discussions with many people in the museum and gallery sector, and they have told us that they would prefer a flexible system, not a mandatory one. If they, at a local level, felt that charging was necessary, they should be free to charge. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the DCMS and the Government have any intention of becoming a little more flexible on admissions.
As has been already been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, if our larger museums are not funded at the appropriate level, there is a great danger of losing expertise and our best academics to institutions abroad, particularly in the United States, France and Germany. I shall wind up by mentioning the level of additional resources that the reports suggest is needed. They call for an additional £50 million each year on top of inflation for the next five years. Some £10 million is required to continue extending access to the collections through the combination of digitisation projects. A further £10 million is required for modernisation, which includes the updating of permanent exhibitions, collection, care and conservation facilities. The remaining £30 million is required to address the backlog of property repair and maintenance work. That is currently estimated, across the sector, at £150 million.
10.50 am
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I thank the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this incredibly important debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) for securing it. He probably has a stronger constituency connection with museums than any other Member.
The debate is being held on the back of reports that will be published next week by the National Museum Directors Conference. I thank that group for bringing these long overdue reports to our attention. It is about time we told the story of the importance of museums to society, not only to our past, but to our present and future. The story has always been a strong one, but the sector has not always told it with the strength of voice that it is entitled to use. In that respect, I welcome the stronger voice of the NMDC, which is to launch next week, although I readily accept that politically it might mean my answering a few difficult questions.

201WH
I shall add to what hon. Members have said about the importance of museums in one respect only. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington. South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to public reaction when the treasures of Iraq were looted. That is the only time in my life that I can remember an issue about a museum leading the BBC news throughout the day: day after day, it was featured in the important 8 to 8.10 slot on the "Today" programme. During that period, even those who did not readily have an interest in or love for museums understood essentially what museums do: they make us secure about our role in society and our place in the world. At a time when people move across the world and, thankfully, there are far more multiracial and multi-ethnic communities, we all have a need to know where we came from, how we got here and where we might be going, and museums tell that story of human beings. When we saw that that story had been lost to a nation that was in difficulties, we understood what life would be like if there were nobody telling the story of our sense of being in our community. If we learned that from Iraq, it might be the only good thing to have came from a particularly troubled time for the Iraqi people.
I pay tribute to the scholarship of museums and to the fact that for centuries they have looked after precious artefacts and treasures that we hold in trust for future generations. I pay tribute, too, to the fact that in recent years they have taken on the challenges of getting more people from different backgrounds through their doors and willingly taken on the new role of education. I have spent a lifetime in education and I know that too many people feel that they can do education, and that education is easily done. It is not easily done, and for museums to do education, and do it well, has meant considering what they do, reskilling, and the reorganisation of time, money and personnel. I have seen excellent practice and some not-so-good practice, but that is in the nature of education. I shall return to that later.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I am conscious that much of what I am about to claim as Minister with responsibility for museums was brought about under his leadership of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I want to ensure that Parliament knows it too. My right hon. Friend is no longer in that Department, but the results of his brave decisions are coming to fruition and I thank him for leaving me a legacy that is a joy to handle and that provides a springboard for future developments.
I shall talk first about money, to get it out of the way, and then go on to other challenges. I think I accept everyone's explanation of where we are financially; I certainly accept my right hon. Friend's explanation. I sort of accept the explanation of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea. This is has not been a party political debate because museums are not party political matters, but as subjects of the allocation of resources they are party political and politicians have a role to play in their affairs. We do not run them and we do not tell them what their exhibitions should be, but we fund them.
202WH
Although I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said, he must recognise that before the Labour Government took office, there had been real-terms cuts in museums. He was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and he was responsible for the Conservative Government's public expenditure plans—he cannot get away from that. He cannot complain that the real-terms increase under the Labour Government has been only £47 million in cash terms£19 per cent£without saying that there was a 17 per cent. cut in the four years before Labour came into government. That has to be recognised. That was the legacy we inherited.
"Renaissance in the Regions" did not exist before my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury took it up—it was not fully funded. We decided, as was entirely proper, to have phase 1 and phase 2. Phase 1 is fully funded, and phase 2 is partially funded and more money is expected to come from the next spending review. I do not have a shadow of embarrassment or doubt about that. We live in the real world, and the day that any Department gets its entire bid will come only when Gordon Brown is no longer Chancellor of the Exchequer. Departments bid for what they need, not for what they think they are likely to get, so to put in £70 million over three years for "Renaissance in the Regions", thus becoming the first Government to fund regional museums, was a massive triumph for us. The scheme was not under funded. We could not do all that we had the vision and the ambition to do in the first term, but that is life.
I should like to mention the amount of money that has gone into capital. This is a personal point, as hon. Members will appreciate. One of the things that I am most proud of achieving in my time in Parliament is that for the first time, the Department for Education and Skills put money straight into the museums budget. I made that first decision to invest £20 million in museums education back in 1998. The partnership between the DFES and the DCMS is the best example of cross-departmental working. Had I known that I was going to the DCMS I would have put in more money from the DFES, but politics is like that—one can never foresee the future.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) about the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We need to work harder to make links with that Department. We have not talked about the role of museums in regeneration. These days, no city regenerates unless it is on the back of an iconic building, creativity, or historical restoration. In the '60s, we built communities without creativity and without museums at their centre. We do not do that now, and I look forward to persuading the ODPM that we deserve some of its regeneration money.
We have made some investment in museums and galleries. The results are there to see and hon. Members have referred to them. The number of visitors has increased by 40 per cent. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea will be heartened when he sees the increased visitor numbers for the full year, which we shall announce shortly. I accept that the DCMS has spent extra money and that museums have not had the lion's share. It is now their turn, but that comes at a time when the Budget and the spending review will be more difficult than previous ones.

203WH
I am campaigning on gift aid. It is not my sole comradely difference of opinion with the Treasury. All I can say to answer the comments of the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to a good debate is that I know where the priorities lie in my portfolio and in my Department's responsibilities. I will do my best, but more than that I cannot pledge I just hope that the power of our argument is heard in the corridors of the Treasury. I thank everyone, particularly the museum directors, for giving us the ammunition we need.

Fire Authority (Devon)
11 am
Richard Younger-Ross: It is appropriate to hold this debate on funding for the Devon fire authority today as it is running parallel with the debate in Committee Room 12 on the modernisation of the fire and rescue service.
Devon fire authority is a combined authority made up of three local authorities: the large rural authority of Devon, plus Plymouth and Torbay. Although there is also the urban centre of Exeter, there are only 11 whole-time stations, six of which have retained appliances, 46 retained stations and one volunteer station, at Kingston. That makes a total of 58 stations. The authority employs some 1,444 staff, of which 591 are whole-time firefighters and 728 are retained. That leaves 125 non-uniformed staff. They currently deal with up to 18,338 incidents a year. I shall make particular mention of one of the retained stations, Newton Abbott, which deals with a remarkable 459 incidents every year.
Our argument, put bluntly, has to do with the distribution of grant. Devon receives below the national average; funding at that average would provide an additional £2 million. However, the situation is worse than that, as the Home Office does not take account of the sparsity factor. With the underfunding and the failure to take account of sparsity, Devon is severely disadvantaged compared with other authorities.
I shall deal first with capital funding. The old system had a borrowing limit; the new system will have a prudential code. Under the old system, the allocation of credit approval was about £900,000. A new fire station, such as one in Teignmouth, where the present fire station is falling down, will cost £800,000 alone, but that is a small retained station. Devon also needs to replace other stations—such as that in Exeter, which has whole-time staff—which will cost over £2 million each. The capital allocation tends, therefore, to be rather short; in fact, it is so short that there is no capital funding for vehicles, which have to be funded out of revenue by leasing. I doubt that that is a cost-effective way for any authority to spend its money, but it is the only available option. Devon spends £1.5 million a year on leasing.
From April, the prudential code will remove the limit. That sounds good in theory: authorities will be able to borrow what they like. However, fire authorities must be prudent and justify their borrowing compared with revenue. That might be fine for a small area, but a large retained area with more stations has lower revenue, so capital borrowing involves a larger number of assets but less revenue, disadvantaging large authorities such as Devon. Devon has the same population as, say, Staffordshire, but twice the number of stations and vehicles. However, Devon's funding is approximately the same, because of its similar population. On capital funding, the Met, for example, is assets-based. Why are not other authorities assets-based? Why does Devon's borrowing have to be revenue-based?
The model for the fire cover element does not allow for sparsity. It allows for our having a coast, which is fairly logical. If one has a coastal area, clearly one cannot call in other authorities—they would be all at sea. There is no one to call on in a coastal area, so the provision makes sense. If we have a large rural area,

205WH
however, why do we not take account of the fact that other fire stations and other authorities are a long way away? A very small number of people may live in the area. Lovely little villages in the Devon countryside and on Dartmoor are stunning, but they are a long way from the main cities and towns, and maintaining a fire service for such areas obviously costs more.
It is the Government who say what the response times should be. I agree with those response times, and it is entirely right that there should be response times, but if there is a response time for a large rural area, more vehicles and stations are needed and the costs of running and maintaining those are higher than the costs for metropolitan authorities. Other authorities, such as Shropshire, have similar problems.
Another issue that arises from Devon's having a retained fire crew is pay. In the past, a funding differential could be justified and retained fire crews received less funding but, as we have been debating in Committee and as the Minister is right in saying, we are now looking for pay parity. We totally support the idea that retained fire crews should have pay parity. If they are fighting fires side by side with whole-time firemen, they should have the same pay. However, with regard to the introduction of pay parity, the 16 per cent. pay increase that has been agreed nationally translates into a 23 per cent. increase in staffing costs in Devon. Again, no account appears to have been taken of the disproportionate costs of bringing retained fire stations up to the same level of funding. Those costs are not borne out in the grant that is given to Devon.
Devon, as an authority, has two unique features. First, it is a combined authority. There are other combined authorities, but in terms of funding and in relation to most of the country it is unique. This year, combined authorities have to establish reserves. The Minister has accepted in meetings that account must be taken of the need to find those reserves, and I believe that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed to an increase in the notional funding level of 3 per cent. as a consequence. The percentage increase in the council tax bill that people receive will appear to be lower. However, the real figure will still be the same. The authority still has to raise the funding.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, because I think that this is where the solution lies. It is only because the authority has for the first time become a preceptive authority that reserves need to be established. Therefore, the pressure in the first year to build up those reserves means that there is an added pressure on the precept that it will levy on council tax payers. I do not understand why, if the Government have their own Contingencies Fund and reserve, they cannot act as the final reserve at least for the first year, when the Government want to keep pressure on the council tax down. If the money is drawn on, it can be repaid in future years. If it is not drawn on, that makes no odds to anyone.
Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that the Minister will respond to it and say why the Government's reserves cannot be
206WH
used. Perhaps such use could be scaled down as fire authorities were able to build up their own reserves. However, he has said that there are no figures for the reserve and that fire authorities can keep very low reserves. The trouble for fire authorities is that they are subject to inspection by the Audit Commission, which will almost certainly disagree. Its report will criticise fire authorities if the reserves are not high enough.
Devon has 728 retained fire crew and 46 retained stations. The consequence of the sparsity in Devon is that for every 1,000 head of population its transport costs are £2,662 and its premises costs £944. That makes Devon appear to be a high-spending authority; those are the second highest transportation and premises costs of any fire authority in the country. The only authority that has higher costs is mid and west Wales. That should not be surprising because the geography of that area produces the same problems that we have in Devon.
The Government have partly recognised the consequences of the pay agreement; there is interim funding. However, I fear that they are not taking account of how long it will take to achieve the savings that come from the modernisation process—which Opposition Members also support. Devon has been given £500,000 to assist it, but I was surprised to hear that it has to pay that back. The extra costs to Devon are more than £2 million. I should like the Minister to enlighten us as to why there is that disparity. Why does Devon again appear, to be disadvantaged?
There is a further problem. I mentioned the number of call-outs at New on Abbott because it has the same amount as several whole-time fire stations. In the modernisation process, turnout fees and attendance fees are down but, to compensate, the retainer and the drill night fee are up, as is the hourly rate over the first hour. That is to the advantage of a large number of retained firefighters. However, the income of stations such as Newton Abbott that are reliant on turnout rather than retainer for their income will be down.
Subsequently, Devon has said that it will protect the salaries of firefighters in such stations. That is recommended under the agreement, but the fact that Devon has to do the does not appear to have been taken into account in the funding that is allocated to it. Last year, the authority set a budget of £39 million. It had an agreement with the composite local authorities that if more funding was required it could draw down a supplementary levy and £750,000 was drawn down. This year, the authority has set a budget of £44 million.
Revising the notional figure would add confusion. I want the Minister to tell us which set of figures the authority should use. Is it to base the percentage increase on £39 million? If that is the case, the percentage increase appears to be 12.08 per cent, although if we are allowed to take off the notional 3 per cent. that figure comes down to 8.8 per cent. However, can the authority say that the base figure is £39,750,000 including the supplementary levy, in which case the upper revised level would be 9.9 per cent—but, again, if we can increase the notional level by 3 per cent, that figure comes down to 6.76 per cent?
Given the anger in Devon about the increase in council tax levels, this is not just an arithmetical talking point. It is important that the authority show that it is doing its best to keep figures down—and I would argue that that is also important for the Government. I look forward to the Minister's response to that.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secret try of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing the debate—we have both been sitting on the Committee upstairs this morning and are now both debating the question of Devon's funding for the fire and rescue authority. May I also say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor? This is the first Adjournment debate in which I have been involved that you have chaired.
The fire and rescue service and the Government have made a lot of progress over the past year. We have set in train the most substantial pack age of reform to the fire and rescue service since the second world war. It is a package that will develop a more effective and efficient service, which will save more lives. Professor Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire and rescue service set out the challenge, and the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service" responded with the Government's vision. A draft national framework will clarify the Government's expectations for the service: what fire and rescue authorities must do and what support Government will provide.
The Fire and Rescue Services Bill, currently in Committee, confirms our commitment to driving through reform and improvement. It is the first substantial piece of legislation on fire services in the past 50 years, and will give statutory effect to the roles that fire and rescue authorities already undertake, for example, in road traffic accidents aid serious floods, and their new responsibilities in responding to terrorist threats. It will also give statutory force to a fire and rescue national framework that will allow the Government to set their strategic direction for the service.
We have also introduced integrated risk management plans, which are about targeting resources at locally identified risks in a cost-effective manner. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of response time and standards. It is important to recognise that the new system is based on risk assessment at a local level and how the service should respond to ensure that it saves more lives and prevents more fires. That is the purpose of the IRMPs— the fire and rescue services will formally adopt IRMPs, and they will come into effect on 1 April 2004. Together, we have made real progress but there is clearly much still to do. That applies to the fire and rescue service as a whole, so of course it applies to Devon.
In some respects, although the hon. Gentleman did not mention this, Devon is already ahead of the game, for instance through its partnership with other emergency services. Fifteen Devon fire stations participate in a co-responder scheme with the ambulance service. Under that scheme, Devon fire and rescue service has attended 2,841 incidents since 1997, including 932 last year. That has made a real contribution to reducing deaths in the area from coronary heart disease. Devon has also developed the rapid extraction and co-ordinated treatment— REACT—initiative, which is a common framework with other emergency services for dealing effectively with road traffic accidents.
208WH
The fire authorities of Devon and Cornwall have established a joint arson taskforce, which has succeeded in arresting the sharp increase in deliberate fires. Indeed, I was in Devon to meet two of the leading figures in that taskforce and was impressed by both their professionalism and commitment, and the results achieved. The taskforce is staffed by a police officer, a fire officer and a dedicated analyst. It has received 178,000 from the Government-led arson control forum since 2002, and will receive a further £106,000 in 2004–05 and £112,000 in 2005–06. I know, because I met them, that those officers and brigades are happy with that extra funding.
Devon is to be congratulated on that good work hut, as its draft IRMP makes clear, there is much more to be reviewed over the coming months. I look forward to seeing how Devon, and the whole service, picks up the pace of progress to provide a more efficient and effective service that saves more lives, which we are all aiming for.
The importance of efficiency is reinforced by increasing public concern about large council tax increases, as the hon. Gentleman said in his conclusion. It is right that local authorities, not central Government, should take decisions and determine their budgets. However, it would be irresponsible of central Government to stand back and allow excessive increases, and it is right that we act in such circumstances.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have delivered another good settlement for fire authorities. They have ensured that all authorities receive above-inflation increases, with fire authorities receiving grant increases of between 3.5 and 5 per cent. Since taking office this Government have increased local authority funding by 30 per cent. in real terms. Given above-inflation settlements in the last two years, the Government have now made it clear that they expect council tax increases to be in low single figures. They will, if necessary, use their capping powers to deal with unacceptable increases. To that extent we possibly share a concern about council tax increases.
The Government are not prejudging who would be capped, or what our capping principles would be. We will wait to see actual budgets and council tax rises before making decisions. I am pleased that the average increase, as announced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy today in its survey, is around 6 per cent. We have dramatically decreased council tax increases. We are rapidly moving in the right direction and we are serious about capping. We do not want to cap, but we will use our powers to cap excessive increases, if that is necessary.
I understand that Devon fire and rescue authority has set a budget that equates to a notional council tax precept of 11.5 per cent. Although that is not the biggest increase among fire and rescue authorities, it is still larger than we hoped for.
Richard Younger-Ross: On what basis is that 11.5 per cent. figure calculated? As I have indicated, there are two budget figures that could be used and there is the matter of whether that allows for the 3 per cent. notional increase.
Phil Hope: I was about to come to some of the hon. Gentleman's detailed questions on the notional

209WH
increases. I should like to emphasise that although that council tax precept of 11.5 per cent. is not the biggest increase, it is larger than we would have hoped for, given that we have been talking about low single figures, and given that the increase in formula grant of 3.9 per cent. is above inflation. I shall come to the analysis of that in a moment. Although the hon. Gentleman might say that that is below average, something has to be below average for something else to be above it; otherwise, everyone would get the same increase. The 3.9 per cent. figure is well above the rate of inflation.
Devon fire and rescue authority, and other authorities, have made the Government aware of some of the difficult issues and decisions that they have faced in setting their budgets, particularly pressures due to pay increases—which I will come to—the bulge in pensions and the combined authorities' need to build up reserves. Those are the three questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned capital. He will be aware that the private finance initiative is another source of capital funding. Some £53 million of PFI credits is available each year for projects in England and Wales. I visited Cornwall, as I mentioned earlier, and saw how the hon. Gentleman's neighbouring authority-the Cornwall county fire brigade-has benefited from such support. I saw how it had taken some old, decrepit fire stations and successfully transformed them, using a PFI deal, into community fire stations. There is no reason why Devon should not be able to apply for private finance initiative money in future.
We have listened to some of these concerns and acted on them. In particular, we have addressed the issue of reserves. On 16 February my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire wrote to all combined fire authorities declaring that he is minded to increase the combined fire authorities' alternative notional amounts by 3 per cent., subject to parliamentary approval. That change, which the hon. Member for Teignbridge mentioned, will help all combined fire authorities, including Devon, to limit their notional increases. The chairman of Devon fire authority has welcomed that publicly in the local press. As my right hon. Friend said in his letter, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will issue a formal response to the wider consultation on alternative notional amounts, which will also address in due course the other points that authorities have raised during the consultation.
It is up to fire authorities to undertake their own risk assessments and determine their reserves on that basis. Government advice has always made that clear. I accept that the 3 per cent. increase in the notional amount— this uplift—makes no difference to council tax bills; it is a matter of making comparisons.
The Government have said that they will meet the additional revenue consequences of responding to new dimension incidents. The hon. Member for Teignbridge will know that we have put in a significant amount of resources throughout the country for handling them. I turn now to the affordability of the pay deal, which the hon. Gentleman said was a problem in Devon. The negotiations on the pay deal are between the local
210WH
authority employers and the Fire Brigades Union. Any deal that is not affordable within existing public expenditure provision must be paid for by modernisation. The employers have assured us that the deal signed in June last year is affordable and will balance over the SR02 period.
Richard Younger Ross: It is reasonable for the Minister to make that point. However, Devon is one authority and it has a particular problem with retained fire crews. I want the hon. Gentleman to take account of that and to consider it in the formula grant that they give to Devon and the other authorities that have had that problem for a couple of years. Will he also deal with sparsity, which he has not mentioned?
Phil Hope: Yes, I understand that point. It was at the request of the employers and the Fire Brigades Union that the Deputy Prime Minister agreed to make £30 million of transitional funding available to fill a short-term gap. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure that affects Devon. Ay right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire stated in his letter to all fire and rescue authorities in January that transitional funding will, subject to the conditions being met, he paid in 2004–05. That will ensure that the full benefit of the transitional funding can and should be reflected in all fire authorities' council tax bills or precepts in 2004–05.
The Local Government Association has agreed that fire authorities will pay that transitional funding back during the SR02 period, which, in practice, means 2005–06. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister currently proposes to recoup the transitional funding from authorities with responsibilities for fire and rescue services through the local government finance settlement for 2005–06. We are looking at the funding spending share and we understand the point made by the hon. Member for. Teignbridge. However, is it right that we should pay for any pay deal in our funding? There would not be al incentive to negotiate a good deal if we simply said, "Yes, we will meet those costs through the formula spending share". The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that a process of negotiation is being undertaken, but we will consider the funding formula spending shares in future.
A related issue that the hon. Gentleman did not raise is that of the potentially uneven distribution of costs and savings, which was implicit in his point about the nature of retained fire crews in his area and the sparsity factor. The Government recognise that revisiting the formula spending share could be an issue, given the changes to the fire and rescue service that we have announced. A working group of offs vials has been set up to examine the case for change and possible alternatives. The Government will consider any proposals for changes to the formula in the light of the working group's conclusions. However, it may also be worth pointing out that if there were an imbalance in the potential for savings between authorities, we would expect some authorities to have little or no budget increases in the next two years at least.
On pensions, we acknowledge that there may be a bulge in retirements over the next year or two. Of course, we would have expected that factor to be taken into account when calculating the affordability of the pay

211WH
deal. We debated that Upstairs when we discussed the future of the pension scheme. However, we acknowledge that there are wider issues concerned with pensions funding. We are committed to reviewing pension arrangements for all firefighters. We propose to issue proposals for consultation in 2004 and, as I said in Committee, to be operational from 2005. We are also reviewing the financial arrangements for funding the existing firefighters' pension scheme.
I wish to make it clear that the Government remain absolutely committed to working in partnership with authorities to modernise the fire and rescue service and to save more lives. Limiting council tax increases, as the hon. Gentleman would like, to reasonable levels can and should be consistent with making real progress on modernisation.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock

London Olympic Bid
2 pm
Mr. Clive Betts: I am sure that all of us present wish London's bid for the 2012 Olympics every success. It will have particular benefits for London, especially the east end of London, in terms of regeneration and economic boost, which are issues that I shall leave to others with a greater knowledge of the capital to address.
I shall talk about how the benefits of the bid and, I hope, of staging the Olympics can go wider than London, which is officially making the bid. Although, under Olympic rules, one city must make the bid, as far as I am concerned, this bid is not just London's, but Sheffield's—in fact, a bid from all cities throughout the United Kingdom. It is not just England's bid, but the bid of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as our competitors who take part in the 2012 London Olympic games will be from the whole United Kingdom.
Potentially, there are enormous benefits for the stimulation of our elite competitors in all Olympic sports. We should consider other nations that have held the event and the benefits that they have gained from Olympic success. In 1988, Spain had one gold medallist, but in the Barcelona games of 1992 it had 13. Even Australia, with its great tradition of Olympic success, had nine golds in 1996 but nearly doubled that to 16 in Sydney in 2000.
Clearly, hosting the games gives a great stimulus to the elite athletes who compete on behalf of the host nation. Those athletes benefit from the improved facilities provided for the Olympic games, and a list of such facilities is being worked up as part of our Olympic bid. That legacy will last not merely for the 2012 games; for many years afterwards, athletes will have access to the best facilities in the world. That will build on the many excellent facilities that exist in this country partly as a result of the Manchester Commonwealth games and partly because of the Sheffield World student games, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister is all too well aware.
Not only elite athletes will benefit: the Olympics, particularly if we succeed in getting beyond the bidding stage and secure the event, will raise enthusiasm for sport among people throughout the country at grassroots level. However good or successful they are, people will be inspired by the Olympics to go out and take part. Those of us who remember the 1966 World cup victory will know how it stimulated interest in football in this country. Only recently, the rugby union team succeeded in generating interest not only in rugby but in sport more widely. Such success stimulates people throughout the country to take part and in enjoy sport.
A successful bid will bring demands, however, such as demands for improved facilities. People who get involved in sport want to do better and want better facilities to achieve that. I am sure that that will stimulate more private involvement, such as private sponsorship and businesses promoting facilities for their employees. Private clubs, gyms, voluntary organisations and local authorities can contribute to the development of sporting facilities. Later, I shall talk about what the Government might do in that regard, as clearly there will be demands on them to meet the aspirations generated by a successful Olympic bid.

213WH
That agenda will fit in appropriately with the Government's key targets on obesity. It is a major challenge for our country that obesity levels have tripled over the past 20 years. The Government's 70 per cent.target—or whatever it might be after the Wanless report—is clearly an important issue for the whole nation. The Olympic bid could be key to stimulating physical activity and sport of all kinds, and we would all welcome that.
The Olympic bid can be a force for social cohesion. Recently, the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, of which I am a member, has been looking at social cohesion in this country. We have developed a multicultural country, but one in which the different cultures often exist apart. Sport can bring people from different backgrounds, ethnic groups and cultures together in a way that probably nothing else can. Again, I am sure that we will want to rise to that challenge as a nation.
The Olympic games are not only about people competing in the elite events, as 70,000 volunteers will be required. I remember that one of the enjoyable aspects of the 1991 student games in Sheffield was the number of people from the city who simply came along for two weeks and said that they wanted to help. They wanted to be involved in the games as citizens of Sheffield and to give their time voluntarily to make the event a success. There will be opportunities for 70,000 people up and down the country to assist in that process as volunteers at the 2012 Olympics.
Let me now consider the facilities. Of course, most events will be staged in London and most new facilities will be built in the capital, but the construction of those facilities will provide opportunities for construction companies and workers up and down the country to gain a benefit. There will also be opportunities for football events to be staged up and down the United Kingdom. Given the prospect of our bid winning, one thing that many cities will want to consider straight away and start planning for is hosting the holding camps for athletes from other nations. Those camps will be established up and down the UK once the games have been awarded to London and countries begin to think about how their competitors will acclimatise before the games.
I understand that the UK holding camp in Queensland, Australia, brought a benefit of 6 million Australian dollars to the local economy, so it need not be only the host city that benefits—there could be benefits for other parts of the UK. Already, centres such as Loughborough, Manchester, Newcastle, Bath, Cardiff and, of course, Sheffield should be eyeing up the possibilities of hosting holding camps and gaining economic and other benefits. It is up to cities and regions to start thinking now, as London prepares its bid, about how they can contribute and get a slice of the action.
Barbara Cassani spoke recently at the annual dinner of Sheffield's chamber of commerce. She made a point of asking local business people what they could gain from the games and telling them to start thinking about that now to ensure that Sheffield gets a piece of the action, as it will be too late if we leave it until 2010. Local strategic partnerships should have that on their agenda
214WH
already and should be working out what their role can and should be. There will be certain trial events before the Olympics, which could be staged outside London to show that the country can manage to put on major international events. Again, areas or bases that already have facilities should be thinking about bidding to stage such events.
We know from the Sydney experience, and I know from figures that I have seen, that of the tourists who went to Sydney for the games, and indeed before the games, almost half went on to spend time in the rest of Australia. That presents a challenge to the United Kingdom. How can people who come to the country before the games and for the games be attracted to other tourist facilities and locations up and down the country? That will spread the economic benefits of the games far wider than the host city.
I understand from the bid team that thought is already being given to cultural, arts and other events that could be put together as part of a package to go with the games. Such events will take place up and down the country. The Olympic torch will be carried across the country and a series of events will take place along its route. That will mean not only that people throughout the UK can enjoy a flavour and an experience of the Olympic event, but that tourists from outside the UK can see the great delights of the rest of the country, along with the tremendous facilities and attractions that they see in London.
That said, I must raise one or two cautionary points with the Minister. I am sure he feels that I have been very much on track with Government policy on these matters so far—I certainly hope so—but I may now stray offside slightly on one or two points, which I would like him to respond to.
Richard Ottaway: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too deeply immersed in cautionary points, does he agree that, apart from the spin-off benefits in terms of tourism, visitors and enthusiasm for sport, there will also be benefits as a result of the number of sports events that will be held outside London? I have in mind the yachting at Weymouth and the football around the country. Does he agree that those events will be a tremendous stimulus in their own right for the regions in which they are located?
Mr. Betts: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right. I mentioned the football, but not the yachting, and he is right to raise it. Some of those events will be seen by people who will not necessarily get to the Olympic events in London, particularly residents in other regions of the United Kingdom. That will bring the games to a far wider group of spectators, which will have enormous benefits in making the Olympics a truly national, as well as a London, event.
I want to raise with the Minister the concern that the money to fund the Olympics will result in some diversion of funding from other parts of the United Kingdom. I understand that it has been estimated that about £750 million will come from the special Olympic draw. That is welcome, but I understand that that could mean a 4 to 5 per cent. reduction in funding for good causes from other lottery sources. Is that money that other good causes should really have to find or should

215WH
the Government somehow make up the deficit? The figure involved is relatively small, but it could rankle with one or two organisations that might not benefit as they would have done.
Some £340 million will come from the sports councils throughout the UK. We are told that some of that might be spent in the regions, but will some money that would have been spent in the regions now be diverted to the London Olympic bid? I understand that there may be a need for up to another £400 million after 2009, again probably coming from the sports councils. Will that be money diverted from the regions to London? We need answers on those points, because they are relevant and they could worry people engaged in sporting activities across the United Kingdom. Support from the rest of the UK could be undermined if it appears that the money will be drawn from major sporting facilities that might have been built in the regions or from grassroots sport.
What I am really saying is that the Olympics should be a springboard, not just for elite athletes and London, but for sporting activity throughout the United Kingdom. I shall put this as nicely as I can: the Government should be oiling those springs, not damping them down.
Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point, and we in Scotland stand to lose £41.8 million for our good causes and charities because of the new Olympic lottery game. That has worried Sport Scotland to the extent that it says that sport in Scotland could be set back for 20 years as a result. I do not know whether his experience from Sheffield is the same, and I would be interested to hear his views.
Mr. Betts: The point that I am making is that, at this stage, things are not set in concrete. I am trying to raise with the Minister the concern that what should, eventually, be a great national success if we manage to win the Olympic bid could have a downside in terms of the perceptions of the rest of the United Kingdom, if it feels that money is being diverted from projects that would otherwise have taken place in Scotland and the north of England, for example.
The Government contribution towards sporting infrastructure is about £2 per head per year. That does not compare terribly well with what our European neighbours spend or with spending on the arts in this country. I know that there is always a tug of war between the two, but some of us sometimes feel that sports take a back seat to the arts in terms of funding. There is perhaps also a feeling that there is lots of money in sport. There are some very well paid sports people, particularly footballers but also athletes and tennis players.
There is an argument that, as some sporting bodies have sums of money that eventually find their way into high wages for the people who complete in those sports, the bodies ought to give a bit of it up and fund grass-roots sport. I know that the Football Association, for example, will argue strongly when I talk to it that it already allocates more money to grass-roots sport from professional football than is the case in any other European country. It feels that it is in the forefront.
216WH
It is fair that professional sports should ensure that some of their money trickles down to the grass-roots level. However, to draw a comparison with the arts, there is never the same argument that Hugh Grant should fund the local amateur dramatics society or that J.K. Bowling should stump up the money for a new local library. Things do not work in those terms. Sport is expected to make contributions that other activities are perhaps not expected to make.
The Government should think about these issues. We are not having a go at the Minister personally: he is a colleague from Sheffield and I want to restrict our rivalry to the professional football pitch and our two clubs. I hope that the arguments we raise today will strengthen his hand in discussions in other places about funding. When we consider the stimulus that the Olympic bid may give to grass-roots sport, we should take account of the recent Sport England analysis of the state of local authority sports centres, which shows that about £550 million would need to be spent to bring them up to a reasonable standard. There are concerns about those issues.
I support the Olympic bid because I want it to bring benefits to sports at the highest level and at grass-roots level. I want it to provide benefits for London and the rest of the United Kingdom, and I want it to be the centrepiece of the Government's drive on health problems, particularly obesity. The Government must grab this opportunity with both hands. In doing so, I want them to think through the financial support that they give not just to the Olympics, but to grass-roots sport more generally. I do not want arguments and concerns that might be raised about the diversion of existing sports funding away from the regions and grassroots sport throughout the UK to cloud the general support that I believe exists for the London Olympic bid.
I support the bid and there could be major benefits for many parts of the United Kingdom. I will also be looking at what Sheffield can do to benefit from a successful Olympic bid. I hope that the Government will deal with sports funding and see what more they can do to support the Olympic bid and sport in general.
2.17 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he addressed the Chamber. I thought that I would speak in the debate because I was born in Plaistow in the east end of London and it is mainly the east end that will benefit if the UK is successful. Many members of my family, and friends still live in the east end. I have no doubt that one of the great achievements of my party, when it was in government, was the regeneration of docklands. That is an outstanding success, as is the channel tunnel rail link at Stratford and other matters. Sport is of great importance to the east end of London. If the UK is successful, there will be a tremendous beneficial effect on the region.
As people grow older, they become a bit cynical about events, so I ask the Minister, "Are we likely to be successful?" I suppose that as politicians we should not be naive and take everything at face value; we should question these matters. I was delighted that the

217WH
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said last May that the Government would give total backing to the UK bid. Although I have not seen any evidence since then that the Government are not doing that, I would like to know whether a successful hid is a straightforward matter. Is it decided entirely according to the merits of the bidding countries' facilities, or might other slightly dark matters be operating?
Looking around the Chamber, I would say that there are not too many hon. Members here who saw the 1948 Olympic games. This country did the world a great service when, at very short notice, it agreed to hold the Olympic games in London. On that basis alone, London has a strong case. The fact that it coincides with the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen is a strong point, too, as is the fact that a lot of people in the United Kingdom speak English.
London is the greatest capital city in the world. People might cringe at such a statement because we do not have the weather. We might not have the transport. The British people are always moaning about everything under the sun. That aside, London is the greatest capital city in the world. So why should the Olympics not be held here? I accept that the countryside in Scotland is more beautiful and that Wales has other bonuses, as no doubt does Ireland, but the capital city is the right place for the hid. I hope that the Minister will share with the Chamber the precise elements of the plan to secure the majority vote when that takes place.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe mentioned obesity. When I suggested to the Select Committee on Health, of which I am a member, that we have an inquiry into obesity, I had no idea at the time that it would have a huge impact on the United Kingdom. Indeed, the way in which the Government are trying to get ahead of the Health Committee report is rather amusing to its members. We are still taking evidence and we shall not be reporting for a couple of months. However, the fact that the Health Committee decided to examine obesity is encouraging everyone to talk about healthy lifestyles.
In 1985–86, only 20 per cent. of children were driven to school. That figure has now doubled. I could go on about the adverse impact of obesity on the lifestyle of the general public. There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: if the United Kingdom is successful in its bid, that will have a good effect on people's health.
As for the various tables, I am sure that it did not escape the notice of hon. Members that, when a country hosts the Olympic games, it tends to be more successful at winning events. I welcome that. The hon. Gentleman is right. If we are successful, there will not be a region in the United Kingdom that will not benefit from that. Essex, in particular, has welcomed the bid. We consider that it would bring real economic and social benefits to that county, which, as we all know, is the largest in the country.
It is anticipated that an estimated 9,000 full-time jobs would be created by the games, together with tens of thousands of visitors and participants arriving from all over the world. That would be a huge boost to those
218WH
counties on London's borders and Essex in particular. Stephen Castle, the councillor who is responsible for sports, said:
"This is an important step towards the prospect of the greatest sporting event in the world being staged in our area. We wholly support this move and will play every part we can to ensure the London bid is successful, and to bring the benefits of the Games to Essex. Although we are unsure at this stage whether Essex will be able to host any of the actual events"—
can the Minister comment on that?—
"we are still very positive to be able to host training camps and provide the training facilities."
Councillor Castle said that that could mean massive investment in sporting facilities in Essex and went on to say that we have some great young sporting talent in Essex
"many of whom are still at school. What better incentive could they have but to strive for the highest sporting achievement in the world? It is a thrilling prospect."
My constituency of Southend, West has a strong case for having a holding camp for the 200 visiting Olympic teams. Southend is also fortunate in sport. We have a very successful athletics club, which has produced top performing Olympic athletes for some years. Two locals took part in the Sydney Olympic games in 2000: Sarah Wilhelmy in the 100 metre sprint relay and Simon Hughes—not the Member of Parliament, I might add—in the pole vault. We hope that at least one of those athletes will be sent to this year's Olympic games.
It would be wonderful for the UK if we were successful with the bid. The whole UK would benefit. Thousands of UK construction, manufacturing, accommodation, catering and services companies would be directly involved in meeting the needs of the games. The football tournament would be played across the UK-in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Newcastle, Manchester, Aston Villa in Birmingham and London. The 2012 Olympic torch relay would visit almost every major town and city in the UK in the months leading up to the games. I am sure that every Member of Parliament would like to be photographed at the torch relay ceremony in their town. There would also be a UK-wide cultural festival, beginning at least a year before the games.
Up to 70,000 volunteers from across the UK would help to run the games. A London 2012 Olympic games could act as a catalyst to boost physical activity levels at all ages and help to combat rising obesity. I am sure that disabled people would stage a better games through the Paralympics than able-bodied people.
Any Member worth their weight as an MP will support the UK's bid for the Olympic games. I would like to hear how serious the Minister is about securing a successful bid and how he views Essex and Southend in that particular scheme of things. Given that London hosted the Olympic games in 1948, it would be right to be awarded the games to coincide with Her Majesty the Queen's diamond jubilee. I hope that we are successful and that we are serious about the bid. I hope to be at the London 2012 Olympic games with all hon. Members.
2.28 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on securing the debate, which is

219WH
about an important topic. As he said, the potential benefits of bringing the Olympic games to London in 2012 are enormous, particularly for sport throughout the UK.
I want to focus on the relationship between the Olympic bid and grass-roots sport. A successful Olympic bid would involve a two-way relationship. A London Olympics, and the seven-year preparation period that would go before it, could make a huge difference to the profile of and participation in sport at all levels. However, the converse is also true. In the crucial period between now and 6 July next year, during which the success of our bid will be determined, the UK's commitment to sport at all levels may yet have that critical impact on the success of the bid.
We know that technically our bid is strong; I believe that it is a world beater. London can produce a compact, well run games. The money invested would result in lasting benefit for the local community and the UK as a whole. I have taken the opportunity to visit the area involved along with the London development Agency. I have seen it first hand, so I can say how much that redevelopment impetus is needed and how magnificent the regeneration plans are. The London Development Agency hopes to transform the area with or without the games, but with the games it believes it can make the changes up to seven years more quickly.
As we have already heard, the games will be the catalyst for the regeneration of 1,500 acres of east London, creating thousands of new homes and jobs, doubling the amount of green space in the area and restoring the River Lea's unique waterways. They will also help to tackle shocking inequality. It is disturbing to hear that, on average, people in Newham live five years less than those in Kensington and Chelsea. We need only look at the impact of the Commonwealth games on Manchester—with the direct and indirect creation of 2,400 jobs—to see the potential value that such an economic carrot can have for the area.
With such a strong technical bid, it is important that the country does not let itself down in another key respect. An Olympic host nation should be a sporting nation. We are a nation that is passionate about sport, certainly when it comes to watching it. Some 14.5 million people tuned in at 9 o'clock in the morning to see England defeat Australia in the rugby World cup final, and 5.4 million people tuned in at 1 am to see the Scottish curling team take gold in the 2003 Salt Lake City Olympics. When our teams are on TV, we watch them.
Unfortunately, we are not so strong on participation. According to "Game Plan", the Government document that sets out the future for sport, Australia—the last host of the summer games—has 48 per cent. of its population participating in sport in a serious way at least once a week. More recent surveys have found that 57 per cent. of Australians report doing at least two and a half hours of moderate and vigorous physical activity per week. Finland, where the figure is 70 per cent., is a world beater.
According to the latest figures, the UK comes in at 30.4 per cent. I also have the figure for France, arguably our main rival to host the games—48 per cent., the same as Australia. We do not have to go far to find out why there is such a discrepancy.
220WH
According to Sport England, the French Government spend approximately £5 per person per year on sports and physical activity. That would buy a football, a rugby ball, a child's racquet or bat—or, in an off-licence, a bottle of French wine. What are we spending? In 2002–03, considering the Treasury spend in England, we find that Department for Culture, Media and Sport spent £2.09 per person per year. That would buy half a bottle of wine or a pint of beer.
At a conference last Wednesday, the Secretary of State said:
"We didn't decide to bid for the Olympics because it's the greatest sporting festival in the world-although that was part of it. We also decided to bid because the Olympics are an inspiration that can help us to change the culture of this country so that sport and physical activity is part of people's daily routine."
She is right. I am sure that the Government will acknowledge that we cannot expect the games to transform the culture of our nation on their own. They will be a tremendous catalyst, but for them to have a lasting effect the country must have an infrastructure that is adequate to facilitate and sustain that massive increase in sporting and physical activity. If we are serious about the Olympic games, and we are, we must show that we are also serious about sport. To show that we are serious, we have to be prepared to invest serious money.
It is no good crying out for the Government to spend, spend and spend again unless we can suggest a way to spend the money that will make a difference. Despite the millions of pounds that the Government have spent on sport over the past five years, participation has risen by only 0.3 per cent. We must spend effectively.
There are many areas in which the Government could invest more money: community sports club facilities, school facilities and school-based programmes. I am aware that the Government have invested in those areas, but I call for them to do more. Sport England estimates that £550 million is needed over the next five years to bring the condition of the £4.5 billion stock of local authority owned sports centres up to an acceptable standard. A commitment to meet those needs would be welcome.
Physical resources are just one side of the coin. Another area that I particularly want to discuss is human resources in coaching, which is key to the cultural shift to which the Secretary of State referred. One of the great opportunities of the Olympic bid is to inspire people to become active by emulating their heroes. Who did not want to go out and kick a rugby ball around the garden after seeing Jonny Wilkinson score that match-winning drop goal? I acknowledge that my colleague, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), would demur on that, but it applies to English MPs and those who represent English constituencies.
We must nurture the desire to achieve, to better oneself and to fulfil the Olympic ideals of citius, altius, fortius—swifter, higher, stronger—to turn it into sustained activity. The emotional boost from the event will soon fade if we do not have an infrastructure in place to harness and sustain the enthusiasm. That infrastructure would require not only good physical resources, but first-rate human resources—good coaches.
Coaching is the thread that ties grass-roots participation to Olympic medals. A good coach will take youngsters from an early age and help them to develop

221WH
the basic skills that are prerequisites for all sports. Preschool and early-years provision are especially vital to ensure that every child can kick, throw, strike, catch, run and jump. Only four in 10 children can do all those. What do we do for the 60 per cent. majority who cannot? Resolving the problem requires coaches who specialise in working with children of pre-school and primary school age rather than inexperienced coaches, or those trained to work with adults, imposing inappropriate adult training programmes on young people. We need level 4 coaches to work with young children as well as top athletes. We must develop coaching programmes and models that establish level 4 coaches for under-14s or under-sixes. We need top children's as well as adult's coaches.
To ensure that the Olympic bid and, I hope, the games have the impact on sport that we hope for, we must ensure that investment goes to grass-roots facilities and coaching, as well as to funding stadiums and elite sporting programmes. The Government have committed —28 million to community coaching and, this month, 22 sports were formally invited to be part of the first wave to implement the new national coaching certificate. However, whereas we were initially promised 3,000 full-time coaches through that scheme, there will now be 3,000 full-time and part-time coaches. When the feedback from the field made it clear that creating part-time coaching posts was more attractive to those wanting to move into the profession than creating full-time posts, the Government should have taken the opportunity—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. We must suspend the sitting while a technical matter is sorted out, because it is difficult to report the proceedings.
2.39 pm
Sitting suspended.
2.44 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the Chamber that the time taken up by the interruption cannot be added on. However, it is still my intention to begin the winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock. I call Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. Gardiner: When it became clear that it was preferable to have full-time and part-time coaches, the Government should have taken the opportunity to create more coaches, rather than cut a corner and lower the investment. We will not make the changes in the culture of the nation that the Government have alluded to if we keep cutting corners like that. The Government must recognise that investing in coaches to inspire and guide young people will not only promote sport and good health—the problems of obesity have been mentioned—but contribute to the fulfilment of key policies involving social inclusion, education, crime diversion and community regeneration.
Money is invested in sport in this country in a complex way through the lottery and local authorities. The role of local authorities in particular must be
222WH
recognised. Those in local government have the potential to link the games to other social inclusion strategies and to engage young people in and out of school. As the local authorities are responsible for so much of our investment in sport, greater guidance and support should b given to them on what their responsibilities are with regard to sport and physical activity.
For the Olympics to have the positive effect on sport throughout the UK that we would like, the mechanics must be right and the finances adequate. There is also a practical issue involved concerning the funding of the Olympics. The new Olympics lottery distributor, which is being created under the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill, will inevitably take a share of the lottery pot away, not only from Sport England, but from Sport Scotland and other bodies as well. That must be addressed.
The existing lottery distributors have a wealth of experience. Sport England, for example, played a key role in the Manchester Commonwealth games, and with that in mind, I want to raise questions and seek a number of assurances from the Minister. Will he explain why a completely separate funding body must be created, rather than creating funding streams that work in the existing structures? Will he assure us that a new distributor will not create extra bureaucracy and duplication? Will he assure us that any new body that is created will be given a remit to consult existing funding bodies—in particular Sport England, UK Sport and Sport Scotland—on the legacy of the facilities that it will fund? Will he assure us that any new funding body will have explicitly in firs remit the authority to distribute funds that will be for the long-term good of British sport?
Will the Minister assure us that, rather than funds for grass-roots sport dropping as a result of the games, with the lottery pot being spread a little thinner and sales in decline over recent years, central Government will guarantee not only current funding, but an increase over the years of the bid And up to 2012, so that the physical and human resources will be in place to facilitate a cultural change in inspired by the games, just as the Secretary of State has said? In short, will the Government ensure that we match the French and offer the full bottle of wine rather than a pint of beer?
2.46 pm
Pete Wishart: In the time-honoured and traditional way, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on securing an important and worthy debate.
This is the third debate on the Olympic games that I have taken part in during the past year and all have been based on the assumption that these London games will be good for London and for the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not know on what basis that assumption has been made and I would question it, because I am not sure that a London games will be good for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not as if we have never heard this before: every time that London secures a massive infrastructure project, an international games or an event, we are told that it is good for the rest of the country. We were told that by the Prime Minister when he opened his bid a few months ago, and we will no doubt be told that in future.

223WH
I remember being told something similar in the 1990s when the millennium dome was being constructed. I saw glossy advertisements for it and was told that it was something of which I, as a Scot, should be proud as it was going to be an icon for the rest of the United Kingdom. We saw exactly what happened to the millennium dome.
Anybody who questions why London is always awarded such events and projects is labelled unreasonable or anti-London, but surely it is right occasionally to question why all the big infrastructure projects and events go to London. That is not making a case against London, but just questioning why such things always go there. No other city in the UK was considered for an Olympic bid even though the most successful Olympic games held in Europe in modern times were in devolved Catalonia. Why does it always have to be London?
There is no doubt that the games will be very good for London, but it is questionable whether they will be good for Scotland, the rest of England and other regions of the United Kingdom. We know that they will be good for London because the Government employed consultants, Arup, to consider how they would benefit London. The conclusion was that 1,000 jobs would be created in the regeneration of the east end of London. It was also said that there would be a further benefit of £70 million from the fiscal impacts of growth in the local economy and that a growth in tom ism would generate between £280 million and £507 million. Furthermore, it was concluded that once the games had been and gone, there would be further benefits to London, including legacies such as the future use of newly built sports facilities and more work in the regenerated east end of London.
There is no doubt that London would do well out of a London Olympics, but I have seen no such equivalent quantifiable study of how Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and other regions of England would fare if the games were secured. All that we have seen so far is Barbara Cassani running around our chambers of commerce having business breakfasts and telling us that we had better get our finger out or we will lose out if London succeeds with the 2012 games. She gives a spurious example of how Queensland did well out of the Sydney Olympics, but always fails to say that the other Australian states were pretty miffed that most of the tourist traffic was diverted to Sydney when the games were held there four years ago.
We do not know how good the games will be for London, but we know for certain that our grass-roots sports, charities and good causes will be dramatically affected by the new Olympic lottery game. I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe that we stand to lose £41.8 million from our good causes if the London Olympic bid is successful. That made Sport Scotland raise concerns with the Scottish Executive when we were putting its concerns to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
A spokesman for Sport Scotland said:
"If we lose over GBP 40 million from lottery funds because of the London Olympics we'll need to end whole programmes which provide support to grass root and elite sport in Scotland".
He went on:
"There is a terrible irony in the fact that bringing the greatest sporting show on Earth to the UK could devastate the regeneration of sport in Scotland and set is back 20 years".
224WH
What will we get in return? We are told that we might get the odd football game at Hampden. That is fair enough, but one thing is certain: we will not get any of the semi-finals or quarter-finals or the final at Hampden. We might be lucky if we get Tonga versus Azerbaijan. Unless football somehow turns into a blue riband event in the next 10 to 12 years, I cannot see this amounting to much more than a hill of beans. We are also told that some international teams might come to Scotland to set up a base, but we have also been told clearly that we will have no new resources and no new facilities to host the teams.
I say those things not because I do not want the London bid to be successful; I do want it to be successful. It is a good bid and I think London will secure the games, but my second major point is that if London wants to secure and succeeds in securing the games, London should pay for them. I find it completely unacceptable that the rest of the United Kingdom should be paying for a London Olympic games out of our good causes, our charities and our grass-roots sporting facilities and events.
London is the most prosperous city in Europe. It can more than afford to pay for the games. It has a gross domestic product of some £180 billion—larger than that of Sweden, Austria or Belgium. Surely it can afford to pay for the games itself; it has more millionaires per square mile than any other city in Europe. It has prosperity beyond the dreams of us in the rest of the regions and the other nations of the United Kingdom. It is not as if London does not receive its fair share of public spending; it soaks up some 80 per cent. of all expenditure on transport alone. Extending the Jubilee line to docklands cost £3.5 billion and heaven knows how much the proposed Crossrail will cost. That does not take into account the non-identified spending of Whitehall Departments, the defence of the realm, the BBC and quangos.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I represent a London constituency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that London will contribute more than other parts of the UK towards the London Olympics, so I hope he corrects the impression that London is not contributing.
Pete Wishart: I gratefully take the hon. Lady's rebuke and I recognise that Londoners are paying more than their fair share for this proposal. I have received several e-mails from disgruntled Londoners about the prospect of paying increased council tax to subsidise the games. Further to the impression created in the debate, I do not think that there is unanimity in London on the Olympics, as there is not unanimity throughout the United Kingdom.
As well as discovering that the rest of the UK will be paying for a share of the London Olympics through the lottery, we now find that the UK taxpayer is to underwrite the London Olympic games. We are told that the cost of the London Olympics is not likely to exceed £2.735 billion, but I was told that the Scottish Parliament would not cost more than £40 million—it now stands at £430 million. It is a big risk for the UK taxpayer to finance and underwrite the London Olympic games.

225WH
When Sydney hosted the games, the New South Wales Government paid for and underwrote the games. New South Wales is not nearly as prosperous as London. If New South Wales could underwrite a Sydney Olympics, surely London, with its devolved local authority and the office of the Mayor, should underwrite the cost if things go pear-shaped financially. If that happens, it is likely to be the UK taxpayer who once again has to bail London out.
I return to the central premise that the games will be good for the rest of the UK. For example, hon. Members have said that they will boost sport at grassroots and youth level, but the simple and obvious fact is that if money is diverted from grass-roots projects to large infrastructure projects in London, it is inevitable that grass-roots projects will suffer. In Scotland, there are massive health and lifestyle problems—including obesity, about which much has been said-notably and sadly among our young people and children. However, for years we have been selling off community and school recreational facilities the length and breadth of our country to bolster the public finances.
We must invest money in grass-roots projects, not in massive infrastructure in London. Our team sports are in decline: one need only mention Wales's performance over the last few weeks to recognise the difficulties that our national teams are experiencing. I remain convinced that money will drift out of local projects and be sucked up in the London Olympic bid.
I hope that London is successful, but I do not want the good causes of Scotland to pay for the London bid. I hope that the Minister will take these points on board and consider the funding of the London Olympic games. Other hon. Members have already mentioned the fact that a lot of money will be drawn from good causes and grass-roots sports events. I hope that the Minister will reconsider how the London games will he financed.
2.56 pm
Mr. Andy Reed: In view of the time, I shall try to be brief to allow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) to speak. Many points that I wanted to make have already been made, so there is no need to repeat them.
I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), who challenges us to think about the issues. Every speaker has laid some of those questions before the Minister, and those of us who served on the Olympic lottery Bill Committee have already done so. I support the London bid, not because I am from London—I am from one of the regions—but because it will add to the enormous drive that we need to put into regenerating sport and replicating that across the country. The choice is either to have a bid or not to have a bid. Which would be better for sport? On balance, I think that a London bid would have an enormous impact on sport and regeneration throughout the country and would be worth while. However, we must answer fundamental questions, especially on funding and the possible impact on grass-roots sport throughout the country over a long period. I hope that the Minister will talk about that.
We will benefit in the regions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) mentioned the role that Loughborough will play; the constituency
226WH
is already geared up to host teams that will be based there. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) said that a couple of athletes at the last Olympics were from his constituency. There are about 140 international athlete s in Loughborough, many of whom are in training. I met an Olympic gold medal hope from my constituency only yesterday.
We have a great desire for Athens to be successful, and that also applies to the next generation. Children in schools who are starting to train now will be excited by this year's Olympics; and could compete in London in 2012. We must use and enhance the galvanised interest in sport that we saw at the rugby World cup and that we shall see this year in Athens and in Portugal at football's European championships. We need to translate that from watching on television to ensuring that up and down the country individuals are excited by sport. We must have the infrastructure so that they can move from school to local clubs and can participate at whatever level.
As most hon. Members here know, I play rugby every Saturday at grass-roots level. I have no ambition—perhaps I have a slight ambition to be Jonny Wilkinson and to have dropped that goal—but as one realises from the age of 22 that it is not going to happen, one can enjoy those glorious moments at whatever level. That is the beauty of sport: it brings so many of us together.
It is crucial that the regional impact is driven though and delivered on the ground, as has already been mentioned, and we must ensure that that is done not only for traditional sports. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who intervened earlier, was at a meeting yesterday with the Women's Sports Foundation. This is a golden opportunity for female sporting heroes—Paula Radcliffe is a constituent of mine—to be seen day in, day out, on our televisions throughout the Olympics. I hope that we can build on that and that women who are excited by the Olympics this year are galvanised for the 2012 games.
There are so many things that I want to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am conscious of the fact that others want to speak. I give the games my support, but account must be taken of those cautionary questions, many of which have been asked by other hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With less than half a minute available, I call Mr. Roger Williams.
2.59 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: I am tempted to try for a world record in getting the information out, but I am pleased that everybody here today supports the bid, albeit in their own manner. I would like to support it too, although I should also report the fact that there are some negative feelings in the regions and the devolved nations. The Minister would do well to address those, because we do not want any negative feedback to spoil the bid.
The Sports Council for Wales has already cut the third tranche of the community investment programme, which will mean a reduction in sporting facilities in my constituency. I have had letters from the local authority and from the sports council complaining about the Sports Council for Wales. I would like the Minister to

227WH
assure us that more funding will be put in place, so that we have the athletes to compete successfully in the Olympic games should the bid succeed.
3 pm
Simon Hughes: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) had to make such a brief contribution, but I am pleased to go into bat with others, not just for a London Olympics, but for a UK Olympics for 2012. Although I am a London MP and I have another London interest in the pipeline, I would still argue that London must put in the bid in a way that commands the support of the whole UK. I am convinced that we are going in that direction.
The tradition of Olympic and Commonwealth bids in the UK and elsewhere shows that successful bids benefit more than just the city hosting the games. I was brought up in south Wales and I remember when the Commonwealth games—the Empire games, in those days—took place in Cardiff. They left a legacy that was used not just by people who lived in Cardiff, but by those who came to Cardiff for many years after. The same was true after the Commonwealth games were held in Edinburgh and certainly the same, applied last year, after Manchester had hosted a hugely successful Commonwealth games. The event benefited more than just that part of the country.
The same has been true of Olympic games held in other countries. Of course, the Olympic games have been based in a city—Rome, Munich or Barcelona—but they have had a much wider impact on the country concerned and, if we succeed in the bid next year, that is what an Olympics in London would do.
I want to make three points, one of which addresses head on the concern that there will be a detriment to other parts of the UK. I understand the arguments from Scotland and Wales: we must meet those arguments head on and show how the interests of the rest of the country in promoting sport, participation, healthier living and aspiration to succeed can be met around the country.
First, I shall reiterate the point, although I shall not amplify it in any detail, that if we win the bid next year, many parts of the UK will have a role to play in the build-up to a 2012 Olympics, planning to bring people to the UK, training them and providing venues. That will extend beyond the use of a few football grounds, yachting in Weymouth, shooting in Bisley or rowing at Eton, as all sorts of other venues can and should be involved. Every region of England and every country in the UK must see their place in that
As a positive contribution, I suggest to the Minister that one of the ways in which all parts of London and all other parts of the UK could ensure that they gain something, and are seen to be gaining something, is for each local authority to carry out a consultation with the British Olympic Association. In that consultation the authority would specify the one facility—the one capital investment—that it would most like but which it does not have, such as a swimming pool, an athletics track or a football ground.
The authority would also specify what revenue project it would like, such as coaching in a particular sport. If such consultations could be included in the
228WH
Olympic project, whether they took place in Brecon and Radnorshire, Tayside, Loughborough, Sheffield or anywhere else, people would start to own a project because they would say, "We are going to get something that will be our legacy." They would consider the project funding linked to the Olympic bid.
I would ask that such consultations also take place throughout Greater London. When the idea of the bid was mooted, I said to Barbara Cassani and her team that this must be seen as an all-London bid, not an east London bid. It is important that Wembley, Wimbledon and the centre of London are used, so that all parts of the capital—north, south, east, west and the middle—feel that they have part of the action. I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to consider that suggestion, and I will put it to the BOA that that is a way that we might lock people into the project.
Secondly—this is my contribution that relates specifically to London—there will be legacies from a successful bid that will benefit everyone in the capital, although they will originate in east London. It will be in everyone's interest for a part of London that has suffered from under-investment—where there is still great poverty and where the land is not used to the full—to receive investment. Just as the Thames is cleaner than it was, which is in everybody's interest, so the Lea valley can be cleaner, which is also in everybody's interest.
If we have a much better social and economic infrastructure, if there is a much better transport infrastructure—for example, if the East London line works, is extended and does really well—if more use is made of the river and if there is a Crossrail project, as I hope there will be, everybody who comes to do business in the UK, or comes through London on the way to somewhere else, will benefit. This is not just a London benefit.
Thirdly, our area has the greatest population in the UK. People from all over the country come here for a while as students, trainees or workers—they are Scots, Welsh, English, northerners, southerners, people from Cornwall and everywhere else. The reality is that if facilities are left after the games, people will be more likely to cycle, run, swim or participate when they come to the capital city, so we will be creating a healthier country.
I know that conversations are going on and, to raise an example, we in London are significantly short of major Olympic-size pools. I went on holiday to Tayside last year and visited the swimming pool in Dundee, which is brilliant. I took my nephew there—it was the most exciting thing in the whole of his holiday. He spent the entire day going down the flumes, even the ones that he was not meant to go down. Of course, children always go for the ones that are above their pay grade or age entitlement. The reality is that those activities are not elitist; they engage everybody, including people on holiday. I hope that there will be a project for a decent Olympic-size pool in Hillingdon—in Uxbridge—and another to expand the Crystal Palace pool to full length as well as one in north London to complement the proposal for east London.
It will be in everybody's interest if sustainable jobs are created. It may surprise some colleagues to know that London has the highest unemployment rate of any region in England. It is the wealthiest place, but as in any

229WH
great metropolis or capital city the wealth is not shared equally. We must do something about that and the jobs ought to go to a part of the country where unemployment is particularly high.
The more tourists we bring in as a result of the anticipation of the games, the better—and not just to the London venues. People will come to watch football at Hampden Park or Old Trafford; they will add on a trip to the Olympics that keeps them here. I have friends who have worked in support of Olympic venues around the world. Working people such as them visit the country, but not just for the period of the games, as they stay before and after and visit the rest of the country. This is a great opportunity to bring people to UK plc and sell the whole country.
I want to deal with the financing of the bid. It is important that we deal with this issue head on. There are two stages: there is the bid finance, where we know the Government are making a contribution and when, as I understand it, the figures are simply put in ball park terms. If the bid is successful, it is expected that half the income will come from the private sector by way of revenue. It is proposed that the rest will be split, with two thirds coming from lottery contributions and one third from London. London is contributing; in fact, it is the only place where a public sector contribution is provided for. That contribution is provided by a council tax add-on and from money from the Greater London authority via the London Development Agency.
As I have said on behalf of my party and on my own behalf, if I am lucky enough to take over from the Mayor in June—I hope that that will be the case, because I assure this Chamber, the House, Parliament and the country that I will bat as well for London on the Olympics as anybody could, as I am a passionate sports supporter—it will be on the basis that Londoners make an extra, additional and significant contribution above the rest of the country.
We must ensure that the lottery contribution—the two thirds of the half, or the third of the total—does not suck money out of lottery contributions in the rest of the country. I say that in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) and others. This is about seeking an add-on, rather than a reduction; it is about ensuring that people contribute more; it is about making sure that we do not lose what we have got.
I am committed to making sure that this is a win-win Olympic bid for the UK and London. I know that all those who are involved in the London promotion take that view. It is important for the bid to be seen as "London for the UK", with all the UK benefiting.
3.10 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on obtaining this important debate, and I congratulate all those who have spoken so positively about the Olympics. The one person who was relentlessly negative was the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), but I shall come to him later.
I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) about the importance of grass-roots sport bringing people
230WH
together. Having spent my 12 years in the House so far playing for various Lords and Commons parliamentary sports teams, I have made a huge number of cross-party friends. It is no surprise to see here the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, with whom I have played a lot of football, and who introduced the debate, and the hon. Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and for Loughborough, with whom I have played a lot of rugby. If it were not for our party differences, I would be tempted to call then, my hon. Friends, and I hope that they would not mind my describing them so.
Sport means the same for people from all walks of life. Through sport, it is r of just politicians who raise money for charity, enjoy themselves and keep fit—it is the same for everybody involved. As hon. Members know, I am delighted to have been made shadow sports spokesman, but I have been a passionate sports competitor and enthusiast all my life. My main sporting involvement as a teenager was in swimming. I was not quite good enough for the Olympic team, but I was lucky enough to be coached by the treat Britain Olympic coach who took our swimming I earn to the 1972 Munich Olympics, and I did swim for the midlands against Wales and Scotland.
The experience in my early life of being coached by a British Olympic coat h meant that I had the opportunity to swim for the same team as many of our Olympic swimmers. Brian Brinkley, the club captain of my swimming club, the Bedford Modernians, was the captain of the British Olympic swimming team at the 1972 games. Subsequently, he has become the coach to Northampton swimming club, and he is in the process of taking over from Charlie Wilson, who used to coach us both as teenagers— I am glad to say that Charlie is recovering from a stroke, and recently I was lucky enough to be able to entertain him for lunch at the House. Having inculcated in young people all the sporting ambitions of generations of swimmers, Charlie carried on coaching at the top level well into his 70s, and is only now handing over our old club to Brian Brinkley.
The Olympics encourage sporting achievement and the application and commitment of volunteers down the generations. I have seen that for myself, and I see it now in my constituency and throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon, Hughes) mentioned shooting at Bisley. Many hon. Members will have heard me refer to the fact that my constituency is bound to be involved if the UK wins the bid for 2012, which we hope it will. Shooting can take place at only one venue in the UK, because of changes in our laws on shooting after the terrible tragedy at Dunblane. Bisley is the only place in the UK where shooting for the Olympics can take place, and it was where shooting took place for the Commonwealth games, despite their being held in Manchester. Bisley was the only southern venue, and my constituents were proud to play a part in the Manchester games—I was lucky enough to be invited to present some of the shooting; medals. To return to the theme of the debate, I know that areas away from London, such as my constituency will benefit from the Olympics, because we benefited from the Commonwealth games.
It is important to recognise that all our constituents, from throughout the UK, including Scotland and Wales, will benefit. People from the north of Scotland, the most rural parts of Wales and Northern Ireland and

231WH
the furthest reaches of Cornwall will benefit. Constituents such as those of the hon. Member for North Tayside will also want to attend the Olympics. The crucial point, however, is that, as we found with two sadly unsuccessful Manchester bids, only a capital city will give the UK the chance of winning a bidding competition—nobody else has mentioned that this afternoon, but I see the hon. Member for Brent, North nodding. I very much agreed with everything that he said, because in the build-up to what we hope will be a successful bid, we must accentuate the positive. Perhaps the Scottish nationalists feel that filling their leaflets with relentlessly negative anti-London propaganda will strike a chord with some of the people who they hope will vote for them.
My reading of the economics of the UK as a whole is that it is the fantastically successful invisible earnings of the City of London that have helped to subsidise UK plc. Constituencies represented by SNP Members have benefited from a London-driven subsidy involving the contributions that all taxpayers make. That has been provided to Scotland by all taxpayers for generations. The Scottish nationalists say that only London will benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) knows lot about matters north of the border, and has pointed out that Londoners are paying more than their fair share under the enhanced precept. London supports the bid, and I believe that the whole of the UK will do so. I hope that the Scottish nationalists will drop their relentlessly negative anti-London approach.
I want to put some points to the Minister in the same constructive spirit as that of the hon. Members for Brent, North, for Loughborough and for Sheffield, Attercliffe. Since I took on my shadow brief, I have had many discussions with lots of leading administrators in various sports. The same matter has been raised by many people and organisations. The Football Association is responsible for the pitches that soccer is played on at every level. People sometimes think that there must be plenty of money in football because the premiership clubs spend so much, but the vast majority of football is played by amateurs on local authority pitches. There is a shortfall of about £2 billion with regard to the need to upgrade local authority pitches.
The Government have said that they are committing money to sport. Much of that has riot got to the sharp end, but I want it to get there. Lots of that money is wrapped up and lost in departmental bureaucracy. That is not this Minister's fault. Three years ago, the Government promised that £750 million of new funding would go to school sport, but less than £9 million has been spent so far; that is less than 2 per cent. The Prime Minister announced that with a great fanfare, but little of the money has got to where it is needed.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey talked about the need for the private sector to be more involved in the Olympic bid. He is right. There are a number of things that could improve the Government's preparations for winning the bid. In recent deliberations on the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill, we said that the Olympic lottery ought to start earlier to bring money in sooner. The Government have conceded that it would be possible to do that under International Olympic Committee rules. We also believe that the Government are wrong to
232WH
concentrate so much on public sector involvement. A much bigger private sector element ought to be involved in all the Government's planning from now on. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey came up with the idea that every local authority in the country ought to identify one new capital project. I think that part of the problem with funding for sport is that there has been far too much concentration on brand new, bright and shiny capital facilities and not enough on revenue funding. That has certainly been the case since this Government came to power.
On the concerns of the FA and other governing bodies about pitches, local authorities have found that although the Government keep claiming that they have put a little bit more money the local authorities' way, it has not been enough to compensate for all the extra statutory duties, which cost a lot of money, particularly for small local authorities such as mine in Surrey Heath. Some of the money for local authorities must be ring-fenced to be spent on upgrading sports pitches.
The competitors who are using the local authority pitches now are going to be the athletes who we hope will win medals in 2012. They are using substandard facilities such as badly drained pitches. We want them to have better facilities so that we can win the bid and ensure that they win gold, silver and bronze medals for us in 2012.
We must get the money out of the bureaucracy, where it is swallowed up. Leading figures in sport such as Trevor Brooking could tell the Minister how to get that money to the sharp end. He should get away from the shiny new capital schemes, spend it on revenue and ring-fence it. I see that the hon. Member for Brent, North agrees with me.
3.20 pm
The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on securing the debate. He has represented his constituents very well. I am one of them. I disagree with his criticism at the end, but I will take issue with him about that later at the management committee.
There has been support from all sides—even slightly grudgingly from the Scot nats. The International Olympic Committee will know that there is unanimity of purpose in securing the bid in 2012. There is popular support for this bid right across the UK. Indeed, the opinion polls that we did before the bid showed support at around about 80 per cent., and it was higher in Scotland than in some parts of London. There is therefore support right across the nation. That is to be welcomed. As we go into the more difficult parts of this bid when the competition will get much fiercer internationally, it is important that that unanimity of purpose holds together. The English language newspapers are probably reported disproportionately around the world. What is said by leading spokespersons on this issue is reported.
I should like to put the timetable on the record. As everyone knows, on 15 January this year we submitted the big questionnaire to the IOC. The next date is 18 May when the candidate cities will be announced. On 15

233WH
November submissions from the candidates will be filed to the IOC. The IOC valuation team will visit the candidate cities in February and March next year and the selection for the host city for 2012 will be made on 6 July 2005. The launch got off to an extremely good start. It was well reported and there was unanimity of purpose.
There are two areas that I shall focus on in the limited time available. One is the regions and the other is expenditure. I was a little bit disappointed by the comments of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). Barbara Cassani is going around the whole of the UK. Her first port of call was rightly Scotland. She got an extremely good reception there. She stressed the opportunities that would be opening up over the period up to the bid and, we hope, beyond. Her work has been welcome. She has also been to Wales, Gateshead, Newcastle and Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe and I were present when she gave a speech to Sheffield's powerful chamber of commerce. She was well received. It was not just about Sheffield. She brought in the whole of Yorkshire, the decision makers in local authorities, businesses, and the communities.
Barbara Cassani's next visit will be to the south-west. She is hoping to cover the whole of the United Kingdom within the foreseeable future. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to make their points to her and her team as she goes around the UK. She is incredibly receptive to that. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked whether we could focus on a particular project. That should be taken up with the members of the 2012 bid. Again, I have no doubt that when they read the record of this debate, they will respond.
Activities outside the capital include shooting at Bisley, sailing at Weymouth and rowing at Dorney. The development of Weymouth and the extension of the holiday season based on one sport have brought about quite a lot of regeneration in that area. The Olympic football competition can go round many cities in the United Kingdom. Holding camps are extremely important. If we do not look city by city, we must consider counties. For example, Yorkshire is already considering what it can do collectively as a region to attract teams and whether facilities can be shared in Sheffield, York, Leeds and so on. It is examining matters strategically.
Volunteers must not be underestimated. I hope that a lot of them will come from Scotland. Many say that the success of the Commonwealth games in Manchester was due to the volunteers. Manchester gave them a tremendously warm welcome. They helped to produce what many say now were the best Commonwealth games ever. In fact, 24,500 people applied for just over
234WH
10,000 places. About 60,000 volunteers were employed at Sydney—47,000 at the Olympics and 15,000 at the Paralympics. Many people in north-west England now have jobs who would not have done were it not for their training and development at the Commonwealth games. That had a big impact on regeneration through sport.
The bid will leave a legacy that could be managed slightly more effectively than was the case in some other cities that hosted the Olympics, and we are carefully considering such matters. If the hon. Member for North Tayside was being honest about public financing, he could have mentioned the Barnett formula. That would have put public finance into real perspective, but I shall put that to one side.
Our bid has been unique. The first estimate from Ove Arup for holding the Olympic games was £3.6 billion. We considered that, and the income that would be raised. Television rights and ticketing would raise about £2.5 billion, and we calculated that we would be left with a deficit of £1.16 billion, to be found from public funding.
As the Secretary of State and I visited cities throughout the world that had hosted the Olympics, the single message that came across was, "Do not underestimate on the finance. Once you set the budget and you go below it at any stage, the bid will seem a failure." Sydney said loud and clear to us that, if there was one mistake that it made, it was not putting in the contingency that was necessary. It is about creating atmospheres, and that is exactly what happened at the Commonwealth games in Manchester. Those games became the best Commonwealth games ever, but during the first three months of preparation there were real financial problems. More time was spent on trying to manipulate budgets to meet the expenditure than on organising the games, as should have been happening.
We have rightly doubled the £1.16 billion estimate to £2.375 billion, which has put more than £1 billion of contingency into the figures. The criticisms about London not bearing the costs are unfair. The council tax will bear £625 the lottery will bear £1.56 billion and, as been said, the London Development Agency will bear £250 million. The public subsidy will come from such sources, but I believe that putting the other £1.1 billion into the equation will ensure that the games can be set up robustly.
There was a big debate with the official Opposition about whether we launch the lottery before or after the hid for the games in July 2005. We decided that it would be right to do so after that time because of the impact on good causes. We believe that once that comes on board, we will see an increase. There will be a displacement—of that there is no doubt—of around £64 million per year. We—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now turn our attention to acute hospital services.

Acute Hospital Services
3.30 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the most important topic of acute health service provision. I want to concentrate my remarks on the provision of acute services in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority area, which of course includes my constituency, St. Albans.
A little time spent on the local health service history will help us to get the current situation into perspective. Some 25 years ago, a proposal to build a large new hospital between Hemel Hempstead and St. Albans serving both communities was thrown out, as neither community was prepared to close their respective local hospitals. The local services stared on a slow but inevitable decline. Five years ago there was a similar exercise, which was slightly wider in scope. It involved the prospect of a large new hospital—a centre of excellence—but again it would hi ye meant some re-alignment —of services at local hospitals. Once more the respective communities could not agree, and the issue was dropped. Once again it became more difficult to maintain good local services.
We come now to the latest exercise. This time, a full and comprehensive consultation exercise took place—infact, the most detailed and comprehensive that I have ever taken part in or witnessed. Finally, it appeared that a consensus was emerging, and that there was a proposal that the whole two-county community could support. However, when it came to making the decision, a single primary care trust, Dacorum, decided not to support the majority view on a purely parochial basis—that is, because Hemel Hempstead hospital would have to undergo a small realignment of it services.
All agree that the status quo is not an option. Our acute services are among the most stretched in the country. They operate from small, inefficient hospitals that are much in need of reinvestment in their superstructure, and that have difficulty recruiting and retaining high-quality staff. There are times—and this is one—when communities need to reflect on the long term, with the well-being of the whole community in view, and when all those involved in decision taking and leadership need to reflect properly on how our acute services should be developed in the next few years to give us all the services that we need and deserve. We must grasp this opportunity; it will not recur. The alternative is a deterioration of our services, a lack of morale among our clinicians, and people having to travel further and further to access decent services.
Option 2 received the support of 90 per cent. of the population. That was to include a new centre of excellence hospital, which was to be constructed on one of two sites, both adjacent to the university of Hertfordshire. In addition, a new diagnostic and treatment centre was to be built at Hemel Hempstead, and there were to be improvements to the estates of all the other hospital sites. Furthermore, it was hoped that a medical school could be opened at the university of Hertfordshire. That idea has the full and enthusiastic support of the university, which already has a very good medical training faculty in radiography and nursing. Indeed, my youngest daughter is a first-year
236WH
undergraduate on a nursing diploma there. To the majority, that seems a good deal for our two counties, ensuring, as it would, high-quality health services able to recruit top-quality clinicians at all levels. That proposal would take us forward for the next 20 years with a service of which we could all be proud.
Some details of the consultation process will be helpful. More than 1,600 questionnaires were returned, and 130 members of the public responded directly in writing. Some 100 people were involved in focus group discussion, and about 6,800 people signed petitions. There were 5,000 attendees at public and staff events, and there were at least 16,000 contacts with the consultation in one way or another.
At the end of the process, Ian White, the chairman of the strategic health authority, said:
"Option two is not about winners and losers, it is about the benefit to whoever uses health services across the two counties".
There can be no one in the two counties who was not aware of what was proposed, and there were many opportunities for people to make their views known. The local press and media were full of the issue every single week.
I took part personally in the consultation exercise, attending many meetings that were attended by the public, health representatives, local authority elected members, primary care trust workers, nurses, midwives, community health councils and local charities. We discussed at length the options included in the consultation document. There were wide-ranging responses, all in support of the recommendation in the document. Scrutiny committees for health of all local councils, including Hertfordshire county council, supported it, as did primary care trust boards, elected representatives and the vast majority of the public who responded. The only group that was against the recommendation—Dacorum primary care trust—took a full and active part in the deliberations, was listened to and put forward its representations.
No group or individual that wanted to take part was prevented from joining in. The strategic health authority went out of its way to be as inclusive as possible. That was to its credit. I am satisfied that a full and proper consultation exercise was carried out.
I was therefore particularly disappointed when a group in Hemel Hempstead decided to call for a judicial review of the consultation process. As I said earlier, I have never experienced or taken part in a more detailed and comprehensive consultation exercise in all my years as a public representative. I commend Ian White and his team, who undertook all that hard work.
I believe that the judicial review will conclude that everything that should have been done, was done. The process was open, clear and fair, and the conclusion arrived at was supported by the overwhelming majority of the primary care trusts and their constituent public.
I also hope that once the review—which I believe will totally vindicate the strategic health authority-is complete, those who have brought that frivolous call for a review will be surcharged for the cost of the whole judicial review exercise. It has been estimated that £250,000 could be spent on legal representation alone. That money would pay for hundreds of much-needed operations, many on the elderly. It is outrageous that

237WH
that amount of money should be wasted so flagrantly. I would be failing my constituents if I did not call for that money to be recouped from those who have brought the action.
I have sought advice from the Department for Constitutional Affairs on the prospect of recouping the money expended from those who brought the matter to court. The head of the civil initiatives branch tells me that it is normal practice for the loser to pay for both sides. That means that, when the court finds in favour of the strategic health authority—as I believe is inevitable—a judge can, and in my view should, order that those who brought the issue to court will have to pay the costs of both sides.
It is not just the money for legal representation that concerns me, but the amount of time that senior staff at the strategic health authority will have to spend on preparing their defence against the review. The action by the group in Hemel Hempstead is potentially damaging the whole acute service throughout both counties, and at its worst that could mean that there will be no new acute services there.
The people of Hemel Hempstead have not been told the full facts by those who are pursuing the judicial review. Their hospital will not close. A new diagnostic and treatment centre will be built, and apart from the most acute trauma, all cases will continue to be treated at their own accident and emergency unit. Recently, the Hemel Hospital action group has been orchestrating a personal attack against me. The latest incident was a letter to our local press attacking my honesty and integrity. Those are desperate measures from desperate people. Should they continue, I may resort to the courts on my own account.
In summary on this part of my speech, it is recognised that the Herts and Beds is now lagging behind in the provision of good hospital services. That needs to be addressed. Investment in a new hospital, in diagnostic and treatment centres and in upgrading minor injuries and day surgery units must proceed as soon as possible. There cannot be anyone in the two counties who has not heard of the proposals. All have had their opportunity to take part in the fullest and most comprehensive exercise that I have ever witnessed. The judicial review is under consideration and my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to comment on that matter.
I should now like to outline some of the major improvements and new building at my local hospital in St. Albans. Since 1997, there have been many improvements at our city hospital. One of my first acts on being elected to Parliament was to turn the first sod on a new hydrotherapy facility. Two years later it was opened, providing much-needed hydrotherapy for those suffering from the effects of strokes and other conditions such as amputations. Shortly after that, a disused operating theatre, which had been used as a storeroom, was brought back into full use, and I had the privilege of formally opening it. In addition, a new orthopaedic ward was opened to support the work of the new theatre.
The day surgery unit has been upgraded and I visit it regularly. The last time was when I visited one of my sons, who was having an operation on his knee. The
238WH
atmosphere is comforting: tea and toast on tap, with light background music. Senior sister Eileen Kent is the driving force behind this excellent service, a model for others to follow.
There have also been major improvements to the minor injuries unit, which is led by senior sister Rita Dunkerly, who has a first-class team of nurse practitioners helping her. One waits only minutes at the unit. Of particular note is the directly employed cleaner, who keeps the place spick and span and takes real pride in her work. It is recognised by one and all how vital cleanliness is to the well-being of the unit.
A few months ago we were fortunate enough to receive a visit from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has responsibility for regional health. He toured the whole hospital as part of a fact-finding tour. More recently, a further newly built operating theatre was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. That theatre will be used to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists. Its opening was followed by the expansion of the previously opened orthopaedic ward to enable more complex operations to be carried out.
In the immediate future, I am due to open formally a block of key-worker housing units on the hospital site, which will provide vital housing for some of our key staff. Only two years ago, our nearby special care baby unit was shut down because qualified staff could not be recruited. The overriding reason for the lack of applicants was the high cost of housing and the lack of affordable key-worker housing units. Under the chairmanship of Rosie Sanderson and with chief executive Val Harrison, the trust took the decision to construct the key-worker unit. That will help immensely with the recruitment of key staff.
I have mentioned a few key players at our local hospital, but I must commend all staff—medical, nursing and ancillary—who are dedicated to providing a first-class service on behalf of my constituents, the people of St. Albans. I offer them my sincere thanks for all their hard and dedicated work.
Our primary care trust is chaired by John Bennet and its chief executive is Steve Knighton. It is ready to take over responsibility for running our city hospital as soon as practically possible. I believe that our hospital could and should become a foundation hospital. I have every confidence in the ability of my fellow citizens to manage our hospital facility locally, and I give the proposal my full support. Local services managed by local people: a winning combination.
Finally, our acute services are on the verge of great things. We need to be bold and decisive and look to the long term and to the well-being and advantage of the whole community. If we do that, we can have a service that is the equal of any, and in which we can have confidence and pride.
3.44 pm
The Minister of state, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) on securing the debate. I know that it relates to a matter of great concern to him and his constituents. I am extremely impressed by the depth of his knowledge of local staff and services. He

239WH
has done a lot to praise local people for their hard work in providing those services, but I am sure that they are proud to have an MP who works so hard on their behalf. I know that my hon. Friend wants to see provided locally the high-quality health services that his community expects and deserves. That vision of the health service is shared by the Department of Health and the local NHS in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.
My hon. Friend has referred to many changes that have been made locally, and I want to draw attention to other changes, particularly in funding, that have come about since the Government came to power. My hon. Friend will know that since 1997, total funding for the NHS in England has increased by £34 billion. In his 2002 Budget, the Chancellor announced the largest sustained increase in funding of any five-year period in the history of the NHS, with a real-terms increase in resources of 7.4 per cent. each year between now and 2007–08.
What does that mean locally? St. Albans and Harpenden primary care trust will receive an increase of £28.35 million over the three years to 2006, which represents a cash increase of 29.43 percent, for the same period. Those allocations have been made directly to primary care trusts as part of the process of shifting the balance of power so that more resources and responsibilities are in the hands of front-line services. PCTs now control more than 75 per cent. of the NHS budget.
That substantial increase in investment has brought with it the need to review services within the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire area and ensure that they are modernised so that the best use is made of the new resources. As my hon. Friend s aid, the decision to review acute services for Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire was taken in January 2002. That review was later widened to encompass all of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, with the aim of securing an holistic approach to managing health services and a stronger emphasis on the interface between specialist, acute, intermediate and primary care services. Indeed, the local strategic health authority has already invested heavily in the local health economy.
As my hon. Friend said, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire's preferred choice was option 2, but that has been subject to a legal challenge by the Dacorum health action group, which is seeking leave for judicial review. I am afraid that, as my hon. Friend recognised, I am unable to comment further on the proposed reconfiguration of services in the area in view of those legal proceedings, because the matter is clearly sub judice.
The reconfiguration of hospital services is often controversial, and my hon. Friend referred to the interest that local people were taking in it. However, within the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative we are trying to devolve funding decisions to a local level—to primary care trusts working in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders. We believe that they can determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health and tackling health inequalities while also modernising services. They are in the best position to do that because of their knowledge of the local community. The guidance "Keeping the NHS Local" was published by the Department of Health in February 2003. It is not
240WH
a blueprint for hospital design, but it empowers local NHS services to work with local populations, helping them to decide together what pattern of local services will best meet everyone's needs.
The guidance sets out three core principles that should be followed when a major change to services is considered. Principle No. 1 is that options for change should be developed with—not for—patients, staff and local people. That means sitting down with the stakeholders at the outset and ensuring that everyone's priorities within an area are understood.
Principle No. 2 is that where possible services should be redesigned rather than relocated. In many cases, the redesign of services can provide new options for maintaining services locally. Principle No. 3 is about taking a view of the whole system; hospitals and other health and social care providers working in partnership can support each other with genuine integration and joint planning of services.
A legal framework underpins these principles for patient and public involvement in health. There is the statutory duty to involve and consult, which commenced on 1 January 2003. The Department's guidance, "Strengthening Accountability", which was issued in February 2003, sets out a range of suggestions for practical ways of involving the public in an accessible and rigorous way.
The Health and Social Care Act 2001 gave new powers to the overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities to review and scrutinise the planning operation and development of health services, so that democratically elected representatives of local people with responsibility for their well-being exercise proper influence over the NHS on their behalf. We have given the overview and scrutiny committees the right to refer proposals to the Secretary of State if they consider that public involvement has been inadequate or that the process itself is flawed. "Investing in Your Health" went through two local scrutiny processes and, as my hon. Friend knows, both confirmed that they were happy with the process and the outcome.
We have tried to put in train measures to ensure that in local areas where there is a reconfiguration of services there is proper patient and public involvement, and that those decisions are taken at local level, secure in the knowledge that local people will best be able to determine the priorities of their local communities.
My hon. Friend referred to Ministers' visits to his constituency. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have taken a keen interest in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire services. They have visited them in recent months and they were incredibly impressed by the enthusiasm and dedication of local staff working on the front line.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans said, on 27 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened a modular theatre costing about £850,000 at St. Albans, which provides an additional day-surgery theatre; in total there are five such new facilities. By opening those facilities, the West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust will ensure that it meets the target of a maximum nine-month wait for surgery by March 2004 and a six-month wait by 2005.

241WH
The West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust has also drawn up proposals for the centralisation of breast services and for the relocation of ophthalmology services. The centralisation of breast services will provide access to clinics for four days every week for women in West Hertfordshire. That will ensure a speedy response to referral and access to surgery on an elective site, reducing the anxiety that women experience once a breast lump has been found. The ophthalmology service will concentrate on the provision of cataract surgery in an environment that lends itself to such a service.
As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet visited the four acute trusts in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire and saw areas in which investment had already been delivered. For example, a state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging, fracture clinic and dermatology treatment centre opened its doors to patients at Hemel Hempstead general hospital in March. That investment means that patients and staff have a new treatment area. The final phases of the project to construct an X-ray reception opened at the end of July. The Hemel birth centre, which opened on 31 March 2003, is a self-contained unit run by midwives, which offers a supportive "home from home" environment in which mothers can give birth.
As I have said, new investment is being made in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans. He is obviously supportive of that and is working with the local primary care trusts, the strategic health authority, patients and the public in his constituency to ensure that the priorities that are decided reflect local needs. At national level, we provide extra investment. My hon. Friend will know that improving health services is a key priority of this Government. The success with which improvement is taking place in my hon. Friend's constituency has impressed my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and the Secretary of State.
I know that the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans raised is a matter of great concern, and that he understands the difficulty that I have in further commenting on it. However, I hope that he would agree that the changes that we are making are delivering real improvements for patients and the public.

Peak Park Planning Board
3.58 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the issue of representation on national parks. I wish to discuss specifically the Peak District national park, which covers about 50 per cent. of my constituency. When I first entered the House of Commons, the issue of representation on the national parks was always controversial and lively. Indeed, there was a feeling that not enough local people were involved in administering national parks. I always accepted that there must be a proper balance between local and national representation, because the Peak District is a national park with a huge number of visitors.
Against that background, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on 4 July 1989, which would have greatly increased the number of local representatives on the national park. I was pleased to receive cross-party support for the measure; in fact, many distinguished hon. Members supported the Bill, not least the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who is now the Chairman of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee. The Bill also received support from my right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). From the Liberal Democrats, I was supported by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). That showed that at that time there was considerable concern about the way that the governance of the national parks was being distributed.
In 1995, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, was very aware of those comments. In the Environment Act 1995 he did a great deal to address the balance of local representation on the national parks by including in that representation a proportion of parish representatives. It is worth noting that now throughout the major national parks there are 37 parish representatives out of a total of 183 members of the national parks. They have contributed valuably to the way in which the parks are administered and controlled.
I say to the Minister in all seriousness that from my point of view the parish representatives have managed to let people feel that there is an elected element in the national parks. A number of people argue that we should have a fully elected national park body. I have never been convinced by that argument because, as I said at the beginning of my comments, there are wider issues to consider in the way in which the national parks are managed and organised. Since the franchise was widened, I have been aware of fewer complaints about the way in which the national parks operate. Although at the time a number of people criticised the involvement of parish councillors; with the national parks, it has been valuable for the functioning of the national parks.
As any Member of Parliament knows, we have no authority over planning committees or national parks. Sometimes—no doubt like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am grateful that we have no power over planning committees. Sometimes I think that I could do a better job than the planning committees, but perhaps we all

243WH
feel that. The only real way for a Member of Parliament to get involved is to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to call in a planning application once a determination has been made.
I recently wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter of Stanton Lees and Endcliffe quarry, asking him to call that application in. It is slightly different with quarry applications because they are deemed to be quarries and therefore there is deemed to be permission. That is a controversial issue, which I shall not press the Minister on today because whether it should be called in does not fall directly within his remit. On Stanton Lees and Endcliffe, we have now had eco-warriors camping, squatting and living for the past four years. The people in surrounding villages want a determination and they feel that the situation has been going on for far too long. There are certain timetables in tile offing. This is a controversial matter. The Minister will be aware of that from wider experience. It is causing a great deal of concern in that area of the national parks.
There are 11 national parks in England and Wales. They are the most outstanding naturally beautiful parts of our country; that is how they were designated when first set up under the Bill that had its Second Reading in the House in March 1949. The Peak District national park was one of the first to be set up. Things have obviously moved on since then. The area covered by the Peak District is huge. The Environment Act 1995 established the park authorities as autonomous and understood that local people should have a say about their area and the planning decisions that affected them. That is where I want greater local representation.
However, the Secretary of State announced some time ago that there would be a review of the English national parks. Recommendation 22 of the Government's report, published in July 2002, suggested a cap on membership of 20 to 25, with three fifths being local and two fifths national. I think that the Minister has decided that, in the main, there should be a cap of 22 to 25 members. That may be right for other national parks, but I am not here to talk about them. I am here to say that that would be the wrong size for the Peak District national park.
Currently, the Peak District has 38 members, and I can accept the argument that that is a very large committee and that the number should be reduced. I have no argument with the Government when they say that they want to reduce the numbers that make up the national park. At the moment, 20 members represent the county, district, city or borough councils. All 12 local authorities have at least one representative. Derbyshire, as a county, has 31,250 residents, but Derbyshire Dales, the district that covers the vast part of my constituency, has a population of 24,711.
If we went down to 26 members, my concern would be that Derbyshire Dales district council would have only one representative on the national park. That is why I should like the Government to announce a membership of 30. That would enable Derbyshire Dales to have two representatives on the national park, which is important for local accountability. I want to discuss that later. Currently, the Secretary of State Erectly appoints 18 members: 10 to bring other matters, such as national interests, into the management of the park, and eight to represent parish councils.
244WH
I believe that the national park is unique. I am always careful when I use that expression because I am always told off when I do so, but the park is so different from all the other national parks. It is the second most populous national park, with a population of more than 38,000. Only the Lake District national park has a larger population, of more than 42,000.
No other national park covers the area of so many local authorities or has so much local authority involvement as the Peak District. It covers part of six counties and 12 local authorities, including Cheshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire county councils and Sheffield city council. Then there are the districts or metropolitan areas: Barnsley, High Peak, Kirklees, Macclesfield and Oldham borough councils, and Derbyshire Dales, North East Derbyshire and Staffordshire Moorlands district councils. The Lake District national park covers only four councils, so there is a great divergence with the Peak District national park. The Peak District is within an hour's drive of 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population—and some weekends, it feels like they are all going there.
I should like to see better local representation being maintained. One danger of moving to a smaller number of people on the national park would be less good local representation. As I mentioned, there are controversial planning applications to be dealt with. I have addressed the ones relating to quarrying, which are constant; they are always very controversial. I mentioned Stanton Lees and Endcliffe, and not so long ago there was the question of the future of Longstone Edge, which was also very controversial. The decisions that are taken by the Peak District national park authority have considerable effects on the local environment, road traffic and the very nature of the area.
As I said, I fully accept that 38 members may be considered too many, and that a reduction from the current size could well help to improve the efficiency of decision making, and that that is reasonable; but the number should not be less than 30. Even the Peak District national park authority has said,
"our membership cannot be less than 30 without having a severe and unreasonable impact on the representation of people who live within the National Park".
If one looks at the populations of the various districts inside the national park, it soon becomes obvious why Derbyshire Dales should have more representatives than the other authorities. Barnsley has 68 people living inside the national park; Oldham has 93; North East Derbyshire has 147; Kirklees has 202; Sheffield has 965; Macclesfield has 1,268; Staffordshire Moorlands has 3,875; and High Peak has 6,501. In Derbyshire Dales, however, the population living inside the national park is 24,711. To put it another way, 65 per cent. of the people living in the national park are in the area of Derbyshire Dales. That is one of the reasons why I would say to the Minister that taking the figure below 30, which would cut Derbyshire Dales representation down to one, is not acceptable. I urge the Minister not to take us back to a situation in which the whole question of the representation of the national park becomes an issue. That is not in the national park's interest, and is certainly not in the Government's interest. However, a worry has been going around that that could happen. As quickly as possible, we need to bring things to a conclusion so that people accept that there is greater representation.

245WH
If the Minister accepts the number of 30, it is also the case that the parish council members, who are appointed by the Secretary of State but elected by the parish councils, will go from eight to six. That reduction is acceptable and would be understood. If the number went down to 26, we would be almost halving the parish council representation and that would be a disastrous decision.
This is not a huge issue, but it is important. The Peak District national park is important to the millions who visit it—I say millions because we get more than 20 million visitors each year. It is described as the lungs of the United Kingdom. People from Sheffield, Manchester, the west midlands, Nottingham and other large conurbations literally flood into the national park on weekends and bank holidays, and for their holidays. Maintaining the beauty of the area and ensuring that the planning authority has proper representation is therefore an important issue.
The Minister has earned the reputation within the national parks as somebody who cares about them. He has given a lot of time in his ministerial job to their development. I know that he recently visited the Youth Hostels Association in Matlock, which is outside, but close to the national park, and he no doubt visited parts of the Peak district; in fact, I think that he visited the Peak district one afternoon when I could not be there. I hope that he puts this matter to rest so that the questions that have been surrounding the issue of membership of the national park since the review was published on 2 July can be answered. People will then know where they stand.
4:14pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality(Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and giving me a pleasant opportunity to deal with one of the most interesting and varied topics of my portfolio. As I respond to the debate, I am conscious that I do so not only under your watchful eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but under that of the chair of the Peak District national park authority, Mr. Tony Hams.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised this issue with me before, and I am grateful for his courtesy in spelling out his concerns in advance of the debate. The issue has also been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt), by the leader of Derbyshire county council and, on behalf of the Derbyshire Dales district council, John Williams. I have also taken the opportunity to discuss the issue with the chair of the national park authority and, more generally, with members of the national park authority at the beginning of October. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that I spent some time in the Peak District national park looking at the authority's work, meeting its members and its chief executive, Jim Dixon, who was previously an excellent member of the team within the Department
246WH
for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, and who has put his skills to good use in the service of the national park authority. He has a considerably more attractive office with a more attractive view as an officer of the national park authority than when he was part of DEFRA's team in London.
It is a particular privilege to have national parks in my portfolio. It builds on an earlier privilege because I grew up on the edge of the Snowdonia national park. I have appreciated in recent months the opportunity to make some comparison of the work of the different national park authorities and the incredible treasure that we have in the immense range of landscape, flora and fauna in the English national parks. It is a collection of landscapes that together form an immensely important national asset. Representation on national parks has been a sensitive issue the hon. Gentleman said, and I am glad that he referred to his earlier contributions to debate on the issue. I am particularly glad that he agrees with the idea of reducing numbers and I concur that we should not go too far: we must obtain the right balance in the end.
On 4 July 1989, the hon. Gentleman sought to strengthen local representation—as he said, the 1996 legislation subsequently dealt with that. However, it is worth reminding the House of objections to his views at that time. I see from the record that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said that the hon. Gentleman
"presented the Bill because of his experiences with the Peak park joint planning board",
and went on to say that his views were
"over the top"
because
"that provision is merely part of the hon. Gentleman's general vendetta against Derbyshire county council."—[Official Report, 4 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 157.]
Obviously, these are historic documents which reflect contemporary disagreements, but I am happy to confirm that the idea of reducing numbers is not part of a vendetta against anybody. It is part of a purpose to make the national park authorities more efficient and effective, without losing proper representation of different interests.
Mr. McLoughlin: I do not want to spend too much time on the ten-minute Bill that I promoted in 1989, but I am sure that the Minister will realise that I had the House's permission to bring in the Bill, and obtained some very attractive sponsors, as I said earlier-not least Dale Campbell-Savours, who is no longer in the House, and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the current Chairman of the Select Committee. The "mere vendetta" was shared by others as well.
Alun Michael: I am glad to hear the case for the defence.
I should like to explain the background to the recommendations that I am making. My conclusion, on reading the recommendations of the national parks review, was that we should reduce the membership of national park authorities to 22, where possible, or 26. In

247WH
view of the particular circumstances in the Peak District national park, where there is a large number of local authorities—and where representation is therefore a rather more complex issue than it is for the other national parks in England—and also in view of the opinions expressed by hon. Members of all parties and the chairman of the national park authority, I have concluded that 30 is the number to which we should move.
It is not just a question of my making that decision. I remind hon. Members of the process for altering the membership of a park authority, which is set out in statute in schedule 7 of the Environment Act 1995. The legislation has several important requirements. In summary, the size of the park authority can be altered only by statutory instrument. The statutory instrument changes the overall size; it does not alter the balance of membership in terms of the number of local authority and Secretary of State appointments or, within the Secretary of State element, the number of members that she appoints directly and the number that are nominated by the parish councils.
A consequence of that balance of elements in the membership is that only certain sizes are possible. That reduces the options available to us to 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and so on. Also, any statutory instrument must be preceded by consultation with the principal councils—the counties, the districts and the unitaries—that have land in the park. No principal council can be excluded from membership of the park authority, except at its own request, so there is a good deal of protection for the representatives involved.
We have not started the process, but I am now prepared to do so. Clearly, those who disagree with the proposal will have the opportunity to object in the consultation, which will last for 12 weeks. Then there will be the opportunity to pray against the statutory instrument, should any hon. Members feel that that is necessary. I hope that it is not, as a result of the degree of consensus that is built up, and the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman reflected, there is a wish for a sensible outcome leading to an authority that is smaller, but not too small, and so can balance different interests.
The effect of my proposal to reduce the Peak District national park authority to 30 members would be to ensure that it continues to have more members than any other park authority in Great Britain. It also means that the authority will continue to offer at least one seat to each of the principal local authorities with land in the park, but will be better able to conduct its business effectively in accordance with its modernisation agenda. I would underline that the Peak District national park authority, like other national park authorities, is seeking to modernise, and to streamline the way in which it undertakes its work. That will give the members more scope to maximise their contribution.
Mr. McLoughlin: First, I should like to thank the Minister for giving us a final answer on that point, and for ending the uncertainty. Will he be a bit more specific about the timetable? He says that consultation will last for 12 weeks. If a statutory instrument is laid before the
248WH
House and is not prayed against, and therefore comes into effect, when would he expect the new authority to take shape? When does he expect the implementation date to be? The parish representatives are usually elected for four years.
Alun Michael: I take the hon. Gentleman's point entirely. My approach is that the proposal should use the "least pain" method. We will set down the time scale, which will enable people to fulfil their terms of office. That means that it will take a bit longer to get to the end result, but it also means that people will not be ejected and that if any are able to serve part of a term, they will know from the beginning the period for which they will be involved. I undertake to spell that out in putting forward a proposal for the consultation, which will take place in a 12-week period before the statutory instrument is laid. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concerns; he makes a perfectly fair point.
The current thinking is that the Peak District national park should be reduced to 30 seats, that Dartmoor, Exmoor, Lake District, North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales should be reduced to 22 seats, that Northumberland should remain at 22, and that the broads authority, whose legislation is different, should reduce to 21. The legislation on the broads authority addresses the planning requirements differently, so it is possible for that authority to deal with its local authority representation without encountering the complications that arise for the Peak District authority.
The Peak District national park covers more local authorities than any other park—12 as opposed to four or five authorities in the other cases. It also has an unevenly distributed population. The most populous three districts account for 92 per cent. of the resident population—Derbyshire Dales alone accounts for 65 per cent.—while at the other end of the spectrum, three districts each have less than I per cent. of the population. Having said that, those districts have a considerable interest in the national park and its success, so I do not want to suggest that they have only 1 per cent. of interest because they have only 1 per cent. of its resident population.
The park also stretches into four separate government regions. Although this is riot directly relevant to the debate, there is a lead region, and I am pleased that, for example, in our work with regional development agencies, the importance of landscape to the economy as well as communities that live in the national park has been recognised, as well as the main focus of national park responsibilities to protect the landscape and consider recreational opportunities. It is a large park in all senses of the word, and it has a particular place in the history of the development of national parks.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the national park authority should not be composed only of people who are resident in the park. The parks are national assets and, as the regional dimension becomes more important, one issue will have to be addressed, as they will remain a national asset while also being considerably important to their region or, in the case of the Peak District national park, most of the surrounding regions.

249WH
When it comes to planning, everyone thinks that he or she can do better than the local planning authority. I had the privilege of chairing the planning committee of Cardiff city council for a time, and it was borne in on me that the world is populated by two groups of people. There are those who think that the planning committee should not have agreed something that it did and therefore think its members are irresponsible and mad, and there are others who think that it should have allowed something and that its members are therefore unduly restrictive. There is little ground in between.
In general, planning authorities do a good job, and the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to sensitive issues with Lees Cross and Endcliffe quarries, which are matters for consideration. I have been briefed by the Peak District national park authority, and he is right to say that it is for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to decide whether any issue should be called in. However, the authority seems to be taking a careful and responsible approach to the difficult issues that have to be resolved. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has
250WH
constituency concerns—that is always the case—but I would not want anything to be construed as a criticism of how national park authorities deal with their planning responsibilities
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate, as it has given me the opportunity to confirm my views and proposals about the future membership of the Peak District national park authority. In view of the representations and the discussions that I have had with the hon. Gentleman, some of my hon. Friends and the national park authority members, I hope that my proposal will find favour with all. I hope also that we can continue with the constructive support of the national park authority and in agreement about the immense value of the contribution that the Peak District national park, as a historically important member of the family of national parks in England and more widely in the United Kingdom, will continue to play. It is a pleasure to have been able to respond positively to the hon. Gentleman's concerns
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 24 February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [157673]

  Margaret Beckett
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 24 February.

  The Irish Presidency briefly presented its work programme for the first half of the year. Their general priorities were enlargement, simplification and enhancement of food safety.

  The Council agreed by a qualified majority a regulation providing for tariff quotas for the importation of certain fishery products. Italy voted against because of its view that the quota for tuna loin imports was insufficient and Spain abstained because it felt that the quotas in general were too large. I supported the proposal.

  The Council noted progress on technical level discussions preparatory to political discussion at the April Council on the proposals for a regulation on the protection of animals during transport. There was a discussion, and I supported the need for an early agreement and for a longer-term objective of moving trade in live animals for slaughter to a meat basis.

  The Council noted a presentation from the Commission on its proposals for the financial perspective.

  The Council noted a report from the Greek Minister about severe weather conditions in Greece affecting agriculture and the sympathetic: response from the Commission. Greece and the Commission would pursue the assessment of this situation bilaterally.

  The Council took note of a report from the Commission on its public hearing on 22 January on organic food and farming. This is preparatory to the tabling of an action plan by the Commission to the Council later in the Irish Presidency.

  Under any other business, the Council noted a written report on BSE and reports from Commissioner Byrne on the current situation in regard to Avian Influenza in Asia and a recent outbreak in the US. Commissioner Byrne notified the Council that acting under comitology procedures the Commission was to introduce a ban on the importation of live poultry and certain products from the US. The Council also noted a report from
  780W
  Spain and Portugal about the high level of feed grain prices and indications from Finland and Sweden that there remained supplies of oats which could be used.

  The Council also noted information from Italy and Portugal with support from other wine producing countries about recent changes which had been made to the use of traditional terms for wine imported from third countries. The Council noted that the Commission had explained that these changes were necessary to take account of recent discussions at WTO level.

  The Council noted information from France about the low level of milk prices. A wide range of views were expressed in subsequent discussion. I made the point that this was to be expected as a result of the changes agreed last June which was reflected in the compensation payments to be introduced shortly. The Commission undertook to produce an analysis of the situation with assistance from the member states.

  Finally the Commission amplified the terms of a letter which it had recently sent to all member states about the single farm payment to explain that it was simply making the point that member states which chose to operate on regional or hybrid models would need to justify this decision to the Commission as will be clarified in the Commission implementing regulations. This was noted by the Council.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the prospects of obtaining approval under Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome to ban the live transport of horses to the Continent. [153628]

  Akin Michael
  We have considered very carefully the idea that the Government could seek a ban on the grounds of public morality (Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome), but we do not believe that this would be defensible(a) when horses have always been slaughtered in this country in order for the meat to be exported for human consumption and (b) when horses are exported for a variety of purposes. That is why we have concentrated our attention on issues of horse welfare during transport in order to make sure that we have future arrangements based on horse welfare which are stronger and more robust that the current 'minimum values' rules.

  Energy White Paper
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan announced in the Energy White Paper of February 2003 is to be published; whether publication of the plan is expected to be within the timescale originally indicated in the White Paper; and when she expects to publish the second annual progress report on the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. [154580]

  Mr. Morley
  As announced in a written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 3 February 2004,Official Report, columns 30–31WS, the Energy White Paper first annual report will be published shortly after the Easter recess. This will allow the Government to report on a full year from the launch of the White Paper in February 2003, as

  781W
  we are legally required to do by the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, as well as to capture some key energy statistics for the relevant period. Given the importance of energy efficiency to delivery of the Energy White Paper objectives, the Government intend to publish the Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan at the same time as the Annual Report. The Government also envisage simultaneous publication of the fuel poverty strategy implementation plan and the CHP strategy as well as the second annual progress report on the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy.

  Flood Defences
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance has been issued to the Environment Agency on matching local authority funding for flood defences. [154915]

  Margaret Beckett
  No such guidance has been issued. From April 2004 the Environment Agency's flood defence service in England will be funded primarily through Defra grant in aid which will replace, in large part, the levies that local authorities have previously paid to the Agency. We have, however, left in place a power for the Agency to levy local authorities to fund works not covered by Defra grant. These levies need to be agreed by the relevant flood defence committee on which the local authorities have a majority.

  Levies are also subject to a cap of three times the level of Formula Spending Share allocated to each local authority to support the levy payment.

  Horses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much horse meat was exported in 2003. [157263]

  Alun Michael
  In 2003, 1,566 tonnes of horse meat was exported from the UK.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what(a) grants and (b) other public funding she has made available to defray the start-up costs of the National Equine Database; [156652]

  (2) what the (a) start-up budget and the (b) running costs of the National Equine Database are; and from which budget it will be funded. [156654]

  Alun Michael
  Defra is making provision for funding the start up costs of the National Equine Database for the first two years, and thereafter Defra will be responsible for the on-going maintenance costs of the data that Defra will use.

  We have invited tenders to supply the database, and until the procurement process is complete the estimated costs for the database have to be treated as Commercialin-Confidence.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the business recovery scheme to which the unspent funds from the pig industry restructuring scheme was re-allocated. [155497]
  782W
  Alun Michael
  The widely welcomed Business Recovery Fund (BRF) was set up in May 2001 to help small non-farming rural businesses recover from the effects of the foot and mouth outbreak. Pig farmers were eligible to apply for the BRF, but only if they wished to be helped to diversify from farming. The Fund provided a total of some £74 million for allocation to qualifying businesses. £54 million was new money provided by the Government, and the remainder was provided by Regional Development Agencies, who administered the Fund.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) full and (b) part-time staff have been employed in the Rural Payments Agency in each of the last five years. [156046]

  Alun Michael
  The figures for the number of full and part-time staff employed by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) are set out in the following table.

  The RPA was inaugurated with effect from 16 October 2001.

  From

  Full-time

  Part-time1

  16 October 2001

  2,946.00

  196.50

  31 March 2002

  3,003.00

  241.69

  31 March 2003

  3,020.00

  258.46

  31 March 20042

  3.336.00

  291.70

  1 Full-time equivalent.

  2 Forecast figure as at 31 March 2004.

TRANSPORT

  Liquified Petroleum Gas
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage continued use of liquified petroleum gas following removal of road fuel tax support for liquid petroleum gas. [157450]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Liquified petroleum gas (LPG), has and will continue to receive considerable support from Government, not only in the form of a duty incentive (worth £75 million in terms of duty forgone in 2002–03 alone), but also through grants for vehicle conversions (the Powershift scheme), and reduced rates of vehicle excise duty for gas-powered vehicles.

  As the pre-Budget report made clear, the relative environmental benefits of LPG vehicles have become less significant in recent years as a result of progressively tighter emission standards for new conventional petrol and diesel vehicles As a result the Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report that he will begin to gradually increase the rate for LPG over the next three years, setting duty differentials on a path towards a level commensurate with the fuel's environmental benefits. Consistent with the Government's commitment to give three-year certainty on duty differentials for alternative fuels, future differentials for the next three years will be announced at Budget 2004.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Orpington of 2 October 2003, regarding the public safety zone surrounding Biggin Hill airport. [157148]

  Mr. McNulty
  I regret that the hon. Member's letter had not been answered. I have written to him today explaining that in the light of revised forecasts of numbers and types of aircraft movements we have decided to reduce the size of the public safety zones at Biggin Hill airport. The effect will be that the areas of highest risk will no longer include any residential properties and that the airport company will no longer be expected to purchase any properties in Oaklands Lane or Victoria Gardens.

  Motor Insurance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department is making on establishing a link between existing DVLA and motor insurance databases. [157530]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA established a link with the Motor Insurance Database on 17 February 2004 which allows the agency to confirm that a vehicle is insured prior to relicensing without having to view the insurance documents.

  The Motor Insurers Anti Fraud and Theft Register is also linked to DVLA and automatically updates the vehicle record when a vehicle is seriously damaged. This allows an identity check to be carried out when such a vehicle is returned to the road.

  Overseas Hauliers (UK Roads)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many overseas hauliers paid to use UK roads in each of the last three years; and how much the Government received in each year. [157718]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is currently no charging regime in the UK for overseas hauliers. The Government announced in 2002 their intention to introduce a scheme to charge all lorries using UK roads on the basis of distance travelled. The Government remain committed to introducing such a charge and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the pre-Budget report his intention to publish a farther progress report during this year.

  Statutory Off Road Notifications
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the(a) procedures and (b) priorities followed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency when issuing a reminder notice in the case of Statutory Off Road Notifications. [157805]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Reminder notices are issued on or around the 15th day of the month of expiry of both the Statutory Off Road Notification and the vehicle licence.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Cars
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list Whips to whom Government cars have been allocated, indicating in each case the(a) make and (b) engine size. [157852]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1569W.

  Government Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much the Government plans to spend in the next 12 months on delivering services via interactive television. [158135]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on expenditure on delivering services via interactive television is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what Government services projected to be delivered electronically in 2005 will be delivered through interactive television. [158136]

  Mr. Alexander
  Government Departments continue to work towards getting all Government services online by 2005, and seek to use Digital TV (DTV) wherever appropriate. Flagship services available now on DTV or planned by 2005 include Teacher TV, NHS Direct, Jobcentre Plus and the Pensions Service. In addition, UK online Interactive is a world-first national one-stopservice for Government on DTV, bringing together access to all nationally available DTV services and progressively rolling out access to local government services on DTV.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much the Government expects to save by providing all services through electronic means by 2005. [158137]

  Mr. Alexander
  The 2005 target aims to widen and facilitate access to Government services.

  The Efficiency Review led by Sir Peter Gershon is encouraging Departments to review take-up of e-services to deliver savings.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether the Government expects to have all its services available online by 2005; and if he will make a statement. [158133]

  Mr. Alexander
  Departments continue to work towards the target of 100 per cent. availability by 2005.

  The latest figures on progress towards the target of making Government services available electronically by 2005 show that 66 per cent. of Government services are e-enabled.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Parliamentary Questions have been tabled to his Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what

  785W
  percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157518]

  Mr. Alexander
  The detailed information is not held in the form requested. However, during the period 1 January 2003 to 31 January 2004 the Cabinet Office answered 84 Named Day Questions of which 80 per cent. were answered on time and 341 Ordinary Written Questions of which 43 per cent. were answered on time.

  Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much the Government has spent on its websites in each of the past four years. [158134]

  Mr. Alexander
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for the management and expenditure of their websites and as such expenditure figures are not held centrally by the Cabinet Office.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Fraud Trials
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) what steps she is taking following the most recent developments in the London City Bond and Operation Puma cases, in relation to(a) prosecution for perjury and (b) disclosure of documents by HM Customs and Excise to the Butterfield Inquiry into this matter; and if she will make a statement; [154656]

  (2) what steps she is taking following the most recent developments in the London City Bond and Operation Puma cases; and if she will make a statement. [154655]

  The Solicitor-General[holding answer 12 February 2004]
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1552W. regarding the investigation jointly known as the London City Bond cases, and the review by Mr. Justice Butterfield that followed them. I also refer you to the Attorney General's statement made on 4 December 2003, Official Report [Lords], column WA32, which announced the Government's intention to establish an Independent Prosecutions Office dealing with Customs and Excise prosecutions. The process will start soon to recruit a new Head to that office who will be directly accountable to the Attorney-General. As well as the developments outlined in that answer, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to some of the steps taken by Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office to improve the disclosure process in the large and complex cases prosecuted by them.
  The Head of Prosecutions commissioned two reports on disclosure from CEPO's Quality Assurance team in order to assess and improve disclosure in CEPO cases. Recommendations from those reports are being taken forward.

  A conference on disclosure was hosted by CEPO in December of last year attended by members of the Bar, the judiciary and defence practitioners which explored the difficulties involved in disclosure in large and complex cases, and encouraged the exchange of ideas and best practice which CEPO will take forward.
  786W
  There is a current Metropolitan police investigation into the circumstances surrounding the LCB cases. No file has been received by the CPS in relation to any prosecutions arising from that investigation.

  Iraq
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Solicitor-General what information the Attorney-General had received on weapons of mass destruction when he prepared his opinion on the legality of war against Iraq; whether this included information on weapons capable of being launched in 45 minutes; and whether it was indicated to him whether there we re battlefield weapons or weapons deliverable to targets outside Iraq. [155417]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General received a briefing from the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee on the content of the Government dossier published in September 2002 on 19 September 2002. As I explained to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) in my reply to him dated 14 October 2003, the Attorney-General did not rely upon any facts or assertions contained in the September dossier as material to his conclusion set out in his statement of 17 March that Iraq had failed to comply with Resolution 1441 and that a legal base for the use of force existed in the combined effect of UN Security Council Resolutions 678,687 and 1441.

  Katharine Gun
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Solicitor-General whether(a) she and (b) the Attorney General had discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions about the case of Katharine Gun before the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to offer any evidence against her. [157846]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have not discussed the case of Katharine Gun with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  For certain offences, including those under the Official Secrets Act, the Attorney General's consent is required by statute before a prosecution can go ahead. The Director of Public Prosecutions discussed the case with the Attorney General before the CPS took the decision to offer no evidence against Katharine Gun on evidential grounds.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons the Attorney General did not issue a nolle prosequi in the case of Katharine Gun. [158132]

  The Solicitor-General
  Under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, it is for the prosecution to keep under review the prospects of a conviction as the case progresses. Counsel In this case did so and the CPS decided not to proceed with the case, on the advice of counsel and after consultation with the Attorney General, because the evidence was such that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

  A nolle prosequi would not normally be entered where the reason not to proceed with the case is, as here, an evidential deficiency.

  Parmalat
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions she has had since the Parmalat affair on
  787W
  greater co-operation between regulatory authorities (a) internationally and (b) at EU level; and if she will make a statement. [156884]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have not discussed, since the Italian police investigation into Parmalat, the issue of greater co-operation between regulatory authorities internationally or at EU level.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of aerospace manufacturing and its supply chain in Lancashire. [157713]

  Jacqui Smith
  We recognise the contribution that the North West of England has made to the UK aerospace industry in the past and the important role it continues to play as part of a highly innovative and competitive defence industry.

  The Government's Defence Industrial Policy was launched in October 2002 and alms to enhance the industry's competitiveness and sustainability, while continuing to provide high quality equipment at best value for money. As part of that policy the MOD takes a range of factors into account when making major procurement decisions, and a key one is an evaluation of its impact on industrial activity regionally—both at prime contractor level and within the supply chain—and my Department actively contributes to that process.

  Bankruptcy
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to reduce the 8 per cent. interest rate charged on debts determined by the Judgment Act 1838 which is levied on bankruptcy debts under Rule 6.113 of the Insolvency Act 1986; and if she will make a statement. [157831]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have no plans to amend Rule 6.113 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 so that a rate of interest other than that specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 will apply to debts mentioned in sub rules (2) and (3) and outstanding at the date of the bankruptcy order. It is for the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to make any order amending the rate of interest which applied under section 17 of that Act.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to allow discretion on the charge of an interest rate of 8 per cent. on bankruptcy debts; and if she will make a statement. [157832]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have no such plans. I consider the interest rate at which judgment debts carry interest to be the appropriate rate to be applied to bankruptcy debts in those cases where the Insolvency Act 1986 provides for section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 to be applied.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to vary the percentage of debt recovered fee she charges for performance of her general duties under insolvency legislation; and if she will make a statement. [157833]
  788W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  A new Insolvency Fees Order will come into effect on 1 April 2004 that will include a new rate of 17 per cent. "For the performance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of her general duties under the insolvency legislation in relation to the administration of the affairs of each company which is being wound up by the court" and "For the performance by the Secretary of State of her general duties under the insolvency legislation in relation to the administration of the estate of each bankrupt". However, the fee will not be applied to the first £2,000 of receipts in a case and the maximum of this fee in any one case will be limited to £100,000. The new rate will only apply to cases where the insolvency Order is made on or after 1 April 2004.

  For cases where the insolvency Order has been made before 1 April 2004 the current scales will continue to be applied except in relation to the affairs of companies which are being wound-up voluntarily where the fees will be revoked from 1 April 2004.

  This is only one of a number of changes being made on 1 April 2004 in relation to fees in insolvency cases. The new Fees Order, which will shortly be signed and be made available on The Insolvency Service's website (insolvency.gov.uk), seeks to simplify the fee structure applicable in relation to insolvency proceedings by reducing the number of fees payable. Hence it is not possible to make a direct comparison between any specific fee that will be prescribed in the new Fees Order with a specific fee charged under the Insolvency Fees Order 1986 or earlier legislation.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which body is responsible for(a) responding to complaints about and (b) reviewing trustees' remuneration under bankruptcy legislation. [157834]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Concerns regarding the remuneration of a trustee in bankruptcy should be addressed to the court dealing with the bankruptcy in question by making an application under either section 303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or Rule 6.142 of the Insolvency Rules 1986.

  Broadband
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the likelihood of achieving 100 per cent. broadband coverage by non-wireless connection by the end of 2005; and if she will make a statement. [156464]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's call in November 2003 for Government, public bodies and broadband providers to bring broadband to every community in the UK by the end of next year was supported by BT and other industry stakeholders.

  By January 2004, broadband either by cable or ADSL was available to 85 per cent. of households and that is almost certain to rise to 90 per cent. this year. Decisions on the type of networks to be deployed are predominately for the market. It is likely that wireless will make a contribution to 100 per cent. availability.

  The Government are making a significant contribution to ensure 100 per cent. broadband coverage is achieved. Between 2003 and 2006 public services will be

  789W
  spending £1 billion on broadband connectivity. The Regional Aggregation Bodies (trading as Adits) are using their buying power to bring broadband to new and previously untenable areas and the Regional Development Agencies will be spending or committing a further £235 million to broadband development by 2006. This will provide opportunities for further investment by industry using a range of appropriate technical solutions, including alternatives to ADSL and cable—for example, powerline and satellite in addition to wireless.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of(a) call centres and (b) call centre jobs in Leeds. [156240]

  Ms Hewitt
  Existing information does not enable us to provide reliable figures. However, my Department has commissioned research on the key factors contributing to the relative competitiveness of UK call centre operations to help identify any appropriate actions which need to be taken by industry or Government in response to the increasingly global market for call centre services. This will include an examination of the main product areas in the UK call and contact centre industry that are vulnerable to growing competition from lower-wage economies; and which types of call and contract centre activity and which regions have been most affected or are most likely to be affected in the near future.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of call centre jobs relocated abroad in the last five years. [156241]

  Ms Hewitt
  Existing information does not enable us to provide reliable figures. Official statistics do not generally separate call centre activities from the main activity of a firm or enterprise (e.g. banking). The term "Call Centre" can be used to describe a broad variety of functions and activities across a wide range of commercial, industrial and public sectors. Difficulties and differences in definition are reflected in commercial market research on call centres where estimates on the number of call centres and call centre employees vary substantially. In light of this my Department has commissioned research on the key factors contributing to the relative competitiveness of UK call centre operations to help identify any appropriate actions which need to be taken by industry or Government in response to the increasingly global market for call centre services.

  Cold Calling
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Office of Fair Trading will report on its investigation into the complaint from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux regarding cold calling. [157476]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office of Fair Trading expect to report in April. They expect to make public their position on legislative options for tackling bogus traders in advance of the full report.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of UK retail was represented by on-line shopping in each quarter since January 1999; and what targets her Department has set for on-line shopping as a proportion of all UK retail. [157214]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Official statistics separately identifying online orders within the retail sector are not available. In 2002, the value of online orders received from households by the UK wholesale, retail, catering, travel and telecommunications sectors was £5.2 billion (excluding the financial sector). This represents an increase of 63 per cent. from the 2001 estimate of £3.2 billion. Figures for the period prior to this are not available (Source: Office for National Statistics experimental statistics1). These figures represent 0.3 per cent. of total sales by UK businesses (excluding the financial sector) in 2002 and 0.2 per cent. in 2001. Total UK retail sales were £230 billion in 2002 and £219 billion in 2001.

  The Department does not set targets for on-line shopping.

  12002 e-commerce surrey of business.

  E-mail
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates her Department has made of(a) the number of spam e-mails sent to UK companies and (b) the cost to business associated with tackling spam e-mails in 2002–03. [157804]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government do not have an estimate of the number of spam e-mails sent to UK companies or the cost to businesses here in tackling spam e-mails in 2002–03, although business recipients of spam point to the impact of time spent in deleting spam messages and paying for anti-spam and anti-virus protection. The UK is actively involved in a current exercise by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development which aims to develop better techniques for measuring spam and estimating its impact.

  Employment Information Booklets
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what savings she estimates will be made by the ending of the supply of printed employment information booklets(a) URN 03/595, (b) URN 03/597, (c) URN 00/632, (d) PL 517, (e) PL 699, (f) PL 700, (g) PL 704, (h) PL 707, (i) PL 711, (j) PL 712, (k) PL 714, (l) P1716, (m) PL 718, (n) PL 724, (o) PL 808, (p) PL 810, (q) PL 833 and (r) PL 958; and how much additional grant funding will be made available to citizens' advice bureaux to cover the extra costs to their offices of receiving the booklets electronically. [156781]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department estimates savings in the region of £140,000 per annum. Booklets(a), (b), (1) and (m) (replaced by PI 718x) remain available in hard copy.

  Acas produces leaflets on individual employment rights. These can Ix obtained free of charge from the Acas distribution centre on 08702 429090. Therefore I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to provide additional grant funding to Citizen's Advice Bureaux.

  Financial Services Industry
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department intends to introduce legislation on the consumer credit market in the UK. [157215]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  On 8 December 2003 we published a White Paper setting out our proposals on the consumer credit market. This was the culmination of the first major review of the regulation of this market in 30 years. The regulatory proposals in the White Paper will be implemented by a combination of Statutory Instruments, which will be brought forward during the course of this year with the first coming into force in October 2004, and a Bill, which will be introduced when parliamentary time is available.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to promote the reporting by financial services companies of suspected cases of money laundering. [157216]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  HM Treasury and the Home Office are jointly responsible for the UK's money laundering reporting regime. Financial service s companies, along with other businesses in the "regulated sector", are required to have in place formal systems for deterring, detecting and reporting money laundering and to train their staff accordingly. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 substantially strengthened these requirements, for example by making it a criminal offence to fail to make a disclosure where there are reasonable grounds to know or suspect money laundering.

  This Department works closely with the Treasury and Home Office in supporting this regime.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department expects to conclude its review of the legislation on flexible working. [157220]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Following on from the detail I provided in my answer to my hon. Friend on 3 February 2004,Official Report, columns 777–78W, we continue to gather data which will form the evidence base for the review scheduled to commence in 2006. However at such an early stage it is inappropriate to speculate on the nature of the review itself, and therefore the length of time it may take.

  Football (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responsibilities her Department has in relation to the Scottish football industry; and if she will make a statement. [156854]

  Ms Hewitt [holding answer 27 February 2004]
  My Department has no responsibilities in relation to the Scottish football industry.

  Gas Storage
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy 792W
  on the development of gas storage facilities in underground caverns formed within deep rock salt deposits. [157500]

  Mr. Timms
  As Great Britain becomes increasingly dependent on imported gas it will be important that the market continues to provide sufficient flexibility to meet demand. Gas storage projects help do this. The Government therefore welcomes proposals for new projects. They must, of course, obtain necessary planning and other regulatory consents.

  Higher Education Innovation Fund
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money was spent on the first round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund. [157248]

  Ms Hewitt
  Around £78 million has been awarded to 89 applicants under the first round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund. A further £1 million has already been allocated to organisations to train more knowledge-transfer professionals.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the budget is for the second round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund; and how many organisations will be eligible for this funding. [157249]

  Ms Hewitt
  £187 million will be available to higher education institutions through the second round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF 2).

  132 higher education institutions in England are eligible for HEIF 2 funding.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants were awarded to local authorities in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in each of the last three financial years that fall outside the revenue support grant. [157085]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department of Trade and Industry provided the following grants:

  (a) Lancashire county council

  Start-up grant of £5,000 in 2001–02 to develop a Consumer Support Network. Lancashire county council are part of the trading standards North of England regional group who received funding of £42,000 in 2001–02 and 2002–03 for regional coordination projects, £96,900 in 2002–03 to support an e-commerce enforcement project and £74,753 and £100,000 in 2003–04 for trading standards enforcement coordination projects and a consumer education project respectively.

  (c) Chorley borough council

  No grants were awarded to Chorley borough council from the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Manufacturing Skills Base
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government schemes and initiatives have been enacted to retain the skills base in the United Kingdom following manufacturing job losses. [156984]
  793W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government's Manufacturing Strategy, which we developed in partnership with industry, trade unions and other stakeholders, aims to create a high-value manufacturing sector in the UK with a highly skilled and well paid workforce, moving away from competing on the basis of low skill and low wages. We are continuing to develop a range of initiatives under the Skills Strategy such as employer training pilots, modern apprenticeships, the growing network of Sector Skills Councils and other measures to better deploy and retain skills to improve business performance.

  Where there are significant redundancies in the manufacturing sector, the Rapid Response Service works to move people quickly into new jobs, preventing them from becoming detached from the labour market. Although a trend to declining manufacturing employment has been a feature of advanced economies over the last 30 years, new jobs are still being created all the time. Around 250,000 manufacturing vacancies were reported to Jobcentre plus in the last year. Overall the UK labour market is performing well, with total employment rising by nearly 1.7 million since spring 1997, and unemployment falling in every region in Britain over the past year.

  Near Earth Objects
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will maintain the level of service provided by the(a) National Near Earth Object Information Centre and (b) the Spaceguard Centre. [155368]

  Ms Hewitt
  The British National Space Centre (BNSC) has contributed funding to the setting up and maintenance of the Near Earth Object (NEO) Information Centre based at the National Space Science Centre in Leicester. It provides information to the public and monitors NEO activity. This follows the recommendations of the Near Earth Object Task Force Report. The BNSC contract expires on 31 December 2004. The Government has not contributed funding to the Space Guard Centre in the UK.

  Online Banking
  Mr. Simmonds:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with the banking sector to combat internet hackers and fraudsters from obtaining customers' online banking details through deception and other means. [157807]

  Lead Institution

  Partner Institutions

  Award (£)

  Public Sector Research Establishment Round 1

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

  4,000,000

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  UK Atomic Energy Authority

  CCLRC

  475,000

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  510,000

  Central Science Laboratory

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  231,860

  794W
  Mr. Timms
  The Department has no direct responsibility for the banking sector. As part of our normal discourse with business we do speak with the banking sector, including discussion of recent attempts to gain customers' passwords and other details. The results of these discussions are reflected in our promotion of information security best practice to business.

  Post Office
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures govern the categorisation of rural and urban post offices. [157810]

  Mr. Timms
  The decision to classify a post office branch as urban or rural is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. The company classifies as rural any post office within a community of less than 10,000 inhabitants. Above that the post office is classified as urban. I understand that the company has a geographical mapping model that enables it to adopt a consistent approach to classification across the country.

  Public Sector Research Exploitation Fund
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent on the Public Sector Research Exploitation Fund in each year since its inception; and how many organisations have received assistance through this fund. [157250]

  Ms Hewitt
  An award totalling over £10 million was made through the Public Sector Research Exploitation (PSRE) fund in October 2001. A second round of the PSRE fund worth almost £15 million was announced in the Science Budget for 2003–06. Money spent so far in Round 1 is as follows:

  Financial year

  £

  2001£02

  287,500

  2002£03

  7,521,860

  2003£04

  300,000

  Total

  8,109,360

  A further £2,000 000 of funding has been approved but not yet drawn down.

  19 applications received funding through PSRE round 1 and 16 in PSRE round 2. The organisations that have received assistance through the fund in rounds 1 and 2 are listed as follows, with their funding allocation. In collaborative applications to the fund, institutions nominate a lead establishment, shown as follows.
  795W

  Lead Institution

  Partner Institutions

  Award (£)

  Institute of Food Research

  Plant Bioscience Ltd.

  160,000

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  220,000

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Lynton Lasers Ltd.

  287,500

  Product Innovation and Development Centre

  Natural Environment Research Council

  600,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Hospitals Trust

  BioSci North Ltd.

  270,000

  MKW Engineering Ltd.

  Newcastle General Hospital

  NHS Executive, Northern and Yorkshire Region

  RTC North Ltd.

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research

  CERN

  200,000

  Plant Bioscience Ltd.

  530,000

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  National Institute of Biological Standards and Controls

  300,000

  South Glasgow University Hospitals Trust

  BioIndustry Association (Scotland)

  425,000

  Connect

  Grampian University Hospital NHS Trust

  Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust

  LINC Scotland

  Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Executive, Chief Scientists

  Scottish National Blood Transfusion

  Tayside University Hospital NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust

  300,000

  Birmingham Specialist Community Health NHS Trust

  Burton Hospital NHS Trust

  City Hospital NHS Trust

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospital NHS Trust

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic

  South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust

  South Warwickshire General Hospital NHS Trust

  The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Hospital Trust

  300,000

  South Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Four London NHS Trusts comprising:

  Barts and the London NHS Trust

  City and Hackney Primary Care Trust

  East London and City Mental Health Trust

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  Newham Healthcare Trust

  Newham Primary Care Trust

  Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas's NHS Trust

  Epson and St. Helier NHS Trust

  King's College Hospital Trust

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  South West London and St George's Mental Health Trust

  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust

  The Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  North West London Hospitals Trust

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  796W 797W

  Lead Institution

  Partner Institutions

  Award (£)

  The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust

  1,300,000

  Camden and Islington Mental Health NHS Trust

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  The University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  Total

  110,109,360

  Public Sector Research Establishment Round 2

  Barts and the London NHS Trust

  The Royal Free Hampstead

  2,300,000

  The Royal Brompton and Harefield

  Guy's and St. Thomas

  The London Development Agency

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council(BBSRC)

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)

  2,000,000

  Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL)

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council(PPARC)

  UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children'sHospitals NHS Trust

  University TrusTECH

  750,000

  Health Protection Agency

  BIONOW

  Medical Devices Faraday

  CLIK Knowledge Transfer

  750,000

  Defence Science and Tech Lab (DSTL)

  Central Science Laboratory

  1,000,000

  Health Protection Agency

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Forensic Science Service, The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  500,000

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust

  Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  250,000

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  York Hospitals NHS Trust

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Yorkshire Forward

  Medilink (Yorkshire and Humber)

  Moredun Research Institute

  Roslin Institute

  1,500,000

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Agricultural College

  Institute for Animal Health

  Natural Environment Research Council

  600,000

  National Museums Liverpool

  Lynton Lasers

  750,000

  The Hothouse

  Castle Fine Arts Foundry

  Shape Design

  Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospitals Trust

  RTC North Ltd.

  490,000

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne Regional Medical Physics Dept

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  Centre of Excellence for Life Sciences

  North Tyneside Primary Care Trust

  County Durham and Darlington Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust

  University of Durham

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, The

  South East England Development Agency

  540,000

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  798W 799W

  Lead Institution

  Partner institutions

  Award (£)

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  500,000

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  East of England Development Agency

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC)

  175,000

  Plant Biosiences Ltd

  BBSRC

  1,800,000

  Roslin Institute(Genecom)

  Institute of Animal Health

  800,000

  Moredun Research Institute

  Total

  14,705,000

  1 The Advisory Board recommended that the additional £109,360 (over and above the £10 million allocated for the PSRE Fund) be taken from the surplus from University Challenge.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many organisations have been helped by the Public Sector Research Exploitation Fund in each year since its inception. [157251]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Public Sector Research Exploitation Fund has been awarded through two competitive funding rounds. PSRE Round 1 awards were made in October 2001 with over £10 million going to 19 lead institutions. The allocation of Round 2 funds was announced in January 2004. Almost £15 million went to 16 lead organisations. For a list of organisations that have received assistance from the fund, please refer to PQ No. 157250 answered today.

  Security Breaches
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff are employed in her Department to tackle problems arising from information security breaches. [157257]

  Ms Hewitt
  Fourteen staff employed in my Department may potentially be involved in investigating, and tackling problems arising from, information security breaches. Others from across the Department and from our key service suppliers may assist these staff when dealing with individual cases.

  Springfields Site (USA)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason she has accepted responsibility on behalf of the taxpayer for the costs of clearing up the Springfields site in the United States; what steps she is taking to identify those individuals responsible for generating this environmental and financial liability; and if she will make a statement. [157865]

  Mr. Timms
  Springfields, the BNFL fuel manufacturing facility is located near Preston in Lancashire. The NDA on formation will become responsible for its clean-up.

  Sugar Regime
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to respond to the letter to her from the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance concerning reform of the sugar regime; and for what reason she has not yet responded. [157095]
  800W
  Ms Hewitt
  My office has no record of having received this letter. If the hon. Member writes to me again I will ensure that a response is sent as soon as possible.

  UK Online for Business
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what products her Department intends to introduce to rationalise the activities of UK online for business; how these will encourage the effective use of the Internet and other information and communication technologies by small and medium-sized companies; and what the projected costs are for each new product; [157241]

  (2) what the budget is for the forthcoming year to promote effective use of information and communication technology by businesses. [157246]

  Mr. Timms
  Under its programme of reform of business support products my Department is launching two new products under the theme of "Achieving best practice in your business". These bring together the best of a number of existing schemes such as "UK online for business" and "Fit for the Future", as well as offering direct support for implementation of best practice business projects. The promotion of effective use of information and communication technology will underpin these products, which will have a programme budget, in the first year, of £20 million.

  Weights and Measures Act
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in amending the Weights and Measures Act 1985 to facilitate electronic communications. [157198]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are in the process of identifying provisions in consumer legislation, including the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which may need to be amended. The Government aims to start public consultations on any proposed changes by March 2005.

  Written Ministerial Statement
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the Written Ministerial Statement made by the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services on 5 February 2004,
  801W
  Official Report, column 48WS, on Post Office Urban Reinvention Network, (1) what his definition of dense network is; [156483]

  (2) what percentage of post offices in urban deprived areas are situated in dense networks. [156484]

  Mr. Timms [holding answer 26 February 2004]
  Post Office Ltd. defines a dense network of surrounding offices, in the context of offices in the 10 per cent. most deprived areas, as being several accessible branches in the 0.5 to one mile range travelling distance. Each proposal will however be considered on an individual basis with regard to reasonable transport links between the branches and travel across the area generally needed for retail needs. In addition, the role of Postwatch in the consultation process ensures that each proposal is analysed on a case-by-case basis.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much money his Department has provided to the Burma Border Consortium in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; [157474]

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to meet the food needs of refugees in camps on the Thai-Burmese border in 2003–04; [157618]

  (3) what support his Department has made available in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 for Burmese refugees outside the country. [157638]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department provided £600,000 to the Burmese Border Consortium in 2002–03 and 450,000 in 2003–04 to help meet the food needs of refugees in Thailand. £220,000 is being provided in 2003–04 for a border areas health programme of the World Health Organisation (WHO), which covers refugees in Thailand.

  The Department is also providing support to refugees from Burma through the European Commission (EC). The EC has so far allocated 2 million euros (£2.8 million) for the Burmese Border Consortium, over the period 2002–04, 20 per cent. of which is attributable to the UK.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been provided by his Department in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 to assist internally displaced people in Burma and to provide education for Burmese refugees in refugee camps on the Burma-Thailand border. [157620]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department did not support programmes specifically focused on internally displaced people in Burma in 2002–03 or 2003–04. However, internally displaced people may be among the beneficiaries of other DFID programmes during this period, such as a UNICEF-led immunisation programme in Burma for which DFID provided £567,000 in 2002–03, work by the International Committee of the Red Cross 802W
  for which DFID provided £1.5 million in 2002–03, and some small grants to civil society organisations in both years.

  Our support in these years to Burmese refugees in camps on the Thai- Burma border focused on meeting basic food needs. Some support for education activities has been provided in the past through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as detailed in my reply to another question from the hon. Member for Buckingham.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the projected level is of expenditure by his Department in 2004–05 on wildlife projects in Burma; and how the money will be allocated; [157621]

  (2) what funding has been provided by his Department in 2003–04 for wildlife projects in Burma; and how the money was allocated. [157622]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department has not funded wildlife projects in Burma during 2003–04 and currently has no plans to do so in 2004–05.

  Deforestation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the world's rainforests has been destroyed in each of the last 10 years to provide land purely to provide food for animals; and how much grain for humans this land could provide per year. [156966]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A recent Food and Agriculture Organisation study sampled 10 per cent. of the world's tropical forests in 1980, 1990 and 2000. The key changes noted were a loss of 'closed forest' (i.e. rain forest) amounting to 70–80 million hectares per decade, and a gain in "other land cover", primarily cultivation and pastures, of an almost identical area.

  It is not possible to state the proportion of forest destroyed to provide food for animals, since deforested land often has a sequence of changing uses. For example, in South America land cleared for cattle ranching is often later used for soy bean cultivation. In Africa, land cleared for small-scale landholdings is often used for both cultivation and raising livestock.

  It is not possible to say how much grain for humans deforested land could provide per year owing to huge variations in land fertility.

  Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the forthcoming Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific population and development meetings in(a) Santiago in March and (b) Puerto Rico in June. [157780]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  This year the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean will be holding a 10-year regional review of progress against the commitments made in the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 (ICPD). The process will consist of two parts: Firstly there will be a
  803W
  technical open-ended meeting of an ad-hoc working group in Santiago, Chile in March. The outcome of this will be a report of key lessons and challenges in relation to further implementation of ICPD. Secondly there will be a high-level regular meeting of ECLAC in Puerto Rico in June, which will consider the outcome of Santiago.

  The UK Government will be represented at both these meetings as members of ECLAC. We are keen to emphasise the importance of the ICPD commitments and to support countries that do not wish to weaken the consensus of ICPD. DFID is particularly concerned with maintaining wording on reproductive health, rights and sexual health and avoiding unproductive arguments about issues that have already been agreed. The emphasis of the two ECLAC meetings should be on monitoring of progress of the ICPD) commitments in the region and discussion around enhancing progress for the next 10 years.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on progress on human rights in Ethiopia; what indicators he is using to monitor human rights in Ethiopia; and when he expects the Ethiopian Government to set up the Human Rights Commission promised in 2000. [156828]

  Hilary Benn
  When I visited Ethiopia in February I spoke to Prime Minister Meles and members of his Government about how respect for human rights can be improved. The Prime Minister accepted there are problems, but told me of his commitment to improving this situation. He gave an undertaking to build the capacity of the judiciary and security sectors to help protect constitutional rights for all.

  The Government of Ethiopia have agreed to link progress with human rights to our UK budget support agreement. The 'Establishment of a Human Rights Commission and Ombudsman' will be one indicator of progress. The target for June 2004 is for the commissioners of both bodies to be appointed. By June 2005, both bodies will be expected to produce a report outlining cases and complaints handled.

  We will be monitoring progress carefully.

  Famine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the amount of grain required to provide an adequate level of sustenance for those people living in famine. [156965]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID follows the international guidelines as set by the World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation for the provision of food in emergency situations.

  The guidelines recommend a minimum of 2,100 Kcals per person per day. This is equivalent to approximately 600 g of grain. However, wherever possible, we seek to ensure a diet with an appropriate balance of nutrients. Rations are therefore not usually provided as grain
  804W
  alone, but typically consist of 400 g of grain, 50 g of corn soy blend, 25 g of oil, 60 g of pulses and 15 g of sugar per person per day.

  Different degrees of under-nourishment require different feeding regimes. For example, severely malnourished children are usually taken into a therapeutic feeding regime that will provide 200 Kcal per kilogramme of body weight per day. The rations are usually made up of a mixture of fortified flour, oil, sugar, vitamins and mineral complex and other local foods as appropriate.

  HIV/AIDS
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment his Department has made of trends in HIV/AIDS rates in countries identified by UNAIDS as the worst affected countries. [156398]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID provides support to UNAIDS, and looks to them to provide information on the global status of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Last December, UNAIDS launched the Global Epidemic Update (available at www.unaids.org) which provided a synthesis of trends in the epidemic in all regions. They will be producing detailed country information to launch at the World AIDS Conference in July 2004 in Bangkok.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations his Department has made to UNAIDS about changes to future exercises estimating HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in sub-Saharan Africa, to include population-based surveys as opposed to surveys which indicate trends in HIV prevalence; [156438]

  (2) what representations his Department has (a)received from non-governmental organisations and (b) made to UNAIDS on over-estimates of HIV/AIDS rates in sub-Saharan Africa by UNAIDS; [156784]

  (3) what research his Department (a) has commissioned and (b) plans to commission into differences between data based on population-based surveys and on ante-natal clinic-based surveys in giving reliable estimates of the level of HIV/AIDS infection in sub-Saharan Africa; [156397]

  (4) what representations his Department (a) has made and (b) plans to make to UNAIDS to include population-based HIV survey data in UNAIDS' next report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic. [156400]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We have not received any representations from non-governmental organisations on over-estimates of HIV/AIDS rates in sub-Saharan Africa. This Department does not plan to commission research into the differences between data based on population-based surveys and on ante-natal clinic-based surveys in giving reliable estimates of the level of HIV/AIDS infection in sub-Saharan Africa. UNAIDS has the mandate to provide information on the status of the epidemic.

  UNAIDS included information about methodological issues relating to differences between data taken from these two different sources in the Global Epidemic update, which was released last World AIDS day. They concluded

  805W
  that population based surveys are likely to underestimate true HIV prevalence in most cases, because some respondents are absent from the household at the time of a survey and some refuse to participate. UNAIDS also recognise that most antenatal clinic-based surveillance systems have limited geographical coverage, which can lead to wide variations in the quality of the national estimate of HIV prevalence.

  UNAIDS is now doing some analysis linking behavioural data to the surveys, to see whether and how that has affected the result of the population-based surveys. They will convene a meeting in May to analyse different results across a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa from the two sources of data. They aim to report findings at the World AIDS Conference in Bangkok in 2004.

  We have not made any specific representations to UNAIDS about changes to future exercises estimating HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in SA, to include population based surveys as opposed to surveys which indicate trends in HIV prevalence. DFID is in dialogue with them on issues around data sources for HIV estimates. UNAIDS contend that conducting ante-natal clinic-based surveys and population surveys at three to five year intervals can serve as valuable components of surveillance systems and can help improve estimates of the levels and trends in HIV prevalence. This Department supports UNAIDS in their efforts to analyse the different results from different sources, rather than relying on one source alone. All HIV estimates need to be assessed critically. Using different sources for data and interrogating the results will always provide more robust analysis than relying on one source.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the Department is providing for research into developing vaccines to prevent HIV/AIDS. [157486]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID have agreed to provide a contribution of £14 million over the period January 2000 to December 2004 in support of the work of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI).

  IAVI is a global non-profit making organisation that is working to speed the development and distribution of preventive AIDS vaccines through: mobilising support through advocacy and education; accelerating scientific progress; encouraging industrial participation in AIDS vaccine development; and assuring global access. IAVI's stated mission is to ensure the development of safe, effective, accessible, preventive AIDS vaccines for use throughout the world.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the UK's contribution to the Humanitarian Operations Centre in Kuwait is; and if he will make a statement. [156358]

  Hilary Benn
  The Humanitarian Operations Centre in Kuwait was established prior to the conflict by the Coalition military and the Kuwaiti Government to support the coordination and facilitation of humanitarian operations from Kuwait into southern Iraq. The UK military contributed human resources. DFID has not contributed financially to the centre but 806W
  is involved closely with it, including through the sharing of information. We have benefited from its information and coordination functions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Parliamentary Questions have been tabled to his Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157749]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 1 January 2003, DFID has been asked 2,358 Written Parliamentary Questions. We are unable to break this down into Ordinary Written and Named Day Questions without incurring disproportionate cost.

  DFID try to respond to Parliamentary Questions within the Parliamentary deadlines whenever possible.

  Swaziland
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid his Department intends to offer Swaziland in respect of the recent declaration of a state of national emergency. [156782]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is supporting the work of the Vulnerability Assessment Committee in Swaziland, and has provided funding to the Food and Agriculture Organisation to run a series of "seed fairs" providing tools and seeds to families to enable them to grow food. We have also provided emergency funding to UNICEF to improve water and sanitation in schools. We have no immediate plans to provide further assistance following the emergency declaration.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid his Department will offer to Swaziland in relation to its HIV/AIDS policy. [156783]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID supports Swaziland's efforts to combat HIV/AIDS through two regional programmes—the International Partnership against AIDS in Africa (implemented by UNAIDS and ActionAid), and a programme implemented by the Southern African Development Community.

  UK Presidencies (G8/EU)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in the last 12 months on the priorities the Government intend to pursue when the UK assumes the presidencies of the(a) G8 and (b) EU. [156187]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I refer the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to the response given by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on 26 February 2004,Official Report, column 483W, regarding the same matter.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has held with representatives of the French government about future carrier requirements and co-operation thereon. [154661]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence Ministers routinely meet with their French opposite numbers and the UK's Future Aircraft Carrier programme has frequently been discussed in that context. There is s high level steering group which helps to facilitate UK French co-operation and, in addition, there have been regular meetings on the subject both between project officials from the UK's Defence Procurement Agency and their equivalents in the DGA and on a navy-to-navy basis. These meetings have identified several areas for potential co-operation.

  Armed Forces Compensation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims under the Armed Forces compensation scheme were successful in each of the last five years; what estimate he has ma de of the number of likely successful cases per year under the proposed new scheme; and if he will make a statement. [153877]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence provides benefits for death, injury or illness due to service through the War Pensions Scheme and the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. The number of awards for new claims under the War Pensions Scheme in the last five years is set out as follows (the figures are taken from Table 2.5 of the recently published March edition of the War Pensions Quarterly Statistics). This includes awards where a pension was paid and those where only a gratuity was paid:

  Number

  1998–99

  6,810

  1999–2000

  7,445

  2000–01

  6,385

  2001–02

  6,955

  2002–03

  5,440

  Current Information Technology systems do not enable us to identify the numbers who have also received attributable pensions from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. However, the overall figure will be lower as the benefits can only be paid to those who are medically invalided.

  The new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme will provide benefits for currently serving personnel for injury, ill-health or death which is caused after 5 April 2005. The number of claims is expected to build up gradually over an extended period but to remain lower than the current level of claims against the War Pensions Scheme. This is because the latter covers periods of conscription, of worldwide conflict and of much larger than at present armed forces.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planned laser simulation facility at AWE Aldermaston. [156642]
  808W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence are considering a new laser facility (Project ORION) at AWE Aldermaston to replace the existing laser facility which is more than twenty years old. The project is currently in the Assessment Phase.

  Beef
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage by weight of current beef supply contracts for his Department and its agencies are sourced from(a) British and (b) Scottish herds. [157870]

  Mr. Ingram
  46 per cent. of the beef and beef products purchased for consumption by the armed forces in the United Kingdom is British. Of that total, in the past 12 months, 70 per cent. came from Scottish herds.

  Belgian Ammunition
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rate of failure of large general purpose machine gun ammunition supplied by Belgium. [155135]

  Mr. Ingram
  There was a problem reported on the Browning 0/" Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) when firing standard Ball (M33) and Tracer (M17) rounds on training overseas prior to Operation Telic. The ammunition was manufactured to NATO standards by the Belgian contractor FN Herstal. A thorough and immediate investigation by the contractor could not replicate the reported problem. However, it was identified that a minor increase in the loaded propellant charge, still within NATO specifications, would increase the performance of the ammunition in the weapon. This change was immediately implemented by EN Herstal, at no cost to the MOD, and the new ammunition was available within four weeks.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the Defence Export Services Organisation was in 2002–03; what his estimate is of the projected cost in each year to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [156710]

  Mr. Ingram
  Operating costs for Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) for the last and current financial years are as follows:

  Financial year

  Net operating costs (£ million)

  2002–03

  11.944

  2003–041

  15.583

  1 Figures for 2003–04 are forecasts for the year.

  The DESO budgets for financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06 have not yet been finalised, and I am withholding projections of the costs in these years under exemption 2c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The costs of DESO are more than offset by benefits to the Defence budget arising from defence exports. Savings to the defence budget come from spreading the fixed overhead costs of equipment over the longer production runs generated by exports, from the sale of

  809W
  surplus military equipment to overseas governments, and from Commercial Exploitation Levy on exports of equipment developed using public money.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Eurofighter Typhoons have been delivered to No. 17 Squadron, Royal Air Force; [156951]

  (2) how many Eurofighter Typhoons he plans to be delivered to No. 17 Squadron, Royal Air Force; when the squadron will receive the final aircraft of its intended complement; and if he will make a statement. [156952]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is planned that four aircraft will be delivered to No. 17 Squadron, Royal Air Force. The final aircraft of its intended complement is expected to be received by April this year. To date, two have been delivered.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to re-form No. 29 Squadron, Royal Air Force to conduct the first Eurofighter Typhoon pilot training course at RAF Coningsby; when the first Typhoon pilot training course will start; and if he will make a statement. [156953]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Eurofighter Typhoon Operational Conversion Unit is currently being re-formed as 29 Squadron at the BAE System facility at Warton, Preston, Lancashire. Re-formation of 29 Squadron will be complete when it moves to RAF Coningsby next year. Present plans are for initial instructor pilots to commence training this summer.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Eurofighter Typhoons delivered to No. 17 Squadron, Royal Air Force have refuelling probes fitted and ready for use; and if he will make a statement. [156954]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Typhoons delivered to date do not have refuelling probes fitted. Early aircraft delivered without probes will be retro-fitted.

  Iraq
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the requirement for Personal Role Radios in Iraq. [154015]

  Mr. Ingram
  Personal Role Radio (PRR) is a short-range communications system designed to provide connectivity at the tactical level within small military teams, such as infantry sections. It is therefore ideal for use in Iraq and has been used extensively by UK forces since the commencement of operations. Approximately 3,500 Personal Role Radios are currently in use with British forces in Iraq.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rounds were contained in the standard issue of ammunition to(a) infantry and (b) Royal Military Police in Iraq during (i) major hostilities and (ii) since the end of major war-fighting operations; whether this requirement has been met in every circumstance; and if he will make a statement. [154676]
  810W
  Mr. Ingram [holding answer 12 February 2004]
  The standard issue of 5.56mm ammunition provided to Army combat soldiers and other Army arms/services in Iraq has not changed from 150 rounds and 120 rounds respectively. Royal Military Police Personnel are normally issued with 120 rounds of ammunition in line with other Army arms/services. Commanders in theatre make an assessment based on local conditions as to whether adjustments to the planning allocations should be made. Over 23 million rounds of 5.56mm ammunition were delivered to Operation Telic, which was well in excess of the projected requirement of all units deployed.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average daily cost has been of the occupation of Iraq. [154940]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs that the Department would have incurred regardless of the operation taking place, such as wages and salaries, are not included. Savings on activities that have not occurred because of the operation—training exercises for example—are taken into account in arriving at the net figures.

  Costs are not incurred on a regular daily basis and force levels have fluctuated considerably during 2003–04. As a result, to attempt to provide daily average costs would be misleading.

  However, you may wish to know that outturn information for 2002–03 on the cost of operations in Iraq has been published as part of the MOD's Annual Report and Accounts. Operating Costs for 2002–03 for operations in Iraq total £629.531 million. Expenditure on Capital equipment amounts to £217.680 million. The grand total is, therefore, £847.211 million.

  For 2003–04, funding voted at Winter Supplementary Estimates amounted to £1.2 billion and covered the cost of peacekeeping and associated Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs). The MOD has sought a further £300 million at Spring Supplementary Estimates to cover primarily the cost of the recuperation of the Department's operational capability. Thus, the total sought in 2003–04 will be £1.5 billion.

  It is too early to say what costs might be incurred after 2003–04.

  Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which parts of the joint strike fighter aircraft are to be built in the UK. [156133]

  Mr. Ingram
  Production contracts have not yet been negotiated for any part of the Joint Strike Fighter and are unlikely to be awarded before 2006 on current plans.

  Development work is currently under contract in the UK on a number of significant assemblies and aircraft systems, including the complete aft fuselage and tail assembly (BAES); engine components (Rolls Royce); ejection seat (Marlin Baker) and electrical power, actuation and display systems (Smiths Aerospace). All work on JSF is won in a best value basis, and subject to

  811W
  continuing to meet best value criteria, there is every reason to anticipate that these development contracts will lead to follow-on production contracts.

  Naval Vessels
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the disposal of Type 22 frigates to Romania has been concluded; and if he will make a statement. [152226]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government-to-Government Acquisition Agreement was signed on 19 December 2002, comprising the sale of two regenerated and updated warships (ex-HMS London and ex-HMS Coventry), an initial support package, and a training package for ships' complements. The agreement includes a significant offset programme to be carried out by British Industry, led by the United Kingdom Prime Project Contractor, BAE Systems, over a five-year period.

  The regeneration of the ships is proceeding satisfactorily, in accordance with the agreed schedule, and on track to achieve commissioning of the first ship, due in September 2004.

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the projected number of orders for naval vessels to be placed over the next 10 years. [153789]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is already undertaking a large programme of new ship procurement, including orders for six Type 45 destroyers, three Astute Class submarines and four Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary).

  Future plans include the purchase of two new aircraft carriers, further orders of Type 45 destroyers and Astute Class submarines, the Joint Casualty Treatment Ship, and the replacement of existing RFA vessels through the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability project. The Department is also considering options for leasing new Offshore Patrol Vessels to replace the current Castle Class capability. Tenders are currently being assessed for the Nato Submarine Rescue System, which will enter service in 2006.

  Looking further ahead, we expect to replace the capability provided by the Type 22 and 23 Frigates with the Future Surface Combatant. It is too early to say how the capability will be met or when orders will be placed because the project is still at the concept stage.

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equipment was purchased under the Urgent Operational Requirement process for Operation Telic 1 and 2. [147273]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is assumed that the period covered by Operation Telic 1 and 2 is from the time of deployment until the end of the first roulement of troops (November 2003). Information regarding specific Urgent Operational Requirements remains operationally sensitive and I am therefore withholding details of equipment purchased in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However equipment procured using the UOR process falls into five broad areas:812W
  enhancements to communications equipment and infrastructure;
  upgrades to maritime, air (both fixed and rotary wing) and land platforms. These included improvements to environmental/desert operating capabilities, force protection, secure communications, combat ID and enhancements to associated weapons systems;
  improved dismounted close combat capabilities;
  improved logistics and deployable infrastructure (includes procurement of additional Temporary Deployable Accommodation); and
  NBC protection measures; and enhancements to deployed medical capabilities.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all requests for urgent operational requirements for Operation Telic stating(a) whether the request was approved, (b) the equipment requested,(c) the date the request was submitted, (d) the date the urgent operational requirement was approved and (e) the cost; and if he will make a statement. [151347]

  Mr. Ingram [ holding answer 27 January 2004]
  Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) are requested via an Urgent Statement of User Requirement generated by frontline commands or operational planners. The content of these remains operationally sensitive and I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, approved UORs covering the deployment and fighting phases of Operation Telic fall into five broad capability areas with total approved values as follows:

  Capability area

  £ million

  1. Enhancements to communications equipment and infrastructure

  56

  2. Upgrades to maritime, air (both fixed and rotary wing) and land platforms. These included improvements to environmental/desert operating capabilities, force protection, secure communications, combat identification and enhancements to associated weapons systems

  270

  3. Improved dismounted close combat capabilities

  36

  4. Improved logistics and deploy able infrastructure

  58

  5. NBC protection measures; and enhancements to deployed medical capabilities

  90

  During the deployment and fighting phases of Operation Telic over 190 Urgent Operational Requirements were approved at a total approved cost of around £510 million. Since the end of major combat operations, a range of other UORs have been approved.

  Overseas Bribery
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many allegations of overseas bribery his Department has received since(a) November 1997 and (b) February 2002; [151399]

  (2) how many allegations of overseas bribery his Department has forwarded to the law enforcement agencies since (a) November 1997 and (b) February 2002; and if he will name the agencies to which allegations were forwarded, and give the dates concerned. [151398]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1997 the Ministry of Defence has received 11 allegations of bribery occurring overseas of which six were received after February 2002. One case was passed to the Metropolitan police in October 1999 and another to the Brunei authorities in May 2002.
  813W
  Another four were investigated by the Department's Defence Fraud Analysis Unit, in some cases in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence Police authorities, at various dates between March 2000 and November 2002. Three were passed to the Royal Military Police in the period April 1999 to April 2003. One other case arising in July 2002 is being handled by the MOD Police on behalf of another government agency. An allegation passed to the Department by the Serious Fraud Office in March 2001 was the subject of an internal Departmental review.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom his Department distributes expenditure on research and development; how many staff are employed as a result; and how many research establishments(a) the Department and (b) its agencies have in each region and nation of the United Kingdom. [154360]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence places contracts with a wide range of organisations including:The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSL), and the Meteorological Office, the two major MOD agencies which conduct research.
  The Medical Supplies Agency receives funding for development of Medical Countermeasures.
  Industry. Approximately 600 companies received payments against R&D contracts in the eight months to end November 2003.
  Academia.

  The Meteorological Office is primarily located at its new site in Exeter with a residue still at the old Bracknell sites. Figures for 2001–02, the latest date for which there are published figures showed 330 employees, to the nearest 10, were employed in research.

  Dstl currently has research facilities in a number of areas in the UK. These are shown in the following table together with the number of staff employed in each region.

  Region

  Number of employees

  Dorset

  Winfrith

  103

  Hampshire

  Alverstoke

  110

  Farnborough

  737

  Porton Down

  875

  Portsdown

  383

  Kent

  Fort Halstead

  639

  Worcestershire

  Malvern

  226

  In addition to these there are a further 170 staff working in small numbers on a further 25 sites.

  Information about staff employed in industry and academia, as a result of MOD funding of research and development but not directly employed by the Department, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the suitability of current Royal Fleet Auxiliary oilers for future expeditionary warfare. [146507]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Fleet Auxiliary operates four classes of oilers (Wave, Leaf, Rover, and Fort Victoria). The two Wave class oilers (Wave Ruler and Wave Knight) entered service in 2003 and will remain operational until after 2025.

  The Leaf and Rover classes are due to reach their expected out of service dates by 2011. They are single-hulled and so will be non-compliant with revised Marpol (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) regulations on the introduction of double-hulled vessels. The newer Fort Victoria ships are also single-hulled but we are currently considering ways of maintaining compliance with international legislation beyond 2010. While Marpol does not apply to vessels owned or operated by a state and used only on Government non-commercial service, as is the case with the RFA oilers, it remains MOD policy to comply with Shipping Acts and associated regulations where practicable. Consequently, MOD has a programme to phase out all non-compliant RFA vessels with a target date of 2010 based on the earliest practicable point for compliance.

  As explained in my answer of 11 February 2004, Official Report, columns 1459–60W, the Department's programme, known as the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) programme, seeks progressively to replace most of the current RFA fleet, including Leaf, Rover, and Fort Victoria class oiler vessels. As part of this, these ships will be replaced by more flexible and capable vessels fully compliant with Marpol. This will significantly enhance the RFA's ability to provide the Royal Navy with its afloat support requirements.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on modernising the Royal Navy's chart and navigation system. [155020]

  Mr.Ingaram
  In January 2004 the Ministry of Defence announced that a contract had been awarded to Lockheed martin UK Ltd. to fit Royal Navy ships with a new electronic charting system. The system, known as WECDIS(Warship Electronic Chart Display and Information System), will provide enhanced RN navigating capability is more accurate, efficient and responsive.

  The programme is proceeding as planned and the first ship installation is scheduled to commence in June 2004.

  Salisbury Plain (Unauthorised Use)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many drivers of private civilian(a) motorcycles and (b) four-by-foul vehicles have been (i) intercepted, (ii) cautioned and (iii) prosecuted for unauthorised use of Salisbury Plain Training Estate in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [157298]
  815W
  Mr. Caplin
  In 2003, 41 motorcycles and 52 four-by-four vehicles were intercepted by the Ministry of Defence Police. As a result, 27 drivers were warned off military lands under the byelaws and a further 33 drivers were prosecuted.

  Typhoon
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money his Department has spent on developing the Typhoon's operational role to allow it to operate off the new aircraft carriers. [154909]

  Mr. Ingram
  No money has been spent on developing the Typhoon's operational role to operate off the new aircraft carriers. As part of the Concept Phase for the Joint Combat Aircraft project, a feasibility contract was let with BAE Systems to identify broad order costs and design issues for a number of different solutions. This contract was valued at around £2 million. The study considered the potential for adapting Typhoon for carrier operations but showed that a significant amount of re-design and investment would he required to operate Typhoon from the future carriers. Joint Strike Fighter has been selected to meet this requirement.

TREASURY

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which British overseas dependent territories he has arrangements for the exchange of tax information; on what dates such arrangements were made; which team in his Department or in agencies for which his Department is responsible has the task of negotiating such arrangements; and with which British overseas dependent territories there are negotiations on tax information arrangements. [157055]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK has Double Taxation Arrangements with Guernsey (1952), Isle of Man (1955) and Jersey (1952) (all Crown Dependencies), and the Falkland Islands (1997) and Montserrat (1947) (both Overseas Territories) all of which include provisions for the exchange of information for tax purposes. The Inland Revenue's International team is responsible for negotiating arrangements that provide for exchange of information between tax authorities. They have had discussions about new or improved exchange of information arrangements with all of the UK's overseas dependent territories that are operating as offshore financial centres.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are eligible to receive child benefit. [158058]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families in receipt of Child Benefit are shown in "Child Benefit Quarterly Statistics", which can be found on the Inland Revenue website at: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/child_benefit/menu.htm.

  Precise figures on the take up rate of child benefit are not available, but it is thought to be around 98 per cent.

  Company Tax Credits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost to public expenditure of each company tax credit for each year from 2003–04 to 2006–07; and if he will make a statement. [156765]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The forecast costs for research and development tax credits, vaccines research relief and contaminated land tax credits are set out in the following table. The costs are on a receipts basis, showing when the costs are incurred by the Inland Revenue.

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Research and Development Tax Credits

  660

  670

  700

  760

  Vaccines Research Relief

  10

  20

  20

  20

  Contaminated Land Tax Credits

  70

  80

  80

  90

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each tax credit available to companies; what assessment he has made of the economic benefit in each case; and if he will make a statement. [156766]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Companies may be able to claim tax credits under the research and development tax credit schemes, vaccines research relief scheme or remediation of contaminated land scheme.

  The Government plan to evaluate all of the impacts of these policies. However, because the policies are intended to produce benefits over the medium to longer term, it would be inappropriate to do so at present.

  Credit Cards
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the case for introducing interest-rate limits on credit cards. [157342]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are not yet persuaded of the benefits of introducing interest rate ceilings on any products. We are concerned that their introduction might cause detriment to consumers and competition, for example by encouraging imposition of additional fees and charges, that some lenders might exit the market denying some consumers access to credit, or that rates might gravitate towards the ceiling.

  We have, however, commissioned research on how interest rate caps operate in other countries. We expect to publish this research in the spring of this year, and will then make a decision on the case for introducing a ceiling.

  Demography (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the population of(a) the North West and (b) Lancashire is over (i) 50, (ii) 55, (iii) 60, (iv) 65, (v) 75, (vi) 85 and (vii) 100 years. [157092]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  817W
  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Hoyle, dated 2 March 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what percentage of the population of (a) the North West and (b) Lancashire is over (i) 50, (ii) 55, (iii) 60, (iv) 65, (v) 75, (vi) 85 and (vii) 100 years. I am replying in his absence.(157092)
  The information requested, except for those aged 100 and over, is given in the following table. This gives percentages based on the 2002 mid year population estimates, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Percentage of the population in older age groups in the North West and Lancashire

  Age group

  North West

  Lancashire

  50 and over

  33.9

  35.2

  55 and over

  27.3

  28.4

  60 and over

  21.1

  21.9

  65 and over

  16.0

  16.7

  75 and over

  7.4

  7.9

  85 and over

  1.0

  2.0

  Source:

  2002 mid year population estimates, Office for National Statistics

  We are not able to provide estimates for those aged 100 and over from mid year population estimates. Estimates of populations at very old ages using the standard methodology for population estimates (the cohort component method) are unreliable, especially for sub-national areas where numbers in these very old age groups may be very small.

  However this information is available from the 2001 Census. It recorded that under 0.02 per cent. of the population of both the North West and Lancashire were over 100 years of age.

  Departmental Buildings/Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list London buildings occupied by(a) Her Majesty's Treasury, (b) Customs and Excise, (c) the Inland Revenue and (d) other Treasury agencies and non-departmental public bodies; what the estimated value of each publicly owned building is; and if he will make a statement. [156761]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested relating to buildings in London postal districts is given as follows:

  (a) Her Majesty's Treasury

  1 Horse Guards Road, SW1

  (b) Customs and Excise

  3 Griffin House, W6

  London City Airport, E16

  Berkeley House, N3

  Jubilee House, E15

  Portline House, E16

  Thomas Paine House, ECI

  Custom House, EC3

  GSS Garage, SE1

  Water Tower, SE18

  Parcelforce LDC, E16

  Dorset House, SE1

  Unit 2 Thames Road Industrial Estate, E16

  Towergate Car Park Pope Street, SE1

  Towergate 163 Tower Bridge Road, SE1

  818W

  Stratford Lift, E15

  Mount Pleasant Postal Depot, EC1

  Waterloo Terminal, SE1

  Willesden EPU, NW10

  Olympia Passenger Terminal

  Enterprise House, SE1

  New King's Beam House, SE1

  Swan Lane Car Park

  Stratford Car Park, E15

  (c) Inland Revenue

  Capitol House, N21

  Jubilee House, E15

  Euston Tower, NW1

  Clifton House, NW1

  New Century House, WC1

  Lyndhurst House, NW7

  Conquest House, WC1

  Colindale Station House, NW9

  Gateway House, N3

  Collingwood Business Centre, N19

  Surrey House, SE1

  Heron House, SE23

  Woolwich Crown Building, SE18

  Meridian House, SE10

  Lancaster House, SE1

  Radnor House, SW16

  Government Building, W3

  19–29 Woburn Place, WC1

  Charles House, W14

  Solar House, SW20

  11 Belgrave Road, SW1

  Melbourne House, WC2

  Somerset House, WC2

  Bush House, SW Wing

  Duchy House, WC2

  22 Kingsway, WC2

  Bush House, NW Wing WC2

  Angel Court, SE1

  Haymarket House, SW1

  City Gate House, EC2

  Ibex House, EC3

  Empire House, E15

  6–10 Church Hill, El7

  Britannia House, SE1

  International House, W5

  31 High Street, W5

  Waterford House, SW6

  Candy House, W5

  Tavis House, WC1

  Dansom House, E17

  31 Scarborough Street. El

  Steel House, SW12

  Tresco House, NW1

  Victory House, WC2

  53 Parliament Street, SW1

  Clifton House, NW1

  10 Great George Street, SW1

  819W

  (d) Other Treasury Agencies/Bodies

  Eastcheap Court, EC3

  Finlaison House, EC4

  1 Horse Guards Road, SW1

  Charles House, W14

  Trevelyan House, SW1

  New Court. WC2

  Cityside, E1

  Chase House, E14

  1 Francis Grove, SW19

  Lincoln House, SE1

  Wingate House, W1

  1 Drummond Gate, SW1

  1 Myddleton Street, EC1

  The only London building publicly owned and wholly occupied by my Departments is the Treasury building at 1 Horse Guards Road, which has an estimated value of £71.6 million. Other buildings are privately owned, or where forming part of the Government estate, are occupied by my departments on a shared, minor occupancy basis.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of Her Majesty's Treasury core departmental annual running costs for each year from 1996–97 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [156755]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the Department's gross administrative expenditure for 1998–99 to 2005–06 are contained in Table 5.1 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2003 (Cm 5901). The figures are on a resource basis. Figures for 1996–97 to 2001–02 were published in Table 5.5 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (Cm 4601) but these are on a cash basis.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of running(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise in each year from 1996–97 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [156759]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the Departments' gross administrative expenditure for 1998–99 to 2005–06 are contained in Table 5.1 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2003 (Cm 5901). The figures are on a resource basis. Figures for 1996–97 to 2001–02 were published in Table 5.5 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (Cm 4601) but these are on a cash basis.

  Copies of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses are in the Library of the House and are on HM Treasury's public website (www.hm-treasury.x.gsi.gov.uk).

  Economic Activity (Northampton)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the economic activity rate in the Northampton South constituency was in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 1996–97. [157008]
  820W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Tony Clarke, dated 2 March 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the economic activity rate in the Northampton South constituency. I am replying in his absence. (157008)
  The table below shows the working age economic activity rates for the Northampton South constituency, covering the twelve-month periods ending February 1997 and February 2002. Information for 2002/03 is not yet available.

  Working age economic activity rates1 in the Northampton South constituency

  12 month period ending February each year

  Rates

  1997

  85.5

  2002

  84.4

  1 Economically active as a percentage of men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the Labour Force Survey are subject to sampling variability.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what rate employment grew on average annually in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland, (c) Denmark, (d) Sweden, (e) Finland, (f) Germany, (h) the Netherlands, (i) Belgium, (k) Luxembourg, (l) France, (m) Spain, (n) Portugal, (o) Italy, (p) Austria, (q) Greece, (r) the area now forming the euro-12, (s) the EU 15 and (t) the United States since (i) 1992 and (ii) 1997; [157180]

  (2) by what rate employment grew in each year since 1992 in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland, (c) Denmark, (d) Sweden, (e) Finland, (f) Germany, (h) the Netherlands, (i) Belgium, (k) Luxembourg, (l) France, (m) Spain, (n) Portugal, (o) Italy, (p) Austria, (q) Greece, (r) the area now forming the euro-12, (s) the EU 15 and (t) the United States. [157181]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Richard Spring, dated 2 March 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions about average and annual employment growth rates for Europe and the USA. I am replying in his absence. (157180, 157181)
  The attached table provides growth rates for the number of people of working age in employment in the requested countries. The data (where available) are provided for all years since 1993, together with average annual growth rates a) from 1992 and b) from 1997.
  Demographic trends affect the size and the age profile of the working-age population, and are a significant driver of change in the number of people in employment. The data in the table do not take account of these effects.
  821W

  Annual and average employment growth rates for the UK and other countries, 1993–2003

  Percentage

  Annual employment growth rates

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  United

  Kingdom

  -1.3

  0.7

  1.1

  1.0

  1.7

  1.0

  1.2

  Ireland

  1.3

  4.3

  4.4

  3.9

  6.3

  8.1

  6.3

  Denmark

  -1.5

  1.4

  1.3

  1.0

  1.3

  1.6

  1.2

  Sweden

  —

  -0.9

  1.5

  -0.8

  -1.3

  1.5

  2.1

  Finland

  -6.0

  -1.4

  2.0

  1.3

  3.3

  2.0

  2.5

  Germany

  -1.4

  -0.2

  0.2

  -0.3

  -0.2

  1.1

  1.2

  Netherlands

  0.0

  0.7

  1.5

  2.3

  3.2

  2.6

  2.6

  Belgium

  -0.7

  -0.4

  0.0

  0.3

  0.9

  1.8

  1.3

  Luxembourg

  1.6

  2.5

  2.5

  2.6

  3.1

  4.5

  5.0

  France

  -1.3

  0.1

  0.9

  0.4

  0.4

  1.5

  2.0

  Spain

  -2.8

  -0.5

  1.9

  1.3

  2.9

  3.9

  3.5

  Portugal

  -1.2

  0.6

  -0.1

  1.4

  2.5

  2.6

  1.2

  Italy

  -2.5

  -1.5

  -0.1

  0.6

  0.4

  1.0

  1.1

  Austria

  -0.6

  -0.1

  0.0

  -0.6

  0.5

  1.0

  1.4

  Greece

  0.8

  -0.1

  -0.4

  -0.4

  -0.5

  4.1

  0.0

  EU–12

  -1.6

  -0.3

  0.6

  0.5

  0.9

  1.8

  1.8

  EU–15

  -1.6

  -0.1

  0.7

  0.6

  1.0

  1.7

  1.7

  USA

  1.5

  2.3

  1.5

  1.5

  2.3

  1.5

  1.5

  Annual employment growth rates

  Average annual employment growth rates

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  From 1992 to date1

  From 1997 to date1

  United Kingdom

  1.4

  0.9

  0.6

  1.0

  0.8

  1.0

  Ireland

  4.7

  2.9

  1.4

  —

  4.3

  4.6

  Denmark

  0.5

  0.4

  -0.6

  —

  0.7

  0.6

  Sweden

  2.4

  1.9

  0.2

  —

  0.7

  1.6

  Finland

  2.3

  1.5

  0.4

  —

  0.8

  1.7

  Germany

  1.8

  0.4

  -0.6

  —

  0.2

  0.8

  Netherlands

  2.2

  1.8

  0.9

  —

  1.8

  2.0

  Belgium

  1.9

  1.4

  -0.2

  —

  0.6

  1.2

  Luxembourg

  5.6

  5.6

  3.1

  —

  3.6

  4.8

  France

  2.6

  1.8

  0.6

  —

  0.9

  1.7

  Spain

  3.5

  2.3

  1.5

  —

  1.7

  2.9

  Portugal

  2.0

  1.4

  0.2

  —

  1.0

  1.5

  Italy

  1.9

  1.9

  1.4

  —

  0.4

  1.5

  Austria

  0.8

  0.7

  0.4

  —

  0.3

  0.7

  Greece

  -0.1

  -0.4

  -0.2

  —

  0.3

  0.7

  EU–12

  2.2

  1.4

  0.4

  —

  0.8

  1.5

  EU–15

  1.9

  1.2

  0.3

  —

  0.8

  1.4

  USA

  2.5

  0.0

  -0.3

  0.9

  1.4

  1.0

  1 UK and US growth rates are average rates until 2003. EU rates are until 2002. All rates are average growth since 1992, except Sweden which is since 1993.

  Source: UK—UK Labour Force Survey, Spring Quarters, Employed aged 16 and over

  EU—Eurostat New Cronos database, table: "/theme3/employ/indic_y", covering those employed aged 15 and over

  US—US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey. Employed aged 16 and over

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue local tax offices there are; what their running costs were in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156760]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has approximately 350 local Tax Offices. However many are located in multi-occupied buildings with other Revenue Offices. For example, a building might house a Tax Office but it could also house a Contact Centre, Tax Enquiry Point, Working Families Tax Credit Office etc.822W
  It would therefore require a disproportionate amount of effort to manually extract and disaggregate the running costs attributable to local Tax Offices.

  Population Growth
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the growth of the population up to 2031; what that estimate would be if there were no net immigration in future; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of expected population growth which is due to net immigration and dependants. [156194]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government Actuary's latest (2002–based) principal population projection was published in December 2003. The Government Actuary also published a range of variant projections based on alternative assumptions in January 2004. The variant projections included a 'Natural Change' projection which assumes zero net migration in future. Relevant results from the principal projection and the natural change variant projection are summarised in the following table.

  Projected population change, United Kingdom 2002–31

  Million

  Principal projection

  Natural change variant projection

  Population at mid-2002

  59.2

  59.2

  Population change (2002–31)

  Natural change1

  2.6

  0.9

  Net migration

  3.8

  —

  Other changes2

  -0.8

  —

  Total change

  5.6

  0.9

  Population at mid-2031

  64.8

  60.1

  1Births less deaths.

  2The principal projection includes a downward adjustment for unattributable population change. Not migration and other changes are both assumed to be zero in the natural change variant projection.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution was made to each of the figures in Table B5 of the pre-Budget report 2003 by Private Finance Initiative or associated schemes that have been accounted for on the balance sheet of the public sector client; and whether the data underlying Table B5 are updated when a particular Private Finance Initiative scheme subsequently moves on-or off-balance sheet to the public sector client. [156158]

  Mr. Boateng
  The assumptions used for the spending projections underlying Table B5 are set out in paragraph B27 on page 208 of the pre-Budget report. Current and capital expenditure under PFI contracts is fully recorded in the expenditure rows of Table B5, and hence in the fiscal aggregates consistent with independently set accounting and reporting standards. Accordingly, these tables will fully reflect the balance sheet treatment of assets once this treatment has been determined.

  PFI contracts where the assets concerned are on departmental balance sheets are reported in departmental accounts, together with disclosure of information relating to any contracts assessed as off balance sheet.

  Research and Development Tax Credits
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish claims from large companies for research and development tax credits. [157203]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The research and development tax credit for large companies was introduced in April 2002. Claims are made as part of a company's corporation tax self assessment. Consequently, the first claims under this scheme have only just started to be received by the Inland Revenue.

  Spirit Duty
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each bonded warehouse licensed by Customs and Excise which stocks spirits, including(a) geographic location and (b) gross volume turnover of spirits for each financial year since 1994. [155841]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise approve warehouses to stock excise goods in duty-suspension. Quantities of spirits released for consumption in the UK, and UK production volumes, are published in Customs' Annual Report. Details of individual warehouses are not available; Exemptions 6 (Effective management of the economy and collection of tax) and 13 (Third party's commercial confidences) of the Open Government Code apply.

  The numbers of excise warehouses approved to stock alcoholic drinks which may include spirits, in each country of the United Kingdom are shown in the following table.
  824W

  country

  Approved warehouses

  England

  467

  Scotland

  213

  Northern Ireland

  32

  Wales

  21

  The more detailed data requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Taxation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds would be of reducing corporation tax to(a) 25 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. [157572]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reductions in the main rate of corporation tax of this magnitude would be likely to have indirect as well as direct effects on tax revenues. The "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs published with the pre–Budget report in December showed the direct effects of a one percentage point change in the main rate of corporation tax in April 2004 as £650 million in 2004–05 and £1,300 million in 2005–06.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds would be of raising the threshold for inheritance tax to £1 million. [157575]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The PBR projection of inheritance tax yield is £2.8 billion for 2004–5. The full year cost of raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million in 2004–5 would be £2.5 billion.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the conclusion of his Department's discussions with the trustees of the Thalidomide Trust about the tax treatment of payments to the beneficiaries. [157221]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax affairs of the Thalidomide Trust are a matter for the Trust and the Inland Revenue. I can confirm that discussions between the Trust and officials of the Inland Revenue are currently taking place on a number of issues to ensure the Trust pays the correct amount of tax and the beneficiaries claim all the tax repayments and Tax Credits to which they are entitled. If the Trust wish to make an announcement about the outcome of those discussions then that is a matter for the trustees.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the trustees of the Thalidomide Trust. [157687]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I can confirm that discussions between the Thalidomide Trust and officials of the Inland Revenue are currently taking place on a number of issues to ensure the Trust pays the correct amount of tax and the beneficiaries claim all the tax repayments and Tax Credits to which they are entitled. However the tax affairs of the Thalidomide Trust are confidential and a matter for the Trust and the Inland Revenue. If the Trust wish to make a statement about those discussions then that is a matter for the trustees.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the results of efforts to reduce poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. [157425]

  14. Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government has regular discussions with the Afghan Government, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and international partners about progress on measures to reduce opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. There are no immediate solutions and no single approach to address the variety of factors which influence farmers to grow poppy. The UK is supporting the Afghan Government in implementation of their national drug control strategy with £70 million committed over three years and a dedicated counter narcotics team in place in Kabul. We also co-hosted last month a counter narcotics conference in Kabul to increase Afghan and international awareness and engagement in tackling this problem.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the current security situation in Afghanistan. [157023]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The security situation in Afghanistan remains fragile. The two lethal bomb attacks on Canadian and UK IS AF personnel in January in Kabul followed the killing of four German ISAF personnel in a similar attack in June 2003. Other attacks, such as the murder of a UN employee in November 2003 and the attack near Kandahar on 22 February in which an Australian pilot was killed and a British aid worker wounded, have targeted the international community and NGO operations outside the capital. Security in the south continues to cause concern, especially near the border with Pakistan, where extremist groups are operating. There have been fewer problems in the north, but long-standing tensions persist and these can flare up into violence.

  Iraq
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Iraq survey group. [157426]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Iraq Survey Group is continuing to undertake investigations at sites throughout Iraq in its search for evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. The Group is also engaged on translation of the huge volume of documents that it has collected, and is interviewing scientists and others who were previously employed on Iraq's weapons programmes.

  They will produce a further progress report in due course.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to establish who was responsible for forging documents relating to attempts by Iraq to obtain uranium from Niger. [157428]
  826W
  Mr. MacShane
  We have repeatedly made clear that our assessment that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa was not based upon the documents submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency which subsequently were identified as forgeries. Since these documents did not have any bearing on our assessment, the Government has taken no steps to identify the forgers.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office what recent discussions he has had with the UN about its future involvement in Iraq. [157433]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are in regular discussion with representatives of the United Nations, at ministerial and official level, concerning its involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq. We warmly welcome the Secretary-General's recent report on the future political process in Iraq and its proposals on UN involvement.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the senior members of the former Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein detained by the Coalition Provisional Authority; how many are being held in Iraq; how many are being held outside Iraq; and at what locations. [145181]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]I have been asked to reply.

  The status of the 55 "most wanted" members of the former Iraqi regime may be found on the website of the US Central Military Command. The relevant website address is: www.centcom.mil/operations/Iraqi–freedom/55mostwanted.htm.

  All those in Coalition custody are currently held in Iraq at undisclosed locations.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by whom, and under what authority, the leaders of Saddam Hussein's regime will be brought to trial. [157020]

  Mr. Rammell
  It is for the Iraqis to decide how to try senior members of the former regime. In December 2003, the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) established a Special Tribunal to fulfil such a task. The IGC are in the process of agreeing the rules and procedures of the Tribunal.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will be taking to celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of British possession of Gibraltar. [157427]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) earlier today.

  As my right hon. Friend, the Defence Secretary, said in this House on 27 November last year, we intend to play a full part in celebrating the warm relationship that we have enjoyed with the people of Gibraltar for the past 300 years. Units of HM Armed Forces will take part in a total of more than 20 events throughout the year. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is grateful to my noble Friend Baroness Symons for representing him at the Service of Thanksgiving and

  827W
  Celebration now taking place at St. Clement Danes. As he told the Chief Minister of Gibraltar earlier this month, he sends his very best wishes for the Service, and for this Tercentenary year.

  Zimbabwe
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on sanctions against Zimbabwe. [157429]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our policy, and that of our EU partners, is to use targeted measures against Zimbabwe's leadership as a means of pressing it to return to democratic governance which respects human rights and the rule of law. We do not support economic or trade sanctions, as these would have a negative impact on all Zimbabweans. The EU measures are targeted on the ZANU(PF) leadership and on those who are responsible for human rights abuses and do not impact on ordinary Zimbabweans. On 19 February the EU agreed, by consensus, to continue with the targeted measures for another year and to extend from 79 to 95 the number of people on the travel ban and assets freeze.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Commonwealth governments about tightening sanctions against members of the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. [157016]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are no Commonwealth sanctions on Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe from its Councils in 2002. Commonwealth Heads of Government decided to continue the suspension when they met in Nigeria in December 2003. Following that decision Mugabe decided to withdraw Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. The EU does have targeted measures against Zimbabwe consisting of a travel ban, assets freeze and arms embargo. On 19 February the EU decided to continue these measures for another year and to extend by 16 the number of people on the travel ban and assets freeze. The measures are now targeted on 95 people.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to assist in the restoration of freedom and democracy in Zimbabwe. [157420]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are providing practical and political support to civil society, human rights organisations and all those in Zimbabwe who want to see an early return to a democratically accountable government which respects human rights and the rule of law.

  We are providing humanitarian assistance to millions of Zimbabwean people on the basis of need.

  We are encouraging the South African government, and others in the region, to push for a return to democracy and freedom.

  We have been a consistent advocate of a robust international approach. In December, we argued successfully to maintain Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth. Mugabe has since withdrawn from
  828W
  the Commonwealth, demonstrating that he is now incapable of meeting the Harare principles which he helped to establish.

  This week, the EU extended sanctions against the Mugabe regime, rightly standing with the people of Zimbabwe, and against those responsible—Mugabe and his government—for bringing a once prosperous and successful state to the edge of total collapse. The number of those caught by the sanctions now rises from 79 to 95. Those we have added to the list include several individuals who bear particular responsibility for the abuses of human rights in Zimbabwe.

  Zimbabwe's opposition party welcomed this move, saying it was "a clear indication that the international community will not fold its arms while the regime in Zimbabwe continues to trample upon people's basic human rights".

  Abdul Quader Khan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of action taken to break up the network of Abdul Quader Khan since 18 December 1979. [157430]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The intelligence community in the UK and in the US have been working on this network for several years—they identified it, monitored it, penetrated it, and finally took action against it with the result we have seen in recent weeks. We, the US Government and other Governments are now engaged in winding it up.

  Northern Uganda
  19. Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office what action he has taken following the recent massacre and ensuing violence in Northern Uganda. [157431]

  Mr. Mullin
  This Government deplores the brutal massacre of around 200 innocent civilians in a camp for internally displaced persons in northern Uganda which took place on 21 February. We are also extremely concerned about the ensuing inter-ethnic violence in Lira and Gulu. We are urging the Government of Uganda and local religious and community leaders to restore calm.

  A UN Humanitarian Assessment Team is now in the Barlonyo area. Relief supplies have begun to be distributed to the survivors. Serious burns victims have been moved to Lira Hospital. The British High Commission and DFID remains in close contact with the United Nations and other agencies on the ground. UN assistance includes contributions from the UK.

  Saddam Hussein
  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office where Saddam Hussein is being held; and what legal procedures are to be taken against him. [157432]

  21. Mr. Rammell
  Saddam Hussein is being held as a prisoner of war by the US in Iraq. It is coalition policy not to disclose the precise location of detainees for
  829W
  security reasons. It is for the Iraqis to decide what legal procedures should be taken against him. In December, the Iraqi Governing Council established a Special Tribunal to try senior members of the former regime. Iraqis are currently discussing the rules and procedures for this tribunal.

  India/Pakistan
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the current state of the relationship between India and Pakistan. [157434]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We warmly welcome the 18 February announcement that India and Pakistan have agreed an agenda and a timetable for substantive talks to commence after the Indian General Election. This consolidates the breakthrough announced by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee in January, and shows the willingness of both countries to address each other's concerns through peaceful engagement. We appreciate that there will be no quick or easy solutions, but wish both governments well and hope that the talks will be sustained and, in due course, lead to the resolution of all their outstanding differences, including over Kashmir.

  Antarctica
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visitors there were to Antarctica in each year since 1995; and what projections are available for future years. [157730]

  Mr. Rammell
  The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) has published the following figures on tourist visitors to Antarctica:

  Antarctic austral season

  Number of visitors (estimated actual figures)

  1995–96

  9,367

  1996–97

  7,413

  1997–98

  9,604

  1998–99

  10,013

  1999–2000

  13,826

  2000 –01

  12,248

  2001–02

  11,588

  2002–03

  13,571

  These figures include ship and land-based passenger numbers. Commercial yacht activity is included from 1997–98, and 2002–03 figures include airborne passengers making landings.

  IAATO estimates that visitor numbers will increase to 20,818 for 2003–04 and 21,216 for 2004–05. However, the biggest growth in the tourist industry over the next decade is expected to be large ships and over-flights, which do not land passengers in Antarctica.

  China
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EU-People's Republic of China Dialogue. [157410]
  830W
  Mr. Straw
  I welcome the recent round of the EU/China Human Rights Dialogue which took place in Dublin on 26/27 February. The bi-annual dialogue allows the EU to raise its human rights concerns regularly with China. In addition to the usual agenda on a wide range of human rights issues, the Presidency focused on China's ratification of the ICCPR. The Presidency also handed over a list of individual cases.

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits have been made to the areas of conflict in Colombia by UK diplomatic representatives in the past year. [157710]

  Mr. Rammell
  Members of the diplomatic staff at our Embassy in Bogota travel around Colombia as widely and as frequently as they can within the constraints of local security conditions. In the past year, Embassy staff have carried out many visits outside of Bogotá, including to a range of other cities in Colombia and where possible into areas where the effects of the conflict are greatest. In the latter category, areas visited include: Cúcuta, Choco, San Vicente del Caguán, Arauca and Saravena, northern Cundinamarca (Pacho), Barrancabermeja, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Amazonas, La Guajira, Monteria (Córdoba) and Antioquia; all places which have seen serious conflict in recent months.

  Diego Garcia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the current population of Diego Garcia are(a) US military personnel, (b) UK military personnel, (c) civilian workers and (d) detainees; and if he will make a statement. [157690]

  Mr. Rammell
  The current population on the island of Diego Garcia consists of:

  (a) approx 1,400 US military personnel

  (b) approx 40 UK military personnel

  (c) approx 1,800 civilian workers (mainly of Mauritian and Filipino nationality).

  There are no detainees in Diego Garcia or elsewhere in the British Indian Ocean Territory.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with(a) the Chagos Refugee Association and (b) other groups on the possibility of return to Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands of the original inhabitants and their descendants; and if he will make a statement. [157708]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have held many discussions with representatives of the Chagos Refugees Group, and with other persons claiming to represent the views of the Chagossian community. In that context, a team of independent experts was commissioned in April 2000 to carry out a study of the feasibility of a return to the Chagos Islands. Their report on the second phase of their study was delivered in June 2002.

  In the meantime, various members of the Chagossian community, including the leaders of the Chagos Refugee Group, initiated legal proceedings against the Government in the High Court, raising, among other

  831W
  things, issues relating to such a return. Though the High Court has given summary judgement in favour of the Government in these proceedings, the claimants have applied for leave to appeal and their application is still pending. No final decision has been taken on the future of the feasibility study.

  EU Constitution (Solidarity Clause)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the Government's policy to support a solidarity clause in the constitutional treaty between EU member states in the event of attack. [157111]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government support the proposal to establish a solidarity clause, on the basis of the language for the draft Constitutional Treaty for the EU, presented by the Italian presidency to the Inter Governmental Conference in December.

  Free Movement of Workers
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what transitional arrangements for the free movement of workers from relevant states among the countries acceding to the European Union have been put in place by(a) Ireland, (b) Denmark, (c) Sweden, (d) Finland, (e) Germany, (f) Austria, (g) the Netherlands, (h) Belgium, (i) Luxembourg, (j) France, (k) Spain, (l) Portugal, (m) Italy and (n) Greece; what transitional arrangements EU partners have indicated they will put in place; and if he will make a statement. [154171]

  Mr. MacShane
  After Accession on 1 May, nationals from the ten new EU member states will be able to travel freely throughout the EU. However, except for nationals of Malta and Cyprus, they will not automatically be allowed to work in the existing member states. Those existing member states may, however, open their labour markets to nationals from the new member states if they so choose.

  (a) Ireland will open their labour markets to nationals from the new member states.

  (b) Denmark will open its labour market from 1 May, but has decided to impose a new administrative set-up with work and residence permits for new EU citizens. Citizens from the new member states will be able to stay in Denmark for a six month job-seeking period during which they will not be entitled to social benefit. This rule also applies to other EU citizens. A Work and Residence Permit will be granted for one year (as opposed to five year residence certificate for present EU member states' citizens) only if the person concerned has found a job and will be employed on the same pay and working conditions as those applying on the Danish labour market.

  (c) Sweden will open its labour market from 1 May, but the Swedish Government has signalled its intention to introduce transitional arrangements for workers from the new member states. It has yet to bring forward formal proposals.

  832W

  (d) Finland will impose a two-year transition period and existing controls on workers from eight of the ten new member states will apply. No restrictions will apply to citizens of Malta and Cyprus.

  (e) Germany will apply a transition period for two years, which may be extended to seven. Existing controls on workers from the relevant eight new member states will apply.

  (f) Austria will apply a transition period of at least two years. After that, it has indicated that it will follow Germany's lead.

  (g) The Netherlands is not imposing a transition period. The Dutch Cabinet agreed on 23 January to introduce a system of work permits for workers from new member states from 1 May. But this proposal was rejected by the Dutch Parliament on 9 February that asked for tougher measures. On 13 February the Dutch Government came forward with new proposals which will only allow workers from new member states to work in sectors where there is a shortage of available suitably qualified Dutch or EU nationals. The Centres for Work and Income (Job Centre Plus equivalent) will decide which sectors have such a shortfall. These regulations will be effective from 1 May 2004 to 1 May 2006. An evaluation of the system will take place before 1 May 2005 to see if these restrictions can be relaxed earlier.

  (h) Belgium will impose a transition period of at least two years.

  (i) Luxembourg will impose a transition period of at least two years.

  (j) France will impose a transition period of at least two years.

  (k) Spain will apply a transition period for two years. Depending on developments in the labour market, they may allow new member states citizens full rights to work before the end of the transition period. Spain has a bilateral agreement with Poland to allow a limited number of Poles to work in Spain.

  (l) Portugal has yet to decide whether it will open up its labour market to workers from the eight new member states.

  (m) Italy has yet to decide whether it will open up its labour market to workers from the eight new member states.

  (n) Greece is imposing a two year transition period.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear UK Government policy in this House on 23 February 2004, Official Report, columns 23–25. The UK has decided to allow free movement of workers to those who genuinely want to come and work here. Genuine workers from the eight new member states will be allowed access to the UK labour market via a workers registration system. This will benefit the UK economy, expanding the range of skills and supply of workers available across the UK.

  Maltese and Cypriot nationals will be free to work anywhere in the EU.

  Fund Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of expenditure on the(a) Drugs Assistance Fund, (b) Human Rights Fund and (c) Environment Fund

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–042

  2004–053

  2005–063

  (a) Drugs Assistance Fund4

  0.9

  4.4

  5.9

  6.0

  6.0

  7.3

  10.0

  9.4

  9.4

  9.4

  (b) Human Rights Fund5

  —

  —

  5.0

  5.1

  6.0

  6.6

  7.4

  11.1

  10.5

  14.5

  (c) Environment Fund6

  —

  —

  0.6

  0.9

  2.5

  2.9

  3.0

  4.8

  4.2

  6.3

  1 Outturn

  2 Budget

  3 Plan

  4 FCO programme activity in support of drugs objectives includes the former Drugs Assistance and Drugs Programme Fund, now (since 2001–02) the Drugs and Crime Fund.

  5 The Human Rights Project Fund was started in 1998–99 but was subsumed into the new Global Opportunities Fund (GOF) in 2003–04. Figures from that year onwards include Human Rights Programme activity under several strands of the GOF e.g. Engaging with the Islamic World, Re-Uniting Europe and Strengthening Relationships with Emerging Markets, but not human rights activity across all FCO programme budgets.

  6 The Environment Project Fund (EPF) was started in 1998–99 but was subsumed into the new GOF in 2003–04. The figures from that year onwards include estimated expenditure on the environment across all FCO programmes, not just the former EPF.

  Note:

  The figures for 2004–05 and 2005–06 indicate current spending plans. All future resource allocations may be subject to review in the light of changing foreign policy priorities. 2005–06 spending plans will be covered by the 2004 Spending Review.

  Haiti
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Haiti. [157648]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK welcomes the constitutional succession and political process now underway in Haiti in order to promote a peaceful and lasting solution to the current crisis.

  The UK welcomes the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1529 which authorises the deployment of a multi-national Interim Force to Haiti and declares the Security Council's readiness, within three months, to establish and deploy a UN stabilisation force that will support the continuation of a peaceful and constitutional political process.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether China has informed him of plans to change the legal system in Hong Kong. [157820]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are not aware of any plans to change the legal system in Hong Kong. The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 provided for the maintenance of the existing legal system in Hong Kong after the handover in 1997. The Joint Declaration also provides that the legal system in Hong Kong should be autonomous from the legal system of mainland China and should be vested with independent judicial power. This should remain unchanged until at least 2047.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the state of the relationship between India and Pakistan. [157018]
  834W
  for each year from 1996–97 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [156606]

  Mr. Rammell
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) expenditure on these programmes is shown in the following table:

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We warmly welcome the recent announcement by India and Pakistan that they have agreed an agenda and a timetable for substantive talks, due to begin after the Indian General Election. Following the breakthrough in relations announced by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee at the start of January, this agreement demonstrates the commitment of both countries to address each other's concerns. We support both governments in their efforts, recognising that the talks will be the start of a long and difficult process and hope that they will, in due course, lead to the resolution of all their outstanding differences, including over Kashmir.

  Interception of Communications
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is empowered to authorise the interception of communications where that communication begins and terminates outside UK territory. [157921]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  Iran
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian Government about pluralist democratic procedures in their recent national election. [157021]

  Mr. Rammell
  In his contacts with Iranian leaders, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear our support for Iran's efforts to reform. The flawed parliamentary elections held on 20 February were a setback for Iran's democratic development. On 23 February, EU Foreign Ministers expressed their deep regret and disappointment that large numbers of candidates, including many sitting deputies, had been prevented from standing, thus making a genuine democratic choice by the Iranian people impossible. For
  835W
  elections in any country to be regarded as free and fair, electors must have a chance to vote for candidates with a range of views.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to prevent the flow of Shia Muslims from Iran into Southern Iraq. [157579]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are monitoring the border situation closely, and have been in contact with all Iraq's neighbours, including Iran, to urge them to take steps to ensure better border security. Within Iraq, Coalition forces have been conducting operations aimed at monitoring and reducing illegal cross-border traffic. In the long-term, we are working hard to train all Iraqi security forces, including those with responsibility for border security.

  Israel
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the stance of the Government at the International Court of Justice with regard to the reference of the Israeli security fence. [156390]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government believe that the building of a wall on Palestinian territory is unlawful but that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should exercise its discretion not to give an opinion on this matter on the grounds:that an opinion is not needed by the UN and could hinder the peace process;
  that it involves essentially a bilateral dispute, one of the parties to which has not consented to the ICJ's jurisdiction;
  and that it would involve the determination of issues of fact, on which the necessary evidence is not before the Court.

  A copy of the UK's written statement to the ICJ to this effect has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Katharine Gun
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the Attorney-General concerning the case of Katharine Gun before the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to offer any evidence against her. [157847]

  Mr. Straw
  Because I have statutory responsibility for GCHQ, I spoke with the Attorney General by telephone on 14 February and at a meeting on 24 February about the Gun case. The purpose on both occasions was to learn about the position of the prosecuting authorities relating to the continuation of the prosecution. I took no part in the decisions relating to discontinuation of the prosecution.

  I was earlier consulted by the Attorney General, in accordance with the Shawcross procedure, about public interest issues relating to the case, before he took the decision to initiate the prosecution.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the policy of the Government to continue(a) the approval of new claims in Kuwait and (b) the payment and settlement of claims in Kuwait under the UN Compensation Commission. [157042]
  836W
  Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government support the UN Compensation Commission's (UNCC) approval of Kuwait's submission of certain new claims relating to the 605 detainees held in Iraq following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and who are now believed to be dead.

  The Government support the completion of the UNCC's claims processing work for all claimant states, including Kuwait, and for the payment of approved awards, to the extent that it has funds available to do so.

  Libya
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developing British relations with Libya. [157015]

  Mr. Rammell
  Libya's announcement, on 19 December 2003, that it would dismantle its Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes opened the way to Libya's reintegration into the international community.

  The visit of the Libyan Foreign Minister, Abdul Rahman Shalgam, to the UK from 9 to 10 February was tangible proof of the improving relations between Libya and the UK. Discussions covered a broad range of bilateral and regional issues.

  The UK and Libya will now seek to build on these contacts to develop further our political, cultural and commercial ties, helping Libya in its aim of restructuring its economy and co-operating in tackling terrorism.

  The Government will continue to seek progress on the difficulties that remain between the United Kingdom and Libya. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had an assurance from Foreign Minister Shalgam that Libya stands by the commitments it has given on the Lockerbie bombing and on the investigation into the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher.

  Non-military Overseas Sites
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the overseas sites which are owned by the Government for non-military purposes; and if he will make a statement on the Government's disposals policy for them. [157164]

  Mr. Rammell
  The National Asset Register lists overseas properties (over a book value of £3,000) owned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All such assets are held for diplomatic use. The latest edition of the register, published in July 2001 (Cm5221), can be found at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/mediastore/otherfiles/218.pdf

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an on-going programme of estate modernisation. Under an agreement with the Treasury, land or buildings that are surplus, not operationally effective or not providing value for money, are sold and the proceeds are then reinvested.

  North Korea
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote cultural and sporting exchanges between the United Kingdom and North Korea. [157539]
  837W
  Mr. Rammell
  We are not specifically promoting any cultural or sporting events between the UK and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the(a) size and (b) value of heroin exports from North Korea in each of the last five years. [157543]

  Mr. Rammell
  There is no evidence that heroin has been trafficked through North Korea to the UK in significant quantities during the period in question.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the UNHCR in Geneva and (b) his counterparts in the European Union about possible visits by international inspection teams to assess prison conditions in North Korea. [157537]

  Mr. Rammell
  UNHCR's responsibility is for the welfare of refugees and, as such, it has no mandate to inspect prisons in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).

  In the EU, the issue has been discussed by member states regularly. The resolution on DPRK at the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2003, tabled by the EU, included a specific request for the North Korean authorities to allow inspection visits by international independent monitors.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the size of the prison population in North Korea. [157538]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, in a report dated October 2003, estimated the prison population of North Korea to be around two hundred thousand.

  We have no access to any more accurate and reliable figures.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the nature and extent of the United Kingdom's diplomatic ties with North Korea are. [157542]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) established full diplomatic relations on 12 December 2000. The British Embassy in Pyongyang was established in July 2001, and the DPRK Embassy in London was established in November 2002.

  Through both Embassies we ensure that we take regular opportunities to emphasise to the DPRK authorities our strong concerns on human rights and on the nuclear issue. We make clear that the scope of our co-operation with the DPRK will remain severely limited until progress is made on meeting these concerns.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of per capita income in(a) North Korea and (b) South Korea in 2004. [157544]

  Mr. Rammell
  South Korea's average income per capita in 2002 (latest year for which actual figures are available) was US$9,979. This year, the figure is expected to reach around US$12,000, owing to economic growth and appreciation of the Korean won against the US dollar.
  838W
  The North Korean government does not publish economic statistics. Reliable figures for per capita incomes are therefore unavailable. However, the Bank of Korea (South Korea's central bank) estimate average per capita incomes in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in 2002 was US$760. The figure is unlikely to have changed significantly since then.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of trade sanctions by the United States on the economy of North Korea. [157556]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US lifted trade sanctions on North Korea in 2000, although US exports of arms and certain products with possible military use remain banned. Despite the lifting of sanctions, trade flows are small—IMF figures for 2002 show the US exporting only US$25 million worth of goods to North Korea in 2002 and importing less than US$1 million.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the incidence of(a) infanticide and (b) torture in prisons in North Korea. [157568]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are appalled by the reports of infanticide, torture and other inhumane treatment carried out in North Korean prisons. We have expressed our concerns regularly to the North Korean government at both ministerial and official levels, and have called for access by international monitors to verify the conditions in North Korean prisons. I recently called in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Ambassador to register my strong concerns.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157744]

  Mr. Straw
  As of 27 February 2004, 3,668 written parliamentary questions (PQs) had been tabled to my Department since 1 January 2003, of which 3031 were for ordinary written answer and 637 for answer on named day.

  Since 1 January 2003, 94 per cent. of ordinary written PQs have been answered within 10 working days and 74 per cent. of named day PQs answered on time.

  Russia
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Russian Foreign Minister about EU enlargement. [157397]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary maintains regular dialogue with his Russian counterpart on a range of issues, including EU enlargement and EU/Russia relations.

  Scholarships
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost of Foreign Office scholarships for each year from 1996–97 to 2005–06 (planned); what value for money assessment has been made of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [156605]

  Mr. Mullin
  Annual costs of Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) scholarships during the period are:

  Number of scholars

  Cost (£ million)

  1996–97

  2,198

  34

  1997–98

  2,259

  36

  1998–99

  2,196

  39

  1999–2000

  2,300

  40

  2000–01

  2,470

  45

  2001–02

  2,510

  46

  2002–03

  2,568

  48

  20034–04

  12,487

  249

  2004–05

  n/k

  249

  2005–06

  n/k

  249

  1estimated

  2planned

  n/k = not known

  FCO scholarships include Chevening Scholarships, Marshall Scholarships, Atlantic Fellowships and the FCO contribution to the UK input into the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan.

  An external review of FCO scholarships in 2003 examined value for money issues and recommended some reprioritisation within the Chevening scholarships scheme in particular. I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Surveillance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests have been made to the US authorities to undertake(a) interception of communications and (b) surveillance of (i) hon. Members and (ii) other UK citizens where such activity would require express authorisation from a senior Minister in the UK were it to be carried out by UK authorities. [157864]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the well established and long standing practice of successive Governments not to comment on operations of the Intelligence Services.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list by type of authority(a) the Band D council tax level set by each local authority for 2004–05, excluding precepts, (b) the percentage change of (a) from 2003–04, (c) the precept set by the authority's relevant Fire and Civil Defence Authority for 2004–05, (d) the percentage annual change represented by (c), (e) the precept set by the relevant police authority for 2004–05, (f) the percentage annual change represented by (e), (g) the sum total of (a), (c) and (e) and (h) the percentage change of (g) compared to 2003–04. [156991]
  840W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Precepting authorities have until 1 March to set their council taxes for 2004–05, and billing authorities have until 11 March. The requested information will be published after all local authorities have set their council taxes and notified their figures to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total grant received from his Department is in Durham to compensate for loss in revenue from council tax consequent on student exemption from council tax. [156779]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no separate grant in respect of council tax revenue foregone through student exemptions.

  The main central Government support for spending by the City of Durham is through redistributed business rates and Revenue Support Grant, together known as Formula Grant. The amount of Formula Grant for Durham City depends on Durham's Formula Spending Share, Durham's share of the assumed national council tax, Durham's council tax base, and the operation of the floor and ceiling damping mechanism. Where there are student exemptions this will reduce the council tax base and so result in additional Revenue Support Grant.

  Departmental Advertising
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year since 2001–02. [149916]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002.

  In the financial year 2002–03 the office spent £3,346,943 on advertising and £3,718,767 on information campaigns.

  In the financial year 2003–04 the Office spent £3,411,000 on advertising and £6,882,000 on information campaigns.

  In both years the majority of the spend was on Fire Safety campaign (93 per cent.).

  Figures for each agency and non-departmental bodies are not held centrally and could be supplied only at disproportional cost.

  Fire Sprinklers
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in tackling fires in residential properties. [157368]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned, in April 2001, an extensive research project with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to consider fully the effectiveness of residential sprinklers. BRE published their research last month and a summary document of the work can be found on the Building Regulations section of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website—www.odpm.gov.uk

  The findings of the research indicate that residential sprinklers would appear to be generally effective in controlling fires. However, the work did show that in the case of some slow burning and shielded fires people

  841W
  could still eventually be overcome by smoke inhalation. The research also found that it would not be cost effective to require the universal installation of sprinklers in all residential premises. However, the research concluded that in some types of premises, typically those where the occupants are considered to be the most vulnerable to fire, further consideration is warranted. These premises include residential care homes, high-rise houses and flats and higher risk houses in multiple occupation.

  As part of our current review of the fire safety aspects of the building regulations we will be considering the findings of the BRE research to see if there is a case for introducing amendments that enable us to target the provision of sprinklers in those new and altered premises where the people are considered to be most vulnerable.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) area in hectares and (b) percentage of green belt land within Metropolitan authorities has been removed from green belt designation since 1997. [157920]

  Yvette Cooper
  Statistics on the extent of green belt in England were last published in 2000, based on area of green belt contained in local development plan maps existing in 1997. Officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are currently investigating the extent of designated green belt changes for authorities that have adopted new development plans since 1997. These updated statistics on green belt will be published shortly. I will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the new Regional Planning Guidance for East of England (RPG14). [157170]

  Keith Hill
  The East of England Regional Assembly plan to submit Draft RPG 14 in Autumn 2004; this will be followed by a period of consultation and a formal Examination in Public. The Government expects to publish the final version as a Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (RSS14) in summer 2006. Regional Planning Guidance documents will become Regional Spatial Strategies on commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act currently before Parliament.

  Thames Gateway
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 744W, on the Thames Gateway, by when the Gateway delivery office will be operational. [157269]

  Keith Hill
  A new Thames Gateway directorate has been established in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, responsible for securing delivery of the Government's agenda for the Gateway. The Thames Gateway Delivery Unit will be established as part of the new directorate with premises in the Thames Gateway in April 2004.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Voter Registration
  Mark Tami
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what steps the Electoral Commission is taking to increase levels of voter registration. [156539]

  Mr. Viggers
  The Commission undertakes national public awareness campaigns, including campaigns targeted at specific groups such as students and home-movers. It also provides support to local authority elections staff in the form of advice and best practice guidance on both the local promotion of electoral registration and the application of new legislation in this area.

  The Commission is also undertaking research that will provide a better understanding of the extent and nature of under-registration, together with an assessment of the operation and impact of 'rolling registration' on levels of registration.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Alcohol Licences
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has to tackle anti-social behaviour near premises with licences to sell alcohol; [157760]

  (2) what discussions she has had with local councils on increasing the responsibility of landlords with alcohol licences for excessive consumption of alcohol and associated public disorder problems; [157761]

  (3) what plans she has to attach conditions to licences for (a) public houses and (b) other drinking establishments. [157762]

  Mr. Caborn
  The responsibility for attaching conditions to liquor licences under current law rests with the licensing justices. Under the Licensing Act 2003, which received Royal Assent on 10 July 2003, this responsibility will be transferred to licensing authorities which, in the main, are local authorities. There are two mandatory conditions in the 2003 Act, which will be attached in all cases where a premises licence authorises the supply of alcohol. The first is that no supply of alcohol may be made at a time when there is no designated premises supervisor in respect of the premises or at a time when the premises supervisor does not hold a personal licence or it is suspended. The second is that every supply of alcohol under the premises licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence.

  The 2003 Act provides further mechanisms to promote the prevention of nuisance and crime and disorder. The Act introduces the review of licences. Interested parties and responsible authorities will be able to request that a review of a premises licence occurs on a ground which is relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives (the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm and public safety). The review may lead to modifications of the conditions

  843W
  on the licence, the exclusion of certain licensable activities from the licence, the removal of the premises supervisor, or the suspension or revocation of the licence.

  In addition, the 2003 Act provides powers for a magistrates court in a particular area to make an order requiring premises at or near a place of disorder, or expected disorder, to be closed for a period not exceeding 24 hours.

  In addition a particular premises may be closed if a senior police officer reasonably believes there is, or is likely imminently to be, disorder on, or in the vicinity, of the premises and the closure is necessary for public safety, or alternatively if a public nuisance is being caused by noise coming from the premises and closure is necessary to prevent the nuisance. These closure orders can be for up to 24 hours and may be extended in certain situations. These powers will also be applicable to temporary events held under temporary event notices.

  In addition to these provisions, the 2003 Act contains offences such as the sale of alcohol to a person who is drunk or obtaining alcohol for a person who is drunk. Before the licensing Bill was introduced, during its passage through Parliament and since Royal Assent, we have engaged in extensive and detailed consultation with the Local Government Association, the Association of London Government and the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services about the provisions of the new legislation and its implementation.

  Crystal Palace
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress of negotiations regarding the future of Crystal Palace sports facilities; and what role the Government have played in the negotiations. [157758]

  Mr. Caborn
  As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove may be aware, it was announced on 25 February that Sport England, the Greater London Authority and the London borough of Bromley have between them secured the future of the National Sports Centre. Details of the re-development, and its timing, are yet to be finalised.

  Sport England's lease will continue for a further two years. After that, the London Development Agency will take responsibility for the site. This will ensure that the Crystal Palace Grand Prix—the last major athletics event before the Athens Olympics—will take place this summer.

  It has been agreed that Sport England, the Greater London Authority/London Development Agency and the London borough of Bromley will each pay one third of the maintenance costs for the first year of the agreement. After that, the London Development Agency will be solely responsible. This wi11 be the starting point for the modernisation of the whole of Crystal Palace Park.

  The Government have remained close to all partners throughout discussions.

  Departmental Budget
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the updated figures for her Department's budget for the next five years will be published. [157788]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 129W.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's Annual Report 2004 is expected to be published in April 2004. All data will be subject to revision following the outcome of the Spending Review 2004, due in the autumn, at which time budgets for 2006–07 will be agreed.

  Departmental Christmas Card
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost was of producing her Department's Christmas card last year. [157790]

  Mr. Caborn
  The cost of the production of the DCMS Christmas card for 2003 was £1,587.50.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Christmas cards were sent by her Department last Christmas. [157791]

  Mr. Caborn
  There were 3,798 Christmas cards sent out from DCMS in 2003.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the purchases necessary to receive digital television in different areas of the United Kingdom. [157514]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]There are four ways consumers can receive digital television today:

  (a) Terrestrially

  Consumers need to buy either a digital adapter (set top box) or an integrated digital television. While many people will be able to use their existing aerials, some may need to have new aerials or cabling installed to receive all services. Digital terrestrial television is now receivable in around 75 per cent. of the UK.

  (b) Through Satellite

  Consumers need to get either a digital satellite adaptor and connect it to their existing analogue TV set or a digital TV set designed to receive digital satellite signals. They will also need a dish installed outside their home. Digital satellite signals reach the vast majority of UK homes, but in a few cases reception may not be possible, because the line of sight to the satellite is obstructed, or because planning or property regulations do not permit householders to put up a dish.

  (c) Through Cable

  Consumers need a set top box provided and installed by the operator of the cable network which serves their home, if they live in a cabled area.
  845W
  (d) Through Broadband DSL

  A fourth digital platform is emerging through use of digital subscriber line technologies based on telephony network cabling. Today, this service is only available in Kingston upon Hull, and London.

  More information is available on www. digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what efforts her Department is making to ensure that all households that desire it have access to digital television prior to the analogue signal being switched off. [157515]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with stakeholders, within the Digital Television Action Plan, to ensure that everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form (BBC 1 and 2, ITV, Channel 4/S4C and Channel 5) will be able to receive them on digital systems. However, this might not be possible before switchover for a small minority of consumers. Though Digital satellite signals reach the vast majority of UK homes, in a few cases reception or installation of the necessary dish may not be possible, either for topographic or legal reasons. We are reviewing these legal constraints to ensure they are minimal and proportionate. Any further extension of the digital cable networks is a commercial matter for the operators. As for terrestrial reception, it is not possible to extend it before switchover, as signals currently have to be transmitted at low power to prevent interferences with UK and foreign analogue signals. Only switchover will allow digital terrestrial television to reach the same level of coverage as analogue.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the number of(a) analogue and (b) digital television sets bought in the last five years in the United Kingdom. [157772]

  Estelle Morris
  The department holds figures for television sales in the UK up to December 2003 for the last four years only. These figures are:

  Number (Thousand)

  (a) Analogue TV sets

  18,775.8

  (b) Digital television sets

  395.9

  These figures do not include sales of set top boxes, which allow viewers to receive digital television through analogue sets. They also do not include TV/VCR and TV/DVD combination sets.

  Mobile Phones
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many departmental mobile phones are used by her Department; and what the total cost of calls was in the last five years. [157775]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport currently has 70 departmental mobile phones. The cost to the Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials was £25,500 in 2000–01, £21,000 846W
  in 2001–02, £29,000 in 2002–03 and £35,000 as of the end of February this year. It is not possible to provide figures prior to 2000 save at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Parliamentary Questions have been tabled to her Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157519]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministerial colleagues and officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport attach great importance to answering parliamentary questions accurately and to time. We aim to ensure that all Members receive a substantive response to an ordinary written question within a working week of it being tabled and that named day questions are answered on the specified date.

  1,532 House of Commons written Parliamentary Questions were tabled to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for answer between 1 January 2003 and 26 February 2004. This figure excludes those questions either withdrawn by the Member or transferred to another Department.

  1,356 ordinary written questions were answered during this period. Of these 1,131 (83.4 per cent.) were answered within 10 working days.

  176 named day questions were answered during this period. Of these 105 (59.6 per cent.) were answered on the specified date or named day.

  Performance Targets
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she will measure her Department's performance in reaching its Public Sector Agreement target to increase by eight per cent. the number of adult C2DE visitors to national museums and galleries. [157802]

  Estelle Morris
  Progress against the target is measured by using the results of periodic surveys carried out by each museum and gallery. These record the number of C2DEs visiting the museum. Progress is reported to the Department half-yearly and annually. The results are aggregated to measure progress against the PSA target.

  School Sport
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she will measure her Department's performance against the Public Sector Agreement target to increase the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours per week on high quality physical education and school sport to 75 per cent. by 2006. [157778]

  Mr. Caborn
  As I indicated in my written answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, columns 137–38W, to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, data are now being collected for the first time—for publication in April–on the number of pupils who choose to take up the

  847W
  entitlement to two hours of high-quality PE and school sport each week within and beyond the curriculum. This exercise will be repeated in future years so that performance against the PSA target can be assessed.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been given to

  Football

  Cricket

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Awards in Chorley (Number)

  1

  4

  2

  9

  2

  1

  1

  7

  Total Sum for Chorley (£)

  4,789

  15,272

  6,700

  35,165

  5,935

  4,198

  4,954

  25,879

  Awards in Lancashire (Number)

  44

  39

  60

  143

  30

  34

  40

  107

  Total Sum for Lancashire (£)

  852,448

  869,748

  275,737

  1,997,933

  137,702

  317,323

  164,937

  619,962

  Awards in North West region (Number)

  103

  74

  131

  308

  68

  68

  79

  218

  Total Sum for North West region (£)

  1,360,352

  4,776,147

  1,506,483

  7,642,982

  1,479,590

  1,367,864

  822,892

  3,670,346

  Note:

  Lancashire figures do not include schemes in Greater Manchester.

  Sunbeds
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public leisure facilities are equipped with sunbeds; what her Department's policy is on the provision of sunbeds in public leisure facilities; and what plans she has to phase out the use of sunbeds in public leisure facilities. [156950]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are 2,945 Public Sports Centres in England, 935 of which contain one or more sunbed.

  As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, any decision to provide sunbeds in public leisure facilities will be for the individual local authorities to make. However, the Government acknowledge the risks to young people of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) in all of its forms and the Health and Safety Executive has published guidance for operators and customers on using sunbeds. This guidance was developed after consultation with leading experts and is accepted as good advice.

  The hon. Member may be interested to know that the potential dangers involved in the use of sunbeds will be the subject of a meeting of experts and industry on 29 March 2004. The campaign will review the latest scientific evidence and develop practical recommendations for better self-regulation.

  Tourism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people she estimates work in tourism in(a) the north-west, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley; and how many people are employed in hotels in each case. [157685]

  Mr. Caborn
  Research carried out by the North West Development Agency's Regional Intelligence Unit estimates that the number of people working in tourism in(a) the north-west is 193,871, (b) Lancashire is 47,828 and (c) Chorley is 3,839. It has not been possible to estimate the number of people employed in hotels but the North West Tourist Board estimates that 90 per cent. of tourism employees in each case work in the accommodation sector.
  848W
  (a) football and (b) cricket in (i) the north-west, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) Chorley in each of the last three years; and for what purposes. [157686]

  Mr. Caborn
  Details of Lottery support from Sport England for football and Cricket from the following programmes: Community Capital, Active Community Development Fund, Safer Sports Grounds, Football Youth Development and Awards For All are as follows.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Ballast Plc
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of the liquidation of Ballast plc, Salford Quays, on the value of the final salary occupational pensions of its former employees. [156683]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are aware of the situation of the former employees of Ballast plc, but has not made an assessment of the effect the liquidation has had on their occupational pensions. However, we have great sympathy for the uncertainties they, and other people in similar circumstances, are facing in regard to their pensions.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make representations to the authorities in the Netherlands about the protection of the assets of the occupational pension schemes of former employees of the Dutch construction group Ballast Nedam NV and its liquidated UK subsidiary Ballast plc. [156684]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the financial responsibilities of parent companies and sympathises with the position of all members of pension schemes that may not receive the pension that they expected as a result of employer insolvency. However, the legal obligation to fund a salary-related occupational scheme is with the sponsoring employer of the scheme. The holding company is not responsible for the debts of an insolvent subsidiary because the two companies have separate legal identities. Any political intervention would, therefore, be inappropriate in this case.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which local authorities do not actively promote the take-up of council tax benefit for elderly people. [153793]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not available.
  849W
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to promote awareness of council tax benefit. But we want to do more to support authorities in their role, to encourage all those who may be entitled to claim. This is why I made a written statement on 15 December 2003, Official Report, column 125WS, in which I announced that we will be launching a take-up campaign to raise the awareness of council tax benefit among those who are likely to be entitled and also their family, friends and carers. Working with local authorities, we will provide promotional material, and will develop guidance and advice to help ensure that procedures are in place to handle inquiries about entitlement and provide support for those, particularly pensioners, making claims.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the administration cost of the Child Support Agency was in each of the last six years; and what the projected expenditure is for 2003–04. [152843]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 2 March 2004:

  In replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked what the administration cost of the Child Support Agency was in each of the last six years; and what the projected expenditure is for 2003–04.

  The net operating costs of the Agency as included in the Annual Statement of Accounts are.

  £ million

  1997–98

  225.9

  1998–99

  231.2

  1999–00

  260.3

  2000–01

  250

  2001–02

  290.4

  2002–03

  294.3

  The projected expenditure for 2003–04 for which the Agency is directly accountable is £320 million. The actual costs will be available when the Agency Accounts are published in July 2004.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when Child Support Agency cases initiated before March 2003 will be transferred to the new system; and if he will make a statement; [153619]

  (2) whether all Child Support Agency cases will be transferred to the new system at the same time; and if he will make a statement. [153620]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on 27 January 2004,Official Report, column 341W.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the timetable is for migration from the old to the new Child Support Agency scheme; and what factors affect the timetable. [155145]
  850W
  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1092W.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were on each of the Child Support Agency schemes in each month since the inception of the new scheme. [155412]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. David Drew, dated 2 March 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people were on each of the Child Support Agency schemes in each month since the inception of the new scheme. Because of issues associated with producing management information from the new computer system I cannot answer your question precisely in the format that it is asked. I can however indicate in the table below, the number of cases where;
  either an assessment (old scheme) or a calculation (new scheme) has been completed as at each month end since March 2003, and
  for old scheme cases the record is held on the "old" computer system and for new scheme cases it is held on our "new" computer system.

  Old scheme

  New scheme

  March

  993,940

  10

  April

  978,420

  731

  May

  960,680

  2,541

  June

  943,880

  6,671

  July

  917,520

  13,593

  August

  899,200

  20,792

  September

  882,800

  30,528

  October

  861,340

  42,335

  November

  839,620

  52,310

  December

  824,460

  60,200

  In addition there are around 120,000 "old scheme" cases operating on the new computer system. I cannot at this stage indicate the number of these cases at monthly rests. But the growth in this number toward the current total will mirror the decline in old scheme case numbers set out in the table above.

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the performance of the Child Support Agency's new reforms IT system; [155885]

  (2) when he estimates the Department's Child Support Agency new reforms IT system recovery programme will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [155886]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 2 March 2004:

  In replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  851W
  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the performance of the Child Support Agency's new reforms IT system and also asked when does he estimate the Department's Child Support Agency new reforms IT system recovery programme will be completed.

  The Secretary of State issued a Written Statement on the performance of the Agency on 12 February 2004. We are continuing to work with EDS on the detail of their proposed recovery plan and that has not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the new computer programme for the Child Support Agency. [157254]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 2 March 2004:

  In replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the new computer programme for the Child Support Agency.

  The Secretary of State issued a Written Statement on the performance of the Agency on 12 February 2004.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what date he will decide whether to cease to use the new computer system provided by EDS to assess Child Support Agency cases; and if he will make a statement. [158130]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) on 12 February 2004.Official Report, column 1591W.

  Cockle Bed Workers
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Health and Safety Executive has powers to prevent working after dark on cockle beds if this activity presents a risk of serious personal injury. [156860]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has no existing powers to impose a general ban on cockle picking after dark.

  However, HSE inspectors do have the power to issue a prohibition notice on a person carrying on or in control of a work activity until the risks are remedied, if there is sufficient evidence of a breach of health and safety law.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Health and Safety Executive has powers to prohibit work on cockle beds if those activities present a risk of serious personal injury. [156852]

  Mr. Pond
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has no existing powers to impose a general ban on cockle picking.
  852W
  However, HSE inspectors do have the power to issue a prohibition notice on a person in control of a work activity to stop that activity until the risks are remedied, if there is sufficient evidence of a breach of health and safety law.

  Final Salary Pension Schemes
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to protect the final salary pension schemes of employees; what assistance is provided to those people who are denied access to their pensions following company bankruptcy; and if he will make a statement. [156686]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are taking significant steps to protect members of defined benefit schemes. We are introducing the Pension Protection Fund, which will protect scheme members by paying compensation if their employer becomes insolvent and the pension scheme is under funded. We are also introducing a new Pensions Regulator that has the flexibility and powers to take a targeted and proportionate approach to protecting the funds held in pension schemes.

  Additionally, on 23 February, we laid Regulations that strengthen members' protection when a defined benefit occupational pension scheme starts to wind up while its sponsoring employer is solvent. On 24 February, we announced changes to the priority order which applies on wind up. This will help ensure that assets of the pension scheme are shared as fairly as possible between non-pensioner and pensioner scheme members.

  In the event of employer insolvency assistance is available to pension scheme members under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Pensions Scheme Act 1993. Under these Acts, the Redundancy Payments Directorate makes insolvency payments from the National Insurance Fund (NIF) to qualifying former employees. Claims for unpaid employees' contributions are limited to the actual amount deducted from wages during the 12 months prior to the date of insolvency. Unpaid employers' contributions for the 12 month period prior to the insolvency date are also payable, but are subject to monetary limits depending on the type of pension scheme.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been allocated to promote Pension Credit; what proportion of these funds will be spent on regional and local media sources; and how much money has been spent advertising the new payment in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [156620]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The marketing campaign for Pension Credit has been designed to be flexible, and the level of expenditure may change according to need. However, in England, Scotland and Wales, it is currently estimated that media costs, including direct mailing, television and press advertising, will be in the region of £12–£17 million, excluding VAT, to October 2004.
  853W
  In Northern Ireland the Department for Social Development is responsible for the promotion and take-up of Pension Credit.

  A direct mail pack to pensioner households remains at the heart of our marketing campaign for Pension Credit. From September 2003 to March 2004 this is being supported by commissioning largely national press and television advertising to introduce Pension Credit in England, Scotland and Wales.

  The proportion of advertising spend in regional and local media is approximately 25 per cent., although this is likely to increase with the identification of key areas for targeting during 2004.

  Actual spend from September 2003 to date is given as follows. Figures exclude VAT.

  England: £7,725,000

  Scotland: £759,000

  Wales: £623,000

  Triplex Components
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the situation of the employees at Triplex Components, Peterborough following the closure of its final salary pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [156933]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are aware of the situation of the employees at Triplex Peterborough and Ministers have recently met representatives of the Triplex Pension scheme.

  The Government have not made an assessment of the pension fund prospects in question. However we have great sympathy for the uncertainties they, and other workers in similar circumstances, are facing with regard to their pensions.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many final salary pension schemes have been wound up in (i) England and (ii) Cambridgeshire in each of the last five years. [156934]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are unable to provide these figures. The only source of information on winding up schemes is the Pensions Schemes Registry, which is administered by the Occupational Pension Schemes Regulatory Authority (OPRA). The information on this database is limited and does not allow us to identify the location of schemes winding up.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets the Pensions Agency has set for the issuing of Winter Fuel Payments to those eligible to receive them as(a) existing claimants and (b) new claimants. [156771]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are no targets set for issuing Winter Fuel Payments. The majority of those who are entitled are paid automatically. We aim to ensure their payments are sent to them before Christmas. People who have not previously received a payment and who do not receive a Social Security benefit other than Child Benefit, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit must 854W
  claim. Provided they have claimed by the Friday of the qualifying week we aim to send them their payments before Christmas as well.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Population Profile
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the population of Northern Ireland is over(a) 50, (b) 55, (c) 60, (d) 65, (e) 75, (f) 85 and (g) 100 years. [156377]

  Mr. Pearson
  The percentage of the Northern Ireland estimate of population (mid-2002) aged 50 years and over, 55 years and over, 60 years and over, 65 years and over, 75 years and over and 85 years and over is given in table 1 as follows. Mid-year estimates for those aged 100 and over are not routinely published. However this information is available from the 2001 Census and is given in table 2 as follows.

  Table 1: Percentage of the Northern Ireland mid-year estimate of population (2002) by various age-groups

  Age-group

  Percentage of Northern Ireland population (2002 mid-year estimate)

  (a) 50 years and over

  29.06

  (b) 55 years and over

  23.30

  (c) 60 years and over

  17.83

  (d) 65 years and over

  13.40

  (e) 75 years and over

  6.05

  (f) 85 years and over

  1.39

  Table 2: Percentage of the Northern Ireland 2001 Census by age-group

  Age-group

  Percentage of Northern Ireland Population (2001 Census)

  (g) 100 years and over

  0.01

  Prison Suicides
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of maintaining suicide watch observations in prisons in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [156324]

  Jane Kennedy
  Prisoners who are considered to be at risk of suicide or self-harm are managed within the normal prison regime and no additional staffing resources are required to keep prisoners at risk under observation.

  Any costs associated with managing prisoners at risk are largely notional. Hence there has been no requirement to quantify costs in monetary terms.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what regulations apply to building contractors when asbestos is discovered in(a) schools and (b) school premises during building work; and how they are enforced. [156554]
  855W
  Mr. Pearson
  The legislation that applies in such circumstances is as follows:

  1. The Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978

  2. The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995

  3. The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003; and

  4. The Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1984

  The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) is the enforcing authority for the above legislation in relation to a wide range of work premises, including schools. HSENI adopts a risk-based approach to carrying out inspections of asbestos removal operations and insist on a very high standard of compliance with statutory provisions in relation to all such work.

  Assets Recovery Agency
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to monitor the operation of the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland. [156604]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires the Director of the Agency to prepare an annual plan setting out how she intends to exercise her functions during the financial year. The plan includes a statement of the objectives and any performance targets and sets out in particular how the Director intends to exercise her functions in Northern Ireland. It is referred to the Secretary of State for approval.

  The Director must, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, prepare a report on how she has exercised her functions during the financial year.

  I receive regular progress reports from the Agency's Director and the Assistant Director.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the budget of the Assets Recovery Agency has been in each year since its creation. [156630]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Assets Recovery Agency became operational on 24 February 2003. Budget and resource allocation is a matter for the Home Office. The Agency's initial budget for the United Kingdom for 2003–04 is £13 million.

  Car Thefts
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many car thefts there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [156379]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is set out in the following table.

  Number of thefts/unauthorised taking of motor vehicles

  1998–99

  7,983

  1999–2000

  8,038

  2000–01

  8,563

  2001–02

  9,005

  2002–03

  8,317

  Ceasefire Breaches
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he defines a breach of a ceasefire; and whether any breaches of ceasefires have been made by the(a) Provisional IRA, (b) UDA and (c) UVF since 1 January. [156669]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State, in making a judgment on the status of a paramilitary ceasefire, takes account of all relevant considerations, and in particular those set out in Section 3(9) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. The Government do not comment on specific intelligence matters. I call upon all paramilitary groupings to stop all forms of violent activity.

  Civil Service Numbers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in Northern Ireland have resigned from the Civil Service as a result of the ongoing pay dispute; what recent steps he has taken to resolve the dispute; and if he will make a statement. [156977]

  Mr. Pearson
  As far as I am aware no civil servants in Northern Ireland have resigned from the Civil Service as a result of the current pay dispute. Extensive negotiations over several months did not result in an agreed pay deal for the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration this year. Management Side presented an offer worth 3.67 per cent. on 5 November. As this could not be agreed, and Trade Union Side declined to negotiate within the 3.67 per cent. envelope, we took the decision to proceed to pay the award and communicated this to staff and Trade Union Side on 27 November. I have made clear to Trade Union Side that the 3.67 per cent. deal is the maximum that can be paid. We are however open to exploring other reasonable means of resolving the dispute. The latest meeting of the Central Whitley Council between Trade Union and Management Sides took place on Thursday, 19 February, and we have agreed to hold further negotiations as a matter of urgency.

  Members of the NI Civil Service working in the Northern Ireland Office are subject to separate pay negotiations involving three Unions: NIPSA, PCS and the PDA. A formal offer of 3 per cent. was made to the Unions but was rejected. NIO intend to proceed to pay the award at the end of March.

  Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc) Act
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 in addressing delayed discharges from hospitals; and what plans he has to introduce similar provisions in Northern Ireland. [157653]

  Angela Smith
  I refer the hon. Lady to my answer on 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 394W. The Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, which became fully operational on 5 January 2004, places duties upon the NHS and councils relating to communication between authorities and introduces financial incentives to promptly assess and transfer patients. It is therefore premature to make an assessment

  857W
  of the effectiveness of these new arrangements. I am not planning to introduce similar provisions in Northern Ireland for the reasons I have previously set out.

  Drug Use
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the work of Life Education Centres in prevention of drug use through education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make further funding available to enable the expansion of this work throughout Northern Ireland. [147381]

  Jane Kennedy
  An evaluation report based on a 3-school sample was received in April 2002.

  Funding has been pledged which will allow the work of the first Life Education Centre to continue and funding has been secured to operate a second Centre until March 2004. Consideration is currently being given to continue this funding to March 2006. There are, however, no plans to extend the present provision of Life Education Centres in Northern Ireland.

  Health Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many MRI scans were performed in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [156322]

  Angela Smith
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homeless people there are

  District

  31 March 2000

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  31 January 2004

  Belfast 1

  3,184

  2,978

  2,837

  2,492

  2,348

  Belfast 2

  5,125

  5,049

  4,663

  4,341

  4,033

  Belfast 3

  4,673

  4,280

  4,037

  3,671

  3,488

  Belfast 4

  4,537

  4,386

  4,226

  4,124

  3,924

  Belfast 5

  4,622

  5,040

  4,689

  4,614

  4,321

  Belfast 6

  4,446

  4,212

  3,970

  3,933

  3,626

  Belfast 7

  5,283

  5,078

  4,885

  4,579

  4,360

  Bangor

  3,656

  3,551

  3,420

  3,266

  3,092

  Newtownards

  5,223

  5,052

  4,848

  4,646

  4,447

  Castlereagh

  5,213

  4,994

  4,790

  4,564

  4,389

  Lisburn (Antrim St.)

  6,148

  5,817

  5,419

  5,172

  4,933

  Lisburn (Dairyfarm)

  3,060

  2,912

  2,698

  2,410

  2,221

  Downpatrick

  3,633

  3,349

  3,101

  2,909

  2,722

  Banbridge

  2,486

  2,386

  2,240

  2,097

  2,007

  Newry

  4,766

  4,442

  4,138

  3,847

  3,581

  Armagh

  2,832

  2,671

  2,489

  2,335

  2,206

  Lurgan

  3,978

  3,723

  3,559

  3,345

  3,137

  Portadown

  2,147

  2,064

  1,987

  1,891

  1,824

  Dungannon

  2,553

  2,446

  2,285

  2,137

  2,029

  Fermanagh

  2,958

  2,794

  2,644

  2,481

  2,354

  Ballymena

  4,269

  4,010

  3,790

  3,579

  3,391

  Antrim

  3,689

  3,509

  3,258

  3,071

  2925

  Newtownabbey 1

  3,283

  3,042

  2,870

  2,746

  2,586

  Newtownabbey 2

  3,017

  2,830

  2,716

  2,597

  2,516

  Carrickfergus

  2,933

  2,799

  2,670

  2,444

  2,260

  Larne

  2,233

  2,135

  2,088

  1,890

  1,806

  Ballycastle

  1,144

  1,082

  1,043

  1,002

  958

  Ballymoney

  1,968

  1,879

  1,784

  1,707

  1,644

  Coleraine

  4,159

  4,000

  3,828

  3,665

  3,549

  Waterloo (L'Derry)

  3,319

  3,210

  3,048

  2,819

  2,673

  Waterside (L'Derry)

  3,344

  3,209

  3,089

  2,886

  2,753

  Collon (L'Derry)

  3,454

  3,321

  3,184

  2,978

  2,783

  858W
  in Northern Ireland; and what the figures were for each of the past 10 years. [151207]

  Mr. Spellar
  At 3l December 2003, 5,133 households accepted by the Housing Executive as being statutorily homeless were on its waiting list to be permanently re-housed.

  Over the last 10 financial years the numbers who presented to the Housing Executive as being homeless and those accepted by it as statutorily homeless are as follows:

  Number presented

  Number accepted

  2002–03

  16,426

  8,580

  2001–02

  14,164

  7,374

  2000–01

  12,694

  6,457

  1999–2000

  10,997

  5,192

  1998–99

  11,552

  4,997

  1997–98

  12,672

  4,956

  1996–97

  11,092

  4,708

  1995–96

  10,768

  4,319

  1994–95

  10,068

  4,014

  1993–94

  9,731

  3,971

  Housing Executive Properties
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Housing Executive properties there were in each Northern Ireland housing district in each year since 2000; what steps he is taking to increase the number; and if he will make a statement. [157666]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table sets out the number of Housing Executive properties in each of its district office areas at the end of each financial year since 2000.
  859W

  District

  31 March 2000

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  31 January 2004

  Limavady

  2,050

  1,930

  1,841

  1,725

  1,653

  Magherafelt

  1,928

  1,802

  1,705

  1,583

  1,501

  Strabane

  3,141

  2,976

  2,855

  2,670

  2,515

  Omagh

  2,597

  2,450

  2,332

  2,217

  2,135

  Cookstown

  1,571

  1,467

  1,405

  1,309

  1,230

  Northern Ireland total

  128,622

  122,875

  116,431

  109,742

  103,920

  Independent research commissioned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and carried out by the University of Ulster/University of Cambridge estimates a need for between 1,400 and l,500 new homes per annum. The responsibility for providing all new social housing in Northern Ireland now lies with Registered Housing Associations.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many industrial tribunal applications were lodged against the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and what the outcome was in each case; [147220]

  (2) how many contested applications in industrial tribunals resulted in awards against the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and how many of these were appealed to the Court of Appeal; [147221]

  (3) what criteria the Police Service of Northern Ireland uses when determining whether or not to appeal an award made by the industrial tribunal; [147222]

  (4) what costs were incurred by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland in defending the industrial tribunal application by Chief Inspector Shamoon at (a) the industrial tribunal, (b) the Court of Appeal and (c) the House of Lords. [147223]

  Jane Kennedy
  Records for the number of industrial tribunal applications are not available earlier than 2000–01. The following table sets out the number of applications and the current status of each case from 2000–04.

  Industrial tribunal applications and current status

  Lodged

  Ongoing

  Withdrawn

  Dismissed

  Settled

  2000–01

  72

  33

  29

  6

  4

  2001–02

  57

  30

  19

  2

  6

  2002–03

  55

  48

  6

  1

  0

  2003–04

  50

  49

  0

  1

  0

  Settlement in each of these cases was in favour of the applicant and none of the settlement awards were appealed.

  The chief constable takes advice from counsel when determining whether or not to appeal an award made by an industrial tribunal. I am advised that an appeal would not be lodged unless counsel advised that it was justified.
  860W
  The PSNI incurred costs of £28,442.05 in respect of the industrial tribunal application by Chief Inspector Shamoon. Costs in respect of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords were awarded against Chief Inspector Shamoon.

  Joyriding
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were convicted of joyriding offences in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; how many of these incidents resulted in(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal injuries; and what steps he is taking to reduce these figures. [144345]

  Jane Kennedy
  "Joyriding" is currently not a specific offence in law so the information is not available in the format requested. The table sets out the number of convictions for taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent from 1997 to 2001 which is the most up to date information available.

  Taking a motor vehicle without the owners consent

  1997

  453

  1998

  401

  1999

  294

  2000

  328

  2001

  350

  The following tables set out details of collisions involving stolen vehicles and hit and run collisions but the identification of those specifically relating to "joyriding" could be obtained only at disproportionate expenses.

  Road traffic collisions involving stolen vehicles1; 1998–2002

  Fatal collisions

  Serious collisions

  Slight collisions

  Total

  1998

  6

  29

  165

  200

  1999

  3

  25

  196

  224

  2000

  4

  45

  228

  277

  2001

  6

  50

  231

  287

  2002

  5

  29

  192

  226

  Road traffic collisions involving hit and run vehicles2 1998–2002

  Fatal collisions

  Serious collisions

  Slight collisions

  Total

  1998

  6

  44

  483

  533

  1999

  9

  54

  550

  613

  2000

  4

  98

  734

  836

  2001

  4

  83

  738

  825

  2002

  6

  103

  659

  768

  1Stolen vehicles only include those vehicles which are known by the police to be stolen

  2Hit and run vehicles may include vehicles which are stolen

  861W
  The PSNI are involved in a number of initiatives to reduce the number of vehicles taken without the permission of the owner. In West Belfast an Auto Crime Team has been established to specifically address this issue. While such initiatives can help reduce the incidence of vehicle crime it has been recognised that a long-term strategy is required and the PSNI are working in partnership with a number of agencies and groups, to tackle this problem as part of a multi-agency project. Each District Command Unit uses a range of resources and methods to target vehicle related crime in their area as effectively as possible.

  In addition to these measures the Government will publish draft legislation for Northern Ireland for consultation by the end of January, aimed at tackling so-called "joy-riding" offences. The proposed legislation will introduce two new offences: "aggravated vehicle taking", attracting a maximum prison sentence of five years and "causing death or grievous bodily injury by aggravated vehicle taking", which will attract a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. These tough new measures are part of the Government's overall strategy to specifically target and punish so-called "joy-riders".

  Learning Disabilities Strategy
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the Strategy for People with Learning Disabilities; and when recommendations will be published. [156165]

  Jane Kennedy
  A great deal of work is being taken forward by the Department of Education in a range of areas to improve the levels of provision for children with learning difficulties, and in particular autism and dyslexia. While this represents a broad strategic approach, the Department is not engaged in a formal exercise to draw up a Strategy for People with Learning Disabilities.

  In 2002, two Northern Ireland Education Task Groups published reports, with recommendations, on the future development of educational provision for children with autism and dyslexia. Following DE-led conferences on these areas in autumn 2002, Education and Library Boards (ELBs) have prioritised the reports' recommendations and consequently the Department has made £270,000 available in 2003–04 and up to £540,000 in 2004–05 to the ELBs to develop training needs and support measures in the field of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). An Inter Board ASD Group has been established, which will promote consistency of approach in relation to children with ASD across the five ELBs. A further £500,000 was allocated in 2003–04 to provide support and training for parents and staff in pre-school settings working with children with ASD.

  DE led the collaborative North/South production of complementary parent and teacher videos/CD-ROMs and guidance material on autism. These were distributed widely across Northern Ireland in 2003. A dyslexia video/DVD ROM is also nearing completion by a joint North/South group and it is hoped to distribute this in the near future. The Education and Training Inspectorate is working to produce a "Dyslexia Friendly Schools" guide during 2004.
  862W
  A Steering Group, comprising health and education authorities from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, are taking forward the development of the Centre of Excellence for children and young people with ASD at Middletown, Co. Armagh.

  Local Management of Schools
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the formula for funding local management of schools on primary schools' ability to fund full teaching costs. [157319]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost of teaching staff is met from each school's budget. The number of teachers appointed and the management structure within a school is a matter for the Board of Governors of the school to determine, taking account of the school's policies, priorities and overall financial position.

  In determining the amount to be made available for allocation to schools, account is taken of the likely change to the overall teacher salary bill arising from, among other things, pay settlements. Additional resources are made available for small schools with above average teacher salary costs.

  Medical Negligence
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many medical negligence cases are pending within each health trust. [157393]

  Angela Smith
  At 31 January 2004, the number of cases pending in each Trust was as follows:

  Trust

  Number of Cases

  Altnagelvin Hospitals HSS Trust

  216

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  37

  Belfast City Hospital Trust HSS Trust

  273

  Causeway HSS Trust

  90

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  15

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  167

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  145

  Foyle HSS Trust

  14

  Green Park HSS Trust

  53

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  19

  Mater Hospital HSS Trust

  103

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  118

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  1

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  9

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust

  482

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  9

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  112

  United Hospitals HSS Hospital Trust

  220

  Ulster Community and Hospitals HSS Trust

  291

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the early indications of the effectiveness of(a) Assertive Outreach and (b) Crisis Response Teams in the practice of mental health locally. [151211]

  Angela Smith
  Assertive Outreach and Crisis Response Teams were established in the Northern and Southern Health and Social Services Boards in 2003. It is too early to assess the impact of these services in the Southern Board but initial indications from the
  863W
  Northern Board show a degree of success. The Eastern Board plan to have Crises Response and Home Treatment Services operational by April 2004 and the Western Board have commissioned Foyle Trust to develop a Crises Response Out of Hours Pilot Service.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mobile telephone masts there are in each Northern Ireland constituency; and what the equivalent figures were for each year since 2000. [156939]

  Angela Smith
  Unfortunately, Planning Service is unable to provide the information of the number of mobile telephone masts in the format requested.

  This is because Planning Services computer system does not distinguish between constituencies, its records are categorised by Divisional Planning Office and Council Area. Additionally, although Planning Service has a record of applications for telecommunication equipment, which have been approved, once an application has been approved, we cannot advise if the mast has been erected or activated.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications there have been to construct mobile telephone masts in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000; how many of these applications have been(a) granted and (b) refused; and what the reason for refusal was in each case. [156944]

  Number of persons waiting for assessment by community occupational therapists, and number waiting for six months or more

  Priority

  Non-priority

  Total

  Quarter ending

  Total

  6 plus months

  Total

  6 plus months

  Total

  6 plus months

  September 1998

  1,627

  88

  7,055

  2,042

  8,682

  2,130

  March 1999

  1,487

  117

  8,358

  2,126

  9,845

  2,243

  September 1999

  1,965

  292

  9,217

  2,921

  11,182

  3,213

  March 2000

  1,193

  298

  9,658

  3,222

  10,851

  3,520

  September 2000

  1,819

  240

  11,182

  5,515

  13,001

  5,755

  March 2001

  1,307

  83

  8,081

  4,065

  9,388

  4,148

  September 2001

  1,356

  67

  8,123

  4,010

  9,479

  4,077

  March 2002

  1,549

  138

  6,806

  2,937

  8,355

  3,075

  September 2002

  2,052

  307

  7,775

  3,124

  9,827

  3,431

  March 2003

  1,881

  247

  6,604

  2,719

  8,485

  2,966

  September 2003

  1,880

  243

  6,390

  2,370

  8,270

  2,613

  Police Ombudsmans Office
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civilians officers from the Police Ombudsman's Office have arrested since the Office was set up. [156690]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman has advised that one civilian has been arrested by her investigating officers since the setting up of the office.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received complaints from police officers regarding(a) actions by officers from the Ombudsman's Office and (b) investigations carried out by the Police Ombudsman. [156691]
  864W
  Angela Smith
  Details of applications including full planning applications and, prior to 21 June 2002, prior approval applications for telecommunications equipment approved and refused for each year since 2000 are set out in the table.

  Approved

  Refuse

  2000

  396

  52

  2001

  450

  94

  2002

  307

  37

  2003

  141

  11

  Total

  1,294

  201

  As over 200 applications have been refused, it would be extremely time consuming and resource intensive to extract and identify the reasons for refusal in each case. It would therefore be at a disproportionate cost to Planning Service.

  Occupational Therapy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients are awaiting occupational therapy assessment and how many have waited for more than six months; and what the figures were at each six-month interval over the past five years. [151214]

  Angela Smith
  The figures for persons awaiting assessment by a community occupational therapist in respect of priority cases, non-priority cases and total cases are shown in the following table, for the position at quarters ending September 1998 to September 2003 (the latest date for which such information is available).

  Jane Kennedy
  A number of officers have written to the Northern Ireland Office regarding the Ombudsman's Office. However, the Police Ombudsman's Office is operationally independent and the handling of investigations by the Ombudsmans staff is a matter for the Police Ombudsmans Office.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what powers he has to require explanations from the Police Ombudsman on(a) the actions of her officers and (b) investigations carried out by her office. [156692]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State has no statutory powers to require explanations from the Police Ombudsman on the actions of her officers or the investigations carried out by her office.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many serving members of the full-time Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve have passed entrance examinations for full-time posts in the PSNI and have not been appointed because of restrictions arising from 50:50 appointment legislation. [152460]

  Jane Kennedy
  From competitions 1 to 4, 1,706 non-Catholic and 604 Catholic applicants have qualified for appointment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Of these, 530 of each community background have been appointed. Of the qualified Catholic candidates, all were offered appointment, but some withdrew in the time intervening between qualification for appointment and the time of appointment.

  Appointments from competition 5 have started, although the pool is not yet finalised, and the pool for competition 6 is not expected to be ready until April this year.

  The information on the number of candidates who have passed the entrance examinations (i.e. have been successful in becoming qualified candidates and reaching the merit pool) more than once is taking some time to collate. As soon as the figures are available, they will be forwarded.

  Prison Officers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prison officers in Northern Ireland have taken sick leave in each of the past 18 months on account of work-related stress; and how many of these officers have since returned to work. [156940]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows.

  Prison Officer Grades absent suffering from work-related stress between 1 February 2003 and 27 February 2004

  Number of staff absent during month

  Number of staff who have since returned to work

  February 2003

  1

  1

  March 2003

  1

  1

  April 2003

  1

  1

  May 2003

  1

  1

  June 2003

  2

  1

  July 2003

  8

  6

  August 2003

  16

  13

  September 2003

  18

  13

  October 2003

  18

  12

  November 2003

  19

  11

  December 2003

  19

  10

  January 2004

  23

  12

  February 2004

  17

  4

  At the end of February 2004, 13 officers remained absent due to work related stress.

  Figures were not obtainable prior to February 2003 for work related stress as the computer system at that time did not differentiate between stress and work related stress.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of maintaining prisons in the Province in 2003–04. [156319]
  866W
  Jane Kennedy
  The estimated cost of maintaining prisons in Northern Ireland in 2003–04 is £109,581,000.

  Rates
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been conducted into the impact the removal of rates relief on manufacturing premises will have on manufacturing industries; and if he will make a statement. [156460]

  Mr. Pearson
  Our assessment on the likely impact of the phasing out of industrial derating on the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland (NI) came from a variety of different sources; for example, studies by DTZ Pieda, Invest NI as well as evidence presented during the public consultation exercise in 2002 by the DETI and DFP Assembly Committees, the CBI and local economists. The policy paper published in April last year included the Regulatory Impact Assessment, New TSN and Equality Impact Assessments. All this evidence was summarised, analysed and considered objectively and the various options were discussed openly with representatives of the business community before a final decision was made.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been conducted into the impact levying rates on vacant buildings will have on investment in deprived areas; what proposals there are for exemptions; and if he will make a statement. [156461]

  Mr. Pearson
  The decision to rate vacant non–domestic property was informed by an analysis of the potential impact on deprived areas. It concluded that the impact is likely to be positive because such property tends to be concentrated in deprived areas and the effect of the measure will be to encourage owners to bring them back into use and occupation. This New TSN analysis was published with the policy paper in April 2003.

  In line with the outcomes of the consultation exercise in 2002, the exemptions to the vacant rate will largely mirror those in the rest of the UK. They will cover the situation where the occupation or use of the property is restricted or prohibited in some way, or where the person would be liable only as a proxy for someone else. Property with a net annual value of less than £2,000, property vacant for less than three months, and other properties such as listed buildings will also be exempt. It is also intended to exempt industrial property, that is factories, mines and quarries, from the vacant rate. However, standalone warehouses will not be exempt because, unlike industrial property, they can be readily converted and put on the market for sale or letting to a range of buyers or tenants.

  Residential Disabled Parking
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used in the allocation of residential disabled car parking spaces in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [157562]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of Roads Service to write to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Smuggling
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on smuggling by paramilitary organisations. [146308]

  Jane Kennedy
  There is no doubt that paramilitary organisations continue to engage in organised criminality including smuggling.

  While cross-border co-operation between law enforcement agencies is already very good, the Government are fully committed to working with the Government in the Irish Republic to further improve that collaboration by developing strategies and structures to enable law enforcement agencies to maximise their effectiveness against the organised criminals who use the border to smuggle.

  I pay tribute to the activity of law enforcement agencies against the smugglers which has resulted in unprecedented successes against illegal drug importation and a second year of growth in the levels of legitimate deliveries of road fuel oils into Northern Ireland, after five years of decline.

  Translink
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average age of rolling stock in service with Translink is; and what progress has been made with the introduction of new rolling stock to the railway network in Northern Ireland. [157671]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table gives a breakdown by type for the different locomotives and carriages used on the Northern Ireland Railways network. This information was supplied by Translink.

  Age (years)

  Two GM locomotives

  8

  14 De Dietrich carriages

  7

  Three GM locomotives

  22

  11 ex-Gatwick carriages

  31

  80 class:

  20 power cars

  26

  19 driving trailers

  28

  17 intermediate trailers

  29

  450 class:

  Nine power cars

  17

  Nine driving trailers

  17

  Nine intermediate trailers

  17

  Translink also advise that the first of the 23 new trains is scheduled to be delivered in April 2004 with the
  868W
  remainder being delivered progressively through the rest of 2004 and the first part of 2005. Translink expect that all the trains will be in service by the Autumn of 2005.

  Social Deprivation
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what wards are in the top(a) 15 per cent., (b) 20 per cent. and (c) 25 per cent. of wards in Northern Ireland ranked by social deprivation according to the Noble Index. [156623]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measures (commonly referred to as the Noble measures of deprivation) were published by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency in July 2001. I have placed details of those wards in the top 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. as ranked by multiple deprivation measure score, in the Library.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the likely trends in unemployment in Northern Ireland in 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [157275]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government does not produce forecasts for unemployment. The Northern Ireland economy has benefited from the stability generated by the UKs strong macroeconomic framework while the performance of the labour market in particular has proved resilient in the face of global economic uncertainty.

  Current Labour Market Statistics show that employment is at record levels and claimant unemployment is at its lowest rates since the mid 1970s. According to the Labour Force Survey, however, figures for the period October to December 2003 show a rise in the rate to 6.3 per cent. (48,000 people) from 5.6 per cent. a year earlier. This is still 1.7 percentage points lower than the EU15 average.

  Unused Medications
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of unused medications in the last 12 months. [157343]

  Angela Smith
  The cost of unused medicines in Northern Ireland is estimated at approximately £2 million per year. Further information is contained in "Making it Better—A Strategy for Pharmacy in the Community", which can be viewed on the Departments website at www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/publications/2004/ makingitbetter.html.

PRIME MINISTER

  Electoral Registration
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance he provides to local authorities on voter registration. [156550]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department provides regular guidance and information to local electoral registration officers (EROs) on policy issues and legislative changes relating to voter registration arrangements. Separately, the independent Electoral Commission is responsible for offering advice and guidance to EROs on the detailed requirements of these and other voter registration matters.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess his answering practices in relation to parliamentary questions against the(a) Open Government Code of Conduct and (b) Freedom of Information Act 2000. [157922]

  The Prime Minister
  Section 1 of the Ministerial Code provides guidance to ministers on answering Parliamentary Questions which takes account of the requirements of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Freedom of Information legislation takes effect in January 2005.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Adoption Orders
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many adoption orders have been set aside in each of the last 10 years. [156526]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  An adoption order can only be set aside in wholly exceptional circumstances. Section 52 of the Adoption Act 1976 provides for the revocation of an adoption order where a person adopted by his father or mother alone subsequently becomes legitimate on the marriage of his parents. Section 53 provides for the annulment of overseas and Hague Convention adoptions on grounds of public policy. There is no other statutory basis for revoking a validly made adoption order.

  Child Custody
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications for orders relating to child custody were heard at each(a) Crown Court centre and (b) magistrates' court area in England in the last year for which information is available; what proportion were granted; how many were ex-parte applications; and what proportion of ex-parte applications were granted. [157609]
  870W
  Mr. Leslie
  Applications for child custody are made in the county courts and family proceedings courts and not the Crown Court. Figures showing the number of applications for a residence order and the number of orders made in the county courts and family proceedings courts in England for the year 2002 are provided in the table. No information is held centrally concerning those applications that were made ex-parte and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Applications and orders made in the family proceedings courts in England, 2002

  Family proceedings court

  Applications made

  Orders made

  Percentage orders granted

  Aldridge and Brownhills

  11

  8

  74.8

  Ashby De La Zouch

  24

  68

  283.3

  Barnsley

  39

  24

  62.0

  Berwick upon Tweed

  3

  3

  100.0

  Bexley

  37

  28

  75.7

  Blackpool

  54

  44

  815

  Bolton

  29

  26

  89.7

  Bristol

  43

  43

  100.0

  Burnley

  40

  32

  80.0

  Burnley and Pendle

  40

  24

  60.0

  Bury

  37

  45

  121.6

  Canterbury and St. Augustine

  8

  8

  100.0

  Carlisle

  40

  32

  80.0

  Central Buckinghamshire

  8

  10

  125.0

  Chichester

  8

  4

  50.0

  Chorley

  12

  5

  41.7

  Cirencester/Fairford and Tetbury

  32

  44

  137.5

  City of Salford

  35

  62

  177.1

  Claro

  21

  19

  87.8

  Coquetdale

  2

  1

  50.0

  Crawley

  24

  12

  50.0

  Derby and South Derbyshire

  72

  76

  105.6

  Doncaster

  53

  44

  83.0

  East Retford

  272

  288

  105.9

  Exeter and Wonford (East Devon)

  36

  28

  77.8

  Folkestone and Hythe

  32

  41

  129.7

  Furness and District

  47

  53

  112.8

  Gateshead

  19

  16

  84.2

  Gloucester

  51

  57

  113.0

  Godstone

  16

  4

  25.0

  Great Yarmouth

  12

  12

  100.0

  Grimsby and Cleethorpes

  15

  15

  100.0

  Hastings

  22

  16

  72.7

  High Peak

  12

  4

  33.3

  Inner London Family Proceedings Co.

  448

  263

  58.6

  Kingston-on-Hull

  44

  36

  81.8

  Langbaugh East

  5

  2

  40.0

  Leicester

  57

  85

  149.7

  Leigh

  12

  36

  300.0

  Lincoln District

  12

  10

  83.3

  Liverpool

  85

  44

  51.8

  Loughborough

  20

  0

  0.0

  Manchester

  133

  96

  72.2

  Mansfield

  328

  160

  48.8

  Market Bosworth

  32

  4

  12.5

  Melton and Belvoir

  8

  36

  450.0

  Mid Sussex

  12

  0

  0.0

  Milton Keynes

  16

  4

  25.0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  60

  47

  77.8

  North and East Hertfordshire 1888/9/75/

  12

  12

  100.0

  North and East Surrey

  20

  12

  60.0

  North Avon

  12

  13

  108.3

  North Bedfordshire

  23

  23

  100.0

  North East Suffolk

  11

  12

  112.1

  North Oxfordshire

  8

  20

  250.0

  North Somerset

  30

  23

  76.7

  North Tyneside

  27

  21

  77.8

  North West Surrey

  2

  6

  300.0

  Norwich

  3

  3

  100.0

  Nottinghamshire

  198

  196

  99.0

  Oldham

  42

  25

  59.5

  Ormskirk

  21

  16

  76.2

  Oxford

  23

  18

  78.3

  Plymouth

  38

  32

  84.2

  Rochdale Middleton and Heywood

  60

  74

  123.3

  Rotherham

  18

  21

  116.7

  Scunthorpe

  33

  16

  48.0

  Sedgemoor

  24

  16

  66.7

  Sheffield

  48

  53

  110.4

  Slough

  8

  4

  50.0

  871W

  Applications and orders made in the family proceedings courts in England, 2002

  Family proceedings court

  Applications made

  Orders made

  Percentage orders granted

  South East Cornwall

  72

  36

  50.0

  South East Hampshire

  31

  9

  29.0

  South East Northumberland

  52

  22

  42.3

  South East Surrey

  2

  6

  300.0

  South Ribble

  4

  1

  32.5

  South Somerset

  5

  0

  0.0

  South West Surrey

  1

  0

  0.0

  Spilsby and Skegness

  40

  28

  70.0

  Stafford

  124

  124

  100.0

  Staincliffe

  4

  3

  75.0

  Stockport

  40

  34

  85.0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  65

  43

  66.2

  Sutton

  14

  11

  78.6

  Tameside

  35

  50

  142.9

  Teesside

  98

  119

  121.4

  Thanet

  25

  15

  58.1

  Trafford

  19

  7

  36.8

  Walsall

  18

  14

  77.8

  Warwick

  100

  36

  36.0

  West Somerset

  30

  24

  80.0

  Whitehaven

  9

  11

  122.2

  Wigan

  41

  11

  25.9

  Willesden

  12

  10

  83.3

  Wimbledon

  9

  8

  88.9

  Wirrall (Birkenhead)

  10

  6

  60.0

  Worthing and District

  8

  0

  0.0

  Wycombe and Beaconsfield

  3

  5

  166.7

  York

  22

  13

  59.1

  Note:

  The orders made do not necessarily relate to the applications made due to the period between application and order. The figures contain imputed data.

  Court Proceedings (Adjournment)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make an assessment of the impact on victims of crime of repeated adjournments of court proceedings at crown and magistrates' courts. [157332]

  Mr. Leslie
  In the Crown court close management of ineffective trials by courts and other Criminal Justice System agencies has resulted in a reduction to 17.8 per cent. in January 2004 from the baseline of 23 per cent. set last year. Progress in the magistrates court has been slower, but is still 1.5 per cent. better than the baseline, at 29.4 per cent. in January.

  Interviews with victims of crime have found that the inconvenience and emotional upheaval each adjournment causes reduces the likelihood that the victim will attend the next time.

  The Government are addressing the problem of ineffective trials through the Effective Trial Management Programme, which will ensure cases are ready on the trial date. In addition, on 4 February the Government announced a £27 million award for the "No Witness, No Justice" Project. This project will ensure victims and witnesses needs are taken into account so that they are more likely to attend on the date of trial.

  The impact of each is being assessed.
  872W
  John Cryer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps he is taking to reduce the number of unnecessary adjournments of court proceedings. [157333]

  Mr. Leslie
  Adjournments and ineffective hearings in criminal cases are often caused by poor case preparation. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is working with the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the number of ineffective trials and improve case preparation and progression, including through the Effective Trial Management Programme. All criminal courts have been directed to address the rate of ineffective trials.

  Criminal Defence Services
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the average cost per case of(a) defence counsel and (b) solicitors for the defence funded by the Criminal Defence Services in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [149442]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is not possible to provide information in the form requested for the following reasons:(a) work under the General Criminal Contract, carried out for hearings in the magistrates courts, is paid for by a different mechanism from hearings in the Crown court. Therefore there is no continuity of data which would readily enable us to identify total payments in cases heard in the magistrates court, and which are subsequently transferred to the Crown court and;
  (b) standard fees in the magistrates courts paid to solicitors may include money subsequently paid by a solicitor to unassigned counsel for publicly funded work. Therefore is not possible to obtain average case costs split between solicitor and counsel.

  Emergency Protection Orders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications were heard for emergency protection orders in each county in England in the last year for which information is available; what proportion were granted; how many were ex-parte applications; and what proportion of ex-parte applications were granted. [157610]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures showing the number of applications for an emergency protection order and the number of orders made, by each county in England for the year 2002, are provided in the following table. No information is held centrally concerning those applications that were made ex-parte and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Emergency Protection Orders—applications and orders made, by county, 2002

  County

  Total applications

  Total orders

  Percentage orders granted

  Avon

  40

  38

  95.0

  Bedfordshire

  50

  28

  56.0

  Berkshire

  15

  10

  66.7

  Buckinghamshire

  34

  33

  97.1

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  —

  873W

  Emergency Protection Orders—applications and orders made, by county, 2002

  County

  Total applications

  Total orders

  Percentage orders granted

  Cleveland and Darlington

  65

  30

  46.2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  37

  20

  54.1

  Cumbria

  19

  15

  78.9

  Derbyshire

  18

  14

  77.8

  Devon

  30

  26

  86.7

  Dorset

  0

  0

  —

  Durham

  16

  4

  25.0

  E Riding and N Lincolnshire

  4

  0

  0.0

  Essex

  6

  1

  16.7

  Gloucestershire

  29

  24

  81.9

  Greater London

  80

  73

  91.3

  Greater Manchester

  202

  163

  80.9

  Hampshire

  36

  24

  66.1

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  0

  0

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1

  0

  0.0

  Humberside

  57

  50

  87.7

  Kent

  26

  28

  707.8

  Lancashire

  74

  47

  63.5

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  32

  20

  62.5

  Lincolnshire

  22

  17

  77.3

  London

  364

  274

  75.2

  Merseyside

  28

  21

  75.0

  N. Somerset and S. Gloucestershire

  2

  0

  0.0

  Norfolk

  29

  28

  96.6

  North Yorkshire

  28

  17

  60.7

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  —

  Northumberland

  6

  6

  700.0

  Nottinghamshire

  134

  119

  88.8

  Oxfordshire

  35

  32

  91.4

  Shropshire

  1

  1

  100.0

  Somerset

  24

  12

  50.0

  South Yorkshire

  60

  60

  100.0

  Staffordshire

  144

  125

  86.8

  Suffolk

  9

  3

  33.3

  Surrey

  41

  33

  80.5

  Sussex

  90

  84

  93.3

  Tyne and Wear

  45

  19

  419

  Warwickshire

  44

  44

  700.0

  West Midlands

  72

  49

  68.7

  West Yorkshire

  71

  7

  9.9

  Wiltshire

  1

  3

  300.0

  National

  2,127

  1,603

  75.3

  Note:

  The orders made do not necessarily relate to the applications made due to the period between application and order. The figures contain imputed data.

  Family History Research
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps his Department can take to enable individuals researching their family history to obtain more official documents, including censuses, online. [156817]

  Mr. Leslie
  In recent years the National Archives has developed many online services aimed at family historians, including the digitisation of wills from 1384 to 1858. This and other services are available on its website at: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk. It also operates a website which acts as a gateway for online family sources throughout the United Kingdom at www.familyrecords.gov.uk. The National Archives is determined to maintain this momentum through the development of its digitisation programmes and licensing agreements with commercial organisations.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will publish online the 1911 census. [157097]
  874W
  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I have given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 457W and on 18 December 2003, Official Report, column 1112W.

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what the average cost to public funds of a judicial review case was in each of the last three years; [156799]

  (2) what the (a) average and (b) total cost was to public funds of judicial review cases relating to decisions under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002 in 2003. [156801]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Administrative Court Office does not identify unit costs for judicial review claims.

  It is not responsible for funding for "legal aid" for judicial review—that is the responsibility of the Legal Services Commission—and details of costs incurred by public authorities responding to claims are not kept by the Administrative Court Office.

  The information requested therefore could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average length to final determination was of a judicial review case in each of the last three years. [156800]

  Mr. Leslie
  The average waiting times for civil judicial review (issued after October 2000 when the new judicial review procedure was introduced) for the last three calendar years are as follows:

  2001–20.9 weeks

  2002–31.3 weeks

  2003–31.1 weeks

  The average waiting times include the periods in which cases were stood out of the list pending determination of test cases and any subsequent appeals in those matters.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average length of judicial review cases relating to decisions under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was in 2003. [156809]

  Mr. Leslie
  In 2003 the average waiting time for such cases was 19.9 weeks including the time cases were 'stood out' pending decisions in lead cases and any subsequent appeals in those lead cases.

  Video Equipment in Courts
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the quality of video equipment used in courts. [156312]

  Mr. Leslie
  All 78 Crown court have at least one set of VHS video playback equipment and some sites have this facility in each courtroom. There are currently 388 sets installed in a total of 521 courtrooms. 269 of these
  875W
  courtrooms also have facilities to link to remote witness rooms so that witnesses can give evidence without attending the courtroom.

  154 magistrates courts are equipped with videoconferencing facilities and video playback equipment. A total of 179 courtrooms have this facility and there are 133 rooms in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses can give remote evidence.

  10 county courts and nine Immigration Appellate Authority sites have been provided with modern "stand alone" video conferencing equipment.

  This equipment has been installed in courts over the past 10 years and comprises a range of different makes and models. The vast majority of magistrates court equipment has been installed within the past three years and 20 per cent. of the Crown court installations have taken place in the past 12 months. This equipment includes VHS video and DVD players together with fixed plasma display screens.

  All of the video equipment in place meets current business requirements and is being used on a regular basis during hearings and trials. A comprehensive maintenance contract ensures that any reported failure of equipment is attended to as a matter of urgency. Equipment is typically serviced twice per annum.

  Voter Participation/Registration
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment has been made of participation rates in general elections in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries in the last five years. [156446]

  Mr. Leslie
  While the Government are aware of participation rates in general elections in the UK and other EU countries, they have not conducted any specific research. The independent Electoral Commission reported on the outcome of the 2001 general election and has conducted research on voting intentions for the European parliamentary and Londons Mayoral and Assembly elections in June 2004.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what research his Department has conducted on the implications of the introduction of compulsory participation in United Kingdom elections. [156447]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. However, the Government are aware that the independent Electoral Commission has indicated that it intends to conduct future research on the international use of compulsory voting.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what research his Department has conducted on the use of(a) legal and (b) fixed penalties to encourage higher levels of voter registration. [156448]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), appointed for the purpose by local authorities, are responsible for compiling the electoral register. It is already an offence punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding £1,000 for a person to fail to comply with 876W
  a request for information from, or to provide false information to, an ERO who is seeking to carry out his duty to prepare an electoral register.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what research his Department has carried out to ascertain why individuals do not register to vote. [156540]

  Mr. Leslie
  Research on why individuals fail to register to vote has not been carried out by this Department. However, the Government are aware that the independent Electoral Commission has published several research reports on voter engagement that have included coverage of levels of registration.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage people to complete electoral registration forms. [156541]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 introduced in February 2001 a number of changes to voter registration procedures aimed both at making it easier for persons to register to vote, and at achieving more accurate and up to date electoral registers. These changes included the introduction of 'rolling registration' and enabling persons without a conventional address to register to vote. The Government ran major public information campaigns at that time to publicise these changes.

  The independent Electoral Commission is now responsible for raising public awareness of registration issues.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of people who failed to register to vote in the UK in each of the last five years. [156542]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested has not been collected by the Government.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many registered postal voters there were in each constituency in the UK at the 2001 general election. [156548]

  Mr. Leslie
  The independent Electoral Commission published in January 2002 'Postal votes, proxy votes and spoilt ballot papers at the 2001 general election', which provides this information. I understand that the Commission placed copies of that document in the Library of the House at the time of publication.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of a rolling register on levels of voter registration in the UK. [156537]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government consider that 'rolling registration' has resulted in more accurate and up to date electoral registers. I understand that the independent Electoral Commission has commenced further research to assess the operation and impact of rolling registration on levels of voter registration. The Government will consider carefully any findings made by the Electoral Commission on this issue.

HEALTH

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ruminant feeding trials have been conducted with T25 genetically modified fodder maize; whether such trials have been(a) published and (b) peer reviewed; and if he will make a statement on the implications of such trials for the commercialisation of T25 maize. [157752]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]Ruminant feeding studies are not routinely required as part of the regulatory approval process for the marketing of new genetically modified organisms. Information on the specific GM event is used, with compositional analysis, to demonstrate whether a GM plant is substantially equivalent to its conventional counterpart. We are not aware of any published or peer reviewed reports of ruminant feeding trials conducted with T25 genetically modified fodder maize.

  Alefacept
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on research into Alefacept use for treating psoriasis; and what plans he has to introduce this in Northern Ireland. [157337]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have no plans to undertake research into the use of Alefacept for treating psoriasis. Alefacept does not have a United Kingdom Marketing Authorisation. As an unlicensed medicine, doctors may prescribe it on a named-patient basis, but it will only be available on the national health service if the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency grants it a licence.

  Decisions on health policy in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office whilst the institutions are suspended.

  Allergies
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the causes of the change in the number of people suffering from allergies. [157277]

  Dr. Ladyman
  A range of research projects on the epidemiology of allergies have recently been completed or are ongoing. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) was formed in 1991. Phase one measured the prevalence of childhood asthma, hay fever and atopic eczema for international comparisons. Phase two began in 1998 and involves more intensive studies in a smaller number of countries. The Department funded the United Kingdom contribution to phase two.

  King's College London has led a £2.1 million European Commission-funded prospective study of the incidence and prognosis of allergy, allergic disease and low lung function in adults living in Europe. King's College is also participating in the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network, launched on 12 February 2004. In addition, the University of Manchester is leading a £1.2 million EC-funded investigation of the
  878W
  prevalence, pathogenesis, treatment and prevention of sun allergy across Europe. Sun-provoked skin reactions are one of the commonest forms of allergy.

  This European and international research activity will contribute to evidence on the possible causes of the increase in allergy rates in the United Kingdom and other European countries.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has for extending specialised allergy services in(a) England and Wales, (b) the North West and (c) Blackpool. [157278]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is the responsibility of primary care trusts, in partnership with other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to provide health services for their populations, including those with allergies.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) adults and (b) children have been recorded as suffering from allergies in (i) England and Wales, (ii) the North West and (iii) Blackpool in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [157279]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not held centrally. Last year, in its report, "Allergy—the unmet need: a blueprint for better patient care", the Royal College of Physicians estimated that around one in six of the population is affected by allergy.

  Avian Influenza
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to protect the population from avian influenza; and whether a vaccine will be made available. [154446]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As soon as avian influenza disease was reported by the Thai and United States authorities, the United Kingdom banned imports of fresh meat of poultry, poultry meat products, raw material for animal feed production, eggs for human consumption, live captive birds such as falcons and finches, unprocessed feathers and untreated game trophies, untreated poultry manure, ratites farmed and wild feathered game from those countries.

  Various organisations worldwide are looking at producing a vaccine against avian influenza H5N1 including the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control in the UK. This work is estimated to take about six months.

  Cancer
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of cancer cases which were preventable in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by type of cancer. [150232]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: There is no safe way to estimate the numbers of cancer cases that were preventable. Smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise all play their part in causing cancers but less controlable factors such as genetic make-up and environment make identifying preventable factors difficult.

  Care Homes (Deaths)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many care assistants employed in care homes in England and Wales have Confirmed the death of a resident in the past 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [153481]

  (2) whether it is his policy to encourage doctors to train care assistants to confirm deaths that occur in care homes; and if he will make a statement. [153444]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 February 2004]: Under the Care Homes Regulations and the Care Homes (Wales) Regulations care home providers are required without delay to notify the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) and the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales (CSIW) respectively that a resident has died, including the circumstances of the death. In practice, a member of staff working in the home will notify the regulator. The NCSC and the CSIW do not collect information about which member of staff in a care home has notified them of the death of a resident.

  The doctor who attended the resident during his or her last illness is responsible for certifying the cause of death. If a doctor feels unable to complete the death certificate the death is referred to the coroner for investigation.

  Care home providers are responsible for ensuring that the staff working in care homes have qualifications suitable to the work they are to perform and the skills and experience necessary for such work. Providers are also expected to arrange appropriate training for their staff. We would expect this to include all aspects of dealing with the death of a resident.

  Chiropody Services
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve access to chiropody services. [157141]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is for primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services. Their responsibilities include access to chiropody services locally.

  Causes of Death
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths in people over 60 since 1997 were due to(a) cancer, (b) coronary heart disease and (c) falls; and if he will make a statement. [156647]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 2 March 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many deaths in people aged over 60 since 1997 were due to (a) cancer, (b) coronary heart disease and (c) falls. (156647)
  880W
  The latest year for which data are available is 2002. Figures for cancer, ischaemic (otherwise known as coronary) heart disease and falls in persons aged over 60 are shown in the attached table for each year from 1997 to 2002.

  Number of deaths from (a) cancer, (b) ischaemic heart disease, and (c) falls1 in persons aged over 602, England and Wales, 1997 to 20023

  Calendar year

  (a) Cancer4

  (b) Ischaemic heart disease

  (c) Falls5

  1997

  112,147

  111,658

  2,198

  1998

  112,678

  110,425

  2,112

  1999

  110,956

  104,969

  2,161

  2000

  109,564

  98,862

  2,460

  20014

  112,711

  96,532

  2,058

  20024

  113,552

  93,578

  1,967

  1The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) for the years 1997 to 2000, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for 2001 and 2002. The codes used are listed below:

  Cancer—ICD-9 140–208; ICD-10 C00-C97;

  Ischaemic heart disease—ICD-9 410—414; ICD-10 120—125;

  Falls—ICD-9 E880-E888 excluding E887; ICD-10 W00-W19.

  2Persons aged 61 years and over.

  3Figures are based on deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  4The introduction of ICD-10 for coding cause of death in 2001 means that data for cancer are not completely comparable with data for years before this date. The data should therefore be interpreted with caution. The effect of the change in classification in 2001 on deaths from cancer is described in a report published in May 2002.*

  5The data for falls for 1997 to 2000 exclude fractures of unspecified cause (1CD-9 E887), so data for these years are comparable to those for 2001 onwards. The effect of the change in classification in 2001 on deaths from falls is described in an article published in August 2003.*

  * Office for National Statistics. Results of the ICD-10 bridge coding study, England and Wales, 1999. "Health Statistics Quarterly" 14 (2002), 75ߝ83.

  ** Griffiths C and Rooney C. The effect of the introduction of ICD-l0 on mortality from injury and poisoning in England and Wales. "Health Statistics Quarterly" 19 (2003), 10ߝ21.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes dated 16 December 2003 concerning the interpretation of what constitutes a severe abnormality in relation to abortion laws. [155101]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 6 February 2004.

  Cycling
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the benefits of cycling to the health of the nation. [156103]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department recommends that adults participate in at least 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity, at least five days a week and that young people participate in physical activity of at least moderate intensity for one hour per day. Leisurely cycling (around 10 miles per hour) represents one way of meeting these recommendations.
  881W
  Regular cycling improves fitness significantly, reducing the risk of obesity, strokes, coronary heart disease, certain types of cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis. There are also benefits for mental health, with evidence of reduced depression and stress, improved self-esteem and confidence in performing physical tasks.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 11 February, ref 153001, if he will place in the Library the guidance he issued to first wave NHS foundation trusts. [155601]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Copies of the guidance and the model rules for elections to the board of governors of national health service foundation trusts have been placed in the Library.

  GM Seed
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has(a) given to and (b) received from the UK delegates attending European Commission regulatory standing and management committees on GM seed. [153891]

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2003: Vacancies in England and each Specified NHS Trust for qualified health visiting staff, 3 month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  March 2003

  September 2002

  3 month vacancy rate (Percentage)

  3 month vacancy (Number)

  Staff in post (Whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (Headcount)

  England of which:

  2.3

  229

  9,912

  12,774

  5LD

  Lambeth PCT

  0.0

  0

  78

  89

  5M7

  Sutton and Merton PCT

  0.0

  0

  79

  105

  3 month vacancy notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2003.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which Trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  3. Three month Vacancy Rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three month Vacancy Rates for non-medical staff are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey, March 2003.

  5. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  Staff in post notes:

  1. Staff in post data is from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2002.

  General notes:

  1. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  3. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2003.

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2002.

  Mercury Healthcare
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer, 10 February, to Question reference 153276, whether Mercury Healthcare(a) are still involved in the negotiations and (b) are still the selected contractor. [155185]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: On Tuesday 17 February, the Department announced that preferred bidder status for the independent sector treatment centre 'spine chain'—of which the treatment centre at Ashford is an integral part—had been switched from Mercury Healthcare to the reserve bidder, Capio UK.
  882W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 140W.

  Health Services (Worcestershire)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of Malvern Community Hospital. [157972]

  Dr. Ladyman
  West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority (SHA) reports that South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust continues to be committed to the development of a new hospital in Malvern. The project team is currently working on a business case, which will be submitted to the SHA.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Vacancy rates are for health visitors in(a) Lambeth and (b) Sutton primary care trusts. [155447]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 February 2004]: The information requested is shown in the table

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last used a train in connection with his ministerial duties. [155160]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As of Wednesday 25 February 2004:

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health last travelled by train during the course of his official duties on Monday 23 February 2004, from London Euston to Birmingham New Street.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr. Hutton) last travelled by train during the course of his official duties on Tuesday 10 February 2004, from London Waterloo to Southampton.
  883W
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Johnson) last travelled by train during the course of her official duties on Wednesday 25 February 2004, from London St. Pancras to Sheffield.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Ladyman) last travelled by train during the course of his official duties on Thursday 12 February 2004 from London Kings Cross to Grantham.

  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Lord Warner) last travelled by train during the course of his official duties on Wednesday 25 February 2004 from Birmingham New Street to London Euston.

  I last travelled by train during the course of my official duties on Tuesday 6 January 2004 from Ashford to London Charing Cross.

  All travel by Ministers on official business is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in 'Travel by Ministers'.

  Neurologically Impaired Children
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the recommendation in the Chief Medical Officers

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff including Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and equivalents (UPEs)1in England, the London2 area and each specified Strategic Health Authority area per one thousand of the population as at 30 September3 each specified year.

  headcount per 1,000 population

  1996

  1997

  19984

  19994

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  6.6

  6.6

  6.6

  6.7

  6.9

  7.1

  7.4

  of which:

  London2

  7.6

  7.6

  7.7

  7.9

  7.7

  7.9

  8.2

  Q04 North West London SNA

  8.1

  8.2

  8.4

  9.1

  8.0

  8.6

  8.9

  Q05 North Central London SHA

  10.3

  10.0

  10.0

  9.6

  9.8

  10.1

  10.0

  Q06 North East London SHA

  6.4

  6.4

  6.3

  6.2

  6.0

  6.3

  6.5

  Q07 South East London SHA

  7.3

  7.5

  7.9

  7.5

  7.9

  8.0

  8.9

  Q08 South West London SHA

  6.4

  6.4

  6.1

  7.4

  7.4

  6.9

  7.1

  1 UPEs include QMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  2 Figures for London are based on each specified Strategic Health Authority area.

  3 Practice nurse figures are as at 1 October for 1997ߝ99

  4Headcount Practice Nurse figures are estimated for these years.

  Note.

  The Royal Marsden NHS Trust has been included with South West London Strategic Health Authority. 1996ߝ2001 data is estimated based on 2002 organisational structure. Figures are rounded to one decimal place

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  Nursing Care Contributions Fees
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the first annual review of registered nursing care contributions fees; and for what reason the review has not yet been published. [156318]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The revised monetary values attached to national health service-funded nursing care from April 2004, depending on level of need, are as follows:

  Low band—£40 per week (remains the same).

  Medium band—£77.50 per week (increased from £75 per week).

  High band—£125 per week (increased from £120 per week).

  On a case-by-case basis, primary care trusts will be able to agree an amount between £40 per week and the medium band, depending on the individual's needs.
  884W
  consultation paper "Making Amends" that support and compensation should be available to neurologically impaired babies, but that children with genetic or chromosomal abnormality would be excluded; and whether the recommendation would result in a difference in the support available to neurologically impaired children and their carers dependent on the cause of their neurological impairment. [156403]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is currently analysing the many responses that were received to the consultation on "Making Amends". These responses and discussions with key stakeholders are informing the development of detailed policy, which we are aiming to publish later this year.

  Nurses (London Boroughs)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the proportion of nurses per head of population was in each borough of London in each year since 1992. [155092]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Data on the proportion of nurses per head of population is not held at borough area level. Data at strategic health authority area level from 1996 is shown in the table. This is the nearest alternative.

  Out-of-hours Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of out-of-hours work for general practitioners from 1 April in North Yorkshire. [155970]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In common with primary care trusts (PCTs) nationally, PCTs in North Yorkshire are currently working with their local general practitioners and other organisations to develop new arrangements for out of hours services in line with the new general medical services contract and which meet the needs of their local population for a high quality, sustainable out-of-hours service.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights exist for NHS employees to transfer their pensions from schemes run by previous employers to the NHS pension scheme; what restrictions exist, with particular regard to length of remaining service with the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [155502]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Members of the national health service pension scheme may transfer pension benefits from a previous pension scheme into the NHS scheme. Members wishing to do so must make an application within 12 months of joining the NHS pension scheme and before age 60.

  School Nurses
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what part in community nursing teams is played by school nurses. [153899]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: School nurses deliver health services to the school aged population with a focus on health promotion and preventing ill health. They are generally employed by primary care trusts and work closely with visitors, child health services, social care and education.

  Alongside their community nursing colleagues, school nurses will identify the health needs of the population and deliver public health and health care interventions that address local and national priorities.

  SunSmart Scheme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how he intends to increase the profile of(a) the issue of skin cancer and (b) methods of effective sun protection through the SunSmart scheme; [155280]

  (2) how much funding will be provided for the SunSmart campaign for summer 2004; [155281]

  (3) what account the SunSmart campaign will take of tanning shops. [155282]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A new sun awareness initiative, the SunSmart campaign, was launched in March 2003, funded by United Kingdom Health Departments and run by Cancer Research UK.

  The campaign is based on the successful SunSmart campaign in Australia. The campaign has received interim funding of £50,000 this year from the UK Health Departments. Decisions on further funding for SunSmart will be made in due course.

  The campaign's aim is to increase the profile of the issue of skin cancer and methods of effective sun protection. The key objectives are to increase knowledge of the causes of skin cancer, to increase awareness of actions that can be taken to prevent skin cancer and to influence positively attitudes to sun protection.

  Wide dissemination of SunSmart messages will be achieved through the media and by supper ting education and health professionals locally. The campaign is working with the Department for
  886W
  Education and Skills and teachers to develop guidelines to encourage schools to adopt their own SunSmart policies and curricular activities.

  Tanning shops and the potential dangers involved in the use of sunbeds will be the subject of a meeting of experts and industry hosted by SunSmart on 29 March. The campaign will review the latest scientific evidence and to develop practical recommendations for better self-regulation.

  SunSmart achieved mass media coverage for skin cancer issues in 2003, reaching 76 per cent. of UK adults, and will use similar techniques this spring/summer to keep skin cancer high profile with the public.

  In addition to the SunSmart campaign, we continue to fund the Meteorological Office to provide the Ultra-Violet index in the media (television, radio, Meteorological Office website).

  The Department also provides core funding to the National Radiological Protection Board, which has expertise on ultra-violet radiation issues relevant to the public health aspects of the prevention of skin cancer.

  Tuberculosis
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new cases of tuberculosis were diagnosed in London in each year since 1995. [155093]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Data on tuberculosis notifications are available from the Health Protection Agency at http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/tb/epidemiology/table5.htm.

  Tuberculosis notifications in London

  1995

  2,042

  1996

  2,190

  1997

  2,411

  1998

  2,444

  1999

  2,493

  2000

  2,834

  2001

  2,886

  2002

  2,850

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Skilled Workers
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate his Department has made of the supply of skilled workers in key areas, with particular reference to(a) the construction industry, (b) plumbing, (c) the NHS and (d) the education system. [157586]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Skills Strategy (published in July 2003) set out our plans for identifying skill needs across the economy.
  887W
  In relation to the particular areas highlighted:

  The construction industry and plumbing

  Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) are being established to identify and define the skills that employers need to raise productivity in all major sectors of the economy. Construction is one of four sectors pioneering new Sector Skills Agreements to deliver on this agenda.

  Construction was highlighted as a priority curriculum area in "Success for All: Our Vision for the Future" the Government's strategy for reforming further education and training published in November 2002.

  The 2003 National Employers Skills Survey shows the construction sector as having a relatively high number of skill shortage vacancies per employee in comparison to other sectors.

  Forecast future requirements in the construction sector are of an annual net requirement between 2003 and 2007 of 54,000 construction workers and 6,000 plumbers. This is to replace both an ageing workforce and to meet an expansion of the sector.

  Supply is expected to meet this increased future demand. In 2001/02 there were 49,000 vocational awards for construction and 11,000 for plumbing while the number of first-year construction trainees increased for the fifth year running in 2002/03.

  The NHS

  The NHS Plan acknowledged that shortages in human resources were the biggest constraint facing the NHS and set ambitious targets for increasing the NHS workforce. By March 2004 there will be 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more GPs, 20,000 more nurses and 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals employed in the NHS than in 1999.

  Furthermore, "Delivering the NHS Plan" included expected increases in the NHS work force. Between 2001 and 2008, we expect there to be increases of 35,000 nurses and midwives, 15,000 consultants and GPs and 30,000 therapists and scientists.

  The education system

  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills is responsible for ensuring an adequate supply of school teachers. Since 1997 there has been an increase of nearly 25,000 regular teachers in maintained schools in England. Recent improvements in recruitment to initial teacher training and innovative ways of remodelling the work force—with support staff helping teachers to use their professional skills to greatest effect—mean that supply is expected to continue to be sufficient. Alongside rising teacher numbers, there is also evidence of improving teacher quality.

  The DfES liaises regularly with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to ensure that the supply of teaching and learning is not adversely affected by labour shortage.

  In addition, the DfES has responsibility—following the publication of the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters"—for children's services more broadly, including social care, and is currently developing its evidence base on the wider children's work force.

  Adult Learning
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been made available for adult learning in further education colleges for each year since 1997. [154234]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Adult participation funding (including additional learning support)

  £ million

  1997–98

  1,296

  1998–99

  1,321

  1999–2000

  1,346

  2000–01

  1,485

  2001–02

  1,608

  2002–03

  1,733

  These figures represent allocations made to further education colleges funded by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) until 2000–01, and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) from 2001–02.

  Business Skills Education
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what his Department's policy is on teaching business and entrepreneurial skills to primary school children; and if he will make a statement; [155587]

  (2) what funding his Department is giving to (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) Stoke-on-Trent to improve the business skills of school pupils; and if he will make a statement; [155588]

  (3) what his Department's funding for business and entrepreneurial skills has been for each of the last 10 years in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and if he will make a statement; [155589]

  (4) what his Department's budget is in 2003–04 for the funding of business skills education in primary education; and if he will make a statement; [155590]

  (5) what his Department's future programmes are for improving business and entrepreneurial skills in (a) primary school children and (b) secondary school children; and if he will make a statement. [155592]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Business and enterprise are covered within the Citizenship curriculum, which is compulsory in secondary schools. For example, 14 to 16-year-old pupils are taught about how the economy functions, including the role of business and financial services.

  The non-statutory framework for Personal, Social and Health Education, provides for personal finance education to be taught in both primary and secondary schools, allowing teachers to cover the wide range of topics as set out in the Department's "Financial Capability through Personal Financial Education" guidance for schools. This helps to provide children with the skills they need to move into adulthood, confident in

  889W
  their ability to deal effectively with a range of financial decisions. We do not disaggregate the funding schools spend on different elements of curriculum subjects.

  From 2005/06 a new £60 million Enterprise Education entitlement will provide all Key Stage 4 pupils with the equivalent of five days enterprise activity which will develop enterprise capability—including personal financial capability as well as business understanding. 151 Pathfinder projects began in nearly 400 secondary schools in September 2003. They will help DfES to develop additional guidance including case studies and lesson plans. Fair Oak High School, Walton High School in Staffordshire and Blurton High School in Stoke-on-Trent, are Enterprise Pathfinder schools, receiving some £34,000 between them in the financial year 2003–04.

  Child Removals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills further to the Appeal Court judgment in the Rv. Cannings case, what specific action he has initiated to review the cases of children removed from their parents in the family courts which have involved expert witness testimony from (a) Professor Sir Roy Meadow and (b) others on the expert witness list for (i) their expertise in Munchausen's syndrome by proxy and (ii) causing child death by shaking. [152136]

  Margaret Hodge
  I made a statement to the House on 23 February 2004, following the Appeal Court's judgment in the appeal against the conviction of Angela Cannings. In this statement I announced the action that I have asked local authorities with social services responsibilities to take.

  First, for them to consider those cases which are affected by the Attorney-General's Review. In those cases, councils should stand ready to act in the light of the outcome of that review.

  Secondly, within the next four weeks, for councils to identify and make their best efforts to review current cases. These are cases where they have commenced care proceedings in relation to a child and where the court has not yet made a final care order. In these cases councils should consider with their lawyers the implications, for those proceedings, of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Cannings case.

  Thirdly, within the next 12 weeks social services should, together with their lawyers, identify those cases where a final care order was made in the past, which involved harm to the child or a sibling, and where the making of the care order depended, exclusively or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between medical experts about the cause of the harm. In such cases, councils should again consider, with their lawyers, whether there are now doubts about the reliability of the expert medical evidence. If that is so and, in the light of the child's current circumstances and current best interests, they should then consider whether to apply to the court for the care order to be discharged, or whether to support any application that may be made by the parents or the child. Councils, when reviewing cases, will also need to take into account any fresh case law judgments from the appeal court that may be relevant.
  890W
  Where applications to the court are made, whether by the local authority, the parents or the child it will be for the court to decide, in all cases, if the care order should be discharged.

  My statement set out a route forward for the period ahead within the limits of my ability to act. With this review and with the current and forthcoming judgments in both care proceedings and appeal cases in the courts we will ensure that we are acting in the best way possible to protect the interests of children both today and in the future.

  Children Act
  Mr. Chope
  To Ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skill when he will publish his final response to the Children Act Sub-Committee Report, "Making Contact Work"; and what the reasons are for the delay in publishing the response. [156674]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: The Children Act Sub-Committee published its report "Making Contact Work" in February 2002. The then Lord Chancellor's Department published its interim response in August 2002. Following the Machinery of Government changes last year, I now have lead responsibility for child contact issues.

  I have, together with my hon. Friends in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, been working carefully to consider how the family justice system and related children's services can better meet the needs of all children and their parents following relationship breakdown. We want to ensure that better outcomes are achieved for children by, where possible, helping parents agree contact arrangements without the intervention of the courts. We have also consulted widely with stakeholders and drawn on their expertise. I expect to publish the Government's response in March.

  Children's Fund
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) by what amount the Children's Fund was over-committed in financial year 2003–04; [155634]

  (2) how much he estimates the Children's Fund will be over-committed in (a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06; [155635]

  (3) how much money has been saved by reductions to the (a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06 allocations to the Children's Fund. [155636]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Children's Fund was over-committed by £14.6 million in 2003–04 on an allocation of £150 million. It had a projected over-commitment of the same amount for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  We have not made cuts to the Children's Fund in 2004–05 and 2005–06, indeed I expect to have spent more than the £450 million set aside for the Children's Fund by the end of 2005–06. Following discussions with the Children's Fund advisory forum of key stakeholders in the programme, we have agreed revised allocations to partnerships for 2004–05, together with a package of flexibilities that will ensure that the programme lives within its financial limits while honouring its commitments. We will be having a comprehensive dialogue about 2005–06 with partnerships and key

  891W
  partners in the programme over the next few weeks, with final decisions to be taken in autumn 2004 informed by that dialogue and the outcome of the Spending Review.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size in English primary schools is; what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing a maximum average class size of 25; and if he will make a statement. [156699]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The average class size in English primary schools at January 2003 was 26.3. This relates to one teacher classes only.

  The Department has not made any estimate of the cost of introducing a maximum average class size of 25.

  Connexions
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the progress of the Connexions service towards meeting its target of reducing by one tenth the number of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training by one tenth by November 2004. [154781]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Connexions Service is making good progress towards the target of reducing the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training. In November 2003, Connexions Partnerships estimated that the proportion of 16 to 18year-olds not in education, employment or training had fallen by 8 per cent. in established phase 1 and 2 Partnership areas, and 3 per cent. overall taking the new phase 3 areas into account, during the past year.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training there were in each month since the Connexions service was established. [154782]

  Margaret Hodge
  The number of 16 to 18-year-olds known not to be in education, employment or training in each month since the Connexions Service was established is shown in the following table. The year-on-year increases in numbers recorded as being not in education employment or training change because of the phased roll out of Connexions Partnerships in 2002–03. The national data increases as each Partnership becomes operational. In November 2003, Connexions Partnerships estimated that the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training had fallen by 3 per cent. overall during the previous year.

  Number of 16 to 18-year-olds known by the Connexions Service not to be in education employment or training

  2001

  2002

  2003

  January

  —

  45,215

  133,089

  February

  —

  44,808

  130,399

  March

  —

  45,628

  126,684

  April

  24,747

  61,502

  103,543

  May

  23,331

  60,329

  97,479

  June

  24,794

  62,577

  87,808

  July

  28,737

  64,865

  88,017

  August

  30,469

  65,284

  87,091

  September

  45,692

  118,081

  117,487

  892W

  Number of 16 to 18-year-olds known by the Connexions Service not to be in education, employment or training

  2001

  2002

  2003

  October

  44,989

  130,083

  114,687

  November

  44,095

  131,906

  109,198

  December

  44,164

  126,423

  101,771

  Notes:

  1. Connexions Partnerships were rolled out over two years, with the first 15 Partnerships going live in 2001; 13 becoming operational between April and June 2002 and 16 between September and November 2002. The three remaining Partnerships became operational in 2003.

  2. Data for April 2001 to March 2002 is for 16 to 19-year-olds. Data for 16–18 year olds was not available.

  3. The number of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training increases in September each year as summer school leavers enter the labour market for the first time.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his Departments policy to assess the impact of the Connexions service upon previously existing services for young people. [154783]

  Margaret Hodge
  The impact of Connexions on previously existing services has been tested through a survey of 'stakeholders'—individuals and representatives of partner organisations on the Connexions Partnership Boards and Local Management Committees (e.g. local authorities, the police, health and social services, voluntary and community organisations and employers).

  The survey of local partners in January 2003 found that a large majority (83 per cent.) believed that the objectives of Connexions were consistent with those of their own organisation and over 60 per cent. agreed that Connexions helped their organisation meet its own targets and objectives. Nearly eight out of 10 local partners thought that joint working between agencies providing services to young people in their areas was effective compared with 40 per cent. prior to the establishment of Connexions Partnerships.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Connexions clients there are, broken down by(a) social class and (b) ethnic origin. [154793]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the social class of Connexions clients is not collected by Connexions Partnerships.

  Information on the ethnic origin of Connexions clients of compulsory education age (i.e. those in school years 8–11) is not collected by Connexions Partnerships. Information on the ethnic origin of those Connexions clients who have completed school year 11 in 2003 or earlier is collected by Partnerships and is shown in the following table.

  Number

  Connexions clients who are of post compulsory education age (December 2003)

  2,300,364

  White total

  1,699,787

  White British

  1,545,354

  White Irish

  5,464

  Other white background

  59,824

  White not known

  89,145

  White and black Caribbean

  7,129

  893W

  Number

  Mixed race total

  24,009

  White and Black African

  2,683

  White and Asian

  5,317

  Other mixed background

  8,880

  Black or black British total

  74,018

  Black Caribbean

  28,869

  Black African

  27,335

  Other black background

  17,814

  Asian or Asian British total

  132,021

  Indian

  51,182

  Pakistani

  49,063

  Bangladeshi

  19,467

  Other Asian background

  12,309

  Chinese

  8,643

  Other

  44,876

  No ethnic information

  317,010

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost of marketing the Connexions service has been in each year since its establishment. [154808]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since the establishment of the Connexions service in April 2001, the breakdown of spend on marketing and advertising for each year of its existence is as follows:

  1Marketing and advertising

  2001–02

  889,073

  2002–03

  23,266,489

  2003–04 (total committed to beginning February)

  33,241,000

  1i.e. radio, cinema, TV advertising, campaign extension, Connexions publications, conferences)

  2Includes £226,850 for Connexions Direct

  3Includes £60,317 for Connexions Direct

  This breakdown is for central budgets only. Data is collected centrally on the broad areas of Partnerships' expenditure but not at a level detailed enough to enable identification of how much has been spent on marketing and advertising.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff are employed by the Connexions service, broken down by(a) job title and (b) area partnership. [154809]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 12 February 2004]: The following table shows the total number of staff employed by each Connexions Partnership in December 2003. Information on the number of staff employed by each Connexions Partnership by job title is not available.

  Figures are expressed as "full-time equivalent" posts.

  Total

  England

  14,071.1

  South East

  2,163.2

  Berkshire

  157.6

  South Central

  862.1

  Kent

  268.7

  Milton Keynes Ox and Bucks

  261.2

  Surrey

  140.6

  Sussex

  473.0

  894W

  Total

  London

  1,691.3

  Central London

  390.5

  North London

  250.6

  South London

  229.0

  East London

  455.8

  West London

  365.4

  East of England

  1,060.2

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  123.7

  Cambs and Peterborough

  163.6

  Essex Southend and Thurrock

  293.5

  Hertfordshire

  198.8

  Norfolk

  134.0

  Suffolk

  146.6

  South West

  1,146.1

  Bournemouth Dorset and Poole

  128.8

  Cornwall and Devon

  362.3

  Gloucestershire

  102.6

  Somerset

  138.3

  West of England

  302.1

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  112.0

  West Midlands

  1,901.3

  Birmingham and Solihull

  457.4

  Black Country

  372.9

  Coventry and Warwick

  285.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  296.3

  Shropshire Telford and Wrekin

  160.2

  Staffordshire

  329.3

  East Midlands

  1,096.4

  Derbyshire

  284.9

  Leicestershire

  222.5

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  188.1

  Northamptonshire

  135.9

  Nottinghamshire

  265.0

  Yorks and Humber

  2,043.7

  Humber

  329.4

  York and North Yorkshire

  132.2

  South Yorkshire

  417.3

  West Yorkshire

  1,164.8

  North West

  2,092.7

  Cheshire and Warrington

  249.6

  Cumbria

  201.6

  Greater Manchester

  816.8

  Greater Merseyside

  401.3

  Lancashire

  423.4

  North East

  876.2

  County Durham

  168.5

  Northumberland

  89.4

  Tees Valley

  245.0

  Tyne and Wear

  373.3

  Source:

  NEXUS Data at December 2003.

  Consultants
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the consultants being used in the current financial year to assist in the implementation of his schools strategy. [157289]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the consultants used by his Department in 2002–03 where the expenditure exceeded £1,000,000. [157290]
  895W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures are in place for carrying out Criminal Records Bureau checks on(a) overseas teachers and (b) other overseas workers coming to work in schools in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [153725]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: My Department's guidance to employers in the education service about pre-appointment checks on teachers and other workers in schools advises that, if a person who they intend to appoint to work in a school has never lived in the UK, no purpose will be served by asking them to apply for a disclosure when they come to this country.

  The Criminal Records Bureau is not able to obtain details of a person's criminal record from overseas. A limited number of overseas convictions are recorded on the Police national computer, but the data is not comprehensive.

  The Bureaus Overseas Information Service provides advice to employers on the availability of criminal record information from overseas The service currently covers 17 countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Irish Republic, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Poland, Canada, Jamaica, South Africa. Malaysia, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Italy (excluding Vatican City) and Finland). The CRB is in discussions with the 10 accession countries to the European Union and aims to provide information through the Overseas Information Service about the criminal record information available from these countries within the next few months.

  Where criminal record information is not available, we recommend that employers take extra care in taking up references and carrying out other checks on a persons background.

  Drugs Education
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what letters of concern his Department has received from the Home Office on the issue of personal advisers on drugs education;[156026]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the provision of drugs education in schools in 2004 following the abolition of the standards fund; [156027]

  (3) what meetings on drugs education Ministers in his Department have held with ministerial colleagues from the Department of Health and the Home Department since September 2003; [156028]

  (4) how many personal advisers working on drugs education in secondary and primary schools are to be made redundant owing to the removal of the standards fund; and what plans there are to replace their specialist input;s [156029]

  (5) how many personal advisers work in the classroom on drugs education; and what the figures were in 2002 [156030]
  896W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 25 February 2004]: In line with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice, confidential communications between Departments is not made public. It is not normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings or their content as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.

  The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) will continue to be responsible for evaluating and reporting on the school's polices and practice in drug education within personal, social and health education (PSHE) and citizenship provision as part of the school inspection process. In addition, Ofsted surveys the quantity and quality of drug education in schools on behalf of the Department. The next data collection exercise will take place during the Summer Term 2004 and report in the Autumn.

  The Department does not collect data on the number of School Drug Adviser redundancies or how many school Drug Advisers work in the classroom on drug education. Their principal role is to support schools in planning and implementing effective policy and practice on drug issues rather than direct classroom delivery.

  From April 2004, our main focus will be on supporting teachers' professional development. The PSHE certification programme, which sets standards for the teaching of PSHE and certificates those who meet the standards, will be rolled-out to 3,000 teachers.

  Young people will continue to receive advice and support on drug issues from schools, the Connexions Service and a range of local agencies.

  Early Years Education
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with local authorities on meeting the statutory requirement to provide free early education for each three and four-year-old by April and the role of private day nursery providers in this; and if he will make a statement. [155823]

  Margaret Hodge
  Funding has been made available for expanding three year old provision since 1999, building to universal provision by April 2004. During this period local authorities have been encouraged, through published guidance, to grow provision taking into account local demand and social need and using a mixture of maintained, independent, voluntary and private providers to support parental choice.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy to phase out private providers for the nursery education grant scheme; and if he will make a statement. [R] [155826]

  Margaret Hodge
  This Government greatly values the contribution made by the thousands of private, voluntary and independent sector providers and is determined that they should continue to play a full part in the provision of early years education and child care.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he will take to ensure the continuity of provision of private sector nursery education for 3 and 4-year-olds, under the nursery education grant scheme in relatively isolated
  897W
  communities which currently have a single private provider, where that provider withdraws as a result of the withdrawal of the ring-fencing of funds to local authorities. [R] [155828]

  Margaret Hodge
  From 1 April 2004 local authorities will be under a statutory duty to provide sufficient nursery education for all three and 4-year-olds in their area. Local authorities have been encouraged through published guidance, to grow provision using a mixture of Maintained, Independent, Voluntary and Private providers to support parental choice and take into account the needs of children and families.

  Education Funding
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money was spent on school buildings in the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency in each year since 1997, broken down by school. [157503]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with the priorities of their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment in individual schools. This information should be held locally. However, the following table shows the total capital support made available by this Government for school buildings in Blackpool LEA since 1998–99 when Blackpool became a unitary authority.

  £ million

  1998–99

  2.6

  1999–2000

  4.0

  2000–01

  6.9

  2001–02

  8.3

  2002–03

  6.6

  2003–04

  17.0

  We have to date also allocated indicative funding for future years worth approximately £14.4 million in 2004–05, and £5.8 million in 2005–06.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what capital funding has been received by Rochdale Council Education Department since 1996; which schools benefited from additional capital investment in each year; how much funding each school received; and how the funding has been spent. [157504]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with the priorities of their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment in individual schools. This information should be held locally. However, the following table shows the total capital support made available by this Government for school buildings in Rochdale LEA since 1996–97.
  898W

  £ million

  1996–97

  1.0

  1997–98

  2.9

  1998–99

  4.7

  1999–2000

  2.8

  2000–01

  6.1

  2001–02

  7.1

  2002–03

  7.9

  2003–04

  12.0

  We have to date also allocated indicative funding for future years worth approximately £69 million in 2004–05 including £56 million of PFI credits, and £4.4 million in 2005–06.

  Educational Achievement
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils achieved three grade As or above at A-level in each of the last five years. [155425]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of 16 to 18-year-old A-level candidates achieving at least three A grades at A-level over the last five years in all schools and colleges in England:

  Percentage of 16 to 18-year-old A-level candidates achieving at least three A grades at A-level

  1999

  7.0

  2000

  7.4

  2001

  7.4

  2002

  7.9

  2003

  8.3

  EU Accession Countries
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the children of citizens of EU accession countries working in the United Kingdom will(a) be permitted to attend without charge state (i) schools, (ii) colleges and (iii) universities, (b) qualify for free school meals, (c) qualify for assistance with travel costs to and from school and (d) qualify for assistance in providing school uniforms. [156978]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Children of citizens of EU accession countries working in the UK will have access to schools when their parents enter the UK.

  Generally, students from the accession countries in colleges and universities will be entitled to receive education at the home student fee rate from the beginning of the 2004/05 academic year, in the same way as current EU students. Young people aged 16–19 in further education with home fee status are exempt from tuition fees.

  Registered pupils in schools maintained by a local education authority, whose parents are in receipt of the following support payments, are entitled to receive free school meals:
  Income Support (IS);
  Income Based Job Seekers Allowance (IBJSA);
  support under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;

  899W
  Child Tax Credit provided they do not receive Working Tax Credit and have an annual income (as assessed by The Inland Revenue) which does not exceed £13.230.

  Children who receive IS or IBJSA in their own right are also eligible to receive free school meals.

  (c) Free transport is always necessary for a pupil of compulsory school age (5–16) who attends the nearest suitable school if it is beyond statutory walking distance. These are two miles for pupils aged up to eight and three miles for those aged eight and over. This is measured by the shortest route along which a child, accompanied as necessary, may walk with reasonable safety.

  (d)The payment of grants for uniform or clothing is at the discretion of each local education authority, and they determine the eligibility criteria and the amount of any such support.

  Family Courts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Educaiton and Skills what the(a) average and (b) longest waiting time is for care proceedings in family courts. [156527]

  Mr. Leslie
  The average time taken for a care case to pass through a Care Centre, which deals with the more complex cases, was 52.5 weeks in December. The average time taken for a care case to pass through a Family Proceedings Court (FPC), which deals with about half of all cases of this type, is lower. Centrally held data does not record the longest waiting time. More complete and accurate figures for both FPCs and Care Centres will be available by the end of March.

  Home Assessment Visits
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average waiting time is in Gloucestershire for a home assessment visit by Ofsted when a person in receipt of child tax credit or working tax credit needs their home to be assessed as this is the place where their children are being looked after rather than the home of the child minder. [156391]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Home Childcarer Scheme allows registered childminders to gain an additional approval to care for children in the children's home. This approval process does not involve an assessment of the children's home, where the carer is already registered by Ofsted as a child minder.

  Information Sharing
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for new information referral and tracking systems; and how these will work sub-regionally to allow for effective information sharing on children and families who move across different local authorities. [155073]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Queen's Speech said that a Bill will be introduced to improve services designed to protect children. This will implement proposals contained in the Children's Green Paper "Every Child Matters", and, subject to consideration of responses to the Green Paper consultation, will include proposals for information sharing systems to enable practitioners to 900W
  share early information about children and young people where this will enable better services to be provided to them and their families.

  Information sharing systems must have the capacity to link together to ensure that children moving between local authority areas do not slip through the net. The Government have provided £1 million each to ten trailblazers, involving 15 local authorities, to test new ways of information sharing. The trailblazers are examining the important issue of linking databases and their experiences will inform subsequent developments.

  Minister for Children
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for which funding schemes the Minister for Children is responsible [155933]

  Margaret Hodge
  Table A which sets out funding schemes where I have responsibility is as follows. It has been drawn from last year's Departmental Report and includes Sure Start, which is a cross-government programme where I work closely with Baroness Catherine Ashton who is the Minister for Sure Start in both the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. Table B is an extract from the Local Authority Social Services Letter, LASSL (2003) 7, and sets out the schemes that have transferred from the Department of Health to become my responsibility. In addition to these schemes the Home Office has transferred Family Grants, including Parentline, The Department for Constitutional Affairs has transferred Marriage and Relationship Support (MARS) grants, and Treasury have transferred the Parenting Fund.

  Table A: Extract from Table 3.2 in the Departmental Report 2003

  Early Years and Child Care

  Sure Start

  Support for Young People

  Connexions Service Neighbourhood

  Support Fund Millennium Volunteers

  Youth Services Children's Fund

  Table B: Extract from the Local Authority Social Services Letter. LASSL (2003)7 Local Authority provided Children's Services

  Unhypothecated Revenue

  Formula Spending Safeguarding Children

  Ring fenced Revenue Grants

  Quality Protects

  Adoption Support and Special

  Guardianship

  Choice Protects

  Children's Trusts

  Teenage Pregnancy Local

  Implementation

  Regional Development Workers

  Secure Accommodation (Bed Bank)

  Capital

  SCE(R) Single Capital pot

  Secure Accommodation Grant

  Children's Services

  Munchausens Syndrome
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he was first informed of children being wrongfully removed from their parents owing to misdiagnosis of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy; and when he was first informed that Munchausen's syndrome by proxy was responsible for serious miscarriages of justice. [152113]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: We are not aware of any such situations. Local authorities have a duty to make inquiries where a child is thought to be at risk of significant harm, following Government guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children".

  Where a local authority should seek a Care Order in respect of a child, it will be for the courts to decide if this is appropriate.

  However, I would refer you to the statement that I made to the House on 23 February 2004, in which I set out the action that I asked local authorities with social services responsibilities to take following the Appeal Court's judgment in the appeal against the conviction of Angela Cannings.

  North Korea
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to promote academic links between the United Kingdom and North Korea. [157540]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department for Education and Skills has no plans to promote academic links with North Korea.

  Postgraduate Education
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people(a) applied for places on Post Graduate Certificate in Education courses, (b) were offered a place on a course and (c)successfully completed the course; in each year since 1990. [157493]

  Mr. Miliband
  Data on the number of people offered places on Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) courses is not collected. The following table shows the numbers of PGCE applicants in each year since 1991/92 and the number of candidates who accepted the offer of a place in each year since 1996/97. These are the earliest years for which this information is available. The number of entrants to PGCE courses is also shown.

  Applications1

  Acceptances1

  Entrants2

  England and Wales

  1990/91

  —

  —

  11,960

  1991/92

  24,870

  —

  15,050

  1992/93

  31,130

  —

  16,500

  1993/94

  33,650

  —

  17,690

  1994/95

  31,640

  —

  19,090

  1995/96

  33,250

  —

  19,330

  1996/97

  33,240

  18,000

  19,720

  1997/98

  33,300

  20,430

  19,480

  1998/99

  31,640

  19,020

  18,790

  1999/2000

  33,060

  19,770

  18,880

  902W

  Applications1

  Acceptances1

  Entrants2

  2000/01

  34,860

  20,990

  21,190

  England

  2001/02

  37,960

  20,040

  21,260

  2002/03

  42,570

  22,710

  23,320

  2003/04

  46,710

  25,350

  25,780

  Source:

  1Graduate Teacher Training Registry

  2DFE Recruitment Survey 1990/91 to 1993/94; HESES 1994/95;

  TTA Survey of ITT Providers 1995/96 to 2003/04

  Note:

  Excludes Fast Track—Data for these years not available

  The number of candidates who successfully completed PGCE courses in each calendar year from 1990 to 2002, the most recent available, is shown in the following table.

  Year of completion

  Completers

  England and Wales1

  1990

  9,600

  1991

  10,380

  1992

  13.460

  1993

  15,110

  1994

  16,130

  1995

  17.330

  1996

  16,900

  1997

  17,780

  1998

  17,150

  1999

  16,500

  2000

  16.160

  England2

  2000

  14,850

  2001

  16,150

  2002

  16,940

  Source:

  1DfES Database of Teacher Records

  2TTA Performance Profiles

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to widen participation in postgraduate education. [157495]

  Alan Johnson
  The government are already investing significant sums in widening access to higher education, which will also increase the supply of potential postgraduate students. The additional funding available for science and research (up £1.25 million by 2005/06 compared to 2003/04) will also increase the volume of research and opportunities for postgraduate study. Financial support for postgraduate study is available through the Career Development Loan Scheme which is administered by my Department.

  Pre-School Play Groups
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many women are employed in the management and operation of pre-school play groups; and if he will make a statement. [156276]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: According to the latest available data in the 2001 Childcare Workforce Survey, there were 79,800 paid employees in playgroups and preschools. Of these 14,000 were managers, 18,340 supervisors with 47,460 other workers.

  99 per cent. of paid employees were female. We do not know the gender split for managers and supervisors.

  Random Drug Testing
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received supporting the drugs testing of school children; and if he will make a statement. [157356]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department has received a number of representations supporting the drug testing of pupils.

  "Drugs: Guidance for Schools" highlights drug testing as one of a range of options available to headteachers to tackle drugs. The guidance spells out the issues schools should consider before employing drug testing, including gaining appropriate consent. The guidance will be sent to all schools on 9 March.

  Retention Measures
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to encourage retention of workers in the(a) engineering and (b) manufacturing fields. [156981]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's Manufacturing Strategy, which we developed in partnership with industry, trade unions and other stakeholders, aims to create a high value manufacturing sector in the UK with a highly skilled and well paid workforce, moving away from competing on the basis of low skill and low wages. We are continuing to develop a range of initiatives under the Skills Strategy such as employer training pilots, modern apprenticeships, the growing network of Sector Skills Councils and other measures to better deploy and retain skills to improve business performance.

  Where there are significant redundancies in the manufacturing sector, the Rapid Response Service works to move people quickly into new jobs, preventing them from becoming detached from the labour market. Although a trend to declining manufacturing employment has been a feature of advanced economies over the last 30 years, new jobs are still being created all the time. Around 250,000 manufacturing vacancies were reported to Jobcentre plus in the last year. Overall the UK labour market is performing well, with total employment rising by nearly 1.7 million since Spring 1997, and unemployment falling in every region in Britain over the past year.

  School Meals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils in England are (i) eligible for and (ii) taking up free school meals, broken down by region. [156068]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: The data requested have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  School Sports Facilities
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what submissions have been made 904W
  by his Department to the Activity coordination Team regarding making school sports facilities accessible to the community during school holidays. [155350]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills is a full and active member of the Activity coordination Team. The Department is responsible for developing the education strand within the team's action plan. This will seek to maximise the benefits from opening up school sports facilities for community use, including during school holidays. The Activity
  coordination Team will publish its action plan later this year.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to encourage schools to extend access to their sports facilities through the extended schools programme. [155351]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills published extended schools guidance in October 2002. The guidance covers a range of practical issues, including information and advice on providing community access to sports facilities. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The Department has made funding available to support local coordination and management of extended services in schools, and to create up to 240 full service extended schools, with at least one in each LEA area, by 2006. These schools will provide a prescribed core range of extended services and facilities, including sports and arts facilities.

  In addition, the national PE, School Sport and Club Links strategy aims to increase the percentage of five to 16-year-olds who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006. The strategy promotes the extended use of school sports facilities, for example the Sport Partnerships programme is delivering increased out of school hours sports opportunities. Schools benefiting from the £686 million investment in the New Opportunities for PE and Sport and the Space for Sport and the Arts capital programmes are required to demonstrate how the new school sports facilities can be shared with other schools and opened up for community use.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools have specialist sports status; and how they are being monitored to ensure they open their sports facilities to the wider community out-of-hours; [157764]

  (2) which specialist schools open their sports facilities to the wider community out-of-hours. [157769]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There are 228 Specialist Sports Colleges across the country. We also have three Sports Academies with another one opening in September. A further 30 Sports Colleges have been approved already for this year, and we are expecting more applications for Sports College status in the March application round.

  All Specialist Schools have a community plan which spells out their commitment to their wider communities. Sports Colleges generally include the provision of out-of-hours and weekend coaching and club sports events, and these are monitored through the regular submission of progress reports to this Department. In addition, the Youth

  905W
  Sport Trust commissions in-depth annual reports on Sports Colleges which survey their community activities as well as their curricular and whole-school performance.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which universities allow use of their sports facilities by the wider community. [157768]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  All universities allow the use of their sports facilities by the wider community, although the degree to which they do so varies enormously. Sport England have commissioned a piece of research into sports provision in higher education institutions which will cover community usage of university sports facilities. The 'Audit of Sports Provision in the Higher Education Sector' will be launched on 23 March 2004.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment the Government has made of the cost of education of children with special education needs(a) with and (b) without statements. [157071]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: Figures for the costs of education of children with special education needs (SEN) with and without statements are not collected separately. However, it is possible to provide information about the overall expenditure on the education of children with SEN and to show the split of that expenditure between mainstream and special schools.

  The total estimated cost of providing special needs education in 2003–04 is £3,464,836,204. Of this, it is estimated that £1,717,253,601 will be spent on pupils in mainstream schools, in addition to their normal place funding. An estimated £1,511,349,567 will be spent on pupils in special schools. This includes pupils in maintained special schools and fees for pupils in independent and non-maintained special schools. In addition, an estimated £236,233,036 will be spent in this financial year on centrally funded SEN activities. These include the costs of educational psychology services, assessment and statementing, parent partnership services and the provision of information.

  Specialist Schools (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the average amount of support that a specialist school receives through corporate and charitable sponsors. [156140]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On average a school applying for specialist status will receive £33,500 (67 per cent.) of the required £50,000 sponsorship from corporate and charitable sources (based on figures from the October 2003 application round). This includes an element of corporate and charitable sponsorship raised through the new Partnership Fund, which was introduced in 2002 to support schools in raising sponsorship. Schools raise the rest of the required amount through a combination of fund-raising, charitable donations from parents and other activities.

  Student Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate the Student Loan 906W
  Company has made of the number of graduates who were in receipt of income contingent loans who are currently overseas: and what proportion of these have continued to make loan repayments. [155456]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: Repayments from borrowers who live overseas are made directly to the Student Loans Company (SLC). 4,700 people who should be repaying their income-contingent loan are currently living overseas. 56 per cent. of these have made no repayments because their income is below the repayment threshold of £10,000 per year; 32 per cent. have made repayments. The remainder are people who have not yet provided sufficient evidence in order for the SLC to assess their liability to repay their income-contingent loan.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have been affected by the new rules requiring accreditation by Sure Start because their childminder looks after children in the children's home. [156392]

  Margaret Hodge
  I should clarify the situation regarding the Home Childcarers Scheme to which this question refers. The scheme was launched in April 2003 to extend eligibility to tax credits to families using childcare in their own homes. It does not impose a new accreditation requirement on home based carers—seeking approval is entirely voluntary. Prior to the introduction of this scheme if a family needed to use childcare in their own home it was not possible to have this approved, or to access the childcare element of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Currently there are 124 Home Childcarers who have been approved, by Ofsted, to care for children in the children's home. Home Childcarers can be employed by more than one family so the number of families using a Home Childcarer is unknown.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many parents have lost their entitlement to the childcare element of Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit because they did not possess accreditation by Sure Start of the childminder operating in the parents' home. [156393]

  Margaret Hodge
  No parents have lost their entitlement to tax credits under this scheme. The purpose of the Home Childcarer Scheme is to extend the availability of tax credits rather than to restrict it.

  Prior to the Home Childcarers Scheme parents using childcare in the child's home were not eligible to claim the childcare element of the Working Families Tax Credit (now replaced by the Working Tax Credit). The introduction of this scheme has enabled some parents to claim tax credits when before they were unable to do so.

  This Government are committed to extending the Home Childcarers Scheme to carers other than registered childminders and to enable more parents to benefit from the help available through tax credits. We are committed to holding a consultation on the options for an extension in spring 2004.
  907W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has held with Her Majesty's Treasury on debt problems faced by parents who have lost Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit because of the new Sure Start accreditation arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [156394]

  Margaret Hodge
  As the purpose of the Home Childcarer Scheme is to extend the, availability of tax credits rather than to restrict it no parents have faced debt problems as a result of its introduction.

  Taiwanese Students
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many Taiwanese nationals study at universities in the UK; [151274]

  (2) what he estimates the total amount in fees paid by Taiwanese nationals at UK universities was in the last academic year for which figures are available. [153124]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2002/03 there were 4,248 Taiwanese nationals enrolled on higher education courses at UK higher education institutions.

  Estimates of the total amount of fees paid by overseas nationals are not held centrally.

  University Attendance
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people attended university from(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside local education authority and (c) the United Kingdom in each year since 1996. [148448]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures at constituency level are not held centrally. The available information at local education authority level covers accepted applicants to full time first degree and HND courses through the Universities and College Admissions Service (UCAS).

  Accepted applicants of all ages to full-time undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) from South Tyneside LEA and England

  Year of entry

  South Tyneside LEA domiciles

  English domiciles1

  1996–97

  497

  220,891

  1997–98

  644

  251,904

  1998–99

  618

  245,914

  1999–2000

  596

  249,883

  2000–01

  623

  254,472

  2001–02

  655

  269,447

  2002–03

  665

  274,345

  1Accepted applicants with unknown English domicile are excluded from the figures.

  Source:

  Universities and College Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school leavers attended university from(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside local education authority and (c) the United Kingdom in each year since 1996; and what percentage these were of the total number of school leavers in each of these years. [148449]
  908W
  Alan Johnson
  Figures at constituency level are not held centrally. The available information at local education authority level covers accepted applicants to full time first degree and HMD courses through the Universities and College Admissions Service (UCAS).

  Number of 18 year olds accepted for entry to full-time undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) from South Tyneside LEA and England

  South Tyneside LEA domiciles

  English domiciles1

  Year of entry

  Number of 18 year olds accepted to HE courses

  Percentage of 18 year olds in LEA

  Number of 18 year olds accepted to HE courses

  Percentage of 18 year olds in England

  1996

  239

  13.7

  109,646

  19.9

  1997

  318

  15.7

  123,065

  20.5

  1998

  299

  14.8

  124,077

  20.0

  1999

  307

  15.2

  122,607

  20.0

  2000

  330

  16.7

  123,596

  20.6

  2001

  336

  17.2

  131,200

  21.5

  2002

  353

  17.4

  134,727

  22.0

  1Accepted applicants with unknown English domicile are excluded from the figures.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seeking households containing children or pregnant women were placed in bed and breakfast accommodation by the National Asylum Support Service under legislation other than the Housing Act 1996 and are as a consequence not included in the provisions of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 in each of the last five years. [152333]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]: The general practice of the National Asylum Support Service is that households containing children or pregnant women are not placed in bed and breakfast accommodation in dispersal areas.

  However, NASS grant funds six voluntary sector agencies to provide emergency accommodation, which is temporary accommodation provided pending dispersal, who provide a mixture of accommodation which may include bed and breakfast accommodation.

  I am unable to provide the requested information and could only do so at disproportionate cost.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answers of 25 February 2004,Official Report, column 277, to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness West, (1) with which countries the Government is in negotiations, other than Tanzania, on how to process claims for asylum nearer to the country of origin; [158114]

  (2) whether such claims would be for recognition of refugee status in (a) Tanzania and (b) the UK; [158115]

  (3) whether the processing of such claims for non-Tanzanian nationals would be carried out in Tanzania. [158286]
  909W
  Beverley Hughes
  Apart from Tanzania, we have not yet started any negotiations with other countries. These partnerships are not about processing asylum claims nearer to the country of origin. Rather the Tanzanians are helping us to establish whether certain failed asylum seekers in the United Kingdom who claimed as Somali are in fact Tanzanian. We are also seeking to help them better manage their own refugee caseload.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 20 January 2004,Official Report, column 1205W, on animal welfare, ref 147328, with reference to recommendation 14, when the Inspectorate will be reviewed; and by whom. [155934]

  Caroline Flint
  In its report, published in July 2002, the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures recommended that the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate should be subject to periodic review, by a body other than the Inspectorate itself. The Committee went on to describe the Inspectorate as a "trustworthy, professional body" and also acknowledged the valuable role that it has played in creating a culture of care in establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  In the Government's response, published in January 2003, we welcomed the Select Committee's endorsement of the integrity of the Inspectorate and of the important contribution that it has made to the welfare of animals in designated establishments. However, we recognise that public awareness of the valuable job done by the Inspectorate is poor and agree that this needs to be remedied. We have, therefore, concluded that there would be value in the Inspectorate publishing an annual report on its work. The Inspectorate's first annual report will be published in the autumn of 2004.

  As to the periodic review of the Inspectorate, under Section 18 of the 1986 Act, Inspectors are responsible directly to the Secretary of State who is, in turn accountable to Parliament for their work. Inspectors are all medical or veterinary practitioners, as well as being civil servants, and are bound by medical or veterinary codes of professional conduct. In addition, in common with other Home Office staff, the Chief Inspector and members of the Inspectorate are subject to the civil service code and annual performance reviews as part of routine personnel management arrangements. In the light of these comprehensive arrangements, we do not believe that any further form of performance review is necessary. Members of the Inspectorate are highly professional and dedicated and have the complete confidence of Government Ministers.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 20 January 2004,Official Report, column 1205W, on animal welfare, ref 147328, with reference to recommendation 11, which Government department is taking the lead on the systematic and visible search for 3Rs methods in toxicology; where that Department's progress can be viewed; and if he will make a statement. [155971]

  Caroline Flint
  In its report, published in July 2002, the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures recommended that the 910W
  Government and the scientific community should engage in a systematic and visible search for methods involving the 3Rs—the replacement of animal use, reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of the procedures involved to minimise suffering—in toxicology and that the Government should nominate one department to take the lead on this.

  In the Government's response to the Select committee's report, published in January 2003, we agreed that a systematic and visible effort is required. As a first step, the Home Office is currently leading a review of the scope for improving the application of the 3Rs and promoting research into alternatives through the Inter-Departmental Group on the 3Rs. Membership of the Inter-Departmental Group is drawn from the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Science and Technology, the Health and Safety Executive and other agencies.

  The work of the group includes exploration of the case for a United Kingdom centre for research into the 3Rs, which was also recommended by the House of Lords Select Committee, a review of the implementation of the Inter-Departmental Data-Sharing Concordat, announced in August 2000, and the review and revision of the Guidelines on Regulatory Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Studies. published in February 2001, and the statement of principles concerning animal welfare endorsed by the Home Office and other regulatory authorities in 1990—Annex 1 to the Regulatory Toxicology Guidelines.

  I am currently considering the Inter-Departmental Group's further advice on the proposed United Kingdom centre for research into the 3Rs. I expect to receive the findings of the Inter-Departmental Group on the other two issues shortly and will then consider what further steps are required.

  Minutes of the meetings of the Inter-Departmental Group are published on the Home Office website at http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/interdept3rs.html.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2004,Official Report, column 1205W, on animal welfare, with reference to recommendation 12, what steps the Government have taken to urge EU member states to make replacements a priority. [155972]

  Caroline Flint
  In its report, published in July 2002, the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures recommended that the United Kingdom Government should use their influence to urge the European Union to make the development and validation of replacements for animal experiments a priority, particularly in toxicology.

  In our response, published in January 2003, the Government noted the Select Committee's view and agreed that replacement should be the ultimate goal. We also explained that we do not believe that it should be made a priority at the expense of reduction or refinement, as these are where progress can be made more quickly. We are instead fully committed to the furtherance of all of the

  911W
  3Rs—the replacement of animal use, reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of the procedures involved to minimise suffering.

  United Kingdom Government Departments and agencies are involved in a number of specific initiatives in the European Union to develop, validate and incorporate more advanced test methods into regulatory practice. The Government also continue to support the work of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and the head of the Home Office Animals Scientific Procedures Division is now the United Kingdom representative on the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee and is contributing to discussions about the future direction of ECVAM's work. The Government also warmly welcome the liaison between ECVAM and its United States counterpart, the Interagency Co-ordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), as a means of achieving greater progress, more quickly and ensuring commitment from more than one economic region. Quick gains cannot necessarily be expected, but we shall continue our efforts to persuade other member states of the importance of progress on the 3Rs.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2004,Official Report, column 1205W, on animal welfare, what factors underlay the decision not to invite expert scientific opinion opposed to primate experimentation to take part in the forum, with particular reference to (a) Animal Aid and (b) Europeans For Medical Advancement. [156017]

  Caroline Flint
  The aim of the stakeholder forum, which was held on 9 January 2004, was to hold informed debate on the recommendations contained in the Animal Procedures Committee's (APC) report entitled "The use of primates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—analysis of current trends with particular reference to regulatory toxicology". This in turn was to assist preparation of a ministerial response to the issues which the APC has raised.

  The Home Office and the APC agreed that, in order to hold a focused debate, attendance at the forum should be limited to organisations with practical experience in the use of primates in scientific procedures, or with other particular expertise relevant to the report's recommendations.

  Consequently, invitees included holders of related project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, from both the commercial and academic sectors, as well as individuals from funding and regulatory organisations and other Government Departments. Groups with expertise in alternatives to animal experiments were also invited to send representatives.

  It was decided that representatives from animal protection organisations such as Animal Aid and Europeans For Medical Advancement should not be invited to comment through this forum. Places at the forum were limited and the Home Office and the APC primarily wanted to test the technical basis and the practicalities of the recommendations with those experts in the use of primates best placed to contribute to such an exercise.
  912W
  A report on the forum will be placed on the Home Office and APC websites in the near future, and I would be pleased to receive informed comments from any other source before I further consider all the issues raised.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers there are in(a) the constituency of Hyndburn and (b) the County of Lancashire. [156725]

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

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

  The table gives data on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in the constituency of Hyndburn, as at the end of December 2003 (including dependants):

  December 2003

  In NASS accommodation

  5

  In receipt of subsistence only support from NASS

  5

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  The table gives data on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in the County of Lancashire, as at the end of December 2003 (including dependants):

  December 2003

  In NASS accommodation

  6,345

  In receipt of subsistence only support from NASS

  745

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which countries from which more than 1,000 asylum seekers have come to the UK within the last five years the UK(a) has and (b) does not have a readmission agreement; how many nationals from each of those countries remain in the UK; what their status is; and whether readmission agreements allow for the return of undocumented asylum
  seekers. [156768]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are 47 countries from which more than 1,000 applications have been made in the United Kingdom between 1999 and 2003. The countries and their numbers are contained in the list below. Of these countries, the United Kingdom has negotiated formal bilateral readmission agreements with Albania and Romania, which are currently being ratified. In addition, negotiations have commenced with Poland and will start shortly with Serbia and Montenegro. The European Commission has been mandated to negotiate Community readmission agreements on behalf of member states with Sri Lanka (negotiations have
  913W
  been concluded and the agreement is being ratified), China, Turkey. Pakistan, Algeria, Albania, Russia and Ukraine. Bilateral and Community readmission agreements set out the process and evidence required for the re-documentation of returning nationals.

  In addition, where it is our experience that a lack of documentation presents a barrier to removal to particular countries, the United Kingdom is working with the authorities of those countries to facilitate the process of identification and re-documentation of persons. These countries include Sri Lanka, India, Turkey, Somaliland, the Democratic Republic of Congo and China. Since October 2003 the United Kingdom has had a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding in operation governing returns to Afghanistan and very recently agreed with the Coalition Provisional Authority to effect returns to Iraq.

  Applications1.2received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, for nationalities from which the UK has received more than 1,000 asylum applications within the last five years

  Nationality

  1999–2003

  Iraq

  34,575

  Somalia

  30,575

  Afghanistan

  27,945

  SAM3

  23,835

  Sri Lanka

  20,870

  China

  16,135

  Iran

  15,850

  Turkey

  15,760

  Zimbabwe

  14,315

  Pakistan

  12,950

  India

  9,480

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  7,375

  Romania

  7,300

  Sierra Leone

  5,935

  Algeria

  5,755

  Albania

  5,605

  Czech Republic

  5,260

  Nigeria

  4,710

  Angola

  4,640

  Poland

  4,570

  Eritrea

  3,830

  Burundi

  3,360

  Bangladesh

  3,280

  Jamaica

  3,250

  Uganda

  3,065

  Rwanda

  3,030

  Ethiopia

  2,820

  Russia

  2,715

  Sudan

  2,670

  Vietnam

  2,655

  Ukraine

  2,650

  Other Yugoslavia

  2,630

  Colombia

  2,515

  Congo

  2,430

  Nepal

  2,235

  Cameroon

  2,090

  Moldova

  2,035

  Croatia

  1,970

  Lithuania

  1,870

  Kenya

  1,820

  Ecuador

  1,770

  Nationality not known

  1,620

  Ivory Coast

  1,620

  Belarussia

  1,500

  Liberia

  1,425

  Macedonia

  1,280

  Ghana

  1,270

  Latvia

  1,205

  914W
  1Figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest 5.

  2May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000.

  3Serbia and Montenegro (SAM) replaced Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) from 5 February 2003, SAM comprises the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Montenegro, and the Province of Kosovo (administered by the UN on an interim basis since 1999).

  Information on how many nationals from each of these countries are currently in the United Kingdom is not available. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records. In addition some applicants may leave the United Kingdom without informing the Immigration Service.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were refused support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in 2003; and how many who were refused support appealed in the High Court. [156805]

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

  Data on numbers of asylum seekers refused under Section 55 are as follows. Data is not available on the number of asylum seekers who were refused support under Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that subsequently appealed in the High Court.

  Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 came into force on 8 January 2003, restricting the availability of National Asylum Support Service support to those asylum seekers who make an asylum application as soon as reasonably practicable.

  Figures in respect of asylum seekers refused under Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in 2003 are.

  2003

  Number of cases refused under Section 55 of the NIA Act 2002

  Quarter 1

  2,850

  Quarter 2

  1,830

  Quarter 3

  2,810

  Quarter 4

  1,925

  Total

  9,415

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum applications were made in-country in each of the last three years. [156806]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the proportion of asylum applications made in country for each of the last three years.

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 2001–03

  2001

  20022

  20033

  Total

  71,025

  84,130

  49,370

  Port

  24,865

  26,560

  13,810

  Port percentage

  35

  32

  28

  In country

  46,160

  57,570

  35,560

  In country percentage

  65

  68

  72

  1Figures (other than percentages) are rounded to the nearest five

  2Revised data

  3Provisional data

  915W
  Information on the number of asylum applications is published in quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the United Kingdom are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of accommodation contracted for by the National Asylum Support Service was in each year of the dispersal scheme; and if he will estimate the cost in the current year. [157046]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  2000–01

  115

  2001–02

  247

  2002–03

  319

  2003–041

  Not available

  1Payments for 2003–04 are expected to be broadly in line with 2002–03 but are expected to fall thereafter, as the recent fall in new applications for NASS support feeds through.

  Criminal Assets
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cash seizures that have been effected by the Assets Recovery Agency since its inception; what the value seized in each case was; and whether the order was enforced. [155962]

  Caroline Flint
  The Assets Recovery Agency has no power to seize and forfeit cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This power is reserved to the police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. As at the end of January 2004 a total of 1,219 cash seizures with a total value of £55.68 million had been made in England and Wales since the powers came into force in December 2002. Cash seized can only be forfeited when a forfeiture order has been made by a magistrates' court. A total of 64 cash forfeitures have been made under the Act with a total value of £2.98 million. Details of individual cash seizures and forfeitures are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  At present the minimum amount of cash which can be seized is £10,000. The threshold is to be reduced to £5,000 under The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Cash in Summary Proceedings: Minimum Amount) Order 2004 which was laid before Parliament on 24 February.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) confiscation and (b) restraint orders have been made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; and what the recoverable amount was in each case. [155963]

  Caroline Flint
  The confiscation and restraint powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are triggered by offences committed after the provisions were brought into force on 24 March 2003. It will therefore be some time before confiscation cases are dealt with by the Crown Court in numbers.
  916W
  As at the end of January 2004 the information available is as follows:

  (a) 58 confiscation orders had been made under the Act with a total value of £1,089,849.

  (b) 59 restraint orders had been made of which 40 orders have a total value of £6,276,737. Information on the value of the other 19 orders is not currently available.

  In addition, the Assets Recovery Agency has 20 civil recovery cases subject to freezing orders with a total value of £12.7 million.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those who apply for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was refused on the grounds that they have a criminal conviction, in the last year for which figures are available. [155959]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority advise that in the 2002–03 financial year 79,248 applications were resolved. Of these 42,283 resulted in a monetary award, and 36,965 cases were rejected, of which 2,946 were rejected because of the applicant's criminal convictions. As a proportion, that is 3.7 per cent. of the resolved applications.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications there were from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in each of the last six years; and what number and percentage of applications were accepted. [144741]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table, which has been placed in the Library, gives asylum applications and initial decisions from 1997 to September 2003 for nationals of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  Information on the number of asylum applications and initial decisions is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigrationl.html The next quarterly publication, covering the fourth quarter of 2003 and provisional full year data, will be published on 24 February 2004.

  Departmental Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staff complement of the Security Services is; what the range of payment for serving security officers is; and what proportion of security officers speak Arabic. [156638]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There are currently over 2,000 staff in the Security Service. Starting salaries range from –14,500 for administrative staff to a maximum of £26,000 for some technical specialists. The top salary is of course that of the Director General (Permanent Secretary pay range £120,000-£124,999 at 31 January 2003). For operational reasons it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the number of Arab speakers available to the service.

  Detention and Removal Centres
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what access people detained in detention and removal centres have to independent monitoring boards. [157445]

  Beverley Hughes
  People detained at immigration removal centres are able to submit a request or complaint to the Independent Monitoring Board at any time and members of the board should make themselves available to detainees whenever they are carrying out one of their regular visits. In addition, a member of the Independent Monitoring Board is obliged to visit any detainee who is subject to removal from association (Rule 40), temporary confinement (Rule 42) or special control or restraint (Rule 43) within 24 hours of the person being subjected to these rules.

  Drugs Testing and Treatment
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drugs testing and treatment orders have been issued in(a) North Yorkshire and (b) the Vale of York. [156870]

  Caroline Flint
  The information requested, for the years 2000 to 2002, is contained in the table.

  Persons sentenced to drug treatment and testing orders in North Yorkshire and the Petty Sessional Area of York, 2000–02

  In North Yorkshire

  of which, in York PSA

  20001

  —

  —

  2001

  61

  33

  2002

  73

  27

  1From October.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn of this year.

  EU Accession States
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to remove from the UK citizens of EU accession states working within the UK when they cease employment, from 1 May onwards. [156790]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: An accession state national that ceases employment in the United Kingdom will continue to have a right of residence in the United Kingdom provided that they are self-sufficient. If they are unable to support themselves and are an unreasonable burden on the state they will be liable for removal.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence his Department has collated on the number of nationals from(a) Poland and (b) other EU accession states who have already arranged transportation to the UK following 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [157075]

  Beverley Hughes
  No reliable information on the numbers of nationals from Poland or other EU accession states booking transport to travel to the United Kingdom for a visit or any other purpose after 1 May is available.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to publicise(a) the need, under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 for existing owners of air weapons and imitation firearms to apply for a firearm certificate before 30 April and (b) the implications of not doing so. [157996]

  Caroline Flint
  Section 37 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 gives the police the power to arrest someone carrying an air weapon (whether loaded or not) or an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. There is no requirement for them to obtain a firearms certificate.

  Section 39 brings into force a specific ban on the sale, purchase, transfer, acquisition and manufacture of air guns using a self-contained gas-cartridge system. Existing owners will be able to retain possession provided they obtain a firearms certificate for the gun, and have until 30 April 2004 to do so.

  We have publicised these measures through "A Guide to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003", which was included in the "TOGETHER Campaign Pack" issued on 20 February 2004. Guidance to the police was also issued in Home Office Circular 01/2004, which was sent out on 14 January 2004. Both of these documents and other relevant information are available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  In addition, the Home Office has produced a number of posters and leaflets which explain what people must do if they want to keep any guns they already have which use the self-contained gas cartridge system. These have been sent to all police forces for display and further distribution as they see fit. After discussion with the relevant trade organisations they have also been sent to dealers together with a special sticker to put on tins of air gun pellets as a reminder to their customers.

  We are continuing to work with the police and other interested parties with a view to securing further local publicity.

  Gun Crime
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much Government funding, broken down by local authority area, is given to community groups working to combat gun crime. [149787]

  Caroline Flint
  In the current financial year, the Government are providing £1.5 million from recovered criminal assets specifically to support community action to help tackle gun crime and gun culture. £300,000 of this has been allocated to Disarm Trust, an independent organisation that raises money and provides support for community groups working to reduce gun crime, supports victims of gun crime and provides help for witnesses. The remainder is being distributed by eight of the Government Offices for the Regions to support community action. The funding is not broken down by local authority areas. The allocations to the eight Government Offices are set out as follows.
  919W

  Government Office

  £

  London

  400,000

  West Midlands

  200,000

  South West

  75,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  75,000

  South East

  100,000

  North West

  200,000

  East Midlands

  75,000

  East of England

  75,000

  In addition, we are providing funding for community-based programmes to tackle gun crime through the Street Crime Initiative in a number of areas. This money is in addition to other funding provided through the Government Offices, for example, to support regeneration and to tackle deprivation and social exclusion, which help to address the factors that can give rise to criminality, including gun crime.

  Health Tourism
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what measures are(a) in place and (b) being researched or considered by his Department to combat health tourism. [156091]

  Beverley Hughes
  Immigration rules (HC 395 as amended) provide for anyone to be refused entry clearance or leave to enter to the United Kingdom who seeks entry for a purpose not covered by the Rules. The Rules provide for entry for the purpose of private medical treatment but not for NHS treatment. They further provide for an Immigration Office to take account of a Medical Inspector's assessment of the likely course of treatment in deciding whether a person seeking entry for private medical treatment has sufficient means at his disposal.

  Immigrants who seek NHS treatment after entry to the United Kingdom may be liable to charges for such treatment in accordance with the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989 No.306) as amended. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health has recently announced proposals to amend these Regulations to remove certain loopholes that have been exploited by health tourists. In particular anyone who has no legal basis to remain in the United Kingdom will be liable to be charged for NHS treatment, except for emergencies or conditions for which they were already receiving treatment before the final determination of their status.

  The Government have been undertaking a comprehensive interdepartmental review of the issues surrounding immigration and healthcare. The review is ongoing and final decisions remain to be taken.

  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Official Report., 23 February 2004, columns 23–25), from 1 May the Government will be requiring workers from the European Union (EU) accession countries (except Malta and Cyprus) to register with the Home Office. In accordance with EU Regulations, any resident of an EU member state will be entitled to receive free of charge treatment for which the need arises during a visit to the United Kingdom—the cost is met by their home country. But to be fully exempt from charges for routine hospital treatment for a pre-existing condition, patients from elsewhere in the EU
  920W
  will need to prove—just as for any other overseas visitor—that they meet one of the exemption criteria in the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations, for example the exemption for those employed in the United Kingdom. This will apply to registered workers from the accession states. The Government will continue to take every step to ensure that our benefit and healthcare system is not open to abuse.

  Local Authority Asylum Costs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the audit of Kent county council's claim relating to asylum seeker costs will be completed; and if he will make a statement on its delay; [155027]

  (2) when his Department will publish the grant rules for asylum costs for the current year; [155028]

  (3) what asylum costs were paid by (a) his Department and (b) Kent county council; and if he will make a statement. [155029]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: The audit of Kent county council's claims relating to asylum support costs is the responsibility of the District Auditor. Audit work on the claim for 2002–03 was delayed initially by work required to finalise the lists of asylum seekers eligible for support during the year. The due date for the completion of the 2002–03 audit has been set at 31 March 2004. At present the council are also investigating the exact amount of the outstanding balance for 2002–03 and this may also delay the completion of the audit.

  The instructions for 2003–04 relating to Adults and Families were published in June 2003. The instructions for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children (UASC) were published in January 2004.

  The Home Office reimburses local councils for asylum support costs via a series of interim payments during the year. Kent county council submitted four interim claims in 2002–03 and three for the year to date in 2003–04. These have all been paid. The outstanding balance for 2002–03 is subject to investigation as mentioned above. If it is agreed that a significant amount has not been covered by the interim claims in 2002–03 then the Home Office is prepared to make a further payment against the final audited claim.

  Malawi (Work Permits)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits have been issued to health workers from Malawi since January 2003. [156186]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of work permits issued to Malawi health workers in the calendar year 2003 was 142.

  Mr. T. Umbalan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds he is considering a further application from Mr.T Umabalan of Epsom, Surrey, to remain in the UK; and if he will make a
  921W
  further statement on the contents of his letter to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell on 10 June 2002 in relation to this case. [156181]

  Beverley Hughes
  Mr Umabalan has applied for settlement based on his long residence in the United Kingdom and for leave to remain on Human Rights grounds.

  Removals
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were removed from the UK in each year since 1997. [156095]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of people removed from the United Kingdom in each year from 1997 to 2002 (the latest available year) is shown in the table.

  Persons removed from the United Kingdom 1997 to 2002 1

  Total persons removed2

  1997

  31,145

  1998

  34,920

  1999

  37,780

  2000

  46,645

  2001

  49,135

  20023

  65,460

  1Under sections 3(5), 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971, or under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

  2Including persons departing "voluntarily" after enforcement action

  had been initiated against them.

  3Provisonal figures.

  Information on the total number of people removed each year from the United Kingdom is published annually in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" and in the Command Publication of the same name. These are available from the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html and from the Library. Information on the total number of people removed from the United Kingdom in 2003 is due to be published in the aforementioned statistical bulletin on the Home Office website towards the end of August 2004.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was raised in fines from speed cameras in each year since their inception in the Lancashire police force area. [156498]

  Caroline Flint
  Information on the revenue raised from speed offences detected by camera is not available.
  922W
  Available information on the number of fixed penalties and court fines ordered to be paid for offence of 'speeding detected by camera' in the calendar years 1997 to 2001 is shown in the table for the Lancashire police force area.

  Information for 2002 will be available in the spring. Not all fines and fixed penalties will have been paid.

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for speeding offences detected by camerds1.2 in the Lancashire police force area, 1997–2001

  Fixed penalties

  Court Proceedings3

  Offence and year

  Number of tickets

  Estimated revenue (£)

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine (£)

  Average fine4

  1997

  5,600

  224,800

  480

  37,100

  78

  1998

  14,700

  588,900

  880

  96,000

  109

  1999

  22,300

  892,600

  1,200

  120,200

  101

  2000

  18,400

  796,100

  930

  79,800

  86

  2001

  21,400

  1,283,500

  1,400

  90,800

  65

  1Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types from 1999.

  2Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  3Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court.

  1Estimate based on £40 fixed penalty charge to October 2000. From November 2000 the penalty was raised to 60.

  Note:

  Reliable data only available from 1997 onwards for speeding offences detected by camera.

  Yarl's Wood
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish in full the two reports of the Prisons Ombudsman, concerning the Yarl's Wood Detention Centre in North East Bedfordshire when he receives them; and if he will make a statement; [157105]

  (2) when he expects to receive the reports from the Prisons Ombudsman, on (a) the circumstances surrounding the fire at Yarl's Wood on 14 February 2002 and (b) the allegations of racism among security staff at Yarl's Wood. [157106]

  Beverley Hughes
  I can confirm that both reports will be published in full, once I have the opportunity to consider carefully their contents.

  With regard to Stephen Shaw's inquiry into the events at Yarl's Wood on 14/15 February 2002 there is an expectation that it will be submitted to me this summer.

  I can confirm that a draft of Stephen Shaw's separate report into allegations of racism at Yarl's Wood has now been received. Stephen Shaw has yet to finalise the report in a form suitable for publication. When he has done so and I have considered its contents, I will make arrangements for its publication as soon as possible.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT

  Health Care Practitioners
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  In the interest of public safety, we have today published two consultation papers on the statutory regulation of healthcare practitioners. The papers seek views on the extension of regulation to a wider range of healthcare staff and on proposals for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture practitioners.

  A related consultation paper on the reform of the regulation of unlicensed herbal remedies made up to meet the needs of individual patients has also been published today by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

  Copies of the three consultation papers have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pharmaceutical Services
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the executive summary of the report of the advisory group on the reform of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992. It is also available on the Department's website at:http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/pharmacy regulationconsultation/advisorygroup.htm

  The Government are considering the group's advice carefully and will make further announcements as soon as possible. We will publish the report in full when we publish changes to the Regulations later this year.

  I have also placed in the Library copies of the summary of responses, which was published on Monday 1 March, to the consultation on "A Vision for Pharmacy in the New NHS". It is available on the Department's website at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/consultations/responsesto consultations/fs/en

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Lord Chancellor (Ecclesiastical Functions)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  I should like to make a statement on the Government's approach to certain functions of the Lord Chancellor in the light of responses to the consultation document "Constitutional Reform: Reforming the office of Lord Chancellor". A summary of the responses was published on 26 January. Last week my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, introduced a76WS
  Constitutional Reform Bill into Parliament. The Bill provides for the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, as well as for the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission, and the creation of a Supreme Court, and will, where necessary, make statutory provision to give effect to our approach.

  ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE

  Since the fourteenth century, the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Crown, has exercised patronage in relation to a number of parishes and Cathedral Canonries. This patronage is administered with other Crown patronage through a combined office.

  With the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, the Government propose that the Lord Chancellor's patronage should revert to the Crown. Legislation is not required to achieve this. This reversion to the Crown will ensure administrative consistency and take full advantage of existing mechanisms and expertise. Respondents to the consultation and others have made clear how much they value the role of the Crown in a mixed pattern of patronage.

  OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS

  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who has Ministerial responsibilities in relation to the Church, will assume the Lord Chancellor's role as Church Commissioner. Similarly, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will take the Lord Chancellor's role in relation to certain ecclesiastical judicial or legal appointments. Where these appointments concern a serving judge in the secular courts he will first consult the Lord Chief Justice. Relevant provisions will be included in the Constitutional Reform Bill.

  VISITATORIAL JURISDICTION

  The Sovereign is visitor at certain charitable institutions where no other visitor is named. By convention, the Sovereign's visitatorial jurisdiction is usually delegated to the Lord Chancellor. In addition, the Lord Chancellor holds the title of visitor to a number of organisations in his own right. In these cases the Lord Chancellor's visitatorial functions will revert to the Sovereign with the abolition of his office.

  For the future, proposals in the Higher Education Bill will remove the jurisdiction of the visitor over student complaints, the majority of visitorship issues. For other visitorship responsibilities we propose that the Secretary of State advise the Sovereign on a case-by-case basis and where appropriate appoint a suitably qualified person, such as a serving or retired judge, to undertake the function on behalf of the Queen. This change will not require primary legislation.

  CHARITABLE AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS

  The Lord Chancellor has a specific role in respect to a number of institutions and schools where he is mentioned in their governing documents. Unless specific action is taken, that absence of the office of Lord Chancellor could cause problems for some of these institutions. Some academic institutions will be affected by the change of visitor. In consultation, some of these institutions have indicated that they wish to amend their governing instruments to reflect the abolition of that office.
  77WS
  To assist such organisations, I am proposing to take a power in the Constitutional Reform Bill to be able to amend Charters, Orders in Council or other instruments as a consequence of the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor.

  GREAT SEAL

  The Great Seal is used to signify the Royal Will and authenticate acts of the Sovereign or the Government acting in the name of the Monarch. As I made clear in the consultation document "Reforming the office of Lord Chancellor", his responsibilities in relation to the Great Seal are to transfer to the Secretary of State for
  78WS
  Constitutional Affairs, who is (after the Prime Minister) the principal source of advice on matters relating to the Crown, and who will have a specific duty to defend and uphold the independence of the judiciary.

  Appointments to the senior judiciary are made under the Great Seal. It is an important part of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, and the new partnership with the executive, that the custody of the Great Seal can only be changed with a clear decision by Parliament through primary legislation. Provisions in the Bill make clear that custody of the Great Seal can only be moved away from the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs by primary legislation.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

  Aircraft Carrier Capability
  Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether, following the early withdrawal from service of HMS "Ark Royal", they are confident that there will be no gap in aircraft carrier capability should a future carrier be delayed into service.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, before I answer the Question, I hope that the House will forgive me if I mention briefly Lord Vivian who, in the old days, would be asking the Question. He was my Front-Bench Opposition counterpart for all of the time that I have been in this job. He performed his job in a fair, gentlemanly and really gallant way. The noble Lord would never take any unfair criticism of the Armed Forces, in which he served with such distinction. The House will very much miss him.
  The decommissioning date for HMS "Ark Royal" has not been brought forward. On current plans it remains towards the end of 2013. The Government's intention is that there will be no gap in our aircraft carrier capability and that the future aircraft carriers will replace the Invincible Class ships, as expected, in a phased replacement programme. The target in-service date for the first future aircraft carrier remains 2012.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those gracious and generous word about my noble kinsman Lord Vivian. He worked tirelessly and effectively to represent the best interests of the Armed Forces. As the Minister said, the House will miss him.
  Regarding the Question, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Any gap would have serious consequences for the retention of naval and aviation skills, manpower and recruiting—and complete subordination to allied forces in operations. Can the Minister assure us that HMS "Ark Royal" and HMS "Illustrious" would be kept on in the event of delays?
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I give an assurance that we will never allow the position to develop whereby we do not have the aircraft carrier protection and force that we require. So I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
  Lord Boyce: My Lords, would the Minister add to his answer by giving us an assurance that there will be a carrier air group to go on board the carriers—the
  542
  ships? In other words will the Sea Harrier be able to run on, or will the new aircraft be available to ensure that there will not only be no gap in hulls but also no gap in carrier air group?
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I can also give the noble and gallant Lord that assurance. When the new aircraft carriers come on stream, it is essential that there is air group available because it is a crucial part of the force that it represents.
  Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, although his answer is welcome, if the public expenditure policies of the Conservative Party were put into effect it would imply a public expenditure cut in the defence budget of about £1.5 billion? If it proposes to defend the defence budget, that would mean even greater public expenditure cuts elsewhere, unless the right honourable Member for Folkestone changes his mind on public expenditure policy as rapidly as he changes his mind on participation in the Butler committee.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, having listened for a number of years to Opposition spokesmen who always genuinely ask for more resources for defence, it was a shock to the system to hear the right honourable Oliver Letwin announce his spending plans. I confirm that there would be a reduction in defence spending by having a standstill. I look forward to hearing in due course, perhaps later than sooner, where the Conservatives' defence cuts will be.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I wish to associate noble Lords on these Benches with the comments made about Lord Vivian. He cared deeply about defence and the Ministry of Defence.
  I know that an overrun is unlikely in our wonderful age of procurement, as we have not seen overruns in other fields such as aircraft or radios. However, if there was an overrun in the carrier programme, would that mean that we would have to rely on the American or French carrier fleet to plug the gap in our defence capability?
  Lord Bach: My Lords, it would not mean that at all. We have successful aircraft carriers and we will continue to have them. I look forward to hearing where the Liberal Democrat cuts in defence will come. Will they involve an aircraft carrier or two?
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, following the answer given to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, will the Minister confirm who will provide air cover on the carriers in advance of the time that the new carriers become available? There has been a suggestion that if the Sea Harriers are withdrawn it will be provided by frigates. However, there is now a suggestion that the frigate fleet may be reduced significantly. Will the noble Lord clarify the point he made about air cover for the carriers?
  Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord need not concern himself too much on that. We will always

  543
  make certain that our carrier fleet is protected. While the existing carriers are still in operation, the GR7s and GR9s will take on the role that the FA2s maintained so well for so long.

  Prisoners: Gambling Addictions
  2.42 p.m.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
  What assistance is available for prison inmates with gambling addiction problems.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, some prisons have established links with organisations such as Gamblers Anonymous and GamCare and provide assistance for prisoners with gambling addiction problems by individual referrals and occasionally through groups. The help provided is left to the initiative of individual prison establishments.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Has he seen the letter published in the latest issue of GamCare news from a gentleman who signs himself "Jack"? He is inside Wormwood Scrubs and describes in graphic detail how he went out on parole, borrowed £500 from a friend and put it on a horse which, he says, is still running. He was charged with theft and went back inside with an extended sentence. He says that had he been suffering from a drugs addiction he would have received immediate treatment, but that no similar treatment is available for gambling addiction. Will my noble friend ensure that standards are applied across the board and that as gambling addiction problems grow, as I fear they may with the passage of the proposed gambling Bill, cases such as this can be dealt with?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. My gratitude extends to him for supplying me with a copy of the letter posted to GamCare by Jack. Facilities are available in Wormwood Scrubs and I have asked officials to ensure that the services of GamCare and Gamblers Anonymous are advertised more widely within the prison estate. They provide a valuable link and valuable support to those who identify themselves as having a gambling addiction problem.
  Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, are prisoners allowed to buy lottery tickets?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, prisoners are not allowed to buy lottery tickets in prison.
  Viscount Falkland: My Lords, as all those serving sentences in prison are probably no strangers to the world of betting, should not those whose crimes have resulted directly from their pathological gambling
  544
  addiction be of most concern to us? Does the Minister have statistics showing the number of prisoners whose crime is directly related to pathological gambling?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is no great wodge of reliable statistics on this issue. However, last year Oasis carried out a new offender assessment programme and identified from an assessment questionnaire involving 711 prisoners that just 14—approximately 2 per cent—said that gambling was a problem. Three of that number said it was linked to their offending.
  I ought to add the important caveat that that was not a highly representative sample, so the figures are only indicative. But it identifies a problem, which is small by comparison with many others that prisoners bring. It indicates there is a real need and the Prison Service provides access and facilities for contact with those organisations which can provide help and support to those who suffer from a gambling addiction problem.
  Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in view of the fact that there are only 12 branches of Gamblers Anonymous in prisons, do the Government have plans to encourage the Prison Service to extend that number?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. It is important to remember that if there is an identified problem—if an individual prisoner reports it in his original assessment—the prisoner will be put in contact with Gamblers Anonymous or a similar organisation. The service is provided on demand. Some prisons provide self-help and support groups within the prison without that necessary contact first being made, but it depends on the pressure of demand. We try to ensure that there is appropriate support and care in each establishment when it is required.

  Train Overcrowding
  2.47 p.m.
  Viscount Allenby of Megiddoasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the present state of train overcrowding meets the criteria for safety of staff and passengers laid down by the Health and Safety Executive; and what action they intend to take.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive does not limit the number of passengers who can travel on trains. All train operating companies are required by their franchise agreements to address excessive crowding. Specific contractual limits are set in London and on some commuter routes into Edinburgh. Regular counts must be conducted to monitor compliance. The Strategic Rail Authority can require an action plan to be drawn up for dealing with any capacity shortfall.
  Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I am certain that many noble Lords are well aware of the efficiency, cleanliness and reliability of the train services of our continental colleagues and wonder why our trains run so badly, break down and run against time. Is it the case that resources and finance have not been put into the system to make our train services more efficient and that it is high time that more resources were allocated? Can the Minister assure the House that any improvements envisaged will be properly funded and resourced as a matter of extreme urgency?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Viscount has hit upon the salient point that there has been under-investment in our railway for several decades, and we shall not make up those deficiencies overnight. I want to bring to his attention the obviously welcome news that we are doubling investment in the railways from £2.1 billion as it was in 2001–02 to £4.3 billion in 2005–06. We are also ensuring that one-quarter of the rolling stock is replenished in the next few years. As the noble Viscount has rightly identified, the background to these improvements is the backlog to be made up.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, given that crowding on trains is a problem, is there not an even greater problem with crowding on platforms, to such an extent that Victoria station has been closed for that reason at least twice in the past month?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, crowding on platforms is a more acute problem for the London Underground than for surface trains. As the noble Baroness has indicated, there are several stations where access to the platform needs to be controlled. This is a reflection of the vastly greater use of our public transport system, demonstrated by the numbers seeking to get on our trains and Tube lines. The problem with regard to overland trains is largely restricted to where the trains are longer than the platforms at some stations. Special consideration is given to that, and it is monitored very carefully indeed, because it is an obvious safety problem.
  Viscount Tenby: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to remove the responsibility for safety on the railways from the Health and Safety Executive, and put that responsibility back—dare one say it—into the hands of the railways?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Viscount will know that the Railway Inspectorate is part of the Health and Safety Executive's responsibility, and it is incorporated in that body. We are satisfied that railway safety issues are properly addressed. These issues are monitored by those people who have experience of our railways.
  Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is clear under the Health and Safety at
  546
  Work etc. Act 1974 that it is the responsibility of the railway operators to implement all health and safety obligations themselves?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is right; it is the responsibility of the operating companies. The original Question related to crowding. I make clear to the House that crowding is of great concern to our fellow citizens in terms of comfort and well-being on trains. It is not a particular safety concern. There is no indication that rail safety is compromised or that injuries are occasioned significantly by crowding on trains.
  Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's last statement. Health and safety is not compromised, but there is grotesque overcrowding in a lot of our provincial cities, and it is not through lack of funding; it is due to the way that the money is spent. Will the Government address the subject of how the money devoted to our railways is being spent? It is a huge sum of money. Although the Minister speaks of more money being spent, value for money and the relief of overcrowding —which is the job of the SRA—need to be addressed.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise that the noble Lord speaks with considerable experience on these matters. The Government are not prepared to see these large sums of public investment in the railways being used ineffectually. We are concerned about exactly the issue that he stated: the question of the value for money of this investment. We are carrying out a review—which will be concluded in June—of the overall structure and control of the railway system, to ensure that we have effective management to match the increased resources.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if animals were subjected to the same level of overcrowding in transport as human beings are in the train service in this country, that would almost certainly be in breach of European regulations?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have heard that point made on a number of occasions. I would not want to underestimate at all the discomfort caused—largely for commuters, but not solely for commuters—by excessive crowding, particularly on our peak travel services. That is why we are addressing the issue with these significant infusions of public money.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that as the nation seems to get fatter and fatter, the seats on our trains get thinner and thinner? Can he, as part of the this review, ensure that when new rolling stock is commissioned, rather than the train operators seeking to push as many people as possible into confined spaces, the operators will be reminded that the benefit of train travel is that we actually travel in comfort?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an interesting question, and I am grateful to my noble

  547
  friend for asking it. He is right that train design is subject to the most minute calculations in order to use the available space in the most effective way possible. The new rolling stock coming on stream is designed to improve the quality of the passenger experience, but that is measured overwhelmingly in one facet—the reliability of the train arriving on time at its pick-up points and its destination. That is why we must ensure that the ever-growing numbers of the travelling public are carried punctually by our trains.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister spoke of value for money. Does he think that the leasing charges charged by the rolling stock companies to the train operating companies amount to good value for money? I understand that some of them are as high as 20 or 25 per cent of the value of the train per annum.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, several figures on the supposed profitability of these companies have been bandied about in recent months, and some of them are wildly exaggerated. Nevertheless, it is important that they give value for money. That is the role of the Rail Regulator, who has not felt the need to call into question the operating and charging systems of these companies, but would undoubtedly do so if he thought that excessive profits were being made.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, can my noble friend assure me that the Government will not resort to the policy of their predecessors when dealing with the problem of' overcrowding and attempt to choke off demand for rail travel by fare increases far above the rate of inflation? He may recall that during one year in the 1970s fares rose on four occasions, putting the rate of fare increases far above the inflation rate of the time. Is it not much more sensible to invest in new capacity and to cope with the demands of' the travelling public who want to travel by train in a safe and efficient way?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because it is recognised that wider society benefits from greater use of rail, which is the safest form of travel and the most convenient means of access to our city centres. We need this investment to guarantee that the journey is a good deal more comfortable than it is for some of our citizens at present.
  Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that fares went up so rapidly and to such a high level in the 1970s because throughout the 1970s first the Conservative government and then the Labour government continued between them to raise money by cutting the investment programme seven times in six years?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who also has enormous experience of the railways, has been even-handed in his comment on
  548
  previous governments with regard to past fare rises. He was kept only by the brevity of our questions from adding that this Government are investing more heavily in the rail system than any other.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, is it not time that we ended the anachronism of first-class compartments, particularly on short-haul commuter travel? Nothing more enrages the commuter than being jammed in against the door of an empty first-class compartment.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not speaking from bitter experience. It is for the train operating companies to judge whether they can raise sufficient revenue from their first-class provision. The noble Lord will recognise that the amount of such provision on commuter trains is limited. With the new rolling stock, it is likely to be even more limited, for the very factors that he identified.

  Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy
  3 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will review the scientific validity of Munchausen syndrome by proxy and factitious or induced illness and the protocols by which these conditions are diagnosed.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government have not initiated a review of the scientific validity of Munchausen syndrome by proxy and factitious or induced illness or the protocols by which these conditions are diagnosed. Our inter-agency guidance was published only in 2002, alongside the report of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. It sets out clear procedures for all agencies to follow and evidence-based decisions should be taken at each stage of the process by a multi-agency, multi-professional team.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I very much regret the Minister's reply. We of course welcome the review of the care and criminal cases now being conducted, but the underlying cause of many of those injustices is a diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. That has tragically deprived many parents of their children and led to parents being gaoled. Will the Government consider the more fundamental issue of whether that diagnosis—which is still given credence in both Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills documents—is fundamentally flawed?
  Lord Warner: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to paragraph 1.3 of the Department of Health's 2002 guidance, which I mentioned in my Answer. That will enlighten him on the fact that fabricating or inducing illness in children is referred to by a large number of names and that a variety of terms

  549
  are used to describe circumstances and clinical conditions relating to child abuse. We are trying to deal with the key issue, which is safeguarding vulnerable children.
  Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as the Minister will agree, this is an exceptionally difficult and sensitive issue. There have even been suggestions in press reports that Munchausen syndrome by proxy does not exist. I well recall, from my personal practice many years ago, that a child of four was referred to my neurological department in Newcastle, having been admitted to a hospital in Cumbria on six occasions for unexplained attacks of coma. It was only when he was able to tell us that, when he was noisy or naughty, his mother attached a tube to the gas pipe, put it in his mouth and turned on the gas until he had calmed down, that we realised that that was a case of Munchausen disease by proxy.
  Regrettably, there are such cases, and their recognition depends on the most careful assessment by paediatricians and others. It is important to recognise that it exists and that the protection of children is one of the most crucial aspects of the problem.
  Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his extremely authoritative remarks on the matter, to which we should all pay careful attention. As I said, the key is not what term we use to describe a wide range of different types of child abuse, but how we protect children. Paragraph 1.4 of the Department of Health's 2002 guidance makes that absolutely clear.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whether or not Munchausen syndrome by proxy exists, the guidelines issued by the Department of Health two years ago contain almost no reference to the serious risk of misdiagnosing that condition and the grave consequences that can ensue—as evidenced by recent criminal cases? In view of that, is it not now appropriate for the Department of Health to review those guidelines?
  Lord Warner: My Lords, the key point is how we protect our vulnerable children through the child protection procedures. The whole basis of those procedures is that we bring the evidence and information from a wide variety of professionals together into a case conference to discuss and produce the most appropriate response. The noble Earl raises a separate set of issues, but that does not undermine the basic fact that multi-agency, multi-disciplinary work is the key to success in child protection.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is Munchausen syndrome, with or without proxy, classified as a personality disorder? What is the best means of treating it? Is it not important that a review is carried out on the whole subject?
  Lord Warner: My Lords, I am happy to look into whether it appears in international classifications, but I repeat that this area of factitious and induced illnesses
  550
  among children covers a wide range of circumstances. Concentrating on the term "Munchausen syndrome by proxy" distracts us from the important issue of protecting children.
  Lord Blackwell: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, although the welfare of children must obviously come first, there is widespread concern in the country at large about the ability of designated experts to take decisions that affect children and parents, with little power for ordinary people to appeal in a sensible manner? Will he consider introducing an appeal process that involves lay people taking a view on what has been diagnosed?
  Lord Warner: My Lords, I can speak from my personal experience of running a large social services department. As I said, the key is bringing the information together on a multi-agency basis in a case conference. That can often involve a lot of information about parents involved in those cases. The care proceedings always go through the courts, so that there is judicial involvement before children are removed from their parents.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, are the Government considering a new term to define that kind of child abuse, given the difficult position in which paediatricians find themselves when trying to protect abused children, when the people on whom they depend for a history are the very people who have probably perpetrated the abuse? A total of 451 cases have been described in 154 different psycho-social and medical journals recently, published in more than nine different languages. So this is a worldwide problem. Another term might be more helpful to define such child abuse in future, because of the difficult position for paediatricians.
  Lord Warner: My Lords, the term that I was using was fabricated and induced illnesses; and I stand by that term.

  Pensions
  3.7 p.m.
  Baroness Greengrossasked Her Majesty's Government:
  What action they are taking to deal with the backlog in the payment of state pensions.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, prospective pensioners are sent application forms four months ahead of their expected retirement date. Nationally, we are on target in meeting their claims. However, for complex or sensitive cases—for example, widows and divorcees approaching retirement, who may have issues concerning using their ex-husbands' national insurance records, and so on; or existing pensioners who become bereaved—there is a temporary backlog

  551
  at the Newcastle centre that will be overcome within three months. Even then, people should still continue to receive their money.
  Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reassuring reply, but it is obviously unacceptable for so many people to wait a long time for their state pension to be calculated. Why has the delay occurred? Are there people who are not now receiving the money to which they are entitled? Has the department notified advice agencies such as Age Concern about those problems?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it is not acceptable that people should have any worries about relying on payments that are due to them—especially if they have gone through difficult and fragile circumstances. We must certainly not add to that, so I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.
  As I understand it, the reason for the delays has been that some work—largely, converting existing order books into direct payment methods—was temporarily moved out of the 26 regional pension centres to the main centre in Newcastle while the local centres were bedding-in pension credit. As that work will shortly return to regional centres and as we have employed an additional 100 staff in Newcastle, I hope and expect to overcome that problem within the next couple of months.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, has the Minister listened to the BBC "Money Box" programme, which apparently rang up the department and was told that the number of people not getting their pension on time was six times higher than it was two or three years ago. Currently there are something over 30,000 people not getting pensions on time. Will these people receive compensation? If not, will they receive interest payments, bearing in mind that some of them are being paid six months late?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I read the transcript of the "Money Box" programme. There will always be some situations where people get paid late. We ask people to notify us four months ahead when we send the papers out. Our target is to turn those claims around within two months in standard cases and within three months in complicated or difficult cases. If someone sends their papers in late or if the information is incomplete—perhaps because they are migrant workers where translation is needed—or if the case is complicated because we may be adding together a former husband's national insurance records and current records, there will be some cases that run late. However, that 30,000 figure is now down to 16,000 and coming down by 4,000 a month. We shall be through the backlog by June. New cases coming through are not being added to the backlog, but handled by staff in the ordinary way.
  552
  Should there be any problems about payments, we can and do make interim payments. We have the help of the advice agencies in doing that. Should there be any evidence of maladministration, obviously we will make payments to meet that.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, do they receive interest if they are paid six months late in the same way that a taxpayer who pays late is charged interest?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that, given the current interest rate, interest on the difference between a 60 per cent basic state pension and a 100 per cent state pension over six months will come to a very small sum. However, we certainly could make ex gratia payments in those circumstances.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the idea of writing to four-fifths of pensioners before the new package was introduced was the right strategy? Would not the Government's current approach have been better and quicker? Have they any model for the introduction of new, more complicated benefits given the level of illiteracy in our population?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's criticism. With hindsight one should have made greater provision for the expected backlog at Newcastle as a result of some work that was normally handled in regional centres going to the special centre at Newcastle which deals with complicated cases. My view is that had we foreseen the backlog, staff would have been employed earlier. However, apart from complicated cases, that even without a backlog may still run late, I repeat that I have no evidence that people are not being paid when they should be. We may not meet our targets but we still get the money out providing people get their forms back in the time allowed. As a result, nobody should suffer from not having the money to which they are entitled.

  Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
  3.12 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  The Bill has two main purposes. First, it addresses the Government's remaining involvement in the financing and administration of horseracing. Specifically, it allows for the sale of the Horserace Totalisator Board and the abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. Secondly, if London is chosen to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Bill allows dedicated lottery games to be established as part of the National Lottery. The proceeds from these will be used to meet expenditure in connection with the staging of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
  I am glad that so many noble Lords with experience and expertise in these areas will speak today. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, no doubt will contribute on the horserace aspects of the Bill.

  553
  However, we particularly look forward to his contribution on the Olympic bid and the necessary financial support for that.
  Turning to the detail of the Bill, Part 1 concerns the sale and dissolution of the Horserace Totalisator Board, the Tote. It provides for the vesting of the Tote's assets in a successor company wholly owned by the Crown and then the subsequent sale of that company. It also makes provision for the Secretary of State to require the Gaming Board to issue a seven-year licence to conduct pool betting on horse races. In the event that a seven-year licence is not issued or once the licence period comes to an end, the Bill provides for the future regulation of horserace pool betting by the Gaming Board. If during the licence period Parliament approves our plans to reform the general law on gambling, it will be for the new gambling commission to take over the job of regulation.
  The Bill before the House today will therefore enable the Government to deliver our commitment to sell the Tote to a racing trust and to do so in a way which is fair both to racing and to the taxpayer. In the course of my research I found out where the word -Tote" originated. Apparently "totalisator" is an Australian word for a complicated calculating machine which enabled pool betting to be developed. For that discovery I was grateful. I hope the House is too.
  The Tote was established in 1928 with an exclusive right to operate, or authorise others to operate, pool betting on horseracing in Great Britain. It was set up to provide an alternative to fixed-odds betting and to benefit horseracing. The Tote's profits over and above those required for reinvestment remain within racing, primarily through its contribution to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, payments to racecourses and its sponsorship programme. However, the Tote's present status as a public body is no longer appropriate or necessary. It is now an organisation with commercial ambitions that are likely to be inhibited by the financial constraints and accountability of the public sector.
  In March 1999 a review recommended that the whole of the Tote business should be sold as a single entity. The Government agreed and in March 2000 announced its intention to sell the Tote to a consortium representing British horseracing interests. As many of your Lordships will be aware from debates in another place, the Bill is drafted to give the Secretary of State discretion over to whom the Tote is sold. As we have stated on numerous occasions—I am happy to repeat it today—we intend to sell the Tote to a racing trust. However, we do not wish to specify details of the purchaser on the face of this Bill only to waste valuable parliamentary time bringing the issue back to Parliament if, for some unforeseen reasons, we are obliged to sell it in a different way.
  On the issue of the Tote's exclusive licence post-sale, we firmly believe it is in the public interest to open up the pool betting market to effective competition in the long term. We also believe a reasonable period of preparation is necessary to ensure that racing continues
  554
  to receive a reliable income stream from the Tote after its sale. Opening up the market benefits the public in terms of consumer choice and protection and benefits the betting market by safeguarding a competitive pool. That is why we announced on 27 November 2003 that, if we succeed with our plans to sell the Tote to a racing trust, we will issue the Tote's successor with an exclusive licence to operate pool betting on British racing for seven years. The seven-year figure now appears on the face of the Bill. This will give complete certainty to the racing industry, to the Tote and to Members of both Houses.
  This licence will not be extended and at the end of the seven-year transitional period, there will be a new regulatory regime that will also allow other bookmakers to provide pool betting. This regulatory regime is modelled on that which regulates the existing operation of pool betting on greyhound tracks, contained in Schedule 5 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
  The Bill seeks to strike the right balance between providing a sensible level of certainty for racing and introducing a welcome element of competition into the pool betting market. I hope that noble Lords agree that it is the best way forward for racing, the betting industry and punters.
  I turn now to the abolition of the Levy Board. Part 2 of the Bill makes provision for the abolition of the horserace betting levy system, which includes the Levy Board and its associated levy appeals tribunals. It provides for the transfer of the Levy Board's assets and for the Gaming Board to take over from the Levy Board the function of approving racecourses.
  The Government undertook two consultation exercises in March and November 2000 to consider whether a statutory system for the funding of horseracing was necessary. While the levy has served a very useful purpose in the past 40 years, it is no longer appropriate to have a statutory scheme of that kind. It should not be for the Government or another body to dictate how much bookmakers should pay racing for the use of its product.
  The Bill will enable the Government to withdraw from their statutory involvement in the administration and financing of horseracing. We have taken steps to safeguard the important work that the Levy Board does to support veterinary research and the improvement of breeds of horses. We have always made it clear that the important work done by the Levy Board will not be neglected when it is abolished. We seek to ensure that these are maintained to at least current levels after the abolition of the Levy Board.
  We accept that the OFT inquiry has cast a shadow over commercial agreements based on the sale of racing data and media rights between the racing and betting industries. That is why we have announced that we will retain the Levy Board until September 2006. By that time, the final results of the OFT inquiry will be known, any outstanding legal action should have been resolved and, if necessary, new commercial agreements should be in place.

  555
  The other main area of the Bill is the Olympic lottery. Part 3 enables dedicated Olympic lottery games to be established as part of the national lottery in the event that London—of course, we all hope that it will be so—is chosen to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It also creates the necessary structures for holding the proceeds from these lottery games and a distribution mechanism that will enable the proceeds to be used to meet expenditure in connection with the staging of the 2012 Olympics.
  Only the wide-ranging benefits, the wholly exceptional scale and the one-off nature of staging the Olympics justify a separate funding scheme from the normal sports lottery. Staging the Olympic and Paralympic Games would lead to significant benefits extending across the United Kingdom. The Olympics has the potential to leave a lasting legacy of community facilities across the country, to inspire greater participation in sport and to increase the medal success of our elite athletes.
  Sport and the benefits of sport are not the only reasons for bidding. A London Olympics would also have a positive impact on investment, tourism and regeneration, leaving a lasting positive economic and cultural legacy for the whole of the United Kingdom. The establishment of new Olympic lottery games will be the first time that the national lottery has been dedicated to a specific cause in this way. People will be able to buy a ticket and know that revenues will go straight to the costs of staging the 2012 United Kingdom Olympic and Paralympic Games.
  Some people will choose to play Olympic lottery games instead of the existing national lottery games. However, Olympic lottery games, as part of a wider strategy for growth, have the potential to invigorate interest in the lottery in general and therefore benefit all the existing good causes. It is envisaged that new Olympic lottery games, as provided for in the Bill, would generate an estimated £750 million towards an overall £2.375 billion public package for the games. That total includes a substantial contingency.
  In addition to the £750 million from new Olympic lottery games, £340 million will be sought from the existing sports lottery distributors. How that is spent will be a matter of discussion with those bodies. Should it be required, up to a further £410 million could be met by changing the percentage shares going to the existing good causes after 2009. The balance of the £2.375 billion funding package will be met by money raised through a London council tax and, if required, funding from the London Development Agency. It is right that as a leading beneficiary, London should bear its share of the costs.
  Broadly speaking, the intention is that lottery funding should be directed to sports investment, Olympic facilities and events staging. Money raised from the Olympic council tax should address the capital requirements of the games, including transport infrastructure. The Bill will establish an Olympic lottery distributor to make grants and loans in connection with staging the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games if
  556
  London's bid is successful. The new distributor would be lean and focused with minimal bureaucracy and a small and expert board. A separate distributor is essential to ensure that effective and informed decisions are taken on Olympic expenditure.
  Everyone working on the bid believes that we have a very strong chance of success. London 2012 will be working to ensure that an extremely high standard bid meets all the criteria. So far it has done an excellent job. We are grateful for the efforts made. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for the immense support that the bid has received in this House so far. That support is vital to giving us the very best chance of winning and making the Games a resounding success.
  I look forward to the debate. When I wind up, I shall do my best to respond to the points made. In summary, as a result of the changes we are bringing forward in the Bill, the Government will no longer have direct involvement in the administration and financing of horseracing. Instead, racing will take responsibility for its own affairs and financing. In addition, if, as we all hope, London is successful in its bid to be selected host city for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Bill makes provision for Olympic lottery games to be established. They will make a significant contribution towards the staging costs of the Games.
  This Bill is a further demonstration of the Government's commitment to do everything possible to bring the Olympic Games to London. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
  3.28 p.m.
  Lord Wakeham: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for setting out the objectives of the Bill with such clarity for the benefit of us all. We appreciate that. Secondly, I should declare my various interests, which, as far as I am concerned, look rather like a history book. I used to be a director of the Tote. For a number of years, I was chairman of the British Horseracing Board. For more than 30 years, from time to time I have been a modest owner of racehorses and a great lover of racing. But I very rarely bet.
  I shall confine my remarks to the proposals for the Tote. I welcome the Bill, which, in effect, will nationalise the Tote prior to it being sold, we hope, to the Racing Trust. It is a technique that is not unknown. If I am right, it is the technique used when we were in government to deal with the problems of the Trustee Savings Bank; at the time, it was not absolutely clear who owned it.
  When I was chairman of the British Horseracing Board, a key objective was that the Tote should continue to be run for the benefit of racing. We would have preferred being given the opportunity to acquire the Tote, but in my view the Government's proposals go firmly in the right direction and they have my support.
  I have every confidence in the management of the Tote under the chairmanship of my old friend Peter Jones. He and his team are doing an excellent job in a very competitive world. I am delighted that my noble

  557
  friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow is sitting in his place today. But for him we probably would not have a Tote to transfer to the benefit of racing. It was his initiative in the early 1970s which led to the introduction of a Bill to allow the Tote to engage in wider pool betting than just on course, which was an absolutely vital part of the finances of the Tote. It would have been a disaster without it. I hope that my noble friend can reflect on 30 years of a job well done.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I say to my noble friend that the Bill belonged to the Home Secretary although I had the responsibility of taking it through Parliament. We had to pass it because at that stage the Tote was in financial difficulties. I hope that nothing in this Bill is going to damage the financial future of the Tote as an important part of the racing scene.
  Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that we can all share those sentiments. I also believe that the Government are right in the way in which they have set up the shadow Racing Trust. I have every confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and in my noble friend Lady Noakes, who will be key members of the trust in getting the process through correctly.
  Having said that, I hope that the Racing Trust and the Tote will continue to be a force for good in what I call the minefield of internal racing politics. Racing is made up overwhelmingly of decent, likeable people, full of knowledge and experience of their sport. They realise that it is a very big industry with over 100,000 people employed in it. Six million racegoers attend race meetings every year at 59 different racecourses. It is a substantial industry and much bigger than a good many others. It has a massive amount of uncertainty. As I hinted, I fear that it gets itself into scrapes from time to time which it could have avoided.
  There are one or two further uncertainties in this Bill. There is the uncertainty about the seven years' exclusive licence and the price which the Government will demand for the Tote, which in the eyes of many will be too little and in the eyes of others will be too much, and the associated problems if for some reason the Government feel compelled to sell to someone other than the Racing Trust.
  Seven years for the exclusive licence seems to me to be about right. I do not underestimate the struggle that must have taken place within the Government to get agreement. But after seven years we cannot wash our hands of any issues which may remain. I do not expect the Government to say anything about that at this stage, but I hope that they will give it some thought, even if on a contingency basis.
  There is also the price. I suspect that the Government will find that there will be higher bids on the table than the Racing Trust is able to pay. If, quite rightly, they want to sell to the Racing Trust, the Government may find themselves in legal battles which they would prefer to avoid. Therefore, the Government may find it in their own best interests to have a clause in the Bill which
  558
  compels them to return to Parliament in the event that they are under great pressure to sell to someone other than the Racing Trust. I hope they will think about that.
  The whole climate of this Bill and the exercise may be overshadowed by the OFT challenge and the implications of the winding up of the levy, which is currently concerning many people in racing. However, I do not believe that these problems are insoluble. This is not the time or place to rehearse comprehensive solutions although they exist. I believe that the racing industry increasingly recognises that private negotiations are more likely to yield results than high profile public debates which merely harden attitudes. I wish the Bill well.
  3.34 p.m.
  Lord Addington: My Lords. I shall make most of my comments about the second part of the Bill relating to the proposed Olympic lottery. We approve of the aims of both parts of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Falkland will speak with considerably more knowledge than I have about the second part of the Bill. We approve of the sale of the Tote to a trust for the benefit of racing.
  My main home is now just outside Lambourn and at the top of the valley of the race horse. It is an area which I knew initially through my wife. In earlier days we used to walk around the area. I was struck by the number of horses wandering around with people of a stature rather different from mine sitting on them. My wife is rather a good horsewoman. She would say to me, "That horse will do for you". She would point to a field in which there would be a huge animal looking like a horse but, I suspect, related to a brontosaurus, either knocking over a tree or eating a hedge. She would say, "You could learn to ride on one of those". I would describe my reaction to the suggestion as being short, negative and in the vernacular. That is about as much as I know and am ever likely to know about racing.
  It is time that we glanced at the history of the lottery which is used for supporting fun. I looked up the initial actions taken as regards the lottery. Having a lottery or part of a lottery that will presumably be sold to the entire nation and not just to London—perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that point when he comes to reply—is probably a step forward.
  I looked up the initial debate in this House which took place just under 12 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was in his place a moment ago. I believe that he took part in that debate. We heard that there were four good causes. I remember that initially there were supposed to be three and charities were put on the edge. We have sliced into a large cake vigorously over the years.
  I believe that on our Benches support was given initially because there was supposed to be additional funding to government money. That has fallen by the wayside with greater rapidity than anyone ever suspected. When there is a good cause reference is made to the national lottery, which has been described as a voluntary tax on the gullible, and the suggestion is then made that a slice should be taken from it.

  559
  With that in mind, I hope that the Government will make sure that they have their eye on the main task and ensure that the Olympic lottery takes place if we win the bid. It would not be necessary if sport had more of the money which the lottery was designed to raise. We shall have to create good stadiums for people to train throughout the country. If we had invested more in sport and ensured that funding was available for the groups it was designed for initially, we probably would not need to ask everyone for so much money. The main criticism will be about the other good causes which have been tagged onto the back of lottery funding. To criticise them is a little like asking whether one is against research for finding a cure for cancer. Who could possibly be against that?
  Initially, we had additional funding and not something which substituted government funding for universities and medical facilities. I hope that the Government will ensure that the idea of a legacy is worked well into the structure and planning of the funding. They should ensure that that legacy is directed to the Olympics and beyond, as mentioned in the government literature, so that we do not have the ridiculous situation of further slicing of the cake, and so that we ensure that we can go on.
  On sports medicine, if we are to get our nation active again we should recognise that repairing an elite-level hockey player's knee after a fall, for example, is the same as treating someone injured while kicking a football about on a Sunday. Non-elite athletes may not heal so quickly but the structure and mechanics involved are the same. Can the Government assure us that those projects will be set in place and that they will fit into what already exists? That is what I am calling for.
  I could discuss in great detail many other aspects of the problem that we are inheriting because of what has not been done or what has been moved away from. I shall leave noble Lords with this thought: unless we get absolutely right the sporting structures and cash in on the cultural good will that will remain, the idea of a legacy will be greatly reduced. Can the Government assure me that they plan to bring the new funding into line with the previous system and to merge them together? Can they further assure me that there will not be chipping away at the edges if we get slightly too much money, for instance, and that it will go towards the whole sporting infrastructure? If the Government can guarantee that, they may repair some of the damage caused by their simply saying, "We do not want to up taxes, let us take another slice of the lottery".
  3.41 p.m.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, at the outset I am sure that all noble Lords would like to say how exciting the prospect of the Olympic Games in London is. It is a possibility—we hope that it is more than that—that we must all relish. It would do a tremendous amount for London, the United Kingdom and the morale of the nation, and we must hope that it succeeds. In view of
  560
  what I am about to say—it will be very much in furtherance of the interesting arguments developed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—I should stress that I am an honorary officer and trustee of a number of voluntary and charitable organisations. Today I want to speak about their concerns.
  I add in parentheses that more than 50 years ago I took a step regarding my own political future that has led to my being on these Benches today. One of the reasons that I took that step is that I believed in a society that got right the balance between private affluence and public expenditure, and believed that taxation, for example, was the membership fee of society. I believed that we should have wholesome and imaginative debates about what we wanted to do as a society, and then be prepared to fund them directly from taxation. That is a much bigger argument, but it is one that begins to go by default. It is time that we took the opportunity—in this House, perhaps, if nowhere else—to re-examine the principle of where in important national priorities we should strike the balance between the responsibility of direct taxation and other means of financing what we as a society want to do.
  The National Council of Voluntary Organisations is a very important gathering of all the principal active voluntary organisations in the country. It also has many smaller organisations in its ranks. Therefore, when the NCVO speaks powerfully, it is important to take seriously the arguments that it advances. The NCVO has prepared very interesting brief on the Bill. I do not, therefore, apologise for spending time referring to some of the salient points in that brief, as they are well researched and well put. The NCVO has profound doubts about the ability of the new Olympic lottery games to raise the estimated £750 million required to stage the Olympics, in addition to that which is committed to be raised for the existing good causes. It seems highly probable that such new games will eat into sales of other games thereby reducing returns to the existing good causes.
  The regulatory impact assessment of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill suggests that 59 per cent of the estimated £750 million to be raised by Olympic lottery games over their seven-year lifespan might come from sales diversion from existing games. Based on 2005–06 income forecasts, that would have an annual reduction to good causes of some £64 million, from a highpoint of £450 million in 1999–2000. Taking into account the decline in ticket sales over recent years, that would leave the community fund with only £198 million in 2005–06.
  The NCVO is also concerned about the powers in the Bill to permit the Culture Secretary to transfer funds from the National Lottery Fund to the Olympic Lottery Fund. The NCVO assumes that those powers would be used if the Olympic Lottery games failed to raise the required £750 million, or if the contingency of £410 million were required for any other reason. If that happened, it would further reduce returns to existing good causes. At present, a 12 per cent duty applies to each lottery ticket, bringing in some £549 million per

  561
  year. The original rationale for that was to compensate the Treasury for duty lost from other forms of gambling as people switched to playing the lottery.
  The NCVO argues that the original rationale for that 12 per cent duty has become questionable because of recent changes in how other gambling activities are taxed and the growth that the market has since experienced. It believes that the time is now right to reassess the use to which that money is put, and suggests that the overriding aim should be to maximise return to good causes. In that context, the NCVO proposes that half of the tax take should be redirected into the lottery prize fund for mainstream games, thus helping to reinvigorate the lottery with more and bigger prizes, and in the long term increasing returns to good causes. The remaining half of the tax should then he redirected to the existing good causes in the same proportions as the proceeds from lottery gains. That would help to maintain returns to the existing good causes when Olympic lottery games are introduced, and it would go some way to protecting against the impact of a 59 per cent sales diversion from mainstream games to Olympic lottery games.
  That brings us to the Culture Secretary's powers to transfer lottery funds. The NCVO believes that the powers to permit the Secretary of State to make payments from the National Lottery Distribution Fund into the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund set an unnecessary and worrying precedent. It proposes that the Secretary of State should instead be given powers to transfer unclaimed lottery prizes into the Olympic Lottery Fund. Total unclaimed prizes were worth more than £590 million at the end of 2003. That compares with the contingency of £410 million that would otherwise come from the National Lottery Distribution Fund after 2009, if that was required. The NCVO's proposal would allow for such a contingency without the need to raid the good causes. Unclaimed prizes are currently distributed to the existing good causes in the usual proportions. That money is additional to the 28 pence in each lottery pound that they already receive. In effect, it is a bonus.
  In preparing to take this Bill forward for this immensely important objective of the Olympic Games in London, I hope that the Government will take very seriously the considered and careful analysis by the NCVO of what, no doubt unintentionally, the adverse implications may be for the voluntary and charitable sector. I hope that my noble friend, on behalf of the Government, will be able to say very specific reassuring things about this matter in his winding-up speech; and that, as the proceedings on the Bill go forward, specific amendments—where necessary—may be brought forward by the Government to meet some of the genuine anxieties that exist.
  3.50 p.m.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, as a former Member of Parliament for a London constituency. I join the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in expressing enthusiasm for our Olympic bid. I am old enough to have taken an informed interest in the 1948 Olympics, for which, of course, we volunteered rather
  562
  than applied. I shall speak about the first three parts of the Bill in that order, though reasonably briefly in each case.
  As for Part 1 on the Tote and its future, though a regular Tote customer on course, I am not qualified to speak in depth. I can still recall with pleasure the late Lord Woodrow Wyatt's annual lunches, though I doubt if I have to declare a retrospective gastronomic interest. I recall with even more pleasure his annual speeches thereupon. My other incidental Tote pleasure has lain in attending Arab horse racing, not in the Gulf but on the spacious racecourse attached to the Royal Artillery camp at Larkhill.
  Those of your Lordships who read 50 or so years ago the novel Mountolive by Lawrence Durrell—the third in that particular Mediterranean Quartet—will recall the marvellous description of a duckshoot in Egypt attended by the eponymous Mountolive, either the British ambassador or the commissioner, I cannot recall which. Some flavour of that Egyptian scene is mutatis mutandis transferred to the Larkhill course even if the purpose of the event is different. The occasional British spectators at Larkhill who are ignorant of the general Arab horse racing scene recognise fairly early on that the data which underlay Damon Runyan's famous aphorism put into the mouth of one of his more memorable characters—that the race is not always to the swiftest but that's the way to bet—are not so readily available in that exotic racing niche, but a worthwhile proxy is to see which Arab horses the more experienced jockeys have chosen to ride.
  If you ignore Damon Runyan altogether, and perversely turn the proxy alternative upside down by going for the outsiders, the Tote affords one the ineffable pleasure of seeing that more than £200 of potential winnings are available on first place for a particular outsider because you are the only person on the course who is backing that horse. It is, with experience, a temporary and expensive boost to one's ego, but briefly extremely pleasurable.
  On Part 2, the abolition of the horse race betting levy system, I suppose I should declare an interest as being related to my noble kinsman Viscount Brookeborough, for it was his side of our family that in 1934, also in Egypt, created the Brooke Hospital for Horses. Mentioning that interest is prompted by the letter others of your Lordships may have received from the League Against Cruel Sports evincing its concern about the welfare of a minority of retiring and retired race horses which may be affected by the abolition of the levy and thus its welfare contribution without cast-iron guarantees being expressed either by Ministers or in the Bill. However, that issue is for Committee. Incidentally, I am not in any way raising this issue in order to imply that horse racing is a cruel sport.
  I am more concerned by the anxiety expressed by the British Horseracing Board that if in the autumn of this year the European Court of Justice were to overturn the High Court judgment in support of the British Horseracing Board's database rights, which was referred to the ECJ by the Court of Appeal—and I should declare an interest in that my brother sits in that court—racing's ability to provide an adequate and sustainable

  563
  commercial replacement for the levy would suffer serious repercussions. Like others of your Lordships, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in further comment on that.
  On Part 3, the national lottery and Olympic lotteries, I can comment most, at least at the generic level. I am delighted that the Government are seeking legislative cover for this project or projects. Because I was the "master mason" of the National Lottery etc. Act in 1993—I would not dream of calling myself an architect of it, though you could staff a decent-sized architectural practice with those who might make that claim—I was particularly preoccupied in the lottery's early days to sustain on behalf of the Government both the arm's length principle and the principle of additionality. I think it surprised the first holder of Oflot—I always personally regretted that his initials were not AER since he would then have become "AEROFLOT"—that I never showed the remotest interest in Oflot's progress in selecting the winner of the lottery licence competition until he told me who had won late on the eve of announcing the winner on the morrow, but I was anxious to stand absolutely apart from what was not my business. I mean no criticism of the then Prime Minister, but I did personally regret the moment when, understandably from his own enthusiasms, which I myself shared, he said that the sports distributor of lottery funds would support the new cricket academy, for that did imply some degree of ministerial intervention.
  I am, however, a little concerned about the implications of the new lottery purpose for the level of other funding of good causes, and in that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. When we were rolling the pitch for the national lottery in the autumn and winter of 1992, concern was expressed by the NCVO that charities would suffer from funds that in a pre-lottery era might have come to them direct, being diverted instead by democratic choice to other good lottery causes and thus diluted. Our only direct paradigm for this particular dilemma at that stage was Ireland, and the evidence there was ambiguous because of the way it chose to distribute the residual proceeds of its lottery.
  We did, however, have a medium-term solution—an annual debate, if Parliament wished it, which could by statutory instrument have changed the precise lottery distributor shares, and the long stop—in due course—of the disappearance of the Millennium Commission and the availability of its share for redistribution including possibly to charities.
  The incoming Government in 1997 decided to change the distribution pattern through primary legislation. I regretted that this was sustained by a consultation dominated by other producer interests who understandably supported a redistribution to themselves. I subsequently had misgivings about the Government telling me of ventures in my constituency which the New Opportunities Fund had decided to support before the New Opportunities Fund told me so itself. That also smacked of too much government intervention.
  564
  However, that is all in the past. It is a privilege to be followed in this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, to whose speech I look forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, foreshadowed in his speech, however, I am alarmed to see that the same anxieties that the NCVO expressed in 1992–93 are now being repeated by that organisation again a dozen years later in the context of this legislation. I am not aware of its having directly briefed me, but I was aware that the issue arose. I am not particularly attracted by any of the solutions suggested by the NCVO, but it implied further manipulations of the lottery which endanger yet again the principle of additionality, though the arm's length principle is more substantially protected by this Bill.
  I will utter one brief footnote to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, where he said that the 12p that the Treasury takes was to compensate for other gaming or gambling betting expenditure being switched into the lottery. The 12 per cent is a minor matter of history but was decided upon by my noble friend Lord Lamont, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself in a room with no other official present. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is not present so I am the only witness who can describe the event—that was how the figure was reached. The degree of precision—in terms of compensating the Treasury for previous expenditure—was not really gone into.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can we place on the record his charitable good will towards the interests of the Treasury, together with those of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont?
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. One of the potential beneficiaries of the lottery thought that I had won a significant victory. I told that beneficiary privately that it was a quite exceptional mistake to air that view because if the Treasury felt that it had not taken enough, it would certainly want to secure its revenge. However, the figure was reached between the two of us in private.
  The Minister and, possibly, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will have a chance to tell us more about this subject at a later stage. All in all, the Committee stage of this Bill promises to be both interesting and potentially rewarding if the draft gambling Bill and its prolonged pre-legislative scrutiny releases some of us in time to participate.
  Finally, as the only member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to be taking part in this debate, I hope that the Government will look favourably on our observations on this Bill.
  4.1 p.m.
  Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I shall declare two interests. The first is as a part owner of an extremely unsuccessful steeplechaser. That is not of concern to noble Lords, especially if I offer a tip for when he next

  565
  runs. My most important interest is my position as chair of the largest of the lottery distributors, the New Opportunities Fund.
  The first point I want to make is that the good causes support London's bid for the 2012 Olympic Games. A range of New Opportunity Fund programmes across the United Kingdom will support community-based projects linked to the Olympic bid and we believe that the interest in that bid will inspire greater participation in sport and physical activity. We are all concerned about encouraging the people of the United Kingdom to take more exercise.
  All at the New Opportunities Fund understand that the implications of the new Olympic lottery games on existing good causes will be factored into calculations of future income and the funding available for programmes. We welcome that. However, noble Lords will appreciate that the good causes are worried that the amount of money they have will reduce as a result of the Olympic lottery games. We have to accept that some people will choose to play the new Olympic lottery games rather than the existing games, although we can only speculate on the potential impact. As we heard from the Minister, current estimates suggest that sales could lead to an average annual reduction in income of 5 per cent to the existing good causes over the period of the Olympic Games preparation; that is, from 2005 to 2012. These estimates have been taken into account for planning purposes.
  It is important to recognize—and we do—that these games have the potential to reinvigorate interest in the lottery in general and therefore to benefit existing good causes. We believe that Camelot should help to minimise the impact on the existing good causes and that that can be done by the company continuing to launch non-Olympic lottery games. Since it is intended that staging the Olympics should bring benefits across the range of funding sectors, the new lottery games should be seen as part of a wider strategy for growth seeking to reinvigorate interest in the lottery as a whole.
  I should make it clear that the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund are currently supporting the Olympic Games bid. The NOF is running a range of programmes that are directly relevant to it, including the new opportunities for PE and sport programme, school sports co-ordinators and Active England, which is a joint programme with Sport England. By funding new sports facilities and promoting activity across the country, these programmes will help to emphasise the regional dividend from London's bid for the Olympic Games.
  Noble Lords will be aware that a new distributor is about to be created as a result of the merger between the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund. While these are matters for the new distributor, I know that it will similarly be concerned about falling ticket sales. Recent forecasts for lottery ticket sales show a small but steady decline, suggesting a further 5 per cent fall as a result of the Olympic lottery game. But I assure noble Lords that these forecasts are built
  566
  into the spending plans of the new distributor. If there is no more than a 5 per cent fall, that should be manageable.
  So far, so good, but I must express two serious concerns about the provisions in the Bill. I and others such as the NCVO, as we heard, are concerned about the powers to be introduced that will permit the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to transfer funds from the National Lottery Distribution Fund to the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund. We assume that those powers would be used if the Olympic lottery game failed to raise the required £750 million, or if the contingency fund of £410 million were required for any other reason. If that were to happen, it would reduce further the returns to the existing good causes, which would be a major source of concern. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can assure me that if the current or any future Secretary of State took those powers, he or she would pay the closest possible attention to the effects on the good causes before he or she used them.
  The timing of the introduction of the Olympic lottery games is also of concern. A separate lottery funding stream can be justified only by the exceptional scale and one-off nature of staging the Olympics. The logic of that position is that the Olympic lottery games should not be launched unless and until the bid to stage the Olympic Games has been won. The contingency planning undertaken by all the UK and England distributors in conjunction with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is based on the possible introduction of Olympic lottery games in July 2005.
  I have made it clear that the distributors are understandably concerned about the potential impact of the new games on their funding programmes which, in spite of what one may read about balances, are already substantially, though prudently, over-committed. Not only would an earlier launch of the hypothecated games be difficult to justify, it would exacerbate the negative impact on our programmes and beneficiaries across the country. My concerns are focused in particular on the credibility of the new distributor and its role in leading the reform agenda in relation to lottery distribution.
  I did not intend to comment on the dreaded problem of additionality, which always arises in discussions on lottery funding, but since it has been mentioned, I shall say a few words about it. I should not presume to speak on behalf of my fellow distributors, but I can assure noble Lords in the strongest possible terms that all the distributors are extremely concerned that what we fund is not a substitute for current or planned government expenditure. The concept of the added value of lottery programmes is dear to all our hearts. Should noble Lords want confirmation of that, I refer them to some of our recipients, those who receive and use the money so effectively. They will often emphasise strongly that lottery funding is different from statutory funding. Should noble Lords want any specific feedback, I volunteer to provide it.
  Since it was set up, through its distribution of funds to good causes the lottery has made a huge contribution to communities in the United Kingdom, especially to

  567
  disadvantaged groups. That contribution must continue and grow. Subject to the provisos to which I have referred, I believe that Part 3 gives us an opportunity to see that it does.
  4.8 p.m.
  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, this Bill proposes to abolish the horse race betting levy system and to sell the Tote in order to raise money to make provision for hosting the Olympic Games in London in 2012. I am sure we all hope that the bid is successful and that we can celebrate holding the Olympics in this country.
  I declare an interest in that I have had a connection with the Horserace Betting Levy Board for several years. I was chairman of the Veterinary Advisory Committee to the board for some 12 years. This is an area on which I wish to comment, in addition to other matters that might be considered minor. However, I want to comment on them in case they become lost in the major exercise.
  Although the funding of the Veterinary Advisory Committee was only of the order of £1.5 million per year, it was the envy of many other countries where thoroughbred racing was practised but where no scheme such as the Horserace Betting Levy Board scheme was in operation. Over the years, it has funded research into important issues such as lameness and tendon injuries, and into infectious diseases such as flu, strangles, contagious equine metritis and grass sickness, which it is still investigating. It has also supported the training of research veterinarians and clinicians. Indeed, it was the only source of significant funding for equine research in this country as other organisations fund only non-invasive research, not the kind of research supported by the Levy Board.
  The abolition of the Levy Board has raised concerns about the security of this veterinary support as well as its other statutory responsibilities, namely the improvement of horse racing and the improvement of breeds of horses. It is important therefore that Clause 16(6) of the Bill includes a specific direction of support for these areas and that it is committed to the undertaking given by the Minister in another place on 22 January 2004. He stated:
  "We have always made it clear that the important work done by the levy board will not be neglected when it is abolished … The BHB, to whom the bulk of the assets will be transferred, has already given us an undertaking that it will continue to fund public-interest areas such as veterinary research and education. It will also continue to provide funding to welfare projects such as Retraining of Racehorses, which have in the past received levy board grants".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 22/1/04; col. 074.]
  The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has today reiterated that undertaking.
  An area of particular concern is that of the fate of animals after their racing life is over, which involves some 4,000 horses per year. Although the vast majority are well cared for and go on to productive and enjoyable careers, in some 300 or so cases per year there is a need for charitable intervention. The charity
  568
  Retraining of Racehorses serves this purpose well. It receives £50,000 per year from the Levy Board and, additionally, is well supported by charitable giving.
  However, that other racing animal, the greyhound, does not have such support and yet the issues are parallel to those of the thoroughbred. There is now an opportunity to attend to this deficit, again under Clause 16(6) of the Bill.
  There is concern that effective permanent arrangements are in place for the transfer of the Levy Board Capital Fund to a successor and that it continues long term to support investment in racegoer facilities, tracks, horse health and welfare and safety. The Racecourse Association proposes that to safeguard the capital fund a trust should be established to administer it which is independent of both the racecourse as beneficiaries and of racing's governing body.
  Finally, I wish to comment on an important though minor area of support given by the Levy Board—that is, to rare breeds of horses. It is a relatively small amount—£130,000 per year—but it is an important source of funding in this area. In this country we have more native breeds of horses than any other country world wide. Of the heavy horses, the Suffolk Punch is the rarest, but the Shire, Clydesdale, Cleveland Bay and the Irish Draft are all increasingly rare. Of the ponies, the Exmoor, Dales, Fell, Highland, Feral Welsh and even the Hackney horse are on the rare list.
  Support for the Rare Breeds Survival Trust would, to my mind, play an important part in maintaining our national heritage and we should not lose sight of that in this major reorganisation of the levy system. The new legislation does not specify what shall be funded, neither does it give any guarantee that funding will be safeguarded in either the short term or the long term. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
  The need for funds to support the bid for and, if successful, the 2012 Olympics in London is accepted. But what happens thereafter? The Olympics are only eight years away which, in terms of veterinary research on the horse, represents only two tranches of approved studies and training for clinical research veterinarians.
  I believe that many individuals associated with the numerous aspects of the racing of horses and greyhounds, both of which generate vast sums from betting, would wish to see these funds used to support the Olympics bid. But they would also wish to be assured of a fair deal for the animals that generate the funds and bring so much pleasure to the public.
  4.17 p.m.
  Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I declare a double interest. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, I own part of a horse—in my case, a very useful horse—but, before my noble friend drools too much in envy, I should inform her that it is only half-way through two years off the course with a tendon injury.
  My second interest is a more serious one. As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, mentioned, I am chair of the shadow trust set up as a precursor of the trust that the Government intend will own the Tote on behalf of racing should the Bill become law. I have a strong

  569
  personal interest in the Bill. I have spent much of the past three or four years agitating, behind the scenes and in front of them, in favour of this legislation. So this is an exciting day for me.
  Although confining my remarks to the part of the Bill concerned with the Tote, perhaps I may set the Bill in a wider context. My excitement goes wider than the effect the Bill will have on horse racing. It is a major step forward in public policy in a way that is frequently not mentioned.
  The Bill represents a rare occurrence—that is, a measure of nationalisation without compensation. There is nothing in the Bill about Tote trusts and so on; it is merely a measure to nationalise the Tote without compensation.
  For a great deal of my time in the Labour Party, such measures have been one of the main subjects of discussion. Until recently, the party was committed to nationalising everything under Clause 4 and the lefties—my noble friend Lord Smith will remember this—were calling for the nationalisation without compensation of the 250 major monopolies. I am sure they are surprised that a government under the leadership of Tony Blair should produce a measure of nationalisation without compensation, but I am not sure that they are quite so pleased that this has been done for the benefit of horse racing,
  I say this because it is quite significant how swiftly nationalisation—at one point the central objective of one of the major parties of state—is now accepted to be an inefficient way of running industry. I do not want to go through all the reasons why that was so—the lack of incentives, state interference and so on—but there are no advocates of nationalisation left; we are all privatisers now.
  On the other hand, recently we have observed a certain discomfort—I put it no higher than that—with some of the forms that privatisation has taken; for example, some of the huge windfall profits that have resulted for the City and some of the salary increases that have been granted to the people concerned. There is a feeling that there might be something other than full, red-in-tooth-and-claw privatisation as an alternative to nationalisation which combines the best of both worlds.
  In the Bill before us, or at least in the Government's intention about what should happen once the Bill is passed, we see just such an alternative. On the one hand, we shall get the benefits of privatisation. It will no longer be the case that the state can interfere with the development of the Tote. The management will be left to get on with the job and will be incentivised to do so. If it fails, it will be got rid of without any need for Ministers to be involved. Much as I too loved Lord Wyatt, I do not think that if he had been appointed by the Tote shadow trust his tenure as chairman would have been as long as it turned out to be under the patronage of successive Tory Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers.
  That is one side. On the other hand, the Bill is not to create a bonanza for the City or to make a few men very rich. It is to benefit and enrich an industry that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, central to our
  570
  national life as an industry and as a sport. That is the wider picture that we should bear it in mind. We must not forget it as the Bill goes through.
  Having wasted too much time in partisan wrangling over ownership, I take great comfort in the fact that, as a pragmatic way forward, I understand that the Bill has the support of the Government, the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, the many Cross-Benchers who have spoken on it and of men and women of all parties and none.
  I welcome the principle of the Bill very much but I want to raise two caveats. I must tell the Minister that we shall come back to them ad nauseam in Committee. The first is the price. How much will the Tote be sold to the racing trust for? If it is to be sold at full value, it will not be of much use to racing. Racing would find its present income taken away from it to service the necessary debt.
  I have no doubt that the correct price is zero. The Government did not set up the Tote. It was set up by a Private Member's Bill in 1928 with no help from government. The Government have not put one penny into the Tote. They insist that they do not stand behind the debts of the Tote. Throughout the Tote's history, governments have inhibited its development. It was prevented from betting on other sports. It was prevented from having betting shops. It was prevented from having fixed-odds betting—the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, referred to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, on that point. More recently, the Tote was unable to move into the offshore on-line betting market because it was state owned—a company whose board was appointed by the state, to be accurate—and that was not the sort of thing such a company was allowed to do. The only positive contribution of government to the Tote is the exclusive licence, which we will lose in fairly short order, although we are glad of the seven-year concession. So the Government have no right to a penny for the Tote and I insist on that as a principle.
  Having said that, I am a pragmatist and I know that the Government would not bring the Bill forward unless they get some consideration. I know that there are European state aid considerations that have to be weighed. I therefore know that the price will not be zero, much as I would love it to be. But it is essential that the price should be reasonable. It should be based, not on the open market value of the Tote, but on its value in a sale from a single seller to a single buyer—namely, the trust—and it should make full allowance for certain things in the Tote's balance sheet which reduce that value, such as its pension fund liabilities. In other words, the price must be reasonable.
  That will be negotiated after the Bill has gone through. There is a hazard there and that is what I turn to next. The Bill simply nationalises the Tote. There is nothing in it about selling it to a racing trust, although I noted the reassuring words of the Minister. But what would happen if the day after Parliament passed the Bill we had a change of Secretary of State or a change of Government? Perhaps the Treasury gets into an unusually greedy—perhaps a usually greedy—mood and the Government suddenly decide that they would

  571
  rather sell the Tote to Ladbrokes for loads of money than sell it to racing for a more reasonable sum. I do not believe that the Government are planning any such thing and I believe their assurances in this regard, but life changes in politics.
  As the Bill is drafted, there is nothing to stop the Government. They could go ahead the day after Parliament has passed the Bill and flog the Tote to the highest bidder to line the pockets of the Treasury or for whatever reason. That is not the Government's intention, but intentions can change. I think that it is crucial that, before the Bill leaves this House, a clause should be inserted that says that the Government may sell other than to a body standing for racing only with the permission, by vote, of both Houses of Parliament.
  Note what I am not saying. I am not saying that if the Government want to sell to someone else they have to pass a new Bill. That would be too much. I chair the Racing Trust and, angelically as we have behaved until now in a spirit of perfect amity, I can imagine circumstances in which it falls apart and it was therefore impossible to go ahead with that sale. Racing has been known to fall apart as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, also pointed out. In that case it would be perfectly reasonable for the Government to come back to Parliament and say that the Racing Trust cannot buy the Tote and so they are going to flog it to A, B or C and for Parliament to approve that. So we are not asking for a new Bill, but we are asking, and will ask, for an affirmative resolution of both Houses before that happens.
  I was surprised and disappointed by the Minister's remarks on this point because he said that it would be a waste of scarce parliamentary time to require such a procedure. What is this Parliament for? We would be talking about a government who were attempting to do something that was in direct contravention of the understanding on which they had put through the Bill. It would be a government who were proposing to do something that was a direct breach of an explicit manifesto commitment and were attempting to do it without parliamentary approval. If to debate and vote on that is a waste of parliamentary time, we waste a lot of parliamentary time in this place. It is essential that such an amendment is made to the Bill and we shall press that point until we are satisfied.
  This is a good Bill. The minor change that I am proposing, to which there can be no reasonable objection, will make it a better Bill. After that, it will be the duty of the Tote and the trust, which I have the honour to chair, to turn the Tote, which is a much-loved British institution, into an institution that is also a powerhouse of British bookmaking, so that the great horse racing industry of our country can flourish and prosper.
  4.28 p.m.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I must declare two interests. First, I am a still serving member of the Millennium Commission; and, secondly, I am a living Olympian.
  572
  Unlike the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I shall not talk about the Tote. I wish to make a few comments about the forthcoming Olympic bid. On 15 May last year, the Secretary of State made a Statement announcing that the Government had decided to back a bid to host the Olympic Games and the Paralympics in London in 2012. The Government and the Mayor of London have agreed a funding package of up to £2.375 billion to help to meet the costs of staging the Olympics in London in 2012, including support for elite sport and associated sports events. Under the plan, the national lottery will contribute £1.5 billion, primarily from new Olympic lottery games, to be provided for by the Bill and the existing sports lottery streams.
  I am pleased to assure the House that I wholeheartedly support London's bid for the 2012 Olympics. Indeed, I expect and hope that a Conservative government will have the pleasure of being in power during the planning stage and the hosting of the Games. A successful London bid would provide huge benefits for the people, not only of London, but of the UK as a whole. It would lead to regeneration, providing jobs and prosperity in London and beyond. It would further reinvigorate British sport, and increase the active participation of young people in particular. It is a fantastic opportunity, and I am delighted that there is support across the political divide for the London 2012 bid.
  The main provisions of the Bill concerning Olympic Lottery games provide for the regulator—the National Lottery Commission—to license Olympic Lottery games; the establishment of a fund to hold the proceeds generated by those games; and the establishment of a body to distribute money held in the fund. I shall say a little more about that in relation to the future of the Millennium Commission. The Bill also provides that the money held in the fund is to be distributed to meet expenditure in connection with staging the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London.
  I want to impress on the Minister how important I believe it to be that the Government are seen to give their wholehearted support to the Olympic bid. So far, the Government have done quite well in that respect. However, I believe that the Bill offers an additional opportunity to demonstrate the Government's total and unimpeded commitment.
  The Government's decision to keep the tax that will be generated by the new Olympic Lottery games for the Treasury, rather than hypothecate it for the Games, was referred to earlier. As my noble friend Lord Brooke pointed out, that relates to 12p in the pound, or 12 per cent. I believe that the Government should hypothecate that tax so that the extra funds can go directly to the staging of the Games. At the current 12 per cent rate of tax, that would raise about £320 million over the seven years, which equates to about half the amount that it is anticipated will be raised by the precept on London council tax payers, which I am sure that noble Lords will agree is not unreasonable.
  I am aware that, so far, Her Majesty's Government have shied away from making that commitment. The Chancellor has been wielding the big stick. I am sure.

  573
  I hope that the Minister will be able to have a little influence on the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point; I wish him luck in the attempt. Apart from the financial situation, such a commitment would, most importantly, send another powerful message to the IOC of Britain's determination to host the Games.
  I want the Olympic Lottery games to be successful. In a time when lottery sales are in decline, it is vital that the games are publicised and supported. Surely the forthcoming Athens Olympics this summer represents the perfect opportunity to launch the lottery games. I am aware that the IOC has ruled that a lottery which funds the Games cannot be launched before the winning bid is announced. However, it is perfectly possible to start the games this summer. That is where my ideas about the future of the Millennium Commission come into play.
  The Millennium Commission is already a distributing body; it is in being. It has a remit, which admittedly is running out, to celebrate 2000. I suggest that it would not take a very large piece of legislation to change that remit to celebrating 2012. I know from tests that we have done over the years, within the department and outside, that the Millennium Commission is highly thought of by the general public and the lottery players in this country for what it has done.
  Using the Millennium Commission, we should be able to start to turn the clock back. My noble friend Lord Brooke made a clear distinction about "arm's length" and "not for use by the Government". It was for such projects that the lottery was originally set up. When I first joined the commission and when my noble friend set it up, 50 per cent of lottery funds went to good causes. That is not so any more—they go to a number of government initiatives in various disguises. It is high time to return lottery funds completely and wholeheartedly to good causes and arm's-length issues. What better cause than promoting the 2012 Olympics?
  I would be interested to hear from the Government what private sector involvement they expect, and what steps are being taken to stimulate such involvement. The bid currently has all the appearance of a public sector activity funded by lottery funds, council tax payers and even—dare I say it?—national taxpayers through the London Development Agency. Many successful recent Olympic Games—certainly the past two—have harnessed the resources of the private sector to deliver considerable income for expenditure on facilities and infrastructure for the Games. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that the Government intend that the private sector will support the public funds that will be available from the Olympic Lottery games and council tax.
  4.35 p.m.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I also broadly support the Bill. I am sure that the Minister must be overwhelmed by the amount of support that he has had today. When one makes the final Back-Bench contribution, it is always difficult to find something fresh to say, particularly when one follows the noble
  574
  Lord, Lord Lipsey. However, I shall speak from a different perspective on the Tote, as I own no racehorses but only two cats. I intend to speak largely on Part 1, but I would like to make some brief comments on Part 3.
  From my perspective, coming from the north-west, I want to say that the bid is not a London bid, but a UK bid. We should all get behind it. One of the successful aspects of the Games these days is to make sure that there is provision of training camps at different locations at which the teams can prepare and acclimatise prior to the Games themselves. Such camps will obviously need to be spread around the country and based on existing facilities. I ask my noble friend to clarify whether Clause 30, which provides for facilities outside London to be paid for as part of the lottery, can be used for training facilities as well as for direct facilities to do with the Games. If he cannot do it today, I ask him to write to me, and I hope that he answers in a positive way.
  My interest in Part 1—the sale of the Tote—stems from my main job, which is leader of Wigan Council. I want to praise the late Lord Wyatt. He came up to Wigan in the mid-1980s and, following a meeting with the council, decided to move the Tote's credit division up to Wigan. Being Lord Wyatt, he wanted it done there and then, so the council had to vacate an office block to facilitate the Tote's move to Wigan. I hope that it has been a terrific move for the Tote; it has certainly been terrific for us. The number of staff employed by the Tote in Wigan has trebled from its original number to more than 600, making it the second-largest private sector employer in the borough. The Tote's business plan proposes that it transfer the remainder of its operational divisions to the borough, bringing in more than 250 additional jobs.
  In Wigan, the Tote does not simply provide jobs. It is an excellent employer, working with the council on a green travel plan, and is recognised for the work that it does in employing disabled people. Both its managing directors who have worked at the Wigan site have contributed their skill, time and experience to help to regenerate the borough. I hope that noble Lords can understand why I am so concerned that the changes proposed by the Bill make sure that the Tote and its successor continue to operate successfully. For 75 years, it has been a remarkably successful organisation, providing a fair deal and a wider choice for punters, and reinvesting the surplus into racing, to the tune of more than £100 million in the past decade.
  Much has been achieved despite the Tote's current status with government supervision, which has not been conducive to releasing the entrepreneurial and innovative skills of its staff. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, alluded to the matter and gave the example of the technology, saying that it was opening up new ways of betting and gambling but that the Tote was forced to follow. It could not lead on this. It was playing "catch-up" because permissions were slow in coming from government departments.
  The Bill implements the 2001 Labour Party election pledge. It has great support from the House, the industry, and the Transport and General Workers

  575
  Union, which represents the staff employed. That is a remarkable consensus. I pay tribute to the Minister for Sport who was present earlier. His personal lead has been important.
  However, there are two matters of concern—they have been raised by other noble Lords—which I must again raise with the Minister. It is much appreciated that the Government have now confirmed in the Bill the seven-year exclusive deal. Seven years is the minimum period for the protection of the Tote's successor before opening up to full competition. That period has been accepted by all concerned. We must now work to ensure a successful transition. In a Statement in November, repeated at Second Reading in another place, the Minister for Sport was adamant that there could be no extension. The Minister in this House made the same statement earlier. However, there may be some circumstances in which the interests of the racing industry, the punters and the Tote as an organisation may benefit from such an extension. I do not know what they could be, but it is important never to say "never" in politics. The Government should allow themselves more flexibility.
  As my noble friend Lord Lipsey made clear, the key is the price at which the Tote is sold and the process by which that is achieved. The price must be fair to the successor trust, reflecting the minimum period of the exclusivity agreement. It must not saddle the trust with a debt which takes money out of racing. I believe that the Minister for Sport will be reasonable but we know that other pressures prevail in government. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, stated so eloquently, the Exchequer has not contributed to the Tote as an organisation. It has not put taxpayers' money into it. Nor does it at present receive any income from the Tote. Therefore, anything it receives from the sale is an unexpected bonus.
  I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will outline what the Government intend to do if they cannot over time reach agreement with the Racing Trust. That matter concerns us. I fully support the nature and intention of the Bill. It will sell the Tote to the Racing Trust, which will operate in the interests of racing. It will have the freedoms and flexibility to compete effectively but will be good for an organisation that I want to succeed. However, I do not necessarily support a sale to the highest bidder. I hope that the Government realise that they have the backing for their manifesto statement but I hope that the Minister can assure the House as regards anything else that may occur.
  4.43 p.m.
  Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I wish to deal with the part of the Bill which deals with the transfer of the Tote to a private trust. My noble friend Lord Addington dealt admirably with the part of the Bill which deals with the Olympic lottery.
  As no one else has done so, perhaps it is appropriate to sketch the background of racing against which the proposals are set. Racing in Britain is some 250 years old. I think that I am accurate in saying that it has set the pattern and standard of thoroughbred racing around
  576
  the world. Today racing is in a very good state. The component parts of racing—it is now a complex industry—have gone through a period of unprecedented squabbling, argument and discussion, but we are seeing a resolution of that. Life is far more complex with the advent of new technologies, the number of horses that run, security problems and so on. A number of areas of racing are becoming more efficient. When the grandees and the super rich of the early 18th century raced their prized thoroughbreds against each other on pieces of land which became the racecourses of England, 59 of which survive today, racing was a fairly simple matter. As we came into the 19th century, it managed to garner interest from the public at large. It was, and I maintain still is, one of the linchpins of a relationship between urban and rural Britain—a relationship which has become strained in recent times.
  The racing and bloodstock industry accounts for 60,000 jobs. A further 40,000 jobs in the betting industry are related to racing. The development of betting has again been a model to the world, although we have taken a somewhat different course from most other countries. In most other countries one finds a tote monopoly. Monopoly is a difficult word to use. From the Government's point of view, it is easier to run racing in a country with a tote monopoly. It is a dirigiste way of doing so. It is easier for the Government to extract what they require and to disperse for the benefit of the industry.
  However, in this country in the 19th century, bookmakers fell in step with the new laws governing betting. Those who did not wish to do so went to France. That again was a contributory factor to the French going for the pari mutuel system. They did not want what they understood as bookmaking, having seen the disreputable part of our industry which had emigrated to France. That is one of the circumstances of history.
  Bookmakers in this country have worked responsibly to the benefit of racegoers in a fairly liberal regulatory environment. In 1928 the Tote was created for those who did not want to bet with bookmakers. There are still those who do not want to bet with bookmakers. It is noticeable that the biggest tote pools in racing are on those occasions which are largely social by nature. At Royal Ascot and Cheltenham people may have difficulty in moving around, apart from anything else; but people who are new to racing prefer to bet in the pool rather than with the fixed-odds bookmakers. That has not been to the benefit of the Tote because it has had to compete. Although the Tote is a monopoly of the pool betting, for which it was given a licence, it has had to compete with the bookmakers—and not altogether successfully.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, was instrumental in bringing about the change which allowed the Tote to buy into fixed-odd bettings through betting shops. It became de facto a bookmaker because the majority of its profits came from those shops which ultimately kept the Tote alive and enabled it to run the tote pool even though it was often a difficult part of the operation to run. Today 22 per cent of its turnover is related to the Tote; the remainder is fixed-odds

  577
  bookmaking in a considerable chain of betting shops. Because they came late on the scene, many of them have not been easy places from which to generate profits but they have done extremely well and all their profits have gone back into racing after the usual deductions.
  The Minister gave a clear exposition of the proposals. However, I detected from his tone of voice, although he spoke somewhat sotto voce, that he rather favoured the ruling of the Office of Fair Trading that the Tote is a monopoly; it is not competitive.
  It is a curious argument. Why is the Tote pool something that we should allow on sufferance only for the seven years, although I am grateful for that, when the Lottery is allowed to continue? Is that not anti-competitive?
  A successful Tote needs a large pool to satisfy those who bet into it. The more the pool is diluted the less successful it will be. That is a reality of life which seems to have gone over the heads of the staff of the Office of Fair Trading, who are probably better educated than I am. That unreality regarding racing passes over into the group selling of media rights and so forth. Again, they are not worried about the group purchase, but the group selling. They do not seem to be aware, or have a sense of history, of the uniqueness of the sport. It is a sport which, because of the looseness and the poetry of the English language, is called the "sport of kings". Rather, it should be called the sport of the common man and has been an example to the world.
  I do not wish to talk about my misspent youth but, from my own experience, there is no place like a racecourse for class differences quickly to disappear. Everyone there speaks and mixes together, whatever their background or economic circumstance. I know of no other such place, except possibly the House of Lords.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, sells himself short by saying that he has been agitating for a number of years. He has not been agitating, he has been persuading and explaining his case to everyone, and I congratulate him. I was one of the thorns in his side, because I have been, and still am, fearful of the potential ultimate demands of the Treasury in the sale to the private sector. I do not believe that we have heard the end of that, although I accept the good faith of the Government and that they intend to carry out the sale for the benefit of racing.
  However, questions have to be asked and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. He has persuaded me that I need have no fear regarding the retention of the betting shops—my original criticism was over how one could obtain a reasonable price if the main value of the sale was in the betting shops. For their own reasons, the bookmakers echoed my concerns in that regard. The noble Lord explained that it was necessary for the Tote to be transferred as a whole, because the betting shops are a useful part of its organisation. It is probable that new technologies will allow an enlargement of pool betting if more people from other countries are tempted to enter our pools. It is unrealistic to break up the Tote pool into pieces
  578
  because we have on our doorsteps a possibly flourishing Tote pool which will draw in betters and punters from other countries.
  The transfer process is an anomaly and I do not expect to understand it, even when the Bill is completed. I accept all of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. It seems that the transfer will be quick. When I saw the Minister outside the Chamber he told me that an effort of political will was initially driving the Bill. I am cheered to know from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that there is a precedent for it in the TSB sale. I hope that the Tote will ultimately go to the trust. The shadow trust, chaired, as it should be, by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is admirable. There is no man who better understands the subject. I hope that he will bring pressure on the Government regarding the matters that concern him.
  If the sale falls through, for whatever reason, the Government should come back to both Houses and explain what they intend to do and obtain approval for it. Whether that should be on the face of the Bill, I leave to others who better understand parliamentary procedure.
  The price is still the main stumbling block. I met the Sports Minister, Mr Caborn, at a film awards ceremony last week and told him that I intended to speak on the Bill and was still concerned about the price. He said. "Well, so am I, but it is up to the Treasury and you know what the Treasury are like". I do know what the Treasury are like. It is talking about a 50:50 sale—50 per cent for the Government and 50 per cent to the trust, and I hope that will be raised in Committee.
  I shall mention other areas of racing in passing. For example, the National Stud was an extraordinary operation. At one time it was the only profitable nationalised industry. It was enormously successful and an important part of the racing scene, even when it was not particularly profitable. I understand that it may also be subject to a transfer of some kind. My noble friend Lord Addington seemed doubtful where I stood on this issue—since I left the Front Bench as a Whip I hope that I have not gained the reputation of a maverick or a wild card—but I assure him and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that I am in favour of the proposed transfer and have utmost confidence in the shadow trust. I hope that it will be transformed into the permanent trust and that the Tote will grow, contribute to racing and will be at arm's length, if not, racecourse length, from political interference.
  To coin a phrase, there is much to be taken on trust, but I wish the Bill well.
  4.57 p.m.
  Lord Moynihan: My Lords, this House has a proud tradition of cross-party work for the benefit of sport and I sense and trust that that will continue with the Bill.
  Her Majesty's Opposition welcome it in principle and pay tribute to the work done in another place, not least by our colleagues, the honourable Members for South East Cambridgeshire, Jim Paice, and Surrey

  579
  Heath, Nick Hawkins. After hearing the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I am tempted straight away to quote from the speech made by my honourable friend, the Member for South East Cambridgeshire at Second Reading, who said:
  "There is nothing in the Bill about future ownership of the Tote; there is not even a requirement for it to be sold to someone with an interest in racing or horses. I hope that the Minister will understand that despite his assurances the industry is a bit distrustful of the Government for not dealing with the question of the shadow Racing Trust and the future ownership of the Tote in the Bill. Under the Bill there would be nothing to stop the Secretary of State or any future Secretary of State deciding to sell the successor company to the highest bidder—someone who may have no interest in racing or in putting the profits back into racing".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/04; col. 449.]
  Some improvements have been made since that speech, but I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that not enough have been made to allay the concerns expressed in the House today.
  However, I shall return to 30,000 foot. All three core elements of the Bill—the nationalisation and subsequent sale of the Tote, the eventual abolition of the Levy Board, and the establishment of the Olympic lottery—have our support. However, as I have stated, we will look to improve some of the measures outlined in the Bill.
  We welcome the improvements made in another place, particularly regarding the seven-year period and trust that the Government will continue to listen to the arguments. As we have heard this afternoon, the House is blessed with many noble Lords with an expert interest in sport, particularly horseracing.
  While sport is important in its own right, it is also big business and we must be particularly aware of that during our discussions on the Bill. Some 100,000 jobs, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, are directly or indirectly dependent upon horseracing—including bookmakers, groundsmen, vets, saddlers, stable staff and others. Horseracing is also a major contributor to the rural economy. The Olympics is the biggest sporting event in the world and the Government's analysis shows a budget in excess of £4 billion, with a public subsidy of up to £2.375 billion. That would be required for London to host the games in 2012. By any measure, this represents big business.
  Members will be aware that the Conservative Party fully supports the London bid. Indeed, we came out in support of the bid before the Government. At its best, sport cuts across party divides and we should be loath to forget that for every page of politics in the national newspapers there are some five of sport.
  I move to Part 1, the sale of the Tote. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Astor cannot be with us today. He has prior commitments and much regrets not being able to be with us. In his absence, I want to pay tribute to his Private Member's Bill, the Horserace Totalisator Bill, which would have brought forward the sale of the Tote in 2000. Having perused the discussions in another place, the Minister for Sport and Tourism seemed to be unclear as to whether the Bill enabled or committed the Government to sell the Tote. Similarly, does the Bill require the Government to abolish the levy in September 2006 or does it enable
  580
  the Government to do so, if they so desire? I would be grateful for further clarification from the Minister on those points.
  The mechanics of the sale are that the Government will nationalise the Tote with the promise that it will then be sold to a racing trust. Ideally, this would be the Shadow Racing Trust under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, equally well assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and his team. There was much debate about the word "promise" in another place. Understandably, the Government are being pressed again today.
  We have a duty to ensure that this Bill puts in place safeguards for the Tote's continuing contribution to racing. However, there is nothing in the Bill about the future ownership of the Tote. There is no requirement for it to be sold to the Shadow Racing Trust or, indeed, to any racing trust. It is crucial that the clauses sought by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, are agreed, for despite government assurances we are uneasy that the Government are not dealing with the question of the Shadow Racing Trust and the future ownership of the Tote in the Bill.
  I repeat that under the Bill there will be nothing to stop any future Secretary of State deciding to sell the successor company to the highest bidder with no requirement to put any of the profits back into racing. It surely cannot be a waste of parliamentary time to hold the Government to their promises. We believe that the Bill needs explicitly to state that the Tote will be sold to a racing trust that is committed to returning any surplus of income to racing. It would be helpful to learn from the Minister whether the constitution of the Shadow Racing Trust is a not-for-profit body or whether it should be one of the new community interest companies.
  As Members will be aware, we have a clear and unambiguous government statement that the Tote assets are owned by the Tote and that the Tote is owned by no one. The Bill creates the power for the sale of those assets first by nationalising them and then by privatising them, leaving the Chancellor with a tidy cash sum. It has been suggested that it is wrong for the Government to make any money from the sale of something that they do not own, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, argued with his characteristically incisive eloquence.
  No doubt the Government will tell us that their hands may be tied and that they have been in discussions with the European Commission over the proposed transfer. It seems as though the 50:50 arrangement referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will be agreed. If so, can the Minister confirm that? If he can confirm it, is he willing to put on the face of the Bill the sale price or, more important in the context of time, at least the formula for determining the price? This is the most important point I want to make in my remarks on Second Reading. The price charged by government for the Tote is vitally important.
  The racing trust will have to borrow money to pay for the Tote, thereby reducing the money that can be returned to horseracing. The more the Government

  581
  charge, the less will be returned to horseracing. That is fundamentally at the centre of Part 1. It requires greater clarification and, I would argue, specific amendment in Committee to ensure that the fundamental principle, which I am sure the Government are willing to stick with, is not only a promise and based on trust but also on the face of the legislation.
  The Minister for Sport and Tourism in another place worked hard to ensure that the Tote retained a seven-year exclusive licence for pool betting. We are grateful for that, in particular for the fact that the Government listened to the arguments in another place and have now included it on the face of the Bill. We believe that there is a strong case for the detailed consideration of the benefits or otherwise of the points also referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; namely, the retention of an exclusive pool betting arrangement at the end of the seven-year period.
  I am open to persuasion, but I calculate that the efficiency of pool betting is determined in part by the size of the pool. The more pools there are the smaller they will be and hence the less efficient each pool will he, with horseracing being the loser—particularly the smaller tracks. The potential downside of such a monopoly is kept in check by the availability of fixed-odds betting. But the Bill as it stands is committed to ending the exclusive pool betting licence in seven years' time and we believe there is a case for leaving future governments with the discretion to extend the exclusive licence should this prove to be the best thing for racing in 2011. We make no judgment as to whether the exclusive pool betting licence should be extended or whether it should remain with the Tote. However, we are saying that we should not tie our hands today to a decision which should be made in 2011.
  Part 2 of the Bill covers the abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board with the transfer of this property primarily to the British Horseracing Board, with a few notable exceptions referred to; for instance, the National Stud which is due to become a stand-alone trust. It is important and proper that we pay tribute to the work of the Betting Levy Board under the chairmanship of Robert Hughes and in particular the dedicated work of its staff under chief executive Rodney Brack.
  I agree with the Minister that in today's world, the levy is anachronistic, especially in respect of the Government's role in determining how much the bookmakers should pay to racing in the event of an impasse in the bookmakers' committee. We do, however, note that the bookmakers are keen to retain the levy and we must take note of that in our deliberations.
  It is clear from discussions that the Treasury will also benefit substantially from this arrangement as well as the sale of the Tote. Can the Minister confirm that the market sale of data rights will be subject to VAT? This is likely to reduce the moneys to racing by 17.5 per cent or roughly £15 million each year. In addition, the change in the administration of the levy's capital credit grants is likely to generate an extra £10 million a year to the Treasury.
  582
  We fully support the concept of commercial arrangements as the proper means for the racing industry to sell its rights. But, as the great comedian Jack Benny once said, "Timing is everything". It is a period of great uncertainty for the racing industry, with both Office of Fair Trading and European Court decisions outstanding. These decisions could have a fundamental impact on racing, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville mentioned.
  There is particular concern that the OFT may not understand racing properly and about the interdependence of its many elements. The European Court of Justice is considering a reference by the Court of Appeal following a robust High Court judgment in support of the British Horseracing Board's database rights. Yet the judgment is not expected until autumn, so the issue may not be resolved until late this year.
  These investigations are undoubtedly complex and it is unclear how they will report. What is clear is that they could have a significant impact on the amount of money that the bookmakers return to racing. Lest we forget, the levy's expenditure in support of racing was £84.6 million. This is a significant investment in racing and needs to be safeguarded.
  We welcome the one-year extension to the levy until September 2006, but we are slightly concerned that it looks as though the Government are still committing themselves to the abolition of the levy before they know what will replace it. This could be a recipe for disaster and we will need to address the issue in Committee.
  Among the projects the levy operates are not only the centres of support for rare breeds, about which my noble friend Lord Soulsby spoke so eloquently—and I agree with him—but also the ownership of the Horserace Forensic Laboratory; the anti-doping agency for horses. The HFL is one of the most experienced and best equipped laboratories in the field of animal drug detection in the world. The HFL provides a comprehensive drug surveillance and research service for British horseracing, as well as the equine sports, with clients around the world. Thanks to the investment of the Levy Board, we have a world-leading anti-doping agency for horses, but further progress can still be made. The horses in racing are the elite performance athletes. In the context of anti-doping measures, we should be freezing samples to enable future tests accurately to discover currently undetectable doping agents. Our interest, apart from fair competition in racing, must focus on the integrity of the breeding lines.
  This Bill provides an opportunity to make sure that the transfer of the assets to the levy protects and promotes the UK's role as a leader in the fight against drugs in equine sports. Noble Lords involved in the parliamentary proceedings of the Gender Recognition Bill and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act will be aware that I strongly believe in the wider merits of an independent anti-doping agency for sport, if necessary backed by statutory powers. Best practice in anti-doping in sport requires that the anti-doping agency is independent, transparent and accountable. I stress that there is no

  583
  question over the competence of the British Horseracing Board, which is due to inherit the HFL. However, when a national governing body of sport owns the anti-doping agency, there will always be a concern about potential conflicts of interest, in exactly the same way that UK Sport is in an untenable position of both funding elite athletes and running doping tests on them. I urge the Government to resolve that situation at the Sports Cabinet meeting on 20 April, when a long-overdue commitment to an independent anti-doping agency must be made.
  The debate is particularly timely. In today's Daily Telegraph, Sue Mott highlights the concern that drugs may be creeping into three-day eventing. Some prominent names in the sport are worried that illegal tranquillisers are being fed to horses to calm them down for dressage events. I stress that so far there have been no positive tests, but there is now a real concern and the sport must remain vigilant.
  During the passage of this Bill, we will be looking to press the Government for an independent anti-doping agency responsible for all equine sports. The role of the HFL goes further. Only this weekend, the BBC reported that UK Sport, the Government's much-conflicted anti-doping agency for sport, has agreed to start sending some of its samples to the HFL in Newmarket for analysis. It is expected that the HFL will receive clearance from the World Anti-Doping Agency in May to start testing human samples. The case for combining the work of anti-doping in equine sports and for British sportsmen and women in an overall, independent anti-doping agency is cast iron. During the passage of the Bill, we will be tabling a series of amendments to that effect, thus leading the way with the establishment of an independent anti-doping agency to include equine sports. We owe it to horseracing in particular, and sport in general, to seize this opportunity.
  The final section of the Bill details the setting up of a dedicated lottery to fund the staging of the 2012 London Olympic Games. This is a piece of enabling legislation, which is dependent on London winning the right to stage the Olympic Games. Conservatives, and all parties, are strongly supportive of the London Olympic bid. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Coe, and the noble Lord, Lord Paul, who are both members of the board for the London bid.
  While we strongly support the principle of an Olympic lottery fund, we would like to see a number of improvements made to the Bill. First, it may help to set out our general approach to the costs of staging the London Olympics. Just as the Government are committed to review the funding arrangements when we win the bid, we are also committed to reviewing the finances. In particular, we would like to see far greater emphasis on the role of the private sector. It is right that our bid should include the regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley, but the bid must not become Ken Livingstone's Lower Lea Valley regeneration bid. This is a bid to host the greatest sporting event in the world, in the greatest city in the world, while providing a much-needed fillip to British sport.
  584
  Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, we believe that there is a strong case for starting the Olympic lottery game this summer, on the back of the popular appeal of Athens 2004. The case was made superbly by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, an outstanding Olympic gold medallist, in comparison to the rather humble silver that I took. I will for ever respect everything that he says on matters regarding the Olympic Games. We also recognise that the IOC rules would prevent a lottery game being set up exclusively to fund the cost of staging the games, but it permits—and the Minister for Sport finally, not before time, recognised this point in another place—an Olympic lottery game to be held in advance of the success of our bid in July 2005. Just as the Government have been forced to admit that the IOC would permit the lottery to start early, we will show in Committee that this would actually save money for other good causes. That would be an interesting and detailed debate, and I hope to bring forward figures to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others who have raised the important point about the impact on other good causes. I am conscious of time, so I will move on.
  The second major area where we disagree with the Government is tax. I promise to avoid political point scoring, but we believe that as much money as possible from a hypothecated Olympic lottery game should go to the Olympics. The Government are committed to the proposed lottery raising £750 million towards the Olympics, but a staggering £340 million would go to the Treasury. At the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry into the operation of the national lottery, we were told that the Treasury is in "listening mode" about the tax take on the lottery. We intend to develop this further during the passage of the Bill.
  The other major improvement that we would like to see on the Olympic lottery clauses is far greater recognition of the Paralympics. Everyone in the House will be aware of the great success of our paralympians in Sydney 2000, when we came second in the medal table. We wish them well in achieving even better results in Athens this summer. To recap on our sporting history, a British neurosurgeon, Sir Ludwig Guttman, invented the Paralympics. A sports competition for 200 World War II veterans with spinal cord injuries was held at Stoke Mandeville to coincide with the London Olympic Games in 1948. These special games went on to become the modern Paralympics. It is unfortunate that the Bill does not explicitly refer to the necessary support that we should be giving to the British Paralympic Association, and we will seek to correct that.
  I pay tribute to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for persuading the Government to find parliamentary time for this Bill. We welcome the Bill, and in principle we support all three parts. There is cross-party support for the Bill, and we look forward to working with the Government to improve the Bill for the benefit of horseracing and the wider interests of sport.
  5.17 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate. I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords who have spoken and who have

  585
  indicated that there are points that they intend to pursue in Committee, which we recognise is bound to be the case. I want to concentrate overwhelmingly on the main principles behind the Bill, as that is the basis on which it gets its Second Reading. However, I take on board the clear signals that have been sent from all parts of the House that there are issues to explore in detail in Committee. I am grateful for the widespread consensus that has developed in the House for the principles underlying the three main parts of the Bill. It is important that we make progress on the Bill as rapidly as we can.
  A number of specific issues were raised, to which I need to return. First, I was glad that the debate on the Back Benches was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, with his extensive experience of horse racing. It also gave him the chance to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who I see in his place. We recognise the issues with regard to the Tote and the situation of the racing industry, which is in a far healthier position than it would have been had appropriate action not been taken.
  The purpose of this Bill is to guarantee appropriate action to safeguard the sport for the future. Horse racing ought not just to be regarded as the sport of kings, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested. He is, of course, right about that. All of us are able to lose money on the race track, whether we are kings or paupers. Most of us succeed in doing that and still have an enjoyable day at the races in the company of our fellow citizens.
  I appreciated the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the general welcome that he gave to the Bill. He lamented the fact that certain aspects of our supporting provision and current facilities for the Olympic hid were not totally in place. He will recall that even a country such as Australia, often set up as the absolute beacon of countries in its commitment to sport and sporting facilities, found it necessary to build extensively and specifically—and needed money to do so. If we are to make an Olympic bid and certainly—I think that this was the burden of his remarks—if we are to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to develop their talents and training prior to the Olympic competition, substantial investment is obviously necessary.
  I heard what my noble friend Lord Judd said about the anxieties of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which was amplified by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, with her particular interest in lottery distribution. We should recognise that important issues are involved. My noble friend Lord Judd suggested that unclaimed prize money might provide additional funding for the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund. We welcome the work that the NCVO is doing creatively at present on funding, with its obvious interest in safeguarding the funding that it receives from lottery sources. We will consider that proposal in further detail and decide on the extent to which it could be employed. I am grateful to my noble friend for having brought that to our attention.
  As for transfer or raiding of lottery funds for the Olympics, both my noble friends are right to draw attention to the power in the Bill, but I would have to
  586
  define it as a precautionary measure. We have no intention of raiding good causes to provide for the Olympic Games. That is why there is specific provision in the Bill for money from the alternate structure. However, we must bear in mind that, should we win this bid—every noble Lord who spoke expressed the hope that we be successful—we will then be committed to substantial expenditure. Especially as this is likely to be the only legislation that will underpin the Olympic Games bid—it is certainly the only Bill that will be passed in time for the long run-in to the games that is necessary—it would be remiss of us not to include a reserve power in the Bill for alternative funding. However, I think that my noble friends will recognise that we would regard the use of that power as being only for dire extremis concerning receipt of lottery funds from the Olympic Games lottery.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised a number of interesting points. In particular, he raised the issue of the role of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in which he plays a significant part. We are indeed giving careful consideration to the committee's report and will bring forward in Committee proposals to address the points it raises.
  On the issue of the European Court of Justice, which the noble Lord raised—which I think brought a slight frisson and shadow to the House as we recognised the difficulties that can be caused when questions are referred there—the Court of Appeal will take into account the answers in reaching a final decision on the data rights issue. It will be for the horseracing industry to work out the implications of a decision adverse to the British Horseracing Board, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant circumstances when exercising her powers under the Bill—for example, concerning the abolition of the levy system. So we will need to take into account any such judgment. We recognise the strength of the noble Lord's point and are grateful to him for drawing the House's attention to that important matter.
  The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred to the crucial role of the levy board. We recognise the validity of his points about the significance of the levy hoard in its support for rare breeds of horses. That is a crucial function; that is why it is necessary. We fully intend to take on our responsibilities to ensure that the development of proposals under the Bill fully takes into account that crucial role which the levy board has until now been performing.
  Several noble Lords referred to another matter—most dramatically, my noble friend Lord Lipsey who, in suitably challenging mode, suggested that the only price that ought to be placed on the sale of the Tote was zero. That is a good bargaining start; no doubt we will have an interesting Committee debate on such a concept. It is unlikely that that proposal commands the widest assent. What has been expressed in the House is how important it is that any sale of the Tote should be fair to the horse racing industry; that we should recognise the crucial role that the Tote has played in enhancing and developing horseracing in this country; and that that should not be put in jeopardy.

  587
  However, to go into a marketplace and suggest, first, that there should be only one potential buyer and, secondly, that that buyer have the facility at nought seems an extraordinary proposal when entering any marketplace that I recognise. Perhaps my noble friend fails to recall that, in the past, governments have been used to cashing in their monopoly power and, when they have granted monopolies to others, had no hesitation in recognising that a cash value attached to the laws of the land, which had placed restrictions on people. They had enhanced the position of some people—the monopoly holders—against those of the general citizenry. It was therefore only right that monopoly holders should recognise that there was a price on the privilege accorded them.
  The 16th century state would not have survived without that concept. In a sense, the Tote has an element of that theory behind it. I am merely telling my noble friend that he is not the politician I take him for if he would cast aside an important public asset without recognising its value to the wider community, as well as to the monopoly enjoyer of that right—the Tote. I thought that I might provoke my noble friend.
  Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Before he adumbrates further on the absurdity of my proposition—which, incidentally, has the support of the entire horse racing industry and, in fact, everyone who has considered the matter except the Government and the bookmakers—does he agree that the closest analogy is the sale of the Trustee Savings Bank, where the price was zero: it was rightly given to the depositors? That is the analogy that should apply in this case, not those that my noble friend suggests.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. I have no doubt that he will advance that position in Committee—he has already said that he will—where we can cross swords fruitfully. He will forgive me if I do not go into too much detail on the issue now.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, concentrated his remarks overwhelmingly on the Olympic Games. I listened carefully to his point about the constructive role and high reputation of the Millennium 2000 body and its potential role for 2012. That is not directly within the Bill's framework but there is no reason why the Bill should not be a vehicle for such constructive thoughts. I am glad that the noble Lord took the opportunity to voice that point which the Government will take very seriously as we develop our strategy for tackling Olympic issues.
  The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who followed the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised various issues. I very much appreciated his enthusiastic commitment to horse racing of which we are all aware. I recognise the validity of the points he raised. This is an area where we need to tread very carefully. There is a fine balance to be achieved with regard to these changes. I notice that noble Lords are very much in favour of coming back to issues of primary legislation again in
  588
  the future. A far-sighted administration always seeks to provide that framework in a Bill which covers all eventualities. I hope I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord that the provisions in the Bill safeguard and advance the interests of horse racing while meeting the points he raised in his speech.
  The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, produced a wide-ranging speech of very great force. Some of his points had been made by other noble Lords but several were highly specific. I should like to respond to those. He is right to raise the issue of doping. We cannot come before this House and discuss any sport without recognising this immensely significant issue—we are all mindful of recent developments in athletics. I give the noble Lord the assurance that the Government are active on this front. A committee is currently looking into this question and intends to report on doping issues in the summer.
  We have to be at the forefront of dealing with this issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised it today. If doping is not stamped out in sport, then it is guaranteed utterly to devalue the Olympic ideal and ruin the Olympic Games wherever they are held. It would also destroy public regard for what sport represents. It would be a tragedy for us all. The noble Lord raised a number of other points that will be considered in Committee. I am well aware that there are several significant clauses in the Bill on which we will engage in fruitful debate.
  Having spoken a little longer than I should have done, I shall conclude on this fact. This constructive Bill deals with developments in two very important aspects of our national sporting life. There are the issues relating to horse racing and all the challenges that currently face it and the importance of guaranteeing that there is a proper relationship between the betting industry and its clients. There is also a need for proper support for a sport which is enormously expensive to pursue. It may not be the sport of kings or not always the sport of billionaires but there is no doubt it is an extremely expensive sport and one which needs very considerable resources to underpin it.
  The other issue of the Olympic Games is one which has produced a unanimous response in this House. The Government are grateful for that level of support. I should like to respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh. I was grateful that he had a particular locale in mind on horse racing when he talked about Wigan and the Tote. He also emphasised in this debate that the Olympic bid is not a London bid but a United Kingdom one. It is designed to produce benefits for the whole country and it will do.
  If we are successful in this bid, it will stimulate sport and sporting activity among our young people and an interest in sport among others. I am grateful to my noble friend for emphasising the fact that not only does the rest of the country stand to benefit from the bid, but that it supports the bid. We have made a good start with this. There is an immense distance to go but it is important to have a structure in place to finance

  589
  the bid well in advance of 2012 and as soon as we possibly can after the bid has proved a success as we all hope it will do.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he kindly referred to one point put forward by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations on the possible use of unclaimed prize money. That was part of a very carefully considered package of proposals to protect the interests of the voluntary sector. Can he assure the House that the Government will look at the total package and not cherry pick those which are the most amenable from the Government's point of view?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend if he thought that I was cherry picking. That was not my intention. I was seeking to illustrate the constructive way in which my noble friend had advanced his case without repeating his speech which I would not wish to do. Of course we recognise that there are constructive ways in which additional resources can come. However, this must not be at the expense of good causes. I am happy to give him that assurance.
  I am grateful to noble Lords for their support in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
  On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

  Single Market for Finance (EUC Report)
  5.38 p.m.
  Lord Woolmer of Leeds Lord Woolmer of Leeds rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee, Towards a Single Market for Finance: The Financial Services Action Plan (45th Report, HL Paper 192).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion, I must first extend my thanks to all those who gave oral and/or written evidence to Sub-Committee B; to our Clerk, Patrick Wogan, for his sage advice and counsel; to our advisers, Graham Bishop and Tom Troubridge; to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris and his staff; and to the UK Permanent Representative in Brussels and his staff for so efficiently organising our working visits to Paris and Brussels. I also thank members of Sub-Committee B for the enormous amount of time and careful reflection they gave to this important inquiry. Last but not least, I thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the written and oral evidence we received from her and for the positive and helpful government response to our report.
  We reported on 18 November 2003. The Minister responded on 13 January. Things have moved on since then, and I trust that the Minister will not mind if, in my remarks, I seek an update on some matters. As he knows, I sought to give him notice of those points.
  In May 1999, the Commission first published a financial services action plan aimed at securing a single market in financial services. In 2000, the Lisbon
  590
  European Council named the FSAP as a key component of broader EU economic reform as a means of making the European Union more competitive in a global economy. We agree with those sentiments. It set a timetable for adopting financial service action plan measures by 2005. In October 2003, the European Council confirmed that deadline.
  From the first, the stated objectives of the European Council have been high-level objectives aimed at reducing the cost of capital in the Union and allocating capital more efficiently. The key markets here are wholesale markets, but when the discussion got down to the detail and member state level, focus frequently shifted to the impact of change on the individual consumer investor and to a retail focus. The result has been a degree of confusion between wholesale and retail market objectives.
  Quantified estimates of the impact on GDP arising from integration of wholesale and retail markets are quoted in our report in paragraphs 14 to 16. It is disappointing that this theoretical measure of the benefits of a single market has scarcely, if ever, been carried through to justify specific directives. Sadly, directives rarely set out targets for achievement in terms of measurable outcomes.
  It was recognised that the target date of 2005 for the adoption and implementation of the action plan would not be met unless a new approach was adopted towards a legislative process in the Union. Baron Lamfalussi chaired the committee charged with addressing that problem. The resultant four-tiered decision-making process for EU legislation affecting the securities market was adopted by the Stockholm Council in March 2001. It is set out and examined in some detail in our report.
  When your Lordships' committee examined subsequent progress on these matters, a number of points appeared important in order to understand progress to date and the challenges ahead. First, there is the position of the financial services industry in London within the EU and globally. My noble friend Lady Cohen, who contributed forcefully to the sub-committee's discussions, will no doubt contribute equally powerfully on those important matters today. Therefore, my remarks are brief, but no less strongly held for that.
  Far more than 400 foreign companies are listed in London, second only to New York. Around 50 per cent of all global trading in companies with overseas listings takes place through London. Seventy per cent of trading in the international bond market is based in London, reaching 31 trillion dollars in 2002. The City in London employs some 310,000 people. Non-UK European-owned banks operating in London employ nearly 30,000 of those people, managing assets worth more than £1,000 billion from London. Without London as a major financial centre, there would be a net loss of almost 200,000 jobs throughout the European Union, especially in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium and Italy.
  What are the implications for the financial services action plan? At all times and with the greatest of care, proposals for the regulation of financial services in the

  591
  European Union should reflect on the international dimension. Wholesale, professional global markets are very important. They are critical to the Lisbon agenda. They are not the same as retail markets: the difference is not one of scale, it is a difference of kind. Because of different circumstances, much of the European Union did not—in some cases perhaps still does not—fully understand the position and role of London in global markets. London is a European Union asset. Loose legislation can damage that asset.
  Some of the directives passed or proposed to date have failed that test. More damage could be caused in level 2 legislation unless greater understanding and care is taken. Partly because of the global role, the UK was initially slow at fully appreciating the perspective and priorities of many other member states. Typically, they are much more retail-driven. Wholesale markets in most member states are very much smaller. Protection of the consumer is often the defining objective.
  The move to get all primary legislation in place by 2005 was driven by a desire to reduce the cost of capital and to make business more competitive. Those are wholesale market issues. Domestically, politicians and business interests have often reflected domestic agendas and culture; hence retail consumer focus, sometimes with protectionist business agendas. Despite the stated intention of the Lamfalussi process, much primary legislation has been too detailed, as bureaucrats and politicians have tried to square the circle of different agendas of wholesale and retail markets.
  Some primary legislation has significant defects. Some legislation has been pushed through in haste, perhaps to meet deadlines. Yet, other legislation appears likely to miss the same deadlines. Some member states have occasionally dug in their heels to protect their perceived national interests. There has often been a move too far towards uniform, over-specified primary legislation.
  Some of the draft directives causing specific concerns for your Lordships' committee in November had moved on by the time the Government responded in January. Today, it would be helpful if my noble friend could update the House on matters that were still outstanding in January.
  With regard to the Transparency Directive, at that time we were concerned at the proposed requirement for quarterly reporting. We were pleased that that was subsequently dropped. We were also concerned that the directive might significantly extend the liability of directors and auditors beyond that to shareholders. The Government sought to reassure us that they had secured drafting changes to help address their concerns about these matters, but the committee was not entirely convinced. Can the Minister confirm whether the Transparency Directive, as it is now agreed, extends the liability of directors and auditors beyond that to shareholders?
  Agreement was reached on the Takeover Directive at the December council. The Minister told us in her response that the eventual compromise that made key
  592
  articles dealing with barriers to takeovers optional for member states was disappointing because certain genuine liberalising advantages of the directive had been lost. But she felt that improvements had been secured that laid down minimum standards for regulation of takeovers and enhancing minority shareholder protection across the European Union. We agree both with the Minister's pleasure and her disappointment.
  I turn briefly to the proposed Risk-Based Regulatory Capital Directive. When does the Minister expect the Commission to bring forward its revised proposals in the light of the Basel II negotiations? Will the directive apply to every firm that falls within the scope of the Investment Services Directive or only to a much smaller number of substantial firms?
  Your Lordships' committee regards agreement on international accounting standards or international financial reporting standards as a core objective of the action plan and central to lowering the cost of capital for European business and central to ensuring that the Union is fully integrated into global financial markets. There has continued to be opposition to articles 32 and 39 of the accounting standards, especially from French banking and insurance. What is the Government's current position on the importance of this potential directive and on the issues of articles 32 and 39? When we reported on that, the other unresolved issue was whether non-EU issuers would be allowed to use their own accounting standards to raise capital in the European Union. Can the Minister update your Lordships' House on this important point?
  On 7 October, the Council voted to amend Article 25 of the Investment Services Directive, which would have allowed major investment banks to continue to do business direct without having to use local stock exchanges. The amended rules on pre-trade transparency will, in our view, have a negative impact on the willingness of firms to trade with consequential effects on the cost of raising capital in the European Union. It is a spectacular own goal by the Council. Your Lordships' Committee regrets that an issue of this importance was decided uniquely in the Council by qualified majority vote, in the face of opposition from the important financial centres of the United Kingdom and Luxembourg. That is a deeply disturbing precedent and does not bode well for level 2 negotiations or for securing future reviews of ill drafted directives.
  In her response to the committee in January, the Minister explained how the Government were seeking to secure changes to the amended directive. We wish the Government well in those efforts. I shall be grateful if the Minister can update your Lordships today on the recent developments and on the remaining timetable and prospects for securing the important and necessary changes.
  There will undoubtedly be problems in future with the implementation and enforcement of some ill drafted level 1 legislation. We must hope that between them the Commission and the European Securities Committee, with the advice of CESR, make a better job at level 2 of producing what was intended as

  593
  detailed regulations to put flesh on the bones of the framework directives. This will all be done under comitology procedures, but will be dealing with issues of major importance beyond that normally associated with comitology.
  Can the Minister confirm that should there be votes in the European Securities Committee they will be under qualified majority voting? Does he regard the use of QMV on the Investment Services Directive as an example of good practice when considering how to take forward important financial regulation? How do the Government intend to ensure that the financial community in London is fully engaged in level 2 discussions?
  Given the large volume of secondary legislation to be dealt with, is the 2005 deadline for implementation still realistic? What issues in particular do the Government regard as important to achieve in level 2 negotiations? The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, whom I am delighted to see in his place today, has long reminded us of the importance of keeping a close eye on the use of comitology in Brussels. The House might wish to reflect with care on the way in which it can exercise rigorous scrutiny of level 2 legislation under the financial services action plan.
  The Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) will have a vital role to play at level 3 in ensuring a consistent, timely and common approach to implementation by regulators of member states. We arc pleased to hear that the process of transparency and consultation with the practitioners in the market place has been formalised, seeking to ensure that the markets themselves are now part of the process of implementation. However, we were concerned by the sheer size of the task of implementing the 42 or more directives and their associated secondary legislation, against a deadline of 2005.
  We were concerned about the burden on the industry and on the regulatory authorities at all levels. We agree with the Government's response on this point that there is a careful balance that has to be struck here. We agree that Brussels must bear in mind proportionality and use all the policy levers at its disposal, including competition policy, with a view to avoiding future legislation whenever possible.
  In their response, the Government told us that the Treasury was working with industry in identifying, listing and categorising reported problems in cross-border provision of financial services and the establishment of financial services firms throughout the European Union. Is the Minister able to tell us today what arrangements are made for that important work? Will it result in a published report and if so, when?
  Today's debate deals with issues of importance to this country and to the European Union. The European Council has been right to aim for a single market in financial services. It has been ambitious in its deadline for implementation by 2005. Much has undoubtedly been achieved in pushing through ELI-wide framework legislation. We hope that our reservations about some of
  594
  the detail are greatly outweighed by the positive benefits that can be secured in the form of lower costs of capital and more choice and better returns for investors.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on European Union on Towards a Single Market for Finance: The Financial Services Action Plan [45th Report, HL Paper 192].—(Lord Woobner of Leeds.)
  5.55 p.m.
  Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, for introducing this debate and for his expert chairmanship of the committee's inquiry. I was a member of Sub-Committee B, which produced this report. I must also declare an interest. As set out in the Register, I am a director of LSE plc, the company which owns and operates the London Stock Exchange. For 18 years before I came into your Lordships' House I worked in an investment bank, Charterhouse, and then as an advisory director at HSBC.
  So I am parti pris, but indeed such is the importance of the financial services industry to our economy that everybody who lives in the United Kingdom, as well as those who work in the industry, has good reason to be a supporter of this industry and to be interested in the rather difficult and technical provisions of the financial services action plan.
  Overall, the financial services industry contributes a net £18 billion to the UK trade balance, making it the world leader, Switzerland, unsurprisingly, ranks second and the mighty USA third in the world. In addition, another net £6 billion comes from the earnings abroad from the likes of Barclays and HSBC even after netting off the payments going out of the country from foreign banks, which gives us a total bottom line contribution to the United Kingdom economy of £24 billion. By comparison, our tourist industry and our airline industry, which get a great deal more publicity than financial services, bring in huge revenues, but have even larger outflows, so that at the net level the balance of payments for these two industries shows a loss.
  The other truly remarkable statistic for the financial services industry is that it pays 27 per cent of the UK's corporation tax and the people in it are responsible for 14 per cent of the UK's pay-as-you-earn taxes. Your Lordships will understand therefore the particular enthusiasm with which I participated in this inquiry.
  Indeed, it is pleasing that despite the wide variety of evidence from a wide variety of people, there was no real dispute about the importance of the FSAP initiative itself. In principle, it is perfectly easy to support; it is in practice that it becomes much more problematic. But unless we succeed in delivering a more efficient financial market we have no hope of achieving the Lisbon commitment to make the EU the most competitive economy in the world by 2010.
  How will we know when we have got there? One key test has to be to compare the cost of capital available to Europe's companies with the cost of capital available to companies from outside the EU and, most

  595
  important, with the companies in the US. Such measures are important. It is not just enough to complete a market that is internally efficient unless it also makes the whole of the European Union competitive in global terms.
  It is this concern with the cost of capital that goes to the heart of some of the UK's reservations about aspects of the financial services action plan. For many years the City of London has been a global financial centre and its success is based in part on its ability to attract international investors and companies as well as on its capacity to serve UK plc.
  The City of London is not of course reliant solely on the UK domestic economy. There are 450 non-UK companies from almost 60 countries whose securities are traded on the markets of the London Stock Exchange. Two-thirds of the institutions that issue debt are from outside the EU but 70 per cent of global turnover in internationally traded bonds takes place in London. London is also home to the world's biggest pool of investment funds and liquidity amounting to more than £260 billion, far more than Paris or Frankfurt, and even more than New York. That is a huge vote of confidence in the quality and integrity of London's markets, underpinned by a carefully balanced package of regulation.
  It is against that background that we have to assess the FSAP and its emphasis on harmonising standards and creating an integrated market based on a new regulatory framework. It also explains some of the tensions that the project has produced among policy makers and between national governments. I believe that most of those tensions have been founded on a false premise; namely, that we are here in a zero-sum game, and that London's loss will be Frankfurt's or Paris's gain. To believe that is not to understand the nature and mobility of financial markets. Electronic trading and remote access to exchanges make it possible to transfer funds at hardly imaginable speeds. The largest investment banks have access to all the world's financial centres and trade 24 hours. They owe no allegiance other than to seek out the best deals for their customers. That means that markets can move to different centres almost overnight, and when they move they cannot always be lured back.
  If Europe cannot meet firms' needs for capital raising and customers' needs for investment products, increasingly business will go elsewhere. A supportive fiscal and regulatory framework is needed to retain and grow international markets. The wrong policy decisions can prove very expensive; for example, the huge Eurobond and Eurodollar markets were first created in the sixties in Europe, principally in London, because the USA imposed a 15 per cent tax that hit overseas issuers. Although the US government repealed the tax shortly afterwards, the damage was done and the market stayed in London, never moving back to New York. There are more recent examples. In 1987, when the German government imposed a 10 per cent withholding tax on domestic interest income, it led to massive sales of German government bonds by
  596
  foreign investors. The German government were forced into an embarrassing U-turn within four months.
  The mistaken belief in some member states that services could somehow be repatriated from London threatens a similar outcome. The most recent Centre For Economic and Business Research report demonstrates that the City of London brings benefits to the whole European economy, as my noble friend Lord Woolmer explained. Without the cluster of global financial services companies in London. 18 per cent of City-type business would be lost, not to the rest of Europe, but to competitors outside the EU—New York, Tokyo or Switzerland—and a further 12 per cent would be lost altogether as higher costs made transactions unviable.
  There is a current and worrying example in the Investment Services Directive, on which negotiations have reached a very delicate stage. The main issue is the extent to which investment firms are permitted to conduct business off-exchange and how transparent they should be in disclosing that business prior to trades taking place—the extent to which they are obliged to disclose the price before trade—or so-called pre-trade transparency. Since internalisation is already a feature of the London market, we do not believe that the pre-trade transparency requirements should be made too onerous. Liquidity providers will be deterred if the quote obligation—the level at which they must guarantee to conduct business—is set too high. The London position is that investors should have more choice about the execution services that they want.
  As I understand it, the current text of the Investment Services Directive, as approved recently by the Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, offers a much better balance than the alternative text, preferred by the Council of Ministers, which was approved despite the strong opposition of the UK and four other member states. Our view is that unless the European Parliament's text—or something pretty close to it—is approved, serious damage will be done as business moves elsewhere, with substantial financial loss not only to London but to the whole of the EU. Like my noble friend Lord Woolmer, I should be very glad to hear the Government's understanding of the current position during the winding-up speech.
  So let us be clear: damaging London does not mean that Frankfurt or Paris will gain. Put in wider economic terms, almost 200,000 European jobs could disappear and seven member states would see a fall in GDP. Perhaps that is the real problem with the financial services action plan. Certainly the UK Government and UK-based financial services providers must communicate more effectively the benefits that the City of London delivers to Europe as a whole. As Dr Ruben Lee said to us in his evidence, what is good for the UK is good for Europe. I must say that, on the whole, Europe hates being told that sort of thing. It is difficult for Europe to face up to people who tend to say, "We have been there before, we did that and it proved a disaster". We are often, justly, accused of arrogance in those negotiations. However, the fact is that we have been there before; we must just find a more careful way of saying it.

  597
  In that sense, the City must be seen more as a European asset to be prized and valued. That does not mean that we should expect the EU as a whole to agree to adopt UK standards. It means, however, that the leaders of Europe's member states should be focused on the bigger prize to Europe's economy of an efficient and competitive financial services market. That is not an easy concept. In areas more familiar to European negotiators, such as the common agricultural policy, it is a zero-sum game, where one European nation's gain really is another European nation's loss. We hope that in the end our expertise can serve the whole EU.
  There is also a strategic choice facing the accession countries, particularly those from central and eastern Europe, which are, to put it kindly, newly embracing the demands of competition and the market economy. Their companies need access to the low cost of capital that only an efficient financial market can provide. The Centre for Economic and Business Research report also shows that in the EU now the costs of doing financial services business in other member states are on average almost 25 per cent more than they would be if the equivalent business were done in the City. Given that the accession countries tend to be smaller, the costs of doing that business in those states may be even higher, which should give all policy-makers pause for thought.
  As my noble friend Lord Woolmer outlined, the other major problem dogging the implementation of the FSAP is the question of distinguishing between retail markets—to you and me, the sale of financial services products such as pensions and life insurance and savings products—and the EU's wholesale markets, which are largely centred in London. There is a tendency among some of our European partners to feel that the same regulation should apply to the sale of products to individuals as to dealings between the likes of HSBC, Citibank and Deutsche Bank, to name but three.
  The UK's record on regulation of sales of financial products to individuals is not unblemished, and our difficulties have been made very public, as with the mis-selling of personal pensions that surfaced in the 1990s. But we have successfully managed to avoid measures that damage wholesale business, and we recognise the concept of the sophisticated private investor who may be able to opt out of investor protection legislation. We have also recognised that without a successful wholesale market there will be no retail business to regulate. It must be right that different standards can and should be applied to protection of the individual consumer from the standards that obtain in dealings between the global investment banks that we hope and expect will want to go on doing business in the European Community.
  Some difficulties are being experienced because some countries have not acknowledged fully the distinctions between individuals and financial institutions, or because historically they have different regimes. French opposition to the internalisation provisions of the Investment Services Directive, which enable institutions to deal off-market, partly stems from their objection that individual investors might be disadvantaged if all prices
  598
  are not fully transparent before any deal took place. There is no evidence that individuals are so disadvantaged. If the theoretical needs of the investor consumer were to be given primacy in that way, internalisation of orders would have to cease in European markets, only to re-appear, with the same players acting on behalf of the same individuals, in an offshore centre.
  I wish to comment briefly on the Lamfalussy process, led by the eponymous Baron Lamfalussy. The problems of the FSAP do not end when the principles of the various directives have been agreed at Community level. The difficulties of getting through the huge amounts of material contained in the various directives were understood almost from the beginning, which is why the Lamfalussy process was set up. In evidence we had various predictions about the success or otherwise of the process. The concern is that probably still too much detail appears in level 1 of the directive because nobody really trusts each other to fix the problems at level 2, the implementation stage. Levels 3 and 4 simply remain unknown. Level 4, on enforcement, is particularly worrying. The omens are not good. The Commission's latest report on infraction proceedings shows that the incidence of failure to implement or weak implementation of internal market directives is worsening. That does not auger well for the future of the FSAP. On the other hand, this group of directives is new, and we must all hope that, as the benefits become more evident, enforcement will follow.
  There remains also a key missing piece of the jigsaw which is not even part of the FSAP. As our report notes, for a market to function effectively there needs to be an unimpeded system for cross-border clearance and settlement. There are, as I speak, around 20 separate systems for 15 domestic markets in the European Union, compared effectively with one in the United States for a market of about the same size. Domestic settlement in the EU is cheap and efficient, while cross-border settlement, unsurprisingly, is expensive and inefficient. This is a barrier to a single market in financial services and, vitally, a barrier to getting a low cost of capital into Europe. It may even be that legislation is the only way to force reform in this area, but the jury is out and at the moment we rest our confidence in the Giovannini Group and a joint working party of central bankers and security regulators. It is a vital step and it will be quicker and better if market players could resolve the problem.
  I fear that this speech has sounded a little pessimistic about what has been achieved already by the financial services action plan and what can still be achieved. Harmonisation of financial services was always going to be difficult given the different stages of development of the European countries' markets, but the great prize of a cost of capital as low as anywhere in the developed world is there for the taking, and I remain encouraged.
  6.11 p.m.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, after half an hour or so, the wind-up starts. I am also a member of Sub-Committee B and therefore have been associated with the production of this report. I am glad to be

  599
  associated with giving thanks to the Clerk, the advisers, the givers of evidence and fellow members of the committee.
  This subject is complicated. Therefore, I have tried to reduce it to its simplicity. First, we are talking about a genuine, single, European market for those who want to borrow money or raise equity funds. Secondly, we are talking about an open market in what we call retail; that is, the man or woman in the street achieving their savings and other people being able to promote the ways in which they may save. Thirdly, within all this there is a level playing field, lightly refereed, because the rules are understood and accepted.
  That is what this is about, but then the complications start. It is called an action plan, but this is the plan, and the action is to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, has given a very proper abridged account of the report, as I knew he would. He set out in some brevity that which is available for everybody to read.
  On the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, with her own expertise and knowledge of London and the markets in London, has made it clear that London equals Europe in a world context. It was very helpful for us to glean the fact of UK-Switzerland-USA; it is a batting order that I have never seen before and I am grateful to have that. I understand how that can well be the case. Even more importantly, came the knowledge of how important this whole area is to the economy in terms of the 27 per cent corporation tax take and the 14 per cent pay-as-you-earn take. She also stressed the importance of the Lamfalussy process and that we are supposed to be talking about the framework, yet much has to follow in these other areas of what might be called lower-degree decision making.
  It is interesting in responding to only two speakers that there is no entrant from what we have come to see in this House as the "octopus tendency". One could have expected that we would have had entrants from that tendency today. However, the issue is about an open market and in this instance what is a clear opportunity here in the United Kingdom. The committee's work is but a small cog in the European-wide debate, but our Government are involved and the Minister is here to respond. I hope that he will let us know where we are now. The committee is a piece of history; we have the document; yet the debate still goes on. Where are we with clearance and settlement procedures? Where are we with accounting standards? Will there be a reversal of the ISD? Where are we in terms of deadlines? We were told about the deadlines when we took evidence and went to Paris, yet we are also keen that this issue is got right. What is there that is still outstanding? Can quality overcome speed?
  Overall in Britain over the past few years we have not been very good at raising the flag for Europe; we have been far keener to moan; but I would commend the point made about the benefits of the single market being worth 130 billion euros over 10 years. That amount is very important, as was indicated earlier; it is very important for the UK. There can be a tremendous
  600
  benefit for both the UK and Europe, and even if benefits are only half as good as this, it is a very good catch.
  6.17 p.m.
  Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and the European Union Sub-Committee B for their terrific work. It made me feel very nostalgic. The first six years that I was in this House I served on Select Committees and particularly on the European Union Select Committee Sub-Committees D and C. Terrific work is done for this House and for the other place because there is no level of scrutiny like this in the other place on European directives. Tonight it was evident that it is important that we have such knowledge here in this House, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and the committee very much indeed.
  As the noble Lord said, a single market in financial services has been a key part of the moves towards the single market which began with the Treaty of Rome nearly half a century ago, and was cemented by the Single European Act 1986. In the Conservative Party we support these moves. While we do not believe that a single market requires a single social or industrial policy or a common taxation policy, we strongly support the four basic freedoms of the single market—free movement of goods, services, people and, most relevant to today's debate, capital.
  In 1999 the European Commission put together a financial services action plan, with its plans for improving the single market in financial services. Your Lordships will know that the plan has three strategic objectives—the single market for wholesale financial services; open and secure retail markets, and state-of-the-art prudential rules and supervision.
  The plan also has a tight deadline, as we have heard. In Lisbon in March 2000, the European Council affirmed that the FSAP should be adopted by the end of 2005. For this to be achieved, the measures must be fully adopted at the European level by next month.
  The report states that at present there are three outstanding measures under negotiation. As we have heard, those are the take-over directive, the investment services directive and the transparency directive—in addition to the 10th and 14th company law directives which have yet to be brought forward by the Commission. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on these issues? So far as I am aware, in the case of the transparency and investment services directives, the co-decision process is still ongoing. Is that the case? What of the takeover directive? Moreover, what progress has been made on the company law directives?
  I am also aware that the Commission is currently preparing legislation on Basel capital adequacy rules for financial institutions, Solvency 2, cross-border payments and reinsurance. Do these measures form part of the FSAP and what progress has so far been made?
  The purpose of the sub-committee's report was to investigate the effect on the quality of legislation of the tight deadline for the FSAP. In particular the report

  601
  raised the issue of the "retrogressive" vote in ECOFIN to amend Article 25. That would have allowed major investment banks to do business direct without having to use local stock exchanges. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury estimated the potential cost of the amendment to be as much as £300 million, and the Government have stated their wish to see the decision reversed. What steps are being taken to alter the investment services directive before it is adopted? I understand that compromise on the ISD was accepted in committee last week, but can the Minister tell us what is his assessment of the chance of a satisfactory outcome in ECOFIN?
  This is a key item of legislation which will impact on the whole framework of financial services regulation in Europe. It has been described by many as the constitution for the European capital market. Getting the ISD right will be crucial for the UK's financial industry. It is important to ensure that a proper distinction is made between professional and retail investors, and that it does not burden wholesale markets with regulation designed to protect consumers. That point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen. Rules relating to the conduct of business and marketing should not be used to protect markets. In addition, it is important to ensure that the ISD is not used to create more complication and costs for investors, for example by adding further costs and bureaucracy to execution-only services, nor should it impose unnecessary burdens on independent financial advisers and small firms involved in financial services business.
  I return to the FSAP. The sub-committee claims that the Lisbon European Council in March 2000,
  "gave new impetus to the Financial Services Action Plan as a key component of broader EU economic reform".
  It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on this statement. In the four years since the Lisbon summit, the Government have published annual progress reports. In the first, in 2001, the Prime Minister wrote:
  "Reform, while underway within the European Union, must move forward with speed"
  In the second, the Prime Minister commented that,
  "progress has not always been smooth. Much more remains to be done".
  In 2003, the Prime Minister said:
  "There remains a daunting amount to be done".
  This year, the Prime Minister said that progress "is not good enough" and added,
  "we need to go further to meet the standards being set by our competitors elsewhere in the world".
  How much progress does the Minister believe is still necessary in order to create a single market in financial services?
  As we have heard tonight, while I shall not cite such superb figures as the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, financial services form a hugely important part of the UK economy, accounting for 5 per cent of UK gross domestic product. So it is vital that we get the single market and the financial services action plan right. Opening up access to European markets will provide
  602
  huge opportunities for the City but, at the same time, an overly prescriptive and bureaucratic approach from the European Union poses severe dangers. It is therefore important that we heed the warnings given by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and the sub-committee regarding,
  "the balance to be achieved between speed of implementing legislation and the quality of that legislation".
  I would welcome the Minister's comments on how the Government intend to use their influence to achieve such a balance.
  I want to raise one remaining issue, again vouched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen. European Union enlargement begins on 1 May with 10 new member states joining the European Union. What discussions have the Government had with the European Commission regarding the extension of the single market for financial services to the enlarged European Union? What steps does the Minister believe are necessary?
  I close for these Benches by welcoming the detailed and painstaking work of the members of Sub-Committee B under the wise guidance of its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. We have listened with great interest to two members of the sub-committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, set out a wonderful range of figures, drawing on her great experience as a banker in the City of London. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, addressed the House with the clarity one would expect of a chartered accountant of his standing.
  I thank all the members of the sub-committee for the report. We look forward to the Minister's response.
  6.26 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I join all noble Lords in expressing my thanks to my noble friend for chairing the sub-committee. Its members have all played their part, but my noble friend's chairmanship certainly ensured that we have the benefit of cogent and relevant reports which raise all the crucial issues. As my noble friend indicated in opening the debate, what he really wants is not answers to the report which has already been presented, but an update on our progress on these issues since its delivery. I shall do my best to respond to those questions. However, I want to put on the record the gratitude of the House to the members of the sub-committee.
  I was grateful for the rather pessimistic stance adopted by my noble friend Lady Cohen, to which she herself admitted. It was enlivened at the end of her remarks by one or two moments of encouragement and appreciation of progress being made. I am sure that she will forgive me if the general tone of my remarks is almost the exact opposite. I shall be buoyant about areas in which we are making some degree of progress while not being so unrealistic as not to recognise that there are very real reasons for concern and areas in which a great deal of work still needs to be done.
  The project, achieving the ambitious strategy of the financial services action plan, will produce very significant gains both for us and for other member

  603
  states in the Community. But we cannot fulfil those ambitions at any cost. Although it is important to make progress, we must also recognise that we cannot rush into legislation. It is crucial to focus on the principles of better regulation and proper consultation to ensure that the quality of financial services legislation is not compromised, in particular given the high standards we maintain in our own country.
  I want to reassure my noble friend on what was probably the easiest question he put to me: the extent to which the Government are involved in consultation with crucial players in the industry. The Government make strenuous efforts to ensure that not only do they take those crucial players with them, but also that they benefit from the wisdom they can provide by warning us of the implicit dangers of taking inappropriate action. All noble Lords have stressed that point, and no one better than the chairman of the sub-committee, my noble friend Lord Woolmer. These issues are vitally important for the City of London, given the role it plays not only in terms of enhancing the prosperity of our own people, but in its crucial role in the global context.
  One of the crucial issues that we have to face in a rather more dramatic way than several of our partners in Europe is that our financial services industry has a global reach, a global importance and a global significance. This means that we must have strategies which are not only entirely relevant for the Community but are also appropriate for enhancing London and the City in its role across a whole range of world services.
  Great benefits can flow from an enhanced market. A recent report from the London School of Economics on behalf of the European Commission calculated that the creation of a single EU market in financial services would by itself reduce the real cost of capital by 50 basis points for European businesses and result in a one-off 1.1 per cent increase in GDP over 10 years for the European Union as a whole. Those are very significant figures indeed. In a sense, it is a measure of the prize for which we are striving in regard to the development of a single market in this area.
  Such benefits will not of course be forthcoming in terms of better regulation without accompanying economic reform across the EU. The issues will be made that much more complex by enlargement, a subject introduced late in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. She asked what discussions the Government have had with the Commission about enlargement and this project. We are seeking to develop relations with the accession countries to ensure that they play a full part in developing this single market. They, too, have their contribution to make. However, it is important that they should appreciate fully how important this development is for the whole of the European market they are about to join.
  The Government believe that the process of economic reform is necessary if Europe is to meet the strategic goal agreed at the Lisbon European Council and confirmed at Stockholm and Barcelona. Moreover, as the committee's
  604
  report identifies and as the Government have previously agreed, we need to improve the quality of regulation at European as well as at national level. Better regulation disciplines are beginning to develop in Brussels. The better regulation action plan introduces extended impact assessments for all new significant legislation; an eight-week consultation period for new legislation; and a programme of simplification of existing legislation. It is early days but it is clear that this is a genuinely welcome initiative.
  However, as we have found in the UK, we need to maintain constant pressure to keep driving forward regulatory reform. That is why the theme of my noble friend's opening speech was, "How much momentum do we have in terms of this development at the present time?" The Government are working with the Irish, Netherlands and Luxembourg Governments to implement a further programme of regulatory reform over their presidencies to further strengthen impact assessments—including through a specific test of the effect on competitiveness—and we are looking at alternatives to regulation. This initiative has been welcomed also by the President of France and the German Chancellor. So initiatives in which we have played a full part and taken key steps are being buttressed by support elsewhere.
  My noble friend Lady Cohen emphasised the global dimension. It is essential that the global characteristics of financial services are taken into account when developing and implementing the EU's strategy for them. The EU's policy must encourage further liberalisation of the EU market and greater integration generally. The EU and the US are the world's leading financial services markets. More efficient and integrated EU-US financial markets would benefit everyone. We can of course improve our relationships with the United States by having clarity, consistency and effectiveness across the European Community.
  There remains, however—this reflects the element of pessimism in the speech of my noble friend Lady Cohen—a great deal to be done. In following up the financial services action plan we intend to ensure that any official action is carefully targeted to address specific market failures and barriers; that when community action is necessary the Commission should use all the policy levers at its disposal and avoid legislation whenever possible; to encourage all those participating in the decision-making process to act to improve the quality of legislation with rigorous cost-benefit analysis, better regulation principles and consultation with all stakeholders; to ensure that there is effective implementation of FSAP measures by member states and effective and consistent enforcement of these measures by the Commission; and to ensure that the global dimension features prominently in our thinking.
  Considerable effort is being put into the identification of barriers to financial market integration. The Treasury is working closely with the industry in attempting to list and categorise reported problems in the cross-border provision of financial services and the establishment of financial services firms throughout the EU.

  605
  The Government have encouraged the Commission to tackle its task of completing the single market by using all available policy tools. In the 2003 Budget Statement, the Chancellor encouraged the Commission to make more proactive use of its competition powers to investigate financial services markets that appear uncompetitive.
  I have been asked about a number of points, which I shall address in the remainder of my speech. I can assure my noble friends Lord Woolmer and Lady Cohen that we are trying to reach the April 2004 deadline. After that date, we foresee that issues such as enlargement will create greater difficulties, which will have to be overcome.
  But we cannot do this at any cost. This is shown in our firm opposition to the services directive compromise proposed at the last ECOFIN council. We shall continue to encourage sustained progress towards the completion of this plan but remain wary of the attempt to rush legislation. We cannot, as my noble friend Lord Woolmer indicated in his opening speech, do anything except seek to guarantee that the City, in its crucial role, does not lose out as a result of these developments.
  My noble friend asked about the transparency directive. It is too early for me to give a definitive response. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred to the co-decision aspect of the work in this area. Negotiations are ongoing between the Council and the European Parliament and I am unable to give a definitive reply on that front.
  As to the issue of international accounting standards, we are strongly supportive of their adoption—including IAS 32 and 39, although we recognise their contentious aspects. The standards are not perfect but their adoption will bring great benefits. We welcome the continuing dialogue between the International Accounting Standards Board and other stakeholders.
  I am afraid that I have to say to my noble friend that in regard to non-EU issues countries will be able to use their own accounting standards until 2007. We cannot see that we can make progress faster than that. In the meantime, agreement will have to be reached within the EU as to which accounting standards are considered of sufficiently high quality to be acceptable as international accounting standards. A great deal of work has been carried out but all noble Lords who have participated in the debate will recognise the challenges represented by that work.
  My noble friend also asked whether CAD 3, the capital directive, will apply to every firm that falls within the scope of the investment services directive. The answer is broadly "Yes". I can reply affirmatively on that.
  He asked about the takeovers directive. Again, I lapse into a slightly pessimistic stance. I cannot pretend that the current directive is anything other than a disappointment. It does little to address harriers to takeovers in the EU. We have concluded that at
  606
  present we have no other basis on which agreement can be reached. It is this or nothing. We shall bring benefits to the single market. There will be better protection for minority shareholders, which will result from minimum standards being laid down, and there will be greater transparency, which will enable the markets to identify unaddressed defensive corporate strategies across the EU. But I cannot help but indicate to the House that this directive is not what we would wish. I think that my noble friend is all too well aware of that, but it is right that the Government's response should be put on the record.
  On the question of the investment services directive in general, we were encouraged by the strong vote last week—my noble friend asked for an update and I cannot do much better than to quote last week—by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in favour of positive amendments to the directive. As I indicated earlier, we are urging fellow council members to reach a compromise with the Parliament to allow the ISD to be agreed in April. Progress is being made. The European Parliament is on the side of the angels. There is a negotiating position that can be exploited and we hope to see it exploited along the lines that we have been pursuing. We hope for an early conclusion.
  Four directives are caught by level 2 of the Lamfalussy process. Work on three has commenced. The Government's priority is to ensure that, in general, level 2 work achieves proportionate, consistent and timely legislation with better regulation outcomes so that changes in technology and market practice can easily be accommodated in a way hat is consistent with protecting the consumer. My noble friend will recognise that in that area I have to be slightly elliptical in my response. I can tell him one other fact. It is the case that European Securities Commission votes on level 2 are undertaken by qualified majority voting, which gives some flexibility.
  Both my noble friend Lady Cohen and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised points about cross-border clearing issues and settlement in the EU. We believe that the Giovanni reports were helpful and we are looking forward to the commissioner's forthcoming communication on this subject. The Government do not have a view on whether clearing and settlement services are best provided by a single provider or by multiple providers. We believe that market structure is best determined by the market participants and we will be pursuing the discussions along those lines.
  I was also asked whether the Government supported a directive on clearing and settlement. We can see some possible benefits in a directive, in terms of creating certainty about the regulatory environment and ensuring open access to providers and markets, but also potential risks. There is not yet a common view among member states about the scope and content of any possible directive. This may result in overly

  607
  complex, rigid legalisation that stifles innovation. Suffice it to say that we have distinct reservations in this area at present.
  On the company law directive, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked me a specific question about the cross-border mergers directive proposal launched by the Commission in November 2003. This is now under discussion in the Council and Parliament.
  She asked another question to which I can reply directly. There is no proposal as yet from the Commission on Basle 2 or Solvency 2. These measures are not formally part of the FSAP. She asked an interesting question and I can say only that at this stage no proposals have emerged.
  I have been asked a series of interesting questions, born out of a report that was clarity itself. But in being clear, it did what I think my noble friend and all the other noble Lords who contributed to this debate expected. There are areas in which we can see the potential for significant progress, but there are causes for real anxiety where barriers exist. We are all aware of the fact that issues in the European Community do not become easier against a background of enlargement. We all recognise that and that is why it is important that the established part of the Community, with economies that have been functioning against many of these parameters for a considerable period of time, makes progress on integration and the creation of the single market in the period immediately prior to enlargement.
  As I hope noble Lords will recognise, I have been as open and frank as possible about the areas where the Government share elements of pessimism. I am able to confirm to the House that we are making significant progress. The committee identified some areas of that progress and it is something that we can take pride in, while redoubling our efforts to raise the pace and to make additional progress.
  6.46 p.m.
  Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, this has been a brief but important debate. I thank most warmly all those who contributed. It is invidious to pick out my noble friend the Minister to thank him, but I know that he stood in for my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I am grateful to him for producing some answers, notwithstanding the fact that a few days ago he could not have been expecting to have to respond. He has responded with his usual mixture of well judged gloom and considerable optimism. I thank him for that. Occasionally, what he thought was welcome news to me was not, and in other places he thought that the news would be unwelcome, and I was actually quite pleased. So between us we shall go away from this debate extremely pleased. I thank everyone for contributing.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Prison (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  6.47 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Prison (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 be approved. The order introduces a range of miscellaneous provisions requiring amendment to the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 that, in large part, will serve to provide the Northern Ireland Prison Service with powers that are already available to its counterparts in Great Britain.
  The draft order provides for enabling powers for the mandatory testing of prisoners for the presence of drugs and alcohol in their body, which is a development objective of the Northern Ireland Prison Service drugs strategy. The provisions replicate enabling powers already taken by Her Majesty's Prison Service and the Scottish Prison Service in the 1990s. They provide that where the Secretary of State has authorised the commencement of testing in either case in Northern Ireland, any designated person authorised by the governor to do so may require a prisoner to provide a sample of urine or other non-intimate sample for testing for drugs or alcohol.
  Mandatory drugs testing of prisoners is already a well established procedure in England and Wales and in Scotland. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has for many years been tackling its drugs problems through voluntary drugs testing arrangements. This does however have its drawbacks. There are prisoners who systematically side-step voluntary testing and thus avoid detection of possible drug misuse. The availability of the powers will act as a platform for the development of the necessary operational systems that will support the implementation of mandatory drugs testing at the appropriate time. Both mandatory and voluntary testing arrangements will act as complementary components of a comprehensive strategy aimed at reducing drugs misuse in prisons.
  Many would argue that alcohol is an equally harmful drug. Recent research undertaken by Queen's University, Belfast, at Hydebank Wood Young Offenders' Centre reported that 61 per cent of inmates felt that excess alcohol had caused them to engage in the behaviour that led to their incarceration. Therefore, mandatory alcohol testing will be targeted largely at those who, as part of the rehabilitative process, become eligible for periods of temporary release from prison. Mandatory alcohol testing on return to custody will identify those individuals who have breached the conditions of their temporary release and affect consideration of future applications. It will also identify individuals who require further assistance with their dependency problems.
  A further key provision in the draft order is one which affirms that a police constable may hold in his custody any person committed to prison by the court, where it is impracticable to secure that individual's

  609
  immediate admission to prison. That is essentially a contingency planning measure intended to provide appropriate interim custody arrangements for prisoners in circumstances where severe operational difficulties, such as a fire or other disturbance, experienced by the prison service at any of its establishments may temporarily preclude the normal admission of prisoners.
  A similar provision has been in force in England and Wales for some time. It is a sensible and practical solution to deal with any exceptional circumstances which may arise at a prison. Both the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland welcome the provision as a means of formalising existing contingency arrangements. Its use is expected to be exceptional and, where deployed, will be of limited duration.
  The remaining provisions are minor amendments and repeals removing existing statutory obstacles to the full implementation of policies which promote equality of opportunity in public appointments to boards of visitors, and limit the opportunities to smuggle drugs, alcohol or other illicit substances into prisons in prisoner parcels.
  The primary intent of the draft order is to provide the Northern Ireland Prison Service with powers which are already available to prison services in other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, each of the provisions will play a role in enabling the Northern Ireland Prison Service to meet the challenges which confront it, and to continue to operate as a modern and professional prison service. I commend the order to the House.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order to us so clearly. It is a broadly based order that covers a number of issues that basically, as I understand it, tighten up the prison regime and its disciplines, and try to bring Northern Ireland more into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. But is it real for Northern Ireland today? How will the prison service enforce drug testing and so on for paramilitary prisoners? How will it cope, with the resources that it has, which are already under stretch?
  The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons made some quite relevant comments on the report by Mr Steele, a highly respected gentleman but not a politician. The committee stated:
  "The Government's decision to implement separation, which we believe to have been taken for political reasons, was largely unwelcome to staff within the Prison Service. It was not believed that separation would result in greater safety either for prisoners or staff. It was feared that the paramilitaries would seek to take control of the separated areas as they had previously done at HMP Maze".
  Nothing has been learnt. The committee continued:
  "Within the temporary arrangements which have preceded establishment of the permanent regime, there has been significant evidence of prisoners continuing to resist and challenge the management of their wings. Outside the prison, attacks on the homes of prison officers—primarily by Loyalist organisations—have continued at a high level.
  610
  The report recognises that, having made the decision to implement separation, the Government cannot now turn back from it. But it asserts that the Government must pay the full cost which arises from the decision in terms of support for the prison and for its staff. The Government must 'hold the line' within the prison and ensure that no concessions are ever made to the separated prisoners which might undermine or diminish the control exercised by prison officers. Recommendations are made on a number of subjects, such as the procedure for identifying prisoners eligible for separation, and the exercise of sanctions, where questions about the operation of the proposed new regime remain".
  I suggest that that was a serious retrograde step.
  Where are we? A website on 1 March stated that:
  "Real IRA prisoners are believed to be on the brink of another 'dirty protest'".
  Marian Price of the Irish Republican Prisoners' Welfare Association commented further on that protests were always on the cards. The article continues:
  "Hitting out at the Government's response … the DUP's Ian Paisley Jnr accused the Minister of showing 'extreme weakness and failure' in the face of pressure from dissident republican prisoners".
  The result of all that is that the prison service and the prisons are overstretched. As I understand it, we passed legislation to allow us to house difficult prisoners in England, but the English prisons are full. The Government's prison strategy for Northern Ireland is currently a shambles. Having said that, I see nothing in the order to which I wish to object.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order to us. From these Benches, I support the order. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, may well have made good points about the way in which activities take place at present hut, in terms of laying down the rules, I am pleased to be able to support the order and the fact that it puts Northern Ireland on the same footing as the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, although the order is largely uncontroversial and is to be welcomed in principle, it raises a number of quest ions, some of which have already been touched on in quite some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I do not intend to repeat what he said; I merely endorse his points about our prison service and the interests of those who work in it being damaged to some extent and endangered by some of the concessions made of late.
  We are in a difficult situation; I suppose that we are always in a difficult situation in Northern Ireland so far as prisoners are concerned. There is influence from paramilitary organisations and other highly organised groups of people who have connections with the drugs trade in Northern Ireland. In the context of the heightened tension, we then have to ask ourselves whether the introduction of mandatory drug and alcohol testing is likely to be used to orchestrate protest or to enflame an already volatile situation.
  We know that it is only too easy in Northern Ireland for those who are organised within the prison and who have been, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran,

  611
  suggested, assisted in their organisation to call on the help of friends outside, in order to intimidate prison officers. An already volatile and fragile relationship exists in our prisons, and I am not absolutely sure from what the noble Baroness told us what procedures and regulations will apply to testing. Will prisoners be selected at random? Will testing be on a rotational basis? Will prisoners be tested weekly or monthly? Will they have advance notice that they are going to be tested?
  If that is the way of it, those factors will obviously make the whole process quite predictable and hence self-defeating. For example, what happens when a prisoner refuses to co-operate with regard to the testing? The offence is indicated clearly enough but are the penalties for refusing to participate in the mandatory testing undefined and too vague to be a real deterrent? Is the Minister satisfied that the physical deterrent which exists in our prisons is adequate to deter those who seek to introduce alcohol or, more specifically, drugs to prisoners?
  As well as considering the difficulties which exist, can the noble Baroness tell us what drug rehabilitation programmes are in place for prisoners? While the ultimate aim must be to rid our prisons of drug and alcohol abuse, once and for all, the cure for those who are addicted is every bit as important as the deterrent. What education programmes are in place to help prisoners to come off, and to stay off, drugs not just in prison but also when they are discharged?
  My final point may not seem to be of great importance but it disturbs people in Northern Ireland. I refer to the removal of the justices of the peace as members of the boards of visitors. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify whether justices of the peace who are at present on hoards of visitors are to be quietly and surreptitiously removed. If that is so, who is that intended to flatter? It is not welcomed by those of us who have over the years seen our justices of the peace contribute effectively as members of the boards of visitors.
  In general, I support the order. However, I look forward to the Minister's reply to the several questions that I have posed.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, perhaps I may mention to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that Maghaberry and the Maze are very different kinds of prisons. The former is cellular whereas we all know that the Maze is constructed on H-block lines. Therefore, I hope that the fears expressed about loss of control in Maghaberry may be a little exaggerated.
  I urge the Government to do everything in their power to insulate Northern Ireland from current trends in English and Welsh sentencing and imprisonment. These are a disaster from the point of view of rehabilitation and the prevention of re-offending. In the past five years the incarceration rate in England and Wales has gone up from 125 to 141 per 100,000 population. Yet three-quarters of young offenders return to crime while
  612
  seven out of 10 burglars and eight out of 10 shoplifters re-offend within two years of release. England and Wales have more life sentence prisoners than the whole of the rest of the European Union.
  Because Northern Ireland is a small jurisdiction, it has a good chance of achieving co-operation between police, prison, probation and other services. Because of its lively local community groups, it has a better chance of success in crime prevention compared with England. I urge the Government, therefore, to devote energy and resources to training the front-line statutory services and to promoting statutory and voluntary co-operation. I commend the finding of the Carter report, Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime. It said:
  "There is no convincing evidence that further increases in the use of custody would significantly reduce crime".
  I turn, first, to Article 3 of the order. It is most important that both magistrates and judges should continue to visit prisons to see conditions for themselves and to ask relevant questions. Some magistrates could continue to be members of boards of visitors on their own merits and because of their interest in the well being of prisoners. Will the Government confirm that they will do everything possible to encourage magistrates and judges to continue to visit prisons?
  Article 4 makes possible temporary detention in police cells. We have had far too much of that already in England. Police cells are not satisfactory for holding people for anything except the briefest of periods. Holding prisoners, whether on remand or after sentence, is an unnecessary and counter-productive burden on the police. It should be avoided like the plague.
  Articles 5 and 6 provide for drug and alcohol testing. As did the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I believe that even more important is the question of treatment for all addictions and forms of compulsive behaviour, including gambling. Can the Government assure us that effective forms of treatment are available, both in prison and post-release, for all prisoners willing to make use of them? Can the noble Baroness give some information or figures on the take up of the available forms of treatment?
  Article 7 removes a provision allowing the sending in of food to remand prisoners. Is that really necessary? Remand prisoners are quite often acquitted and should not be deprived of the privilege unless there is clear evidence that it is being abused—for example, for the purpose of smuggling in drugs or other illegal matters. Can the noble Baroness throw some light on that? She dealt with the matter fairly briefly in her introductory remarks.
  Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the order addresses two subjects. On the participation of justices of the peace on the boards of visitors, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hylton that justices of the peace will now be removed from those boards. If they are not to be there as of right, I hope, as did the noble Lord, that they will at least be there on merit and they will continue to have a participatory role in the boards of visitors.

  613
  On the issue of prisons, I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran. He flagged up concerns which are being stated increasingly across Northern Ireland. He did so with the background that the Provisional IRA is increasingly active in the Province. Only a weekend ago, the chief constable confirmed that four members of the Provisional IRA were involved in capturing a member of the Real IRA. In that context the Government decide that the prisons should revert back to a policy of separation of republican prisoners from loyalist prisoners. In the way in which they are able to spin their message from time to time, the Government have said that it is separation but not segregation. We in Northern Ireland find it difficult to understand the difference between separation and segregation.
  However, now that that is the Government's policy, I join those who have warned that we are going down a dangerous road as regards prison regimes in Northern Ireland. We have different types of republican prisoners—Real IRA; Continuity IRA; and Provisional IRA. I understand that already they have united with a single spokesman to deal with the Prison Service for all the different republican groups. Again, we are moving down a dangerous path. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, if one of those people decides not to comply with a request for testing for drugs or alcohol, what does one do when all the republican prisoners are now united in a separated part of the prison under a united leadership? Does that united leadership tell them all to go on a dirty protest? Or shall it move once again to having hunger strikes in the prisons of Northern Ireland? I believe that the Government have decided on a change of policy which is dangerous for Northern Ireland as we prepare ourselves for increased republican terrorism in the Province.
  7.11 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords who have spoken and who have welcomed or supported the order in principle. A number of broader questions have been raised about what is happening in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland as well as specific questions about how the order will operate. I shall address the wider questions and then move on to the more specific issues.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the Steele review and its recommendations. The Government have accepted its recommendations that republican and loyalist paramilitary prisoners should be accommodated separately from each other and from the rest of the prison population on a voluntary basis. Our decision is in no way a reflection on the professionalism and dedication of Northern Ireland Prison Service staff in pursuing a normal, integrated regime. Indeed, noble Lords will be aware that the majority of prisoners are held in integrated conditions and we still believe that integration is the safest regime for prisoners and staff when prisoners conform and co-operate. However, we have to deal with the small minority of prisoners who now refuse that co-operation.
  614
  I reassure noble Lords that accepting those recommendations does not constitute a return to the conditions that existed at the Maze prison; and we cannot allow that acceptance to become a staging post on the road to Maze-style segregation. No one wants a return to the conditions that pertained at the Maze, where staff were threatened, intimidated and subjected to brutal attacks; and where prisoners could threaten and intimidate other prisoners with impunity.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was also concerned about the resources available to the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The additional costs relating to improvements in safety for prison officers and prisoners have been met from redeployment of existing Northern Ireland resources. Some £28 million has been committed to providing a safer home environment for officers, £7 million has been provided to support safety arrangements in Maghaberry Prison and an additional £7 million a year will be invested in supporting officers to achieve the objectives of safer regimes in that prison. So we are conscious of the need to ensure that we give full support.
  Regarding the order and the concerns that were raised about co-operation, it is important that republicans have already agreed to drug testing. We really have to see how that operates before we go down the road of suggesting that it does not work.
  The noble Lords, Lord Maginnis, Lord Hylton and Lord Kilclooney, raised some specific questions about how the order will apply. Testing will be random, targeted and intelligence-based. Any prisoner who fails or refuses a test will be placed on report and undergo the disciplinary process. Trained prison staff will conduct tests and samples will be analysed by an accredited laboratory. The detailed procedures and protocols for testing are still being developed and will be provided for in prison rules. I am happy to write to noble Lords when we have more information regarding those procedures and protocols.
  A positive test will first be a disciplinary matter, as it is an infringement of prison rules. But, it is also an opportunity for prisoners to confront their problems and the Prison Service will want to engage with prisoners who seek support for their dependency problems. It is important to say that drug testing is part of an overall strategy. It is just one component of a comprehensive drugs strategy which will have four strands: control measures, including physical and passive dog searches and drug testing; care provision that identifies and offers support to those with dependency problems—I shall say more on that in a moment; education, in raising prison and staff awareness of the risks of drug misuse; and information-gathering and sharing, for example, monitoring drug trends in prison and the community and liaising with the police and other statutory agencies.
  Initially, medical staff will be able to provide symptomatic relief of the problems that alcohol-dependent prisoners may experience through alcohol withdrawal. Prisoners will be offered opportunities to

  615
  participate in drugs and alcohol programmes and Alcoholics Anonymous will provide sessions in each prison to provide ongoing support to prisoners coping with dependency problems.
  Regarding drugs, we want to build a partnership approach with the community. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has appointed three community drug organisations to assist with the delivery of a range of programmes in the three prison establishments. In all prison establishments prison staff would have contact with community drug workers and it is important that the matter is not just about support while people are in prison, but about maintaining a relationship after a prisoner's release to help them to continue to live drug free. It is all about a partnership between the prisons and the voluntary drug agencies.
  I was also pressed by the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Hylton, on the question of JPs. I stress that the intention of the amendment is not to preclude JPs from appointment to the boards—applications from JPs will still be welcomed—but rather to reflect that all appointments to boards of visitors will be made solely on merit, following a competence-based selection process. Eight of the 51 members currently appointed to boards of visitors are justices of the peace.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about burdens on the police. I assure him that the exercise of that power will be kept to a minimum. The Prison Service does not intend to impose upon police resources unnecessarily and without justifiable reasons. Visits to prisons have long been a feature of judicial services training. So the Prison Service will welcome interest from the judiciary in the work which prisons undertake and will facilitate visits from any interested individuals from the wider criminal justice community.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also raised the issue of food parcels. Close examination of foodstuffs and fruit received in parcels revealed drugs secreted in confectionery and alcohol in fruit—particularly oranges. That has been identified through random searching. Therefore, the removal of the provisions permitting remand prisoners food stuffs in parcels will close another opportunity for drugs to be smuggled into prisons.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, pressed me on the issue of one spokesperson for republican prisoners. There is one spokesperson for RIRA and CIRA prisoners and PIRA prisoners are using their own spokesperson, so there are two spokespersons. However, the Northern Ireland Prison Service refuses to recognise these spokespersons and continues to deal with all prisoners, integrated or separated, as individuals.
  I hope that I have answered the specific points that have been raised. I commend the order to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  7.21 p.m.
  Baroness Amosrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order follows a major review of Northern Ireland's firearms legislation, the aim of which was to assess whether the legislation remained relevant, effective and proportionate and whether it struck the right balance between public safety and the reasonable expectations of shooting enthusiasts.
  The suspension of the Assembly in October 2002 prevented it from making its views known to government, although a number of Assembly Members responded in a personal capacity. The draft order was, however, scrutinised by the other place as part of its inquiry into Northern Ireland's firearms control. The Government welcomed the inquiry as a useful addition to their own in-depth review and wide-ranging consultation.
  The central tenets of the 1981 order—that, with some exceptions, anyone who has a firearm must have a firearm certificate for it and that responsibility for firearms licensing is vested in the Chief Constable—are carried forward in the new order under Article 3.
  The licensing system, under Article 4, is strengthened by adopting some of the recommendations contained in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, into the fatal shootings at Dunblane Primary School in 1996. The first is the requirement for firearm certificate applicants to provide two referees. The second is the requirement that the applicant should give his permission to the Chief Constable to approach his GP to obtain factual details of his medical history which the GP considers relevant to the application.
  The system is further strengthened by the replacement of the system of firearm certificate renewals with one of ongoing grants. This reflects the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, that certificate renewals were invariably subjected to a lesser degree of rigour than grants of new certificates.
  Another notable provision is the extension of the Chief Constable's delegation powers to include police support staff. This is in line with the civilianisation recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland and will considerably increase the range of functions under the order which can be undertaken by civilians. In some areas, the Government have sought to reduce regulation where they are satisfied that there was no attendant risk to public safety.
  There was one significant provision contained in the proposal for a draft order which the Government decided not to bring forward; that appeals against decisions of the Chief Constable and applications for the removal of statutory prohibition on holding firearms should be to county courts rather than to the Secretary of State as at present.
  The reason for the original proposal was our concern that the system of appeals and applications to the Secretary of State might not meet the requirements

  617
  of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Right—the right to a fair trial. But a recent decision of the Northern Ireland court was that the existing system, coupled with the opportunity for a judicial review, met those requirements.
  The Government concluded that there were strong arguments, including the protection of sensitive security information, for keeping firearms appeals and applications as an executive function. The Government intend to publish for consultation before the summer a guidance document on Northern Ireland's firearms controls. It will set out clearly and openly the policies and procedures which underpin the legislation and is almost as important as the legislation itself.
  The provisions of the draft order will maintain the essential elements of the existing system of firearms controls, which generally have served Northern Ireland well, and introduce some much-needed modernisation. There will be some relaxation of controls where there is deemed to be no risk to public safety, but at the same time the procedures for granting firearm certificates will be enhanced. The new order will bring some parts of Northern Ireland's legislation into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, where that is deemed to be appropriate, but in other parts—for example, in relation to shotguns—Northern Ireland will retain its own distinct provisions in the best interests of public safety there.
  The proposed controls for firearms represent a reasonable, effective and balanced approach to maintaining public safety and I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February he approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for so clearly laying out the order. Unlike the previous order, I commend the Government on it in general. I have only a few points of detail on which I would like clarification.
  On Article 6, dealing with conditions, the Explanatory Memorandum states that,
  "the Chief Constable may attach a condition requiring him to be supervised by an experienced firearm user when in possession of the loaded firearm and when using it".
  What constitutes "an experienced firearm user"? Will that person need to be licensed in some way? The problem will arise when the experienced firearm user proves not to have been an experienced firearm user as a result of an accident. There is need for clarification in that detail.
  On Article 7, dealing with the grant of a firearm certificate to young persons, the Explanatory Memorandum states:
  "He must be supervised for a period of at least 12 months when in possession of the firearm and any ammunition by someone of 21 years or over"—
  and this is the passage that concerns me—
  "who has held a certificate for that type of firearm for at least 3 years".
  It is possible that competent people no longer hold a firearms certificate for a shotgun. For example, if I decided to give up using a shotgun because my balance
  618
  or eyesight was no longer good, I would still be capable of supervising a grandchild. However, according to the order, I would not be eligible because I would not be the holder. Furthermore, a number of policemen and soldiers must be competent to supervise their children, but do not hold firearms certificates by dint of the fact that the weapons with which they were trained are military ones of one kind or another. Again, I ask for clarification of that provision.
  In respect of Article 17, I believe I know the answer but I would like clarification. It deals with firearm certificates and shotgun certificates granted in Great Britain, and the Explanatory Memorandum states:
  "Provides for the holder of a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate granted in Great Britain to possess his firearms in Northern Ireland provided that he has obtained a certificate of approval from the Chief Constable".
  I assume that that is the Chief Constable for Northern Ireland, but it could be the chief constable of the county in which he lives. Perhaps that, too, needs clarification.
  Finally, on Article 62, which deals with trespassing with firearm, the notes state that it,
  "Makes it an offence for a person to trespass in a building or on any land with a firearm or imitation firearm without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
  I am delighted about that, but it would appear to make the offence of poaching into one of trespassing with a firearm. I wonder whether that is the Government's intention. It is different that the common poacher wit h his shotgun shooting on someone else's land—which has been a practice throughout the country for hundreds of years—will suddenly be turned into a trespasser with firearm. I would be delighted as a landowner, but wearing my politician's hat, I am not sure that that is what the Government should do. I ask for clarification of those points, but other than that, I support the order.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the order and giving us this information, and to support it. However, I do not find it attractive in any shape or form. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the idea of being able to supervise my grandchild to cope with weaponry is not a concept that occurs to me in any shape or form. Indeed, I am appalled by this document, although I support it. It is important if we are to have legally held firearms that there is some form of regulation. Clearly, this is perhaps as good as it gets, and there must be proper regulation. The idea that there are 82 clauses and eight schedules on the one hand is appalling, because of all that waste of activity, but it is needed because of the concerns that there would be otherwise.
  I am far from clear on the scope of the order. How many certificates are there? How many dealers are there? How many clubs are there? How many visitors will say, as soon as they arrive in Northern Ireland, "I must get a certificate in order to have a firearm"? I would like to have some concept of the scale of this

  619
  operation. I understand—I speak as a fundamentalist in one sense—that it is about legally held firearms. Each to their own in terms of the legal holding of firearms, and operating that in a proper way. Is this document as proof as it possibly can be on legally held firearms crossing the divide? When we normally talk about Northern Ireland firearms, often we are talking about illegally held firearms, which is the real concern about Northern Ireland. Is this proof, as far as it possibly can be, on legally held firearms crossing the divide and getting into improper hands?
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I refer to Article 58, "Possession with intent", and Article 64, "Possession of firearm or ammunition in suspicious circumstances". I innocently suppose, though I recognise that this is largely about legitimate firearms in legitimate hands, that it cannot be wrong to reiterate the position to enable the police to act against individual paramilitaries if they have to. For that reason, I should have thought that it is useful legislation. I point out that there is a misunderstanding in Article 67. It is about the conversion of weapons, and it reads,
  "which, though having the appearance of being a firearm, is incapable … of discharging any missile".
  I think that the word should be "capable". It is a minor point, but the law is the law.
  Lord Rogan: My Lords, it has been 23 years since firearms legislation for Northern Ireland was last changed in any major way, and I welcome the order in as far as it attempts to improve public safety. However, if the order is intended to bring Northern Ireland more closely into line with similar legislation in Great Britain, it does not go far enough. I will address that point later.
  I would like to pick up on a few points that were raised by my colleague Lady Hermon when the legislation was debated in another place last week. I repeat her concern—as it is one that I share—about the extent to which police support staff are given increased powers to enter and search premises. Civilian staff will not have undergone any training in police operations, yet, through this order, we are dramatically increasing their powers by allowing them to,
  "enter at any time any premises or place named in the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises".
  Without any training in police operations, any member of the police support staff finding himself or herself involved in a raid will be at a loss as to what to do and what procedures to follow. Can the noble Baroness more clearly outline why the powers of police support staff have been increased in this manner? If we discover that it is a matter of staff shortages, we are all aware of how best that can be addressed. The solution to such a problem does not involve using civilian staff, but would be resolved by halting the discriminatory 50:50 recruitment policy.
  620
  There is also some concern that not enough is being done to ensure that those applying for and those in possession of a firearms certificate are of sound psychological and physical health. If, as my colleague Lady Hermon pointed out, it is entirely possible for someone suffering from dementia to be re-issued with a firearms certificate, it is also possible that someone in possession of a certificate could, in the course of the five-year period for which it is granted, suffer periods of depression, or psychological ill health.
  Can the noble Baroness tell us whether any research is currently being carried out into how GPs, for example, can feed information on individual cases to the Firearms Licensing Branch, so that decisions to grant and to withdraw certificates are more informed and up-to-date? There must also be clear, good lines of communication from other departments in the PSNI to alert the Firearms Licensing Branch to any incidents that could suggest that the holder of a firearm certificate may no longer be fit to do so. I am particularly thinking of incidents of domestic violence or other such reported disturbances.
  The current minimum age for shooting in Northern Ireland is 18. In Britain there is no minimum age, and this has never presented any public safety concerns. If we are attempting to level Northern Ireland's legislation with provisions in Great Britain, why not remove the minimum age? While many regard our experiences with terrorism as a reason for imposing strict regulations—I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, feels this—I am unaware that any legally held guns—those used in shooting competitions, in clay pigeon shooting and in other outdoor sports—are the terrorist weapons of first choice. Surely we are denying our young people the opportunity to learn a sport in a safe and responsible environment. The Northern Ireland Office promised to look at this issue. Perhaps the noble Baroness will indicate why that has been reneged on.
  On a more positive note, I wish to welcome several aspects of the order, in particular that it will make it easier for estates and other businesses to offer shooting as a recreational activity to visitors to the Province. I am particularly referring to the provision to borrow shotguns and estate rifles under supervision and the introduction of controls on airguns to allow paintballing in Northern Ireland. Such provisions are excellent news for our tourist industry.
  These are important points, and I trust that the Government will consider them seriously so that I, and everyone in Northern Ireland, may be reassured that what we have before us today will ensure greater public safety. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, there seems to be a strange theory in the Northern Ireland Office—and perhaps in some other government departments—that the way to deal with problems is to legislate on them. Immense amounts of thought and energy must have gone into producing this order, with its 82 articles and seven schedules, yet the problem is not with weapons legally held—except when they are stolen—but, rather, with illegal guns and explosives.

  621
  The closest co-operation is clearly needed between police, Customs and Excise and, sometimes, the Inland Revenue to prevent illegal weapons entering Northern Ireland. There are no doubt linkages with all sorts of other forms of organised crime, including smuggling and drug trading. I know that co-operation between departments has been improved in recent years. However, given the small population of Northern Ireland, it should be possible to do still better. Can the Minister report on some successes?
  Illegal weapons are still regularly used for so-called punishment shootings, leading to serious injuries and, occasionally, death. Can the Minister tell us whether weapons used in such shootings have lately been recovered and what prosecutions have been brought against those responsible? Can she further inform the House about what consultations are under way with the local community leaders in so-called ghetto areas with a view to improving policing, especially during the hours of darkness, when most shootings occur?
  Would the Government view favourably the extension of local restorative justice schemes, especially in urban areas? I suggest that such schemes, which already exist in Belfast, are capable of reducing the demands made by some local residents for continued punishment beatings and shootings. They also have the potential for assisting the resumption of normal peacetime policing in certain neighbourhoods.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I rise to raise a highly technical point. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, when he described the complications relating to dealers that occur under the order, of an episode once in County Down, where I saw a snake in an outhouse. I asked the owner of the house, if it were true that there were no snakes in Ireland, how there was one in an outhouse in County Down. He replied, "I got it from a dealer", as if that explained why the snake was on the island in the first place. Of course, that is against a background of the famous case of arbitration about whether Rathlin Island was in Ireland or Scotland, which was resolved in favour of Ireland on the grounds that there were no snakes on Rathlin Island.
  I apologise to your Lordships' House. Because I have been involved in debate on the draft gambling Bill this morning and the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill this afternoon, I have been unable to look up the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (NI 12), from which my technical point arises. I hasten to say that I shall be entirely content if the Lord President wishes to write to me, rather than to answer me today. That order appears in Schedule 7, where amendments are made to other schedules, on page 61 at paragraph 12. It states:
  "In Schedule 5, in Part II, after paragraph 15 add the following",
  and three paragraphs from the order are then transcribed into the 1989 order.
  Articles 58 and 69 both contain more than one paragraph, but only paragraph (1) is designated for transfer, whereas Article 60, which contains three
  622
  paragraphs, is transferred in its entirety. I follow how Article 60 hangs together, where paragraphs (2) and (3) clearly extend paragraph (1) with further definitions. I suppose that I understand Articles 58 and 59 and why only one paragraph needs to be transferred if either paragraph (2) of Article 58 and paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 59 are already in the 1989 order, or if Article 58(2) and Article 59(2) and (3) are unnecessary. But if they are unnecessary, why is that, compared with the necessity to transcribe paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 60?
  In the light of those inquiries, the Lord President will understand that reply in writing may be much easier. However, if there is anything wrong, we may be at a mild disadvantage if we have already passed the order this evening.
  7.45 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and shall try to address the points that have been made. I think that I followed the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, but I shall seek to obtain an answer and, if I do not obtain one, I shall of course write to him. I shall return to his point in a moment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me several questions to clarify some of the issues raised by the order. On the issue of the new firearms certificate holders, the Chief Constable's statutory responsibility to assure public safety demands that the issue of the new and experienced shooters be addressed. Article 6(4) and (5) gives the Chief Constable the specific discretion to impose a condition that an experienced person or person who is acquiring a different type of firearm should undergo a period of supervision by a person aged at least 21 who has held a firearms certificate for that type of firearm for at least three years before he or she may possess a loaded firearm. Turning the noble Lord's question about experience round the other way, we are saying that experience means being over 21 and having held a firearms certificate for at least three years.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. So is that someone not necessarily currently holding a firearms certificate but who has held one for three years?
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall obtain clarification on that, but my sense is that we want those who are in a supervisory position to hold a current certificate. I shall obtain clarification from my officials on that and return to that point, but that was my reading of the provision. If someone does not currently hold a certificate, it could be some time since he has held one.
  On the point about the Armed Forces, the provision is intended to address the public safety concerns associated with new or inexperienced shooters. The Chief Constable's power to impose a supervisory condition is discretionary and the Government would

  623
  expect him to exercise that discretion in considering an application from a former member of the Armed Forces.
  I think that my next point will address the question about people who do not have current certificates. We believe that a person must be a current firearms holder to have the up-to-date experience to supervise another person. I think that that addresses the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
  On the issue of trespassing and poaching, in which the noble Lord was especially interested, poaching is a separate offence; mere trespass is not poaching. That is currently the law in Northern Ireland and we have not changed it in any way.
  On the question of whether Article 17 refers to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, indeed it does.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, asked me a number of questions and, in particular, wanted some statistics. I hope I can answer his questions. There are 78,887 firearm certificates covering 143,721 firearms ranging from shotguns, airguns and rifles to target handguns and handguns for personal protection. I can write to the noble Lord with specific numbers of each of those if that would be helpful. There are approximately 150 dealers.
  The noble Lord also asked about the ways that these firearms applications will be considered by the Chief Constable. They will be considered against the legislative criteria irrespective of the community background of the applicant. There have been no appeals to the Secretary of State from persons who feel aggrieved for that reason.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked whether there was a case for removing the firearms licensing function from the police. We are convinced that for the foreseeable future firearms licensing functions should remain with the police. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, said in his 1996 report into the Dunblane tragedy, the police are in the best position to collect and assess information bearing on the suitability of applicants for or holders of firearms certificates.
  The noble Lord also raised the role of civilian staff. The powers of entry and inspection in Article 51 and the power to search with warrant in Article 52 mirror those in the legislation for the rest of the UK. The extension of these powers to members of the police support staff was recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, and should not cause any additional concern.
  On the role of GPs and the information which they can divulge, the applicant must give permission for the GP to give factual details of their medical history relevant to the application. The Chief Constable will approach a GP only when he or she has a valid reason for so doing and the GP will release only information relevant to the applicant's fitness to hold firearms. It is very much in the interests of public safety for the Chief Constable to be made aware of any medical condition which may adversely affect a person's fitness to hold and use a firearm safely.
  624
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also raised the issue of age. We listened very carefully to the representations from shooting organisations that the minimum age limit for supervised shooting by young people—currently 16—should be reduced or even removed to mirror the position in Great Britain. The Home Office has indicated that it will be conducting a review of the firearms law in the rest of the UK in the near future. Harmonisation of the law relating to young people will be revisited at that time.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, raised the issue of the conversion of weapons. I hope that I can address her concerns. Paragraph 3 is correct in that it refers to something that looks like a firearm but is not because it cannot fire a shot. That is then converted to a firearm by, say, boring out the barrel so a shot can be fired from it. I hope that clarifies the position.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pressed me on the issue of illegal firearms and punishment shootings. Of course we want all paramilitary groups to give up their illegal firearms and to stop so-called punishment shootings. Today we are discussing the possession of legal firearms in Northern Ireland. I should like to make particular mention of the good record of safety and responsibility among those who hold firearms for sporting or other legitimate purposes.
  In relation to local policing strategy after hours of darkness, the Government have set in place district policing partnerships whose members work with local district commanders to agree policing plans to combat crime and reduce the fear of crime. I shall ensure that the concerns of noble Lords about local restorative justice schemes are passed on to the relevant Minister for a response.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, asked me about paragraphs 58, 59 and 60. I can reassure him that his reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1989 Schedule 7 Page 61 Paragraph 12, is accurate but it is a little complex to deal with now so, as he suggested, I shall write to the noble Lord.
  I hope this addresses the questions raised by noble Lords and I commend the order to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Children: Protection
  7.56 p.m.
  Baroness Walmsleyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what provisions are being made to improve vetting arrangements to prevent persons unsuitable to work with children from gaining employment with children in the United Kingdom and across the European Union.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, all over the world where one comes across fishing communities one finds, sitting on the quayside, people mending the nets. They do it with great care and attention because it is very important to them. Sometimes it is done by the fishermen themselves and sometimes it is done by

  625
  their wives. Very often it is done with a culture, traditions and knots that have been handed down from one generation to another, so important is it.
  Before noble Lords start to think that they might have unwittingly wandered into the wrong debate, I should explain that I believe that our debate tonight is about the need for us to mend the holes in the net that we cast to catch those unscrupulous people who want access to young children for the wrong reasons. Although the one that got away causes no more harm than a little dent in the pride of the fisherman, the one that got away in the terms of the net about children can have consequences which can ruin or even end a young and innocent life.
  Ensuring that people unsuitable to work with children and young people do not gain employment in positions which give them a high level of access is an absolutely basic child protection measure. Yet it is one that in the UK, and across the EU, we so often fail to carry out efficiently. Current holes in the net of legislation allow individuals to move between EU jurisdictions and even within the UK with their new employers being unaware or unable to check for previous allegations or offences against children.
  That is why I, together with a number of noble Lords, have been asked to raise the issue by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)—for whom I am an ambassador—and their equivalent organisations Children 1st in Scotland and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It is why the ISPCC has been encouraging Irish Members of Parliament to lobby the Minister for Justice to improve vetting procedures in the Republic of Ireland and to consider the implications of movements of offenders across the Irish border. It is also why NSPCC has been briefing at the European level and in November held a roundtable discussion with MEPs and the European Commission's Director-General of Justice and Home Affairs.
  When the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) was established in 1997, it was an important first step in preventing unsuitable people from working with children in England and Wales. The system can be effective because a combination of "hard" information, such as criminal records, and "soft" information, such as allegations and circumstantial evidence, can be accessed through it. While caution must be applied to the latter to protect the human rights of applicants, the children's charities support the use of soft details because of the simple fact that as many as 90 per cent of paedophiles are never convicted.
  The system however is not foolproof. There are still significant problems: many people who are unsuitable to work with children are still gaining employment in areas with access to children and young people. One of the problems is that the systems in the different jurisdictions were developed independently. The CRB is composed differently from the systems in Scotland, Northern Ireland and other EU member states. There are significant problems with data transfer between any two of the systems.
  626
  I recognise that the Government have made efforts to put in place links between different jurisdictions for sharing information on those with convictions—I refer to Lords Hansard, 29 January at col. 321. But those links are not finalised and many gaps remain. For example, I recognise and welcome recent moves that enable different professional sporting bodies to check across all systems in the UK whether potential sports coaches have criminal records. Sadly, that is not the case in other lines of work where adults interact with children.
  We must recognise that those who offend against children are often clever and devious people who will exploit any loophole that exists. We must address that with the utmost priority because they are clever fish who will find any little hole in our net and slither through it. It is vital, therefore, that there are clear and compatible protocols for information-sharing across borders, and that those responsible for implementing the checks in each of the jurisdictions make use of those protocols. Should there not be joint training and joint development of improvements to the systems?
  The majority of problems resulting from those unsuitable people slipping through the vetting net relate to sexual offences. The tragic events in Soham and the conviction of Ian Huntley in 2003 brought just such problems to the fore. I appreciate that Sir Michael Bichard's investigation is currently examining how police intelligence was handled, vetting practices and why vital information was not shared between agencies.
  However, I wonder whether an additional investigation on vetting procedures across the whole of the UK and the EU could not be undertaken. Perhaps that could be a vital first task for the new children's commissioner for England in liaison with the commissioners already established in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That would undoubtedly be for the commissioner to decide, but I would be interested in the Minister's views.
  This case, and others where cross-border protocols failed, demonstrates the need for mechanisms to track effectively those unsuitable to work with children. I regret that I cannot talk about particular cases because many are still in the legal system, but there is plenty of evidence for concern. Files containing crucial information must not be lost, as appears to have happened in the Soham case, but must reach those who need to know their contents. Such vetting mechanisms must work in relation to other measures that register and manage offenders—particularly sex offenders.
  The development of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in England and Wales is an excellent move forward that has been welcomed by the NSPCC. However, we are concerned about the lack of synergy with similar arrangements in Scotland. It is essential that we improve information sharing not only on data but also on management within the UK if we are to address the problem effectively.
  When the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the issue in a Starred Question in January, the Minister described a number of measures that the Government

  627
  are taking to ensure greater compatibility between the systems in England and Scotland. He—I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—was not able to say when that work would be complete. Could the Minister tell the House today what progress has been made?
  Before I close I want to turn briefly to the difficulties that lack of funding has caused to the effective implementation of vetting procedures. When the CRB checks were first introduced, the Government proposed charging organisations and employers that wanted to recruit someone to work with children to check for any records held on that person. It was even proposed that a charge would be administered for volunteers. After much successful lobbying by charitable organisations the charge for checking volunteers was dropped. That was a welcome move.
  However, we now find that organisations in England are being charged for the checks that they need to carry out for paid employees, whereas in other jurisdictions there is help with the cost. Perhaps I may give an example from sport. Umbrella bodies are bearing the cost of checks for sporting organisations in Scotland and Wales. They are able to do so because of funding from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly; the latter giving £1 million to the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action, which has funded the checks on behalf of individual sporting and other voluntary organisations.
  That is not happening in England. As a result, there has been a significant delay in the introduction of checks by English sports organisations. Organisations that employed paid coaches had budgeted this financial year to cover the original £12.50 fee, but when it was doubled in July 2003, most could not afford the increase; and it is due to increase again. Evidence from the NSPCC Child Protection in Sport Unit shows that organisations are now finding it extremely difficult to introduce comprehensive vetting of coaches. Why does Capita find it necessary to increase those charges so horrendously? Anyone would think that it is not making money. I recently read that its profits have soared in the past financial year: no wonder!
  I am not saying that the checks should be stopped—far from it. But the Government must be aware of the implications of raising the fee. How are the Government holding Capita to account for its level of efficiency in doing the job at a reasonable price? In England, the end users bear the full cost. The need to finance the checks is diverting funding away from vital child protection training and awareness raising.
  Can the Minister say whether the Government will increase the resources available to support registered bodies using the CRB to prevent them having to fund the whole cost of the checks themselves? I also ask the Minister to assure the House that there are no proposals to bring in back-door charges for checks on volunteers through, say, an administration fee or something similar.
  628
  I have touched on many issues and I know that there are others who wish to contribute, for which I am most grateful. I should like to close with one thought: child protection is the responsibility of us all. Let us be good fisherman and mend our nets.
  8.7 p.m.
  Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her perceptive and darned good introduction to today's important and timely debate on the vetting of those working with children across the United Kingdom and the European Union. I likewise declare an interest as an NSPCC parliamentary ambassador. I shall speak principally about the European Union, which undergoes another seismic change in two months' time with the entry of 10 new member states and all that that means for the well-being of Europe's children.
  Yesterday, the trial of Marc Dutroux began in the Belgian courts. Noble Lords will recall that he imprisoned and murdered four children. His trial may confirm the suspicion that he was part of a paedophile gang that operated across the borders of the European Union to pursue its nefarious and sickening ends.
  About a year before Dutroux's arrest I, as an MEP working in Brussels, had an hour-long, one-to-one meeting with the single market Commissioner, Mario Monti. I had submitted to him my paper entitled Children and the European Single Market where I pointed to the advantages that will accrue to children as a result of the development of the single market, principally in economic and trade projects. I also sought to highlight what I perceived to be, even at that early stage of the market's development, the very real and disturbing dangers presented to children within our changing Europe. My views then and now are that each of the four freedoms of the free movement of people, capital, goods and services impacts on the lives of Europe's children.
  But my overwhelming fear was that Europe's legislators did not recognise the social and criminal dangers inherent in the development of that single market. To put it no more finely than this, the sweeping away of the artificial barriers for business people to trade freely across borders gives at the same time the freedom to criminals of all kinds to range across the face of Europe. Nowhere would this be more true than for the criminal and paedophile fraternities.
  Mario Monti's reply to me was that indeed the single market represented a wonderful opportunity for jobs and prosperity for children when they in turn came to adulthood. But what was missing from his reply was a recognition of the social threats that I had outlined.
  Only now is the European Union economic giant awakening to the responsibilities that we owe to children of the market and the need to find complementary measures which will help us to retain the market but close the loopholes through which criminals in general and paedophiles in particular can filter. One such loophole is the vetting of those who work with children and who can now exercise their new rights to work across Europe's borders.

  629
  The problems in the UK have already been alluded to, but my principal concern is with Europe, which is closer than we think because it includes that thin border which separates Northern Ireland from the republic. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, will refer to that in his speech.
  If the mechanisms and practices of sharing information across the UK are problematic, in the EU they are parlous. The entry of 10 new countries in May should deepen our concerns. For instance, Portugal has no current provision for disqualifying unsuitable people from working with children. Even if a Portuguese employer does check an applicant's criminal record—something which is not obligatory—the authorities have no power to reveal details of convictions which have attracted a sentence below six months. In Austria an employer who checks and discovers a potential employee's criminal conviction retains the discretion nevertheless to employ that individual. As regards new European Union states, most have legislation in this field which is slender at best and absent at worst. The Minister might consider commissioning the Institute of Advanced Studies at the University of London to expand its 2001 report to identify different disqualifications and vetting systems current across the new Europe of 25 to enable us better to respond to this open sore. Will the Minister do so?
  The European Union is now beginning to bestir itself in the face of these threats. The recent Danish presidency introduced a proposal for a Council decision on increasing co-operation among EU states with regard to sharing employee disqualifications. At that time my noble friend Lord Filkin suggested on behalf of the Government that the proposals should include disqualification in the field of sex offenders. Will the Government revive those suggestions? The European Parliament recently held a conference on the issue, which was attended by Jonathan Faull, the director-general of JHA, betokening, I hope, the Commission's warming interest. Will the Minister consult Jonathan Faull and leaders in the European Parliament about undertaking fresh initiatives?
  Former Irish PM John Bruton has led the working group within the convention whose recommendations appear in the text for a proposed constitution for the European Union. The text demands the mainstreaming of child protection in all EU policies and programmes. Will the Government ensure that, if the constitution is ratified under the Irish presidency, that text is retained and acted upon? Will the Government take inspiration from our Irish colleagues, who, under their current presidency, have already emphasised existing resources available to member states to help to identify unsuitable employees seeking cross-border jobs, including the use of Europol, Cepol (the European Police College) and the EU Police Chiefs' Task Force?
  A powerful initiative in that field would be for the Government to commit to establishing common minimum standards, including the encouragement of all EU countries to establish lists of sex offenders and appropriate mechanisms to share those lists across borders. That initiative could be a central plank of our
  630
  own presidency in late 2005. Now is the time to catch the tide. The Government join the Council troika in 10 months' time, and work can be done now to accomplish the goal of drawing up lists in all EU countries and creating mechanisms to share information that will unremittingly track down those who so heartlessly track down our children. Will the Government respond?
  The Government can do much more at EU level to protect children from the menace of under-vetted paedophiles in Europe's increasingly mobile workforce. I refer the Government to the DAPHNE II programme, concerned with violence against women and children, which runs from 2003–08, and whose funding has been doubled to accommodate the extension of the CUPISCO project from 15 to 25 countries. The Chancellor, who has an excellent record in helping underprivileged children, will recognise that the EU budget requires judicious expansion from time to time to fund effective and targeted programmes such as DAPHNE II.
  Action at Community level will be strengthened when the new constitution is signed, especially as the draft proposals make direct reference to anticipating children's concerns in all EU policies. Will the Government confirm their wholehearted support of the proposed constitution, particularly the reference to children? With the constitution in place, will the Government work to realise in full the 1991 Maastricht Treaty's creation of the JHA third pillar; the areas of freedom, security and justice in its derivative, the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty; and their own ultimate expression; that is, the vigorous implementation of the Eurojust proposals, an embodiment of the free movement of prosecution, which is so essential in this area? Will they co-operate with other EU states to explore the possibility of an EU-wide power to restrict the free movement of known paedophiles to their home countries? Similar measures have been enforced against football hooligans; children are clearly much more important. Furthermore, will the Government explain the implications of our absenting ourselves from the Schengen agreement? To what extent does our participation in the Schengen information system compensate? That, too, impacts on children.
  I also invite the Minister to discuss the difficult question of establishing a proper balance between the human and civil rights of all European citizens, including sex offenders, with the rights of children to remain unmolested. If those competing rights clash from time to time, how are we to ensure that matters are resolved? I renew my plea to the Government to make action in this field an action point in the 2005 British presidency. Europe's children would expect nothing less.
  8.19 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for ensuring that this very important subject is before us today. I very much support what she said about the need to mend any holes in the net, improving vetting procedures and having clear, compatible procedures across jurisdictions in both the United Kingdom and the European Union. The European Union

  631
  dimension, with the forthcoming accession of 10 new member states, was particularly and rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison.
  I particularly want to speak from the standpoint of the Church of England. There are two reasons in particular that the Church of England has a very committed interest in the field. First, the Churches between them are the largest voluntary movement in the country and are weekly in contact with thousands of children. One aspect of that is that the Church of England is, I believe, the biggest employer of full-time children and youth workers. For example, in the diocese of Oxford the parishes between them employ 40 full-time youth workers, which is more than the number employed by the secular authorities. That pattern is repeated for the country as a whole. That is the first reason—weekly contact with thousands of children and the fact that we have so many paid professionals working with children.
  The second reason is a sadder one. As is well known, paedophiles gravitate to churches. No doubt they do so for a mixture of reasons. Many of them have a sincere religious faith and they are using the resources of their religious faith to struggle with their condition. But for some of them, and perhaps for many in part, it is because churches give access to children. So there are two important reasons why this issue is very much a lively concern for the Churches. I speak from the standpoint of the Church of England which is committed to safeguarding all the children who are involved in its activities.
  During public worship, children are generally in the care of their parents, but guidance for good practice is set out for all occasions where children and young people attend church services without their parents. The Church has many activities where children are in regular informal contact with adults, and it is here that children can be particularly vulnerable. Our experience is that adults can use these situations to target children, playing on the trust that church people engender and leading on to abuse that would usually happen outside the actual church activity. It is for this reason that the Church of England continually revises its guidelines, as it has done recently, having had the guidelines endorsed by the General Synod of the Church of England. That is also why we have a full-time child protection officer at Church House, Westminster, as do most dioceses now.
  The Church believes that creating a safe environment for children is the main way that they are protected. We are aware, as has already been mentioned, that most people who harm children have not been convicted. However, we use the Criminal Records Bureau, particularly for enhanced disclosures, as part of our recruitment procedures. I shall mention those briefly.
  Enhanced disclosure is required for all ordinands before they are selected for training and also before they are ordained. All clergy are checked when they move to a new appointment; clergy already in post are gradually being checked; readers, sometimes called licensed lay ministers, and other people who hold a bishop's licence
  632
  who are in contact with children are checked in the same way; all paid children and youth workers are also checked.
  The Church has many thousands of volunteers working with children, and adults in regular contact with children. All those in regular contact with children, when the parents are not present, are gradually being checked at the appropriate level.
  In order to achieve the highest possible standards, the Church of England and other Churches are committing time, resources and money which they can ill afford. Not only is there the cost of the salaries of the child protection officers but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, there is the increasing cost through the raising of fees for these disclosures, which I understand are shortly to go up to £33 for each enhanced disclosure.
  The noble Baroness mentioned sports organisations. All the money for this has to be found from Church of England congregations—through voluntary giving. I very much share her concern that this money could be used better by the Church and other voluntary organisations. Any streamlining of the service to make it less time-consuming and costly would be very much appreciated.
  The new regulations to be put before Parliament clarify those eligible for an enhanced disclosure. However, we believe that the legislation and regulations continue to demonstrate rather less understanding of the place of volunteers in the care of children, in particular the often informal nature of much Church and voluntary activity—such as in churches with mixed choirs. We regard it as very important that the checks made on volunteers are carried through as professionally as is enhanced disclosure for paid professionals.
  I strongly support the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we should tighten up our vetting procedures and that we have clear and compatible protocols across jurisdictions in the United Kingdom and the European Union. From the standpoint of the Church of England, we are fully committed to having the highest possible standards and to making our full contribution to those standards in the whole of our national life across the UK and the European Union.
  8.26 p.m.
  Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am also most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. Stopping unsuitable people from working with children is an important matter, especially from a Northern Ireland perspective. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, alluded to the fact that we are the only part of the United Kingdom with a land boundary with another EU state. With the very different vetting arrangements in the two parts of the island of Ireland, this creates some concerning loopholes.
  The system of vetting in Northern Ireland carried out through the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service at the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, has existed in Northern Ireland for

  633
  22 years and has widely been regarded as leading other parts of the United Kingdom in vetting procedures.
  Last year, legislation on vetting that had begun its life in the Northern Ireland Assembly passed through this House. The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 replicated parts of the England and Wales Protection of Children Act 1999 and the Care Standards Act 2000. But significantly, and quite uniquely in the United Kingdom, the order dealt with the weakness found in the English legislation whereby there was no duty imposed on non-regulated childcare organisations to vet and report those dismissed for harming children.
  The Northern Ireland order introduces the concept of "voluntary accreditation". This will apply to a range of community and sporting organisations, allowing the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to benchmark them against a number of child protection standards. These organisations, once accredited or "kite-marked", then acquire a statutory duty to vet and report staff dismissed or moved for harming children. I trust that the Government will note the developments taking place in Northern Ireland on this issue and I would be interested to know if the Minister is taking steps to strengthen the Protection of Children Act 1999 in line with the provisions on accreditation in Northern Ireland.
  Differing provisions underpin the operation of vetting arrangements in each jurisdiction and the exchange of information. There are two matters that I should like to highlight. First, despite being enacted in 1997, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom not to benefit from Part V of the Police Act. This provides a statutory scheme for the disclosure by the police of non-conviction information and is extremely important. While the Government have indicated that they will enact Part V, I am concerned at the lack of progress to date which will have serious implications for the roll-out of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (Northern Ireland) Order. I ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government will take immediate steps to ensure the implementation in Northern Ireland of Part V of the Police Act 1997 and that this is co-ordinated in conjunction with the commencement of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.
  Secondly, given the proliferation of legislation in each of the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom underpinning the operation of the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service, Disclosure Scotland and the Criminal Records Bureau, the exchange of information across bodies is a complex issue. I should like to ask the Minister for an assurance that each vetting bureau has full legal access to the lists of disqualified people held by each of those jurisdictions. Will she confirm that there are no loopholes in the systems that will allow a disqualified person in one jurisdiction to gain access to a vetted post in another?
  634
  As I indicated earlier, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land border with another EU state. This gives rise to loopholes. In the Irish Republic vetting has not been mainstreamed as in Northern Ireland. The Government there have established the Garda Siochana Vetting Unit, which carries out police checks on a limited number of posts. However, these checks are very inconsistently applied, and there is no equivalent of a procedural or statutory disqualification from a working-with-children list or provision of non-conviction information.
  These anomalies create huge problems for adequately and consistently vetting staff working in Northern Ireland who reside in the Republic of Ireland. Moreover, problems are also created for sporting organisations which organise on an all-Ireland basis but which have to work with the very different vetting standards pertaining in the two jurisdictions. There is a real danger that adults unsuitable to work with children could manipulate these different systems. Indeed, we have seen with recent criminal convictions how an individual can pose a risk in both parts of the island of Ireland.
  I would ask the Government to take urgent action to raise this issue with the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin through the auspices of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and through the European institutional framework. The current Irish presidency of the EU would seem an opportune time to look at vetting in a wider EU context given the situation that exists and the problems that arise in the island of Ireland.
  Before I finish, I understand that the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, Nigel Williams, has proposed that there should be an overall review of vetting procedures in Northern Ireland, including relationships with other jurisdictions. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on whether the Government would welcome such a review.
  Preventing unsuitable people gaining access to children through employment or volunteer posts is a very important part of a structure and system to ensure that children are protected when in the care and trust of others. I hope that the Government will take action to ensure consistency in the United Kingdom and across the enlarged European community.
  8.33 p.m.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the gap. My interest in this issue is sharpened because I have recently been vetted to work with children by the Criminal Records Bureau.
  Let me remind your Lordships of what Sir William Utting said in 1997 in People Like Us: The Report Of The Review Of The Safeguards For Children Living Away From Home:
  "The best safeguard"—
  for children—
  "is an environment of overall excellence".

  635
  And yet I am reminded by leaders in social care that, on occasions, children who have been neglected and abused are still cared for by people who have difficulty in reading and writing, in addition and subtraction.
  I simply add that the Government's emphasis on improving the recruitment, retention and quality of the social care workforce is vital to improving the protection of our most vulnerable children. I should like to put on record my warmest welcome for the attention they are paying to this area and for the commitment they are showing.
  8.35 p.m.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for giving us a chance to discuss this important topic. We have benefited from her experience in the field and from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on the European dimension.
  In the light of the Soham case, numerous questions have arisen, in particular about the provisions of the Data Protection Act and the interpretation of them. It is clear that a good deal of confusion persists. I hope that Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry will go some way to answering these public concerns, and I am sure that noble Lords are anxious to see, hear and discuss Sir Michael's conclusions.
  Meanwhile, the efficacy of the Criminal Records Bureau, as managed by Capita, the implications of the Data Protection Act and the collaborative sharing of information between local police forces in the United Kingdom and between EU member states remain key concerns. They combine to give a pretty confused picture. The extent of this confusion is demonstrated when one examines in a little more detail how the vetting process works in practice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we have had some very helpful briefings from the NSPCC and the Children's Society, among others. While the system sounds quite simple in theory, it has proved far more problematic in practice. Practitioners say that, while the CRB appears to be a smooth running operation, we need only scratch the surface to see that it is not quite so satisfactory.
  The bureau was established as a public/private partnership between the Passport and Records Agency and Capita plc. Live services began in March 2002. Weaknesses in the business assumptions led to a great deal of subsequent criticism, particularly in the recent National Audit Office report. It was assumed in the business plan that between 70 and 85 per cent of people would apply by telephone to a call centre and that others would apply online. The assumptions had clearly not been adequately researched. It was found that over 80 per cent of applications came in paper form. Data entry screens were not designed for keying in details from paper forms, and staff were not suitably trained. There were also limits on the number of users who could access the system at the same time and links between the bureau and the Metropolitan Police systems were slow.
  636
  These technical problems were the results of poor research and the inaccurate assumptions of Capita and the Passport and Records Agency. Capita estimated low processing costs, which were far from realistic, and was paid an extra £1.7 million to manage these unexpected processing costs. But in total it was paid an extra £8 million for changes, extra costs of testing and delays in going live. The National Audit Office concluded that Capita had been fined a total of £3.7 million for failing to meet parts of its service agreement and at the same time had been paid more than £23 million up to January 2003. The result of all these figures is that fees for a check have been raised from £12, the level set in the spring of 2001, to either £28 or £33 from April 2004. The service is now expected to break even sometime between 2005 and 2006, that is a year later than expected, and it will cost the taxpayers an extra £68 million. Of course, as several noble Lords have pointed out, one of the prevailing concerns is the rise in the cost for disclosures. With further increases in prospect, there are many child welfare organisations that will be hard hit by the charges for checking. According to the Criminal Records Bureau regulations, the CRB is proposing to show on its website the surcharges levied by umbrella-registered bodies because, in its words,
  "this approach will allow market forces to operate more effectively by compelling high charging Umbrella Bodies either to reduce their fees or to de-register".
  That is a hit rich from a body that is not subject to market forces, and which has increased its charges by 250 per cent in two years of operation.
  Obviously, costly checking will not help to improve the vetting system. However, there are other areas of concern that are potentially even more detrimental. The security of the recorded data is clearly of vital importance. On 12 February I received a Written Answer concerning this issue from the Minister who is to reply to the debate tonight. She said:
  "it has at all times been the intention that, in terms of data protection, security and other aspects, the arrangements for processing data should entail no material increase to the risk of misuse of data".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. WA 173.]
  The use of "intention" and "no material increase" gives me some cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can be more positive when she comes to reply.
  The Minister continued in another Written Answer by explaining that there are personnel in India involved in the processing of data for the Criminal Records Bureau. That may be one cause of her uncertainty. I draw her attention to an article by Mr Pete Warren in the Evening Standard on 9 February 2004, entitled "Criminals target India call centres for data". It highlights the concerns triggered by the Government's Trade Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, after chairing a meeting on 2 February about mass overseas outsourcing. It transpires that there has been a significant rise in criminals who target call centres in India for data. The article explains:
  "If you are using people in a low-wage area, organised crime can afford to pay a lifetime's wages for data".
  We are not talking about limited information about an individual. Another reply from the noble Baroness, for which I was also grateful, stated:

  637
  "Work—consisting solely of manually inputting all personal information contained on Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure application forms (including the mandatory details such as the applicant's name, date of birth, current and previous addresses during the past five years, position applied for, the organisation concerned and details of the documents used as evidence of an applicant's identification, such as passport, driving licence and birth certificate)—is undertaken at a site in India".—[Official Report, 1212/04; col. WA 172.]
  That means that a comprehensive detailed record of a person's private life and records is inputted by a person outside the United Kingdom.
  That is of particular concern when considered in conjunction with the 2001 individual learning accounts debacle. Run on contract by Capita, the scheme was scrapped in November 2001 after discovery of fraud and security failures in IT systems run by Capita. In the light of that, it is particularly worrying to imagine fraud and security failures in IT systems run for Capita and the Criminal Records Bureau in India.
  I therefore want the noble Baroness to answer some questions. First, were the Government aware that the terms of the contract with Capita permitted it to sub-contract the work to another party—Hays plc—and that that party could carry out work outside the United Kingdom? Secondly, what is the Government's view now of Capita's operational performance, particularly in light of the increased fees charged? Thirdly, does she not agree that Capita appears to have submitted initially an unrealistically low bid in order to secure the contract from the CRB?
  Although the Minister will no doubt argue that a number of those problems have now been addressed and resolved, strategic issues still persist. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked about interchange ability of data. It appears that the bureau still cannot access all potential sources of data, such as those held by HM Customs and Excise and the British Transport Police. The bureau's listings might not identify an applicant who has been under investigation by HM Customs for smuggling drugs or pornography—two examples that the Government often use—but who has yet to come to the attention of the police. Could the noble Baroness shed any light on whether steps are being taken to rectify that lack of cohesion?
  The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about Scotland. It has been reported that the cross-border legal loopholes have left Disclosure Scotland—the Scottish equivalent of the CRB—unable to access vital information about paedophiles and alleged abusers in England and Wales when carrying out checks on behalf of potential employers. Joanne Robertson, writing in the Sunday Times's Scotland edition on 21 December 2003, said:
  "The loophole arose following the introduction of the Protection of Children Act at Westminster in 1999 … Separate legislation introduced north of the border resulted in the creation of Disclosure Scotland. However, it did not include a provision to allow employers continued access to List 1R, a register of suspected paedophiles in Scotland, or to the Protection of Children Act List held by the Department of Health".
  She concluded that, as a result,
  "more than 350,000 people working with children in Scotland have not been subject to vital child protection checks".
  638
  A spokesman for Disclosure Scotland has since commented that the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 will close the cross-border loophole. However, that Act will not come into force until next month. Can the Minister confirm that the procedures to close the cross-border loophole are ready for implementation and that there will be a reciprocal transfer of relevant data between the Scottish records system and the English equivalent?
  In addition, what are the links between the CRB and overseas crime databases so that the past credentials of a foreign language teacher or a sports coach working internationally can be checked with the same thoroughness as someone registered on the UK system? Is that to be changed? Is there to be full integration with the other European Union databases? Does the Minister know the condition of the criminal records bureaux in EU member states? The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to, I think his word was, a seismic change. What about the countries which are to join the EU on 1 May? What do we know about the criminal databases in additional countries—Cyprus, the Czech Republic, and so on?
  However, perhaps strategically the biggest cause for concern—it has been underlined by the news from Soham—is the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. Extracts from that Act help to demonstrate how difficult they can be to interpret. Parts I and II of Schedule 1 to the Act spell out the circumstances in which personal data should be stored or deleted. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Part I state:
  "Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date … Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes".
  The key word must be "necessary". Without further details and explanation, how will the data processor or policeman know exactly what is "necessary"' Above all, how is it to be known when it is no longer "necessary" to keep the data? In that case, the devil more than ever is in the detail—and it is clear that the amount of detail here is unsatisfactory.
  In conclusion, there are clearly numerous improvements to and clarifications of the vetting system that need to be implemented. The loophole in the cross-border system with Scotland must be dealt with swiftly as must the establishment of some form of cohesive approach with other EU member states. But, most importantly, we need a system that is clear and comprehensible to those who run it, within our own country. How can we be expected to initiate a unified system beyond England if we have not achieved this yet within our own borders? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these and other important issues raised.
  8.47 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for initiating the debate and commend her and the NSPCC, Children First, and their Northern Irish counterpart for their substantial efforts in encouraging the development of this and the broader debate. I agree that the issue is

  639
  about how we can prevent those who seek to take advantage of any perceived hole in the safety net which has been created for the protection of children. I am pleased that the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Harrison—they are NSPCC ambassadors—have been able to participate in the debate.
  I begin by airing a slight note of caution. We must all be very careful not to overlook the need to protect and safeguard other vulnerable members of our society apart from children. Certainly we as a government do not. Some of the measures that we have put in place apply more widely than children and are designed to protect other vulnerable people too. In addition, we have introduced further measures specifically to cover other vulnerable groups. I have in mind, for example, measures taken by colleagues in the Department of Health under the Care Standards Act 2000 to regulate care homes, domiciliary care agencies and nurses agencies, which includes the vetting of staff. Much of that would impinge on children too.
  However, we all recognise that the protection of children is of particular importance. Certainly it is a matter to which we as a government attach very great importance. It is a paramount consideration.
  It may be helpful in setting the wider context to describe some of the steps that we have taken in the past five years. We need to look at the issue holistically. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was right in saying that we have to look at an environment of excellence which will help better to protect the children that we seek to safeguard. Therefore, it is important that we have tightened the law on the sexual abuse of children in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
  New offences have been created to protect children from abuse—for example, in the areas of grooming, child prostitution and pornography. We have strengthened the sex offenders register, including introducing a requirement for sex offenders to tell the police when they travel overseas. There were 21,413 offenders on the register on 31 March 2003. From May, offenders will need to notify the police whenever they intend to travel overseas for three days or more.
  We have introduced new orders to protect children from grooming and to stop sex offenders travelling overseas. A new order will require sex offenders who commit offences overseas to go on the sex offenders register if they come to the UK. We have established MAPPA, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has referred. We have brought in disqualification orders prohibiting unsuitable people from working with children. Disqualification orders have been strengthened in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and we have introduced post-release supervision for up to 10 years for sex offenders. We have expanded places on sex offender treatment programmes, established a task force on child protection on the Internet and run awareness campaigns on the issue.
  So, the Criminal Records Bureau is one part of that safety net and I know that the noble Baroness will say that when we go fishing we take all our rods with us. I heard the criticism made by the noble Lord,
  640
  Lord Hodgson, which I respectfully suggest is mainly historical. A key element in the wider programme has been the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau under Section 5 of the Police Act 1997. The noble Lord will remember that prior to that, arrangements for police checks agreed at national level with the Association of Chief Police Officers were restricted in two important ways.
  First, checks were available mainly in relation to posts only in the statutory or public sector. Secondly, checks were restricted to posts which afforded, in the words of the main circulars, substantial unsupervised access to children. So, even in establishments where checks were available, there was only limited, selective access where it was judged that the risk was greatest. We all believed that that was not good enough and we needed to do better. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford commented on all the work done by the Churches to try to protect children. The people who were volunteering also had to be looked at.
  For the first few months after it began operating in March 2002 the CRB suffered from initial operational problems. In the summer of that year the service improvement plan was put in place. Since autumn 2002 the CRB has achieved substantial and sustained improvement in performance. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asks if we are satisfied that the improvement is sustained and real. We are. The CRB has now issued over 3 million disclosures. Its capacity is currently in excess of 55,000 disclosures a week and it is keeping pace with demand. Since last June it has consistently met its further standards of issue—90 per cent of standard disclosures within two weeks and 90 per cent of enhanced disclosures within four weeks. Across that period it has averaged 92.5 per cent and 92.9 per cent respectively and applications more than six weeks old, which at one stage were 70,000, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will remember, are now below 1,000.
  The Criminal Records Bureau was established in response to mounting pressure for greater access to information from police records—both across other interested sectors and in relation to a wider range of posts within bodies which already enjoyed some access to police checks. The CRB now offers the capacity for between two and three times the number of police checks that were available hitherto.
  It is important to say that CRB disclosures are not a panacea. Under a convenient one-stop arrangement, the CRB provides information about convictions, cautions, reprimands or warnings recorded on the police national computer and information on whether the individual is recorded on the Protection of Children Act—POCA—list and List 99, both now maintained by the Department for Education and Skills, of people who are unsuitable to work with children. And in the case of the highest level of disclosure—enhanced disclosure spoken of by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—information comes from local police records which in the judgment of the chief police officer is relevant to the purpose for which the disclosure was being sought.

  641
  Disclosures are intended to supplement and certainly not to replace other forms of check which have long been part of a good recruitment practice and must continue to do so. Checks such as taking up references and inquiring into previous employment history, if properly undertaken, are more likely to yield more information—and more meaningful information—but clearly CRB disclosures may provide information which is particularly material to a recruitment decision.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the question that I raised? When the CRB began, did the Government anticipate that much of the data inputting would be done in India?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is right to say that it was not necessarily anticipated before the whole scheme began. The decision to outsource the inputting work to India was taken only after the most careful scrutiny of the security and data protection implications. It has always been the objective that there should be no material impact on security and data protection. Arrangements have been rechecked to ensure that they remain sound.
  It is right that we should have the smoothest, most efficient, most effective system possible. Of course I hear the comments the noble Lord made about outsourcing to a country where the amount of payment is low. However, he knows very well that, relatively speaking, this work is paid very well in India and the quality of the people dealing with it are of a high standard. Many of them have degrees and so forth and it would be invidious to make a comparison between the standard of education and opportunity that we might have for people checking in one jurisdiction from another.
  A number of important issues were raised and I should be delighted to answer the noble Lord in great detail. However, time will prevent me so doing and I hope that he will understand that.
  This year the Scottish Executive is putting in place an equivalent of the POCA list used in England and Wales. This is being introduced in phases beginning around May, with referrals from bodies such as the General Teaching Council for consideration for inclusion in the list. The second phase from around July will introduce referrals from courts. Under the final phase in the autumn, other organisations will be able to make referrals. The plan is that Disclosure Scotland will be able to access our POCA list and List 99 from around May.
  The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked about the Northern Ireland situation. Separately, a list broadly equivalent to the POCA list will be introduced in Northern Ireland, replacing the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service register managed by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. This is due to come into force towards the end of the year. An order-making power is in place which will enable Disclosure Scotland to access the Northern Ireland list once it comes on stream.
  642
  We have made it clear that Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 is to be implemented in Northern Ireland. No date for its implementation has yet been given, but colleagues are actively considering how best to implement it. There is legislative provision in place to enable Northern Ireland to access the POCA list and List 99 when Part 5 is in force there.
  We are committed to introducing legislation as soon as there is legislative opportunity which will enable the CRB to access the lists of people unsuitable to work with children which are being introduced in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is intended that the same legislation will enable Northern Ireland to access the new Scottish list. Together with the provisions already in place, this will complete the network, enabling checks to be carried out across the United Kingdom.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked about the review. I understand that colleagues in Northern Ireland intend that a review of vetting arrangements should be conducted in collaboration with the Commissioner for Children and Young People in the light of the findings of the Bichard inquiry into matters arising from the tragic events in Soham. Colleagues will be making an announcement about this and about preparatory work by the relevant departments in Northern Ireland. I hope that that answer will give the noble Lord a little pleasure.
  A very important issue was raised about the European dimension further afield both by my noble friend Lord Harrison and by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. In today's world, there is greater movement of people between countries. My noble friend was right to say that it is a great opportunity in widening Europe, but there are also some dangers in that. This is especially true in the European Union. Issues arise about checks on people from outside the UK wishing to come here to work.
  The CRB is not empowered to search databases outside the UK for conviction and other information shown on its disclosures. In fact, inquiries made about arrangements in force in other countries showed both how varied they are and how complex it would be to introduce widespread arrangements to link up with the records in a range of other countries. The CR13 has taken the initiative by establishing what it has termed its "overseas information service". This is for the benefit of employers who are considering recruiting staff from outside the United Kingdom.
  The service provides detailed information about the arrangements for checks in other countries including where such information can be obtained, how to go about obtaining a check, the cost and the time taken. At present, 17 countries are covered, including 10 in Europe. The possibility is currently being explored of extending the service to a further 14 countries, including 12 in Europe. We are also exploring with our European partners how arrangements for collecting and sharing information on those who are a sexual risk to children can be improved. In some such areas the United Kingdom leads the way. There is much that we can learn from our partners, but also much that we can share with them.

  643
  As a first step, we are hosting a seminar for members and accession states in London on 18 March to consider how we can take forward work on this issue. That seminar will be an important opportunity. I say to my noble friend Lord Harrison that it will give us the opportunity to test the waters. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness will know that not all our partners in Europe are as enthusiastic as we are about this issue. They see challenges, and they have concerns. We would love to be able to address those concerns and talk to them. The seminar will be an ideal vehicle for us to use to make that assessment as to how much further or other encouragement or work may be necessary.
  It is an important area, and I know that I only have a few moments left, but I should like to touch on some of the important questions that I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord. I hope that noble Lords will indulge me with just a couple of minutes so that I can give some answers.
  The noble Baroness asked me when we will have a compatible system across the United Kingdom. VISOR, which is the violent and sexual offenders register, is as the noble Baroness will know, a national database that is currently being developed. It is hoped that it will cover Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales. The system is due to be rolled out in England and Wales at the end of this year. The database would provide access for police and probation officers across the United Kingdom to records on dangerous offenders, which will be helpful and important.
  The noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised the issue of volunteers. We have no plans to change the current systems in Scotland and Wales. The situation in England is on a different scale. It is necessary to consider how beneficial such arrangements would be. We continue to have dialogue with the sector to identify the most appropriate and most effective means of accessing the CRB services. It has always been the intention of the CRB, as noble Lords will remember, that it should be self-financing by means of charges. In future years, this will certainly be the case. It has been necessary to subsidise the CRB through payments by the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department
  644
  for Education. Our aim is that the CRB should be self-funding by 2005–06. This is a year later than originally planned. The most recent fee increase of £4 per disclosure from April 2004 is the next step towards this target, reducing the level of Government subsidy and increasing the contribution made by CRB customers. My noble friend asked about the 2001 study undertaken by the University of London. It has been the starting point for our seminar, which I mentioned, on 18 March. However, we are not considering extending that research programme by commissioning further research and reports. Instead, we have gone to each of the EU countries for an update of their system and to see where they are.
  We are working with the NSPCC and others to advance the issue in Europe, where the UK is driving the issue. As I said, we have said that that is a good way forward. Issues arise relating to Europol, but we must recognise that our EU partners will need a little, if not a great deal, of persuading to adopt similar measures. As I said, the seminar will provide an opportunity to do that.
  I really have run out of time. I hope that I have covered most of the main themes raised in the debate. I see signs that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, may or may not be satisfied, but, notwithstanding the fact that I could doubtless keep your Lordships here for long time answering all his questions, I shall write to him on all the matters that I have been unable to cover.
  In conclusion, it has been a privilege to participate in the debate. This is an important area. As I have said, we are certainly not complacent. We are keen to pursue measures both within the UK and across Europe to strengthen the protection of children through the sharing of criminal records and other information. To that end, we continue to put in place links between the different jurisdictions in the United Kingdom for sharing conviction information and information about people disqualified from working with children. We are also examining with other EU states how arrangements for sharing information can be improved.
  I very much welcome this debate, thank the noble Baroness and apologise for speaking with such rapidity.
  House adjourned at seven minutes past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Energy Bill [H.L.]
  (Eleventh Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld) in the Chair.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 141ZA:
  After Clause 151, insert the following new clause—
  "PRINCIPLES OF BEST REGULATORY PRACTICE BY AUTHORITY
  In the Utilities Act 2000 (c. 27), after section 5A (duty of authority to carry out impact assessment) insert—
  "5B PRINCIPLES OF BEST REGULATORY PRACTICE BY AUTHORITY
  In performing its duties under section 4AA of the 1986 Act and section 3A of the 1989 Act, the Authority must have regard in all cases to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and only targeted at cases in which action is necessary).""
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 141ZA, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141ZB. The concept of best regulatory practice is not some abstract philosophical or theoretical concept; it is something to which every branch of government should aspire. I say right at the outset of my remarks, and as emphatically as I can, that there is no desire or intention to reformulate Ofgem's regulator objectives.
  Amendment No. 141ZA seeks to bring into the energy sector some of the precedents set by the Communications Act and, more recently, the Water Act in relation to regulatory activity. It is significant that those two Acts came under a different department of state than the present Bill, so perhaps the DTI needs to take on board the attitude of its colleagues elsewhere in the Government.
  The principles of best regulatory practice, as defined in the amendment, are that regulatory activity should be,
  "transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and only targeted at cases in which action is necessary".
  I wish that I had been the author of that excellent and succinct definition.
  However, these principles were developed by the Better Regulation Task Force and are in fact supported by the Government. They are built into Section 3(3) of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 39(4) of the Water Act 2003. The two Acts impose requirements that must apply to all aspects of Ofcom's and Ofwat's regulatory activities. It is therefore appropriate, and
  GC 204
  indeed—to take a word from the principles themselves—"consistent" that the same principles should also be enshrined in this Bill.
  Ofgem says that it aspires to meet these principles anyway, and therefore no over-prescriptive burden is being placed on it. Indeed, the case for including this provision in the Bill is strengthened by recent legislative action supported by the Government.
  The Sustainable Energy Act 2003 placed on Ofgem a statutory duty to carry out impact assessments on all significant regulatory proposals. There is nothing in the amendment to which any authority bent on good government would object or to which the Government to their credit have not already subscribed. On the contrary, refusal to accept this wholly uncontroversial amendment could possibly send the wrong message to a future Ofgem that it is not bound by the principles of best regulatory practice.
  Amendment No. 141ZB requires the Secretary of State to apply the same principles to her functions under the Utilities Act. I think that I need say no more than that. I should like to assume that the Government would accept this provision on the basis that it sets the same standards that they would obviously want to set themselves. I beg to move.
  Lord Triesman: I think all noble Lords would agree with the noble Baroness that the better regulation principles are ones to which we would expect the authority to adhere. Indeed, the authority in its recently published draft corporate strategy has committed to these principles.
  As someone who served on the Better Regulation Task Force for some time and who chaired one of its national inquiries and served on several other of its national inquiries, it gives me particular pleasure to say that we are happy to consider this amendment. It would formalise in statute the commitment that Ofgem has already made to be guided by the principles of best regulatory practice. It would follow similar provisions placed on Ofcom and Ofwat in the Communications Act 2003 and the Water Industry Act 1991 respectively, ensuring consistency among regulators.
  A provision to have regard to best regulatory practice is placed upon Ofcom in the Communications Act 2003. A provision in the Water Industry Act 1991, which has yet to come into force, seeks to place a similar duty on both Ofwat and the Secretary of State.
  We propose to follow the Ofwat model and consequently would hope to suggest an alternate drafting to the noble Baroness on Report, but there will be a draft in the terms that I have described. An important distinction is that the statutory general duties in the Communications Act apply only to Ofcom, and so it is appropriate to have an obligation to have regard to better regulation principles which applies only to Ofcom in that case. The Water Industry Act 1991 provides that the general duties apply to both the Secretary of State and the regulator, and so it is appropriate for the obligation to have an appropriate form of wording that deals with them both. In other words, each form of words has been written in a way

  GC 205
  that is distinctive to the needs, but nonetheless there has to be a central and general duty which is common: to have full and proper regard to the better regulation principles.
  To be consistent, the obligation to have regard to better regulation principles should apply to the Secretary of State as well as to the regulator, even though the amendment seeks only to place a duty on the authority. However, the Petroleum Act 1998 covers regulation of offshore oil and gas industries, which is not covered by the Utilities Act or regulated by Ofgem. We would be opposed to such a reference in the form of an amendment to the Utilities Act.
  Having expressed the need to ensure that we have consistency—a point which is absolutely right—and having made the point that there are some distinctions because of all of the different combinations of bodies that need to be regulated in any particular set of circumstances, I give noble Lords my assurance that if they withdraw the amendment today, we shall return to the matter at a later stage when we have had a proper chance to consider fully how the amendment should be drafted to give full effect to the concerns of the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for the generous way in which he has dealt with my amendment. At first, I thought that he was going to say, as Ministers often say, "The noble Baroness has spoken well and we take her points on board but"; however, this time he did not use the word "but". He went on to say that the Government may bring something similar back at Report stage. Of course, I take pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 141ZB not moved.]
  Clause 152 [Application of general duties to Part 3 functions etc.]:
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) moved Amendments Nos. 141A and 141B:
  Page 117, line 15, leave out "this Part" and insert "Part 3"
  Page 117, line 22, leave out "this Part" and insert "section (Modification of licence conditions for offshore transmission and distribution) or (Extension of transmission licences offshore) or Part 3 of this Act"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 141C:
  Transpose Clause 152 to after Clause 155.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 153 [Supplementary provision about licence condition powers]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 141D and 141E:
  Page 117, line 38, leave out "this Part" and insert "sections (Modification of licence conditions for offshore transmission and distribution) and (Extension of transmission licences offshore) and Part 3 of this Act"
  GC 206
  Page 117, line 41, leave out "Part" and insert "Act"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 153, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 141 F:
  Transpose Clause 153 to after Clause 155.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 142:
  Before Clause 154, insert the following new clause—
  "Independent Chief Energy Engineering Adviser
  APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF ENERGY ENGINEERING ADVISER
  (1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a suitably qualified person to be his Chief Energy Engineering Adviser on matters pertaining to the supply of all forms of energy.
  (2) The general duties of the Chief Energy Engineering Adviser shall be to advise—

  (a) the Secretary of State on a long-term sustainable co-ordinated approach to infrastructure planning in relation to energy supplies, and

  (b) on such other matters relating to the energy supply industry as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.

  (3) The Chief Energy Engineering Adviser shall be responsible in the performance of his duties to the Secretary of State, but shall otherwise be independent of the Government.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall provide funding for the office of such adviser and for his office and staff and for the payment by the adviser of fees to consultants whom he may from time to time employ."
  The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 together. First, I shall speak to Amendment No. 143, because it is merely a consequential amendment which arises only if the main amendment is accepted. It adds the funding of the chief energy engineering adviser and his office to the services to be provided by the Secretary of State and listed in Clause 154.
  The main amendment is to create the office of the chief energy engineering adviser, whose duties are set out in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. The chief energy engineering adviser shall advise,
  "(a) the Secretary of State on a long-term sustainable co-ordinated approach to infrastructure planning in relation to energy supplies, and
  (b) on such other matters relating to the energy supply industry as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine".
  The new clause makes it clear that the chief energy engineering adviser, while reporting to the Secretary of State, is independent of the Government. The justification for the creation of this office in the vital field of energy supplies is simply to ensure that short-term political considerations shall not dominate or even influence essential decisions.
  There are precedents for the existence of such an office—the Government's Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. I do not believe that successive governments have ever felt threatened by the existence of these two independent officers. On the contrary, their pronouncements and decisions are more readily accepted by the public than any directly from the Government or from Ministers.
  In an area as important as energy supplies, which has its own controversial facets—I shall not digress by listing them—it is essential that the Government should automatically receive totally independent and disinterested advice and not simply be told what they would like to hear. I hope that the Minister will accept this as a constructive amendment which, incidentally, has the fullest support of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I would very much like to support the amendment. My noble friend mentioned the precedents of the CMO advising health Ministers and of the Chief Scientific Adviser in the Department of Trade and Industry. I have had direct experience of working with such people and their predecessors in various of my previous manifestations and have always found them of enormous value. When I was Secretary of State for Health, the Chief Medical Officer was a doctor of immense distinction, who stood apart and aside from the main body of my officials in the department. I found I could always rely implicitly on his advice. Moreover, he was not slow to criticise Ministers if he felt that we had got it wrong.
  We have had a more recent example of that in the person of Sir David King, the Chief Scientific Adviser, who has made no secret of his view that the Government are not going to get by in the next couple of decades without new nuclear build. He has said so in a number of well publicised speeches across the country. That may have embarrassed Ministers, or some Ministers, but the fact is that it has greatly enhanced his own credibility and stature in the eyes of the scientific and engineering community outside. I believe this is an important proposal.
  I have another, rather more personal reason, for welcoming the idea. My great-grandfather was the first professor of engineering at Edinburgh University. He was the secretary of the British Association committee that was set up to establish electrical standards, which were then adopted by the BA. The ohm, the amp and the volt are what they are today because of the work that great-grandfather Jenkin did in the 1850s. He worked, of course, to Lord Kelvin, who was the chairman of the committee. Lord Kelvin was, in effect, a chief engineering adviser to the Government. They did not have that specific appointment, but they had always felt it necessary to have access to engineering skills of the highest order to make sure that the policy they were adopting was right. I believe that this would be a very valuable appointment. It would carry considerable prestige and status. I think that it would be a very great reassurance to members of the public if the Government really had close at hand truly top-quality engineering advice.
  It would also do one other thing which perhaps is not wholly relevant to this provision—it would raise the status of engineering in the general scheme of things. I set up and appointed the members of the first Engineering Council. That did not succeed. There was then the subsequent attempt at the Engineering Council. We now have the Engineering and Technology Board which we hope will make strides in
  GC 208
  re-establishing the status of engineering. To have a chief engineering adviser on energy at the DTI would be to create, in a sense, a hero, which is what the engineering profession really needs if it is to attract young men and women to follow careers in engineering. I do not say that that is the main reason, but that will be one of the consequences. It would have that consequence because the appointment would be one of high profile, high status, high skill and very great respect.
  I believe that this is a valuable step. I hope that the Government will not just dismiss it out of hand.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Ezra: I should like to support the proposal put forward so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for the reasons that they have given. My particular interest in this would be to maintain a long-term view of energy infrastructure implications. As ever more energy is needed and as new forms of energy are developed, so the long-term inter-meshing of these new developments needs to be studied independently. I think that the DTI or whatever future government department is going to be responsible for energy could not but gain from the establishment of a leading engineer covering the energy sector in the way that has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
  Lord Triesman: In the context of university life, I also saw a great deal of the now Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King, who was originally a very eminent scientist at the University of Liverpool. Of course, I have seen and had close contact with the Chief Medical Adviser and others. I share the admiration that Members of the Committee have expressed for the work they have done and the kind of model that it provides. I should like to try to set out why the Government believe that there may be a distinction between this proposal and the kinds of role played by those very eminent scientists and by the medical scientists advising the Government in veterinary science.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 need to be considered together. I share with her the desire to ensure that the Government have the best possible available information and advice at their disposal to develop and deliver energy policy. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Ezra, have underlined that self-same point. However, the Government take the view that such advice is already available and that there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to appoint and remunerate a chief engineering adviser to give independent advice on matters as they relate to all sources of energy supply. I shall try to explain why.
  As I understand it, this is not a new proposal. Noble Lords will recall that the appointment of a chief engineer was debated in your Lordships' House on 16 July 2003, following the Institution of Civil Engineers' report, The State of the Nation, which advocated the appointment of a chief engineer to offer advice on sustainability and infrastructural renewal,

  GC 209
  which were the two elements of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra a few moments ago. At that time, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation provided the Government's view to the House that it would not be desirable to give what appeared to be such diverse areas of responsibility to a chief engineer. The Government do not wish to review that proposition in light of the amendments before us. Indeed, they would wish to identify several reasons in addition to those that were given by my noble friend last July.
  It is difficult to think of a single advisory post that is directly connected to a broad industry in a way that science in itself is not, because it covers many industries, concepts and disciplines. The same point could be made about medical sciences, where a vast number of disciplines and associated industries are involved. It would be hard to think of a single advisory post that would have such a wide remit and such an important role in view of the impact on the economy of the issues surrounding energy supply.
  As drafted, the amendment would create a post which crossed government responsibilities relating to all aspects of the economy as they relate to all aspects of energy sources: gas, electricity, renewables, oil and coal. It is hard to imagine the way in which the wide breadth of knowledge that would be required to undertake that role effectively could be encompassed in a single individual. The Secretary of State would be provided with an adviser who might not be a master of any one of those areas, but who would be required to be spread across all of them. Therefore, the advice would perhaps not command the same level of confidence of the energy markets or of government. That might be a justifiable conclusion to reach. To give the post of chief engineering officer real gravitas, therefore, would require a large investment of resources to ensure that his office was of sufficient size and quality to provide expert advice on all aspects of energy. That would require a considerable level of funding, which frankly might well be better spent elsewhere. It would also add a further burden to business, in terms of the information sought by the office of the chief engineer to gain a full appreciation of all market conditions in the UK and internationally. In fact, the Secretary of State already receives expert advice on energy matters from government advisers, economists and consultants as well as from the energy industries themselves. The Government's newly appointed sustainable energy policy advisory board provides independent, expert advice to Ministers to help deliver a sustainable and coherent energy policy.
  There are obviously occasions when the Government look for wider views on the development of policy. We have done that and we shall continue to do so. For example, in developing the energy White Paper, the Government undertook the largest-ever consultation on energy policy. Views were sought not only from traditional stakeholders, but actively sought also, in terms of ideas and priorities, from the general public—through workshops, web-based discussions and
  GC 210
  roadshows. Overall, 6,500 people and businesses provided invaluable advice. Four-and-a-half thousand of those responses were from the public.
  One of the benefits of liberalised competitive markets is that decisions are taken not by one individual, but rather by the combined actions of people who run the energy companies and supply fuel and power to their customers—people who are real experts and who know and understand the real business. That is my point about the direct connection between an industry comprising a number of parts and the general oversight of science, which is not homogeneous in that sense.
  Finally, it could be argued that one has only to read the letters pages of national newspapers to see that independent advice on energy matters is given freely by almost everybody and without restraint. The availability of advice is itself not the problem; the problem would be in creating in one individual a sufficiently comprehensive set of skills and abilities that would be accepted in the industry as such. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that that would apply to the deliberations of Sir David King, for example. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 142 and not to move Amendment No. 143.
  Lord Ezra: It is regrettable that the Minister has seen fit to reject the amendment without further thought. He did so by magnifying the potential role of the advisor beyond what is intended by the amendment in order to show that it could not work. The point that he missed is a very important one: the proposal could have been an excellent way in which to mobilise the support of the professional engineering organisations.
  In recent months, the Institutions of Civil Engineers, of Mechanical Engineers and of Electrical Engineers, have all shown a considerable interest in energy matters, but that has been provoked by the White Paper and by the debate that is going on now. That interest could soon wither away. A way in which to maintain the interest of the institutions in energy matters, which form a very important part of the economy, would be to make the appointment that the noble Baroness proposes. The Minister should think again about the amendment in that light.
  Much has to be done to mobilise the potential engineering resources that we have in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, pointed out, engineering still does not get the acclaim in Britain that it receives in other countries. This could be one way in which to add to the importance of engineering. Therefore, I ask the Government to think again about the amendment.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not believe that it is only the professionals in the field whose interest needs to be mobilised. I believe that the public will need a good deal of help in understanding the hard issues behind the choices that will have to be made. They will need help to understand what will happen in their neighbourhoods, which, let us face it, they will suffer from if there is a lack of energy. Although it may be difficult to find an individual who can embrace all the

  GC 211
  expertise that might be required, as the Minister said, the Government do have a problem. As their policies develop, they will need far more public confidence than I believe they will have.
  Much fear is exhibited at meetings about developments in the windmill field. Arguments develop between those who believe that windmills are the answer to global warming and that therefore we must support them and those who are absolutely horrified about what, for example, they will do to the very important tourism industry. Those meetings need input from someone with a lot of authority, who is not given to political spin. The energy White Paper is in my view a spin document—a political document. It does not help us forward very much except in giving a framework for thinking, which the Government want us to have.
  Matters will have to move on in a practical way. We may have to develop nuclear energy much more—I am sure that we will have to, in fact. But even as the present ideas develop, professional advice will be needed, at a high level, which people feel that they can trust. I have been at meetings where people who have worked in the industry and who could explain about power lines and windmills, for example, have been present. That helps the public to understand and gives them confidence, but it is a local thing. People may have confidence in someone whom they know, who has perhaps worked all his life in the particular industry that he is talking about. That happens with the Chief Scientific Adviser and Medical Officer, and we see it happening in Parliament and on television, when such people are interviewed.
  The Government have a problem and they need to find a solution to it. They may not find the solution in this amendment, but they should think very seriously about the matter. It is a jolly good idea to think about it.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Gray of Contin: I had not intended to participate in this debate, but like all good debates it has provoked something in me that I want to explain. If I were the Secretary of State, I would be very much inclined to adopt the line that the Government have taken on this amendment—and I shall tell Members of the Committee why that is.
  The White Paper has not been mentioned. If ever there was a case for someone advising the Government, it is reflected in that White Paper, which is a disaster that satisfies nobody and achieves very little except to provide a basis for argument. If the new post is created and someone is appointed to it who is anti-nuclear, there will be an outcry from all those who support nuclear power, saying that the appointment has been contrived and that that person has been put there to prevent the development of nuclear power. If, on the other hand, the Government appoint someone who is very favourable to renewables, exactly the same argument will be used by the other side. If the Government were to follow that line and make such an appointment, they would merely create a stick with
  GC 212
  which they would be beaten at every available opportunity. I know that that is not the popular view on this side, but it is a practical view, and one that I fear might be realised if such an appointment was made.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I plead guilty to having stimulated my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin into making a speech. He was putting his views to me quietly, and I asked him why he did not stand up and say them. Now he has, and I am not too sure how pleased I am about that, although it is a perfectly understandable view.
  I listened to the Minister with increasing dismay and confusion. He started by referring to the debate last July, in which the proposal was put before the House that there should be a general industrial adviser to the Government. He made the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made on that occasion—that the brief was altogether too wide for any single individual to hold. I hope that I am interpreting that point reasonably fairly. Therefore, such an appointment would be impossible.
  The appointment being proposed does not reflect that original proposal but is much more narrowly focused on the area with which we have been concerned in this Bill, and with the other issues surrounding it—namely, that of energy supply, and the whole future of our energy policy. I cannot conceive why that should be regarded as too wide to justify the appointment of an expert advisor to the Secretary of State in this area. I say what I say next with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. When the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was the Secretary of State for Energy, and I was his number two, as spokesman in the House of Commons, with the title of Minister for Energy, we struggled with a number of issues in January and February 1974. Noble Lords may well remember that time. I certainly would have greatly valued the presence in that newly started Department of Energy of someone who could have drawn on his expertise from a professional standpoint. We had very wise civil servants. Sir Jack Rampton was a Permanent Secretary and a man for whom I formed a very great respect but, with the greatest respect, he was not an engineer. Although no doubt there were some engineers in the department, they did not begin to carry the status and standing that is embodied in my noble friend's amendment this afternoon.
  When I reached the Department of Industry—I have already mentioned the Department of Health, where I was for a time and where we had the Chief Medical Officer—I had a very top ranking former industrialist who was the chief industrial adviser to the Secretary of State. His name was Davies and he came from ICI. I found his advice of enormous value. It was different from that which came from the civil servants, from the permanent secretary, the second Permanent Secretary and so on. Essentially it was professional advice on the industrial issues with which, as industry secretary, I was confronted. Of course, that was a post that covered the whole area of what was then the Department of Industry; it did not include the Department of Trade, as at that time it was separate.

  GC 213
  In this case, I am looking for someone within the DTI, but not for someone who covers the whole area for which the Secretary of State has responsibility. I am looking for someone to cover the aspect of energy that currently is part of the responsibility of Mr Timms in another place, a responsibility that he carries out together with a number of other responsibilities such as the Post Office and e-commerce. I believe that there would be considerable advantage to the Government in being able to call on the services of a senior engineer with a lot of experience, whose expertise was in the area of energy, who could advise the Government and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, who would have the influence and status to be able to bring along the energy institutes that have expressed such interest in the subject in recent months.
  I ask the Government to think again on this point. I believe that this is a good idea and all my experience as a Minister in various departments suggests to me that it would be a good idea. It is rather cavalier of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to read out his notes, that no doubt have been prepared under the advice of the able people sitting behind him, but which to my mind—I shall read Hansard carefully when it is published tomorrow—contain a number of contradictory arguments. One sensed a draftsman dragging at every possible argument. We were asked to look at all the lovely letters that one sees in the Times, for example—we were told that we get lots of advice. Many of the letters in the Times are utter rubbish and I hope that the Government do not pay too much attention to them, although some of them are very good, such as those from Professor Ian Fells. A colleague recently had a very good letter printed in the Times to which I drew attention at Question Time. But that is no substitute for having someone with whom one is in regular touch, who himself keeps in regular touch with all the industry and energy institutes around the country and all the professional bodies that are concerned with energy, whose wisdom the Secretary of State can gather. With the greatest respect, no Minister begins to have the time to do that for himself, nor is it easy for a non-professional civil servant to do that.
  I have seen such a situation in a variety of different activities and I am convinced that there is a case for the appointment within the DTI of a chief engineering adviser to deal with energy. I shall read what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has said, but at the moment I am wholly unconvinced by his arguments. I hope that when my noble friend Lady Miller withdraws the amendment she will make it clear that this is not the last of the argument. We shall return to the matter.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is my noble friend prepared to say that he agrees with me that such a person could help the public to understand what was going on and help their confidence in understanding the implications of energy development?
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I am grateful to respond to my noble friend's question. Of course. Anyone who read Sir David King's address to the Seattle conference, which
  GC 214
  was subsequently published in Nature, about the threat to global warning, would recognise that that was an immensely powerful piece of advocacy for the Government's policy. I have heard Sir David talk on this subject on a number of occasions. He speaks with enormous authority. I say this with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—neither the noble Lord nor any of the DTI Ministers could possibly emulate that authority because the Ministers would inevitably be delivering lectures, large parts of which will have been prepared by other people. I have no doubt that when Sir David King talks about climate change, its dangers and the need to meet them, he does so on the basis of his own experience as a scientist. So I am sure that my noble friend Lady Carnegy is absolutely right.
  I shall not mention other examples, but there were certainly examples of that in health. In trying to get some public appreciation of the threats of AIDS and HIV, the Chief Medical Officer was able to get not only the profession but also the public to recognise that the problem really had to be grappled with. My colleague and noble friend Lord Fowler, who was Secretary of State at the time, played a notable part in that. But he could not conceivably have done that without having top-quality professional advice at his elbow to guide and to steer him. I am sure that he would the first to admit that. So, can Ministers think about this issue again?
  Lord Triesman: I want to respond briefly to some of the points made by noble Lords. Some forceful arguments have been put. It is probably as well on an occasion such as this to make at least a little distinction between the things about which I suspect we might all agree and those about which we might not.
  It is unquestionably true that we have not perhaps paid as much attention to the enormous benefits that world-class engineering can contribute as we have to other disciplines in the general areas of the sciences. The promotion of those areas and disciplines in which there are great skill resources in the United Kingdom would no doubt benefit us all a great deal.
  My contacts over the years with the institutions representing the civil, mechanical and the chemical engineers have taught me that they are—each of them in their disciplinary range—very proud advocates of their parts of engineering. They do not always, incidentally, readily concede to each other the real authority that might be needed to speak about the whole of engineering. I am not an engineer, but I respect the specific sorts of knowledge that they reflect in their dealings, and in the advice they give. It is of course highly specialist. Even if there are elements within engineering which bridge all areas, there are unquestionably aspects which require that kind of specialist knowledge and preparation which I can only look at and admire, because of course I cannot take part in it in the sense of real knowledge.

  GC 215
  There are other institutions, as noble Lords will be aware, which deal with the examination of engineers in a more general sense. They are equally proud of their particular niche and particular tradition.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not want to hold the Committee up, but precisely the same thing applies in the royal colleges, in medicine and the people who examine. That does not mean that there cannot be a Chief Medical Officer.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Triesman: When I get to the latter part of what I want to say, I hope that that is one of the distinctions I will be able to make.
  When your Lordships had the debate in July—I was not, at that time, a Member of your Lordships' House, so I, too, have to rely on the record to be certain about what was said—the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made the point that we needed to appoint a chief government engineer to ensure that there was a co-ordinated, long-term and sustainable approach to the renewal of national infrastructure. I believe that the contention here is that while that point was cast rather broadly, the proposal today is cast more narrowly, so the objections that were made on that occasion should not apply on this occasion.
  With the greatest respect, I think that this amendment is also cast in very broad terms, as it relates to,
  "matters pertaining to the supply of all forms of energy".
  It is very hard to see where that remit might be limited. It could be interpreted not only in relation to the industry—and it is an industry; it is not, like medicine, a set of disciplines which come together and are not, themselves, integrally related to any industry as such. We are talking not only about different elements of the industry but also about how they might impact on the economy and how each different source of energy might impact on the economy. It is quite possible, without being fanciful, to see that this could also be a very broad proposition.
  That is why I think the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, are so wise. Whoever was in that role would have to have, in the eyes of all those who had heard the advice, an impeccable distance between themselves and the advocacy of any one element within it. Were it to be believed that it was advocacy on behalf of any one element within it, that would inevitably not only reduce the impact of the advice and make people suspicious about the purpose for which it was given but would also be a direct impact on a highly competitive industry which has many contesting elements. I am not seeking to put words into the noble Lord's mouth, but I think that was one of the great elements of force of his argument.
  I feel that when I first spoke, I did not draw the point out adequately. That is the difference I see between the role of the Chief Scientific Adviser, who may well come from a discipline but has a whole set of disciplines, and the role of somebody who would be inserted in an
  GC 216
  industry where everybody would be attentive, moment by moment, to whether that person was favouring one element of the industry over others.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: We have had mention in this brief debate of the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, who, as I said, has made no secret of his views about the future of the nuclear industry. That did not stop Sir David putting his name to the White Paper, which took an entirely different view and merely said that we should keep the nuclear option open. I do not think that that in any way lowered his esteem in anybody's eyes; it was extremely helpful to the Government that he had an input into the White Paper. He is an extremely wise man—we may not have liked everything in the White Paper, but there it is.
  I do not think the fact that Sir David had a strong personal view on the matter in any way interfered with his broad advice to Ministers about what might or might not go into the Energy White Paper. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, I just do not follow his argument.
  Baroness Byford: I wonder if I can throw a couple of extra points in, although I do not mean to be disruptive. I followed the noble Lord's first response, when he said that advice was already available. My question, naturally, was: who from? He then talked about it as a cross-departmental responsibility. Who pulls it all together?
  This is an enormously important part of the Bill, which deals with the future of all forms of energy. The noble Lord will be well aware that throughout the debates we have had over these 10 days, we have expressed our concern that the Bill is not about energy. It deals with a very narrow part of our energy needs—it is about the decommissioning of nuclear, offshore wind installations and trading. I follow my noble friend's line of thought in that we do need somebody there, particularly if the responsibility goes across government. In that case, who pulls the bits together and whose advice is taken?
  I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as he will know very well, that when we had the dreadful outbreak of foot and mouth we needed someone at the helm who was an authority. Obviously, the Chief Medical Officer is employed directly by the Government but I should have thought that other arm's length expertise would have been of additional benefit. My question takes me back to the noble Lord's original answer; namely, that such advice is available. However, it seems to come from different areas. Who does what? Who is responsible at the end of the day? If it is cross-departmental advice, how many departments are involved and who pulls it together? I very much support my noble friend's amendment.
  Lord Triesman: I promise that I shall be very brief. I wish to make two points, one of which will be an answer to the question. First, I refer to the role of Sir David King and, indeed, to his predecessor, Sir Robert May, now the noble Lord, Lord May. They are eminent scientists drawn from particular disciplines not in any way associated with any element of the energy industry. They

  GC 217
  are not easily identifiable as having an interest in any sense because they are wholly independent of all of it. In my judgment that was what gave force to the Seattle speech. No one could say that it reflected any interest that could be said to be associated with something in a competitive industry that might give rise to any advantage. Whether we liked or did not like the content of the speech, it was completely cocooned from any kind of suggestion that there was an interest involved in it. That gave the speech its force.
  Secondly, I say to the noble Baroness that the Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board which was appointed in December is the body that pulls all the advice together. It is independent and offers independent advice on all energy matters and reaches across the whole of government in doing so.
  Baroness Byford: I am sorry. I understood that, but I trust that I did not put the matter as simply as that. At the end of the day, does the buck stop with the DTI, with trade, or where? At the moment it is a cross-departmental matter, as the noble Lord said.
  Lord Triesman: Happily, I do not have to read this out. The answer is the Cabinet and the appropriate committees that deal with the relations between the departments that are concerned with any particular set of decisions. I hope that it is a proper example of joined-up government.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: This has been a very interesting short debate. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. My noble friend Lord Jenkin and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, both spoke with great authority and experience in these matters. It was useful to hear their comments. My noble friend Lady Carnegy tried to put forward the view that the advice we are discussing from a person of authority would be helpful to members of the public and not just to the Secretary of State.
  I thank my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin for his remarks. Of course, I do not agree with what he said but that does not mean anything other than that I am glad he raised the point that was well answered by my noble friend Lord Jenkin in referring to the Chief Scientific Adviser. The latter is perhaps an advocate of nuclear energy but, on the other hand, he was very happy to put his name to the energy White Paper which appeared not to mention that at all. In fact, it definitely did not mention it at all.
  I thank the Minister for his answer. I did not agree with any of it but that does not mean that I do not thank him for stating it as it was interesting. We believe that the matter is much more focused than the Minister suggested. The Minister quoted Amendment No. 142 as stating that:
  "The Secretary of State shall appoint a suitably qualified person to be his Chief Energy Engineering Adviser on all matters pertaining",
  GC 218
  and so on. However, the word "all" does not appear in the amendment. The amendment states:
  "The Secretary of State shall appoint a suitably qualified person to be his Chief Energy Engineering Adviser on matters pertaining",
  and so on. It is as if the Government made up their mind beforehand that the measure was too wide and too diverse. Of course, the Minister must have his speech prepared before he hears what we have to say; otherwise, he would have an impossible job to do. However, that was very much a speech that was known before we began. I think that that is quite inappropriate.
  As I was saying, the adviser is to advise,
  "the Secretary of State on a long-term sustainable co-ordinated approach to infrastructure planning".
  We need someone to bring that all together. There is no question about that. We need someone who is independent of government but answerable to the Secretary of State. There is no doubt about that.
  The Minister started off by saying that he hoped that I would withdraw the amendment in view of his comments. I shall withdraw it. However, I shall do so not in view of what he said but because we are in Committee. We will most certainly wish to bring it back. In return for my withdrawing it, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Jenkin in suggesting to the Minister that he should go back to the drawing board and have another think on this one. The provision is a very important and necessary addition. Having said that, and not so much with pleasure, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 142A:
  Before Clause 154, insert the following new clause—
  "SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DUTY FOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY CONSUMER COUNCIL
  (1) The Utilities Act 2000 (c. 27) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 2 (Gas and Electricity Consumer Council) after subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) The Council shall exercise and perform its power and duties so as to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.""
  The noble Baroness said: This is a small amendment which seeks to update the Utilities Act 2000 by giving the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council a duty to have regard to sustainable development. It also provides that the council's powers and duties shall,
  "contribute to the achievement of sustainable development".
  I did not take part in the passage of the Utilities Act, but I have gone back and read the debates on it at some length. If that legislation were being considered by your Lordships' House today, I believe there would be far more discussion about the meaning of sustainable development and about whether that legislation is an appropriate way of achieving what the Government say they want to achieve in energy policy and sustainable development.
  The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will recall that at the end of our recent debate on the countryside, he and I agreed completely, I think, that sustainable development was a three-legged stool and that all legs had to be of equal length if sustainable development was to be effective. The problem with the Utilities Act is that it places the emphasis on the economic and social aspects of the council's duties and not at all on the environmental aspect.
  Section 14 contains provision that the Secretary of State may give guidance on social and environmental matters. I ask the Minister to tell us what guidance has been given on environmental matters in the three years since that Act came into being. Updating the Utilities Act as we propose would strengthen the arm of the council. I am sure that the council would wish to pursue its objective with an eye to the whole of sustainable development. As currently drafted, the Act restrains it from doing so. I beg to move.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: I completely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of sustainable development and with her assertion that the environmental dimension of energy policy is no less important than any other, because the whole of our energy policy is directed at reducing the carbon and climate change impact of energy use.
  However, one has to look at who is the deliverer of each of those different aspects of sustainable development. It is no great secret that a substantial amount of discussion has taken place about what Ofgem's responsibilities would be, as distinct from those of the Secretary of State, and we are now considering the consumer council's responsibilities. The decision about that, in both the Utilities Act 2000 and in discussions about the energy White Paper, was that Ofgem shall primarily be the economic regulator and that the Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness has just said, shall give guidance on the environmental and, to some extent, social policy.
  Of course, Ofgem will have to take account of that policy, but it is primarily an economic regulator. That is why, when we had a similar discussion on sustainable development in relation to Ofgem, I resisted the relevant amendment there. As far as the consumer council is concerned, that looks after the interests of the consumers. It is not its job to force the other people in the jigsaw to take a view on long-term environmental matters. It will be responsible for consumers present and future and, in that sense, it is responsible for sustainability as well as for other matters. But it is the job of government departments to ensure that environmental matters are taken into full consideration.
  In answer to the question about guidance, a considerable amount of guidance has been given to Ofgem and to other operators in the field about environmental and social policy since the Utilities Act 2000. That guidance will be rather more clear as a result of the changes in the structure of GEMA/ Ofgem, but the role of the consumer council, which is
  GC 220
  much wider than that of some consumer councils that have been established, is to look after the specific functions set out in the Utilities Act 2000. It is to obtain and keep under review information about consumer matters and the views of consumers; to make proposals or provide advice about consumer matters and represent consumers' views on them; publish information about consumer matters; and investigate and resolve complaints and other matters relating to the interests of the consumer. I understand that it handles 100,000 formal customer complaints a year and 1 million inquiries.
  That is not the same role as having to instil sustainable development into the other players in the game. Clearly, it will have to have regard to those policies in what it does. However, the amendment states that the council,
  "shall exercise and perform its power and duties so as to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development".
  In other words, everything that the consumer council does would have to be geared towards sustainable development. That is not the primary duty of the consumer council. It has a duty certainly to take account of those matters, but not to ensure that all such decisions on individual complaints and matters of policy are geared to the achievement of sustainable development. That is the role of the department and it is built into many of its legislative responsibilities. Ofgem has to take account of the guidance given by the department, but that is not the role of the consumer council.
  The relativities of responsibility differ from utility to utility. The noble Baroness may challenge me on the Water Act 2003, during discussions on which I eventually agreed with her about the Water Consumer Council, but it is the water regulator who has direct responsibility for environmental matters and sustainable development. That is not the case in relation to energy supply, where the department has those responsibilities. We are dealing with a different situation. The wording of the amendment would put the consumer council into some difficulty in carrying out what is its more mundane, but important, function of representing the millions of energy consumers.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: What guidance has been given on environmental matters since the passing of the Utilities Act 2000?
  Lord Whitty: Apart from intervention on individual matters, draft social and environmental guidance in respect of the Utilities Act 2000 was given to Ofgem. That guidance was set down at the end of last year and was followed by a consultation process. The overall guidance appears in that code. It is guidance to Ofgem and not to the consumer council.
  Lord Ezra: My noble friend is quite right. When we debated the Utilities Bill—I was very much involved in that, as was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—we did not pay so much regard to environment and sustainability matters as has subsequently been the case. Therefore,

  GC 221
  it is not unreasonable that we should seek to put that right when opportunities arise, such as are presented by the present Bill.
  I understood from the Minister's remarks that he agreed that the consumer council should have regard to sustainable matters. Indeed, one could go further and say that it should have regard to them in the interests of consumers. It would be possible to reword the amendment to reflect that, although that would be up to my noble friend, who may return to the matter. The Minister was right to emphasise the specific role of the consumer council and its responsibility to consumers. However, the concept of sustainability is now very widespread, and it does not seem unreasonable that that concept should be brought into the terms of reference in some way that recognises that the council should have regard to it in the interests of consumers, whom it is its primary duty to serve.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It will not surprise the Minister to know that I appreciated his remarks about the Water Bill. We were very pleased that the Government had a Bill on which, by the end of its passage through this House, both the regulator and the consumer body had a duty to regard sustainable development. It surprises me considerably, and I still do not understand why it is, that in the instance of this Bill the Government are resisting that move.
  The Minister said that it would be unbalanced for the council to have the duty, given that Ofgem did not have it. However, as he acknowledged, I have argued that Ofgem should have the duty. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that in anything that the Minister said in his reply I heard one sound reason why those bodies should not have regard to sustainable development. As my noble friend Lord Ezra said, it is in the consumers' interest that they should.
  I expect to return to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 142B:
  Before Clause 154, insert the following new clause—
  "ADVICE AND INCENTIVES
  The Secretary of State shall—

  (a) ensure that all households in the United Kingdom shall have easy access to advice and demonstration models of both energy conservation and generation innovations; and

  (b) develop a programme of fiscal incentives for households to ensure they can minimise their consumption of power for heat and of electricity whilst maintaining or improving their standard of living."

  The noble Baroness said: Of all the amendments that I have moved in Committee, this is perhaps the one that interests me the most. We have just heard that there is no role for the consumer council in promoting sustaining development among individual householders. It is a matter of great disappointment to me that the Energy Bill offers no opportunity for furthering the prospect that
  GC 222
  individual households can make a considerable contribution, not only to energy savings but also through microscale renewable generation, to the targets that the Government have set. I am most surprised that we could have got through the entire Bill without a discussion of that point.
  My amendment is in two parts. The first part aims to explore whether the Government feel that the access that households have to energy advice is sufficient. In moving the amendment, I pay tribute to the Energy Saving Trust, which has done its best to promote the idea of energy efficiency against the background of a lack of real enthusiasm from the Government to help it. I tried to think of a polite way in which to word that point!
  I can best illustrate my point by saying that there are indeed energy advice centres located throughout Britain. However, when one visits the website, as I did when tabling the amendment, one finds that there is no energy advice centre in Somerset—to use an example of someone who lives in the west country. My nearest one would be in Bristol; otherwise, I have the choice of Plymouth, Devizes or Poole. None of those are very convenient. All of them will involve a journey. When I arrive in Plymouth—for example—the energy advice centre is, according to its website, located on the fourth floor of a building somewhere. I have to admit that I have not visited that one, the one in Bristol or indeed any of them. I think that that illustrates the point that unless one lives very close to a centre, one is unlikely to know where it is, to have visited it and to have profited by any advice it can offer.
  The fact of the matter is that if we are really going to get households to take a great deal of interest in the possibilities available to them, we need an outlet for this kind of advice. We need demonstration models of what is available in every high street—probably next door to or indeed even in places selling electrical appliances. We need advice centres that are easy to access, that are exciting places to go to and that offer very practical advice. And they need to be extremely widespread.
  I would like to take a moment to explain to the Committee that a couple of weeks ago in Somerset there was a very interesting Homes for Good Fair, which was launched by the presenter of Channel 4's "Grand Designs". It was a "green homes" fair. It was held at the Somerset College of Arts and Technology. It featured about 60 key companies, which are not only making great strides in terms of innovation both in energy efficiency and natural building materials but also in the sorts of micro-generation that could be of great interest to people. There were small-scale windmills that can be put on one's house which feed into one's electricity system. photovoltaic systems and advice on CHP—a matter which of course we have discussed in your Lordships' House.
  The fair attracted a large number of members of the public. It was a very successful example of the interest in the matter. The public came from all over Somerset and indeed, I think, from other counties. A great deal of enthusiasm could be generated where one has a

  GC 223
  practical demonstration of what is available. I think the Government should be promoting and encouraging that kind of thing.
  The Energy Saving Trust's website talks about potentials. One article on it from November last year explains that UK households could generate £2.5 billion worth of solar energy every year. That is a staggering sum. I believe that the trust has not lightly arrived at that figure. It has taken into account that there are cloudy days and that on those days the photovoltaic system would not create as great an output as it would on a sunny day. Nevertheless, that kind of potential simply is not being realised, and not just in relation to new build. New build is very important and with that kind of potential it is amazing that we are still roofing houses in slates and tiles and not using photovoltaics widely. Of course we have a huge amount of housing stock that is already built in this country. We really need to encourage householders to look at investing in photovoltaics, in wind energy and in micro-CHP for themselves.
  I turn to the second part of the amendment. It talks about developing,
  "a programme of fiscal incentives for households to ensure they can minimise their consumption of power for heat and of electricity whilst maintaining or improving their standard of living".
  I know, because I have tried it, how difficult it is for householders who make a certain capital outlay, for example, on photovoltaic equipment, to know how long it will take to pay hack, taking account of the fact that they will, I believe, get a cheque every year because of the renewables obligation. Is it a worthy investment, because they are consuming less electricity? The Government need to give far more advice on balancing a household budget in this respect. Is the Minister sufficiently satisfied that the right sort of fiscal incentives are in place to encourage householders to invest in all the possibilities that are becoming quite widespread in the market?
  There are two problems addressed by the amendment which I hope the Minister will answer. First, there is a lack of energy advice available. Secondly, there is a lack of advice for households when it comes to understanding that if they make an investment they will, in the long term, make a saving. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: I support in principle the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She is quite right: we laboured hard and long to get some form of conservation provision put into the Water Bill. If the Minister says the wording of the amendment is not right or suitable, I hope that she will return to it again at a later stage.
  Let me follow on from what the noble Baroness said. In the old days—certainly in my misspent youth—there used to be gas and electricity showrooms which, I think, no longer exist. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think they have all gone. Nowadays, people selling gas and electric appliances want you to use them—they are not there for conservation purposes.
  GC 224
  Secondly, the Minister may come back to this point—although I am not sure and that is why I am challenging him—saying that other schemes for house improvements are already in existence, as I know there are. They may be outside the Bill's remit, but I do not think that that detracts from the need to have in the Bill a direct incentive or encouragement for members of the general public and for those in business as well. When I go around the House late in the evening I find lights on galore, which makes me think that we could conserve much more energy here. However, that is a minor matter.
  I am aware that there are conservation and financial schemes to help keep houses warmer for older people, for example, for which one can qualify. The noble Baroness gave examples of the many different schemes. I, too, encourage the Government to think positively, even if they do not like the wording of this amendment, about putting some words in the Bill to encourage conservation and the lowering of consumption. If we each did our hit, it would make a huge difference.
  I cannot add any more to what the noble Baroness has said, and at this stage of the Bill I do not wish to do so. But I would be very sorry if a Bill technically called the Energy Bill did not deal with conservation and innovation. Several Members on this side of the Committee have complained that this is not an energy Bill—that is partly the problem. Even if the Minister does not feel that the wording of the amendment is suitable, I hope that he will consider bringing forward something constructive at a later date. I support the amendment.
  Lord Ezra: In presenting their views on the future development of energy, the Government have put particular emphasis on the development of renewables and on the development of energy efficiency. So far, relatively little has been done in that area, particularly in the domestic sector.
  The Treasury launched two consultative documents in the past year or so looking at various fiscal instruments; however, certainly in the Pre-Budget Statement, none of them were applied. It remains to be seen whether anything can be done in the Budget. The problem about all this, which my noble friend's amendment highlights, is that it has all been done piecemeal. No doubt quite a lot is being done. However, if we really are to galvanise the domestic sector into doing something quite dramatic about improving their use of energy, which is going to be required if the 20 per cent improvement in the White Paper is to be achieved, then there has to be a major combined effort on the part of government, bringing together the various existing initiatives and adding a number of new ones in order to achieve this objective.
  I believe that this amendment should figure in a Bill dealing with energy at this time and that it is indeed fully reflective of what we are told is one of the Government's main policy objectives.
  Lord Whitty: I agree with quite a lot of what all the speakers have said. However, I do not agree with the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has just said, it is clear that achievement of energy efficiency improvements—effectively doubling the underlying rate of energy efficiency improvement—over the next

  GC 225
  20 years is an absolutely key part of the overall calculations in the energy White Paper and of the Government's policy. Clearly, the household sector—in terms of both the efficacy of heating and lighting houses and the appliances they use within the house—has a major effect on whether we can achieve that energy efficiency.
  As Members of the Committee said, important measures are already in place. Perhaps we should emphasis the importance and availability of those measures. For example, there is an energy efficiency commitment that requires energy suppliers themselves to provide support to their domestic consumers to improve energy efficiency. Such support concerns the household. One does not have to visit a centre in Plymouth, Bristol or Devizes to obtain that support; the supplier is now obliged to provide consumers with information on how they can obtain energy efficiency support.
  The energy White Paper envisages that, in the next phase, the energy efficiency commitment will probably be doubled. Therefore, the supply companies will place an even greater emphasis on energy efficiency improvements among individual consumers. Other schemes include the Energy Efficiency Advice Centres—to which the noble Baroness referred, and which are important. There may be an argument for extending them.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, criticised the disappearance of electricity and gas showrooms. There are electricity and gas showrooms, but they are owned by individual companies. Unfortunately, many of the old ones have been closed. If the previous Conservative government had intended to preserve those at privatisation they would probably have done so. We would have supported them in that. They have undoubtedly closed. Some of the energy advice has, therefore, to be provided in other ways and not by individual companies and appliance sellers.
  We have other schemes such as the DTI's £10 million clear skies initiative so that households can become more familiar with renewable energy of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Home owners can obtain grants of between £500 and £5,000 towards such schemes. Community organisations, similarly, can receive grants of up to £100,000 for grants and feasibility studies to develop renewable energy as a contribution to energy efficiency and low carbon. Both the Energy Saving Trust, which has been mentioned, and the Carbon Trust receive government funding to undertake—in the case of the Carbon Trust—field trials and innovations such as micro generators and micro CHP, which was referred to earlier in Committee.
  I think that the Government are taking a number of steps which will be brought together very soon, after the Easter Recess, when we publish our Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan. The plan will set out all those steps in relation to households, commerce and business.
  GC 226
  So I do not think that it is right to say that the Government have not delivered. It may be clearer when the implementation is before us and it is all brought together. I do not think that that complaint is valid. Nor do I think that the amendment as it stands would do what the noble Baroness seeks to do. Certainly the Government would have some serious problems with the second part of the amendment. I assume that the first part relates very much to energy advice centres. The noble Baroness made it clear that the term "easy access" meant physical access to energy advice centres. That will not be possible for all households.
  As I say, one of the better means of communicating is to do it through the supply companies with whom everyone at least has an often fraught quarterly relationship when the bills are delivered and when advice on energy efficiency in terms of cutting the next bill can be provided to every individual household. Not everyone will have easy access to demonstration models or to advice centres but I accept that it is important to get the information across to households.
  Paragraph (b) of the amendment takes us into different territory. It refers to "fiscal incentives". As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we have had a number of consultations on fiscal incentives. There was a reference to it in the PBR, but not a definitive one. Either in the forthcoming Budget or in some future Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer may take action in that regard. Certainly, there is great potential for both positive and negative use of fiscal incentives in order to guide consumers to more energy efficient products and processes. Whether by adopting such incentives we could ensure that everyone took notice of such products—as is proposed in the amendment—is another matter.
  We have given substantial signals in favour of energy efficiency through the fiscal system—I refer to car tax and the price of fuel—but many people, including some noble Lords, still buy large cars that consume expensive fuel. One cannot ensure by means of introducing fiscal measures that people will follow certain signals. The wording of that part of the amendment would cause difficulties but, in any case, there is a problem as regards legislating for a programme of fiscal incentives in a non-finance Bill. It would be unprecedented to state in an Energy Bill how the Chancellor should establish new forms of taxation, which is effectively what we are talking about here. Therefore, I have a problem with both the wording and the principle of the second part of the amendment.
  However, I agree with much of what has been said in the debate and I have to admit that it is already government policy. The matter may become clearer soon after Easter when we issue the energy efficiency implementation plan.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am interested to know of the Government's energy efficiency implementation plan. We look forward with some interest to seeing that.

  GC 227
  Last year I chaired an event organised by the Westminster Home and Community Safety Council. That body studies different subjects each year. The one that I particularly remember concerned housing. A great deal of the discussion concerned how you can improve the quality of the environment internally for residents through various forms of efficiency measures. I am not saying anything very original but one of the points that emerged was that a great deal more can be done with new housing than with the huge stock of existing housing. With new housing there ought to be all sorts of opportunities, whether through fiscal incentives or, as I would prefer to call them, economic instruments—because that is what they are—to try to encourage particular policies. That is something that I hope the department is looking at very closely.
  Some of the measures mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, are very much more easily done with new build than with a row of terraced houses or semi-detached houses on a suburban housing estate.
  If one looks at existing housing, one would probably find that in all but the poorest households, many of the measures have already been taken—for example, roof insulation. There was a great phase of cavity wall filling some years ago. It was not always successful; it had to be done properly. Double glazing was put into windows. Many of those measures have been taken. They tend not to save energy, but to improve comfort. That is what people are going for. At the margin, there may be some saving of energy, but, for the most part, those measures are taken to improve the quality of living. The question of how that can feed through to a more economical use of energy needs also to be addressed.
  As far as new housing is concerned, the Government have a considerable opportunity to effect new build. I have no hesitation in saying that the biggest obstacle they face is the very traditional way in which most UK housebuilders are accustomed to operating. I read in the Financial Times a few weeks ago that some of the big developers are bringing in foreign construction companies. One particular developer had brought Australian construction companies into this country because they were prepared to look at new methods of building that would have all the advantages of the kind mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
  The Government have an opportunity there. It may be a long, hard push, because we all know how conservative housebuilders are in wanting to keep their costs down by doing the same as they have done in previous years. That is where one must somehow begin to have an impact on the domestic front.
  I was slightly surprised to hear the Minister disparage the question of new equipment. One has only to look now at the pattern of new car buying and the incentives—they are economic instruments—offered in terms of lower licence fees to cars with more efficient fuel consumption and to cars that have dual propulsion, by petrol or diesel and by electricity. There are substantial advantages to be had.
  GC 228
  The information that I have been able to glean is that a large number of those vehicles are being bought. That points to the fact that if one gives incentives of a sufficient value, which are properly publicised, people will come forward in large numbers and take advantage of them. I would have thought that the number of small cars one now sees on the roads represents a vastly larger proportion of road traffic than it used to. I am happy to say that a considerable social stigma is now attached to people who insist on driving around cities in large, four-wheel drive SUVs with bull bars at the front. They are the most inefficient vehicles of all. I hope that one would go on thumbing one's nose at them, because they are awful.
  That kind of measure can be brought to bear. People can drive little run-abouts with a very economical use of fuel. Fiscal incentives can make that happen and it is actually working. I hope the Minister will take a slightly less jaundiced view of people's response. It takes a little time. One does not buy a new car until one is ready to dispose of the old one. One does not move into a new house often for a generation or more. That is when the changes can be made. That also applies to household appliances. Many of them are designed to last. The new ones are much more efficient than the old ones, but the energy saving is not enough to advance the purchase by five or 10 years. One waits until the old one wears out. One then gradually achieves a greater efficiency in the use of power and electricity in the home.
  I hope Ministers will not be too pessimistic. A lot of the things that we have discussed can actually happen, provided that one is not too starry-eyed and expects it all to happen tomorrow, because it will not.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before the Minister replies to the noble Lord, Lord Jerkin of Roding, I should like to build on one aspect of his comments on older housing stock which is everything but new. As the Minister will know, as he was the keynote speaker at the conference, the role that local authorities can play in promoting energy efficiency—through their role as planning authorities and in housing and economic regeneration—should make them key players. As he said at the conference, the Government are looking at how to include energy in the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessments of local authorities and how to incorporate energy within the shared local priorities.
  Given the strong role that local authorities could have if all that were achieved, I wonder whether the Government are pursuing it. Will it feature, for example, in the Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan? I expect that other Members of the Commit tee are as frustrated as I am that we will not see the plan until this Bill has left your Lordships' House. As the Government well know, unless they make those two moves local authorities will have absolutely no latitude in their work as they are so closely circumscribed by Government. The measures in the comprehensive

  GC 229
  performance test focus them on those matters so specifically that there is no room to deal with other matters.
  If the Government want local authorities to achieve their potential as regards energy, they must speak with urgency to the Audit Commission, and energy must be included as one of the key measures for local authorities. Those that are performing in a good or excellent way should be recognised for that. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that. His comments to the conference indicate that he has given thought to the issue.
  Lord Whitty: I am deeply grateful that the noble Baroness reads my speeches. I hope that everyone involved in that particular discussion will read those speeches. It is important that local authorities, in relation to their own and to social landlords' housing stock, take energy building renovation and energy efficiency as a central point. We are looking at how we can best build that in by means of, for example, the decent homes programmes and the local authorities' refurbishment of their own stock. It is important also that local authorities act as a beacon for advice and as an example for the rest of the building in their areas. They can do that through the planning process and the advice that they provide.
  At that conference I was attempting to get local authorities aboard en masse. Meanwhile, however, the Government have done an awful lot both on older buildings and on new buildings—to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred. The building regulation change we have just gone through is a major step in the right direction in improving the quality of new build. The changes coming in next year—for example, on replacement boilers—will affect old houses as well as new. Those changes will bring in condensing boilers to replace old-fashioned ones.
  I partly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the conservatism of householders has not helped. I would cite also the conservatism of many who purport to advise householders—the installers themselves, who come in and say, "That is far too complicated; I'd stick with the old one". We have therefore engaged with the installation, heating and insulation industries in an education programme for their own operatives and sales persons to ensure that better messages are put across to householders on the building side.
  As Members of the Committee will know, as a result of the Better Building summit the Sustainable Building Task Force is looking at other measures—in building regulations, advice and research—as regards the fabric of the buildings themselves to ensure that we maximise their energy efficiency. It is attempting to get schemes together that uprate the performance of those buildings.
  The noble Lord misunderstands me as regards the argument on cars. I am very much in favour of the changes in taxation that have taken place in recent years, guiding the market to smaller cars and guiding manufacturers to making more fuel-efficient cars. That has made a very substantial change. Part of the consultation on fiscal incentives elsewhere is built on that principle; we are trying to extend it to household
  GC 230
  appliances and other users of electricity to ensure that the shift that has been achieved with cars, fridges and various other subsectors of the market occurs across the board. We are aiming for a decoupling of the use of energy from the growth in the use of those machines, which goes with an improvement in the quality of life.
  The point that I was making earlier was that, albeit the bulk of the market may shift to respond to those signals, one cannot in the terms of the amendment ensure that all households follow those signals. The noble Lord's example of new 4x4s driving around west London indicates that not everybody makes the rational choice, however blatant one makes the fiscal incentives. One cannot ensure through the market that everybody does the rational thing, but one can give people an offer that most find difficult to refuse.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate—my noble friend Lord Ezra, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
  The second part of the amendment does not seek to ensure that households do something; the wording would simply ensure that they could minimise their consumption of power. It is an enabling amendment. I probably will not feel so strongly about bringing that amendment back on Report, but there are important issues that we have still not completely resolved with regard to access to advice and demonstration models, in particular. While the Minister has said that suppliers can give some of that advice, which of course they can, I feel that there is still a big gap in terms of a forum for all those companies that are offering innovation to come together where households can easily find them. That is something that I shall want to return to on Report.
  In conclusion, I apologise to the Committee. Having talked about local authorities, I should have declared an interest as a Somerset county councillor. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 154 [Power to impose charges to, fund energy functions]:
  [Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
  Clause 154 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
  Clause 155 [Power to modify Petroleum Act 1998]:
  [Amendment No. 144A not moved.]
  Clause 155 agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 145:
  After Clause 155, insert the following new clause
  "GAS SUPPLY: CONSEQUENCES OF NON-PAYMENT
  (1) The Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) is amended as follows.
  (2) For paragraph 7 of Schedule 2B (recovery of gas charges etc) substitute—
  "7 (1) Where a consumer has not, within the requisite period, paid all charges due in respect of the supply of gas to the consumer's premises, or to any other premises previously owned

  GC 231
  or occupied by him, the relevant supplier may install a prepayment meter on the premises, and the supplier may recover any expenses incurred in so doing from the consumer.
  (2) The power of a supplier under sub-paragraph (1) may not be exercised—

  (a) as respects any amount which is genuinely in dispute, and

  (b) unless not less than seven working days' notice has been given to the occupier of the premises (or the owner of the premises if they are unoccupied) of his intention to exercise it.

  (3) In this paragraph, the "requisite period" means the period of 28 days after the making by the supplier of a demand in writing for payment of the charges due.""
  The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the consequences of non-payment for gas and electricity. Disconnections gained a lot of publicity as a result of the tragic deaths of Mr and Mrs Bates, elderly users of gas and electricity who were able to afford to pay their hills but clearly did not understand what was going on. Because of a misunderstanding on the part of BG about the Data Protection Act, they did not communicate their plight to social services, which led to their deaths.
  In relation to the total number of people using gas and electricity, the number of disconnections per annum are relatively small. Nevertheless, they are large in themselves. In 2002, there were 22,000 gas disconnections and nearly 1,000 electricity disconnections. The same is expected to arise from the figures for 2003 and this year. The average debt is relatively small—in the case of electricity it was £204, and in the case of gas it was £155. The period during which people were disconnected for gas was 33 days, which could be an extremely serious situation, and 13 days for electricity.
  The object of the amendment is to see whether there is some other way in which the suppliers of gas or electricity can minimise and, indeed, recover their debts without disconnection. It is felt that this can be done. If disconnections were banned because of the so-called harsh social consequences in some cases, companies would still be able to negotiate a debt repayment arrangement with consumers which might include the voluntary installation of a pre-payment meter. Failing this voluntary agreement, they would still be able to apply for a warrant to install a pre-payment meter to recover existing debt and prevent future debt building up.
  Currently, there are around half a million pre-payment meters recovering electricity debt and 750,000 collecting gas debts. So this is already being done. It seems to be a much more socially acceptable way of dealing with this issue than through the process of disconnection, which can have extremely harmful and, in some cases, as we know, tragic effects.
  Energywatch has quoted examples to me and, no doubt, to other noble Lords, of what has happened to some customers. In some cases, people have been disconnected by a company with which they were not dealing anyway; it broke into their premises, removed their meter and then refused to replace it because they said it was not dealing with them. These are cases quoted by Energywatch. We cannot have this sort of thing going on, and as there is an alternative to
  GC 232
  disconnection, I strongly recommend that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Dourer and myself be accepted. I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Nobody can listen to this argument without a good deal of sympathy for those who find themselves faced with very difficult circumstances due to the non-payment of bills. I am advised that the Bates case should not be regarded as in any way typical. It was entirely sui generis and on its own facts. Indeed, one of the problems, which is now the subject of investigation in an entirely different context, is the effect of the Data Protection Act. That was one of the factors that resulted in the breakdown of communications in the Bates case between the energy supplier and the social services. In parenthesis, let me say that I believe the retail gas and electricity industries would very much welcome a much clearer statement of what their duties are in relation to the Data Protection Act so as to avoid any repetition of the very tragic case involving Mr and Mrs Bates.
  Having said that, lam cautious about advancing the proposition put by Energywatch that, in effect, disconnections should be banned. One has only to look at what happened to the water industry when it was faced with a statutory ban on cut-offs. I am told that the number of people who declined to pay their bills rose by 20 per cent. There may well be remedies of the kind that the noble Lord. Lord Ezra, described, with procedures that could result in the installation of pre-payment meters for both gas and electricity, compulsorily—although he hesitated to use the word—if necessary, in order to recover the debt. I find that a difficult concept. If people are to switch to a pre-payment meter, it should be their own wish to do so. As I said last week—or was it the week before?—when we were debating pre-payment meters, a lot of people choose to have them installed because they find it easier to budget for their energy requirements.
  I therefore have some difficulty with the amendment. If the water industry's experience is any guide, it would not be helpful if a substantial number of consumers delayed or simply declined to pay their outstanding gas and electricity bills. I am afraid that one has to recognise that there are people in our community who are not very responsible and who feel that more immediate desires can be satisfied with the cash that they have. If they are not going to be cut off, that is just too bad for the electricity company. That is the reality.
  Although one has much sympathy with the plight of poor people who find themselves, for one reason or another, unable to pay their bills, it is my experience—and it has been represented to me by firms in the industry—that firms are prepared to go a long way to help people in difficulties to meet their obligations. Industry codes of practice point in the right direction. Perhaps more needs to be done to bring that to the attention of consumers in difficulty so that they are able to ask for help in finding their way out of it. However, I would be cautious about going down the

  GC 233
  road of banning cut-offs of gas and electricity for the reasons that I have stated. I shall be interested in what the Minister has to say.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ezra. I shall be interested to find out whether the Government regard energy as an essential in the same way as they did water. A measure was introduced to forbid water suppliers to disconnect their customers because water was seen as an essential. I submit to the Minister that energy is as essential to people, particularly in winter, when it is cold, but also in terms of their being able to cook, which I would have thought was everybody's basic right.
  I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the water industry had a difficult time when that measure was introduced. However, that was partly because there was a glaring lack of distinction between the "can't pays" and the "won't pays" among water customers. We debated that at length during the passage of the Water Bill. We could probably learn much from Scotland where, I understand, a debt arrangement scheme has been introduced. I shall not go into the details of it to the Committee in the interests of time, but that kind of scheme should help to address issues for "can't pay" customers. If companies are able to install pre-payment meters, that would be a remedy for those who "won't pay".
  Lord Whitty: Clearly the Bates case was a very tragic one, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, we need to be careful. I have two points to make. First, the inquest into the deaths of Mr and Mrs Bates did not find that the actions of British Gas were the cause of their deaths. Secondly, while it is right that Ofgem and the suppliers need to consider the processes in the light of that case and maybe others, it is wrong for wholesale changes in the law governing disconnections to be based on one difficult case. That case—in so far as it reflects the disconnection situation—may well have been due more to misunderstandings of the Data Protection Act 1998 than to the right of disconnection as such.
  The Government believe, as I think we all believe, that disconnection should be used only in very extreme circumstances as a matter of last resort. It should be hedged in with appropriate safeguards, particularly in relation to the vulnerable, and disconnections should be kept at a minimum. However, the amendment would require us to accept that at the end of the day a company should lose the right to disconnect for a customer who has refused on several occasions to pay and who has ignored reminders to do so.
  Of course, there are probably better ways in which to deal with the matter, and Ofgem is in discussion with the industry to sort out how the arrangements could be improved, particularly in relation to vulnerable customers. For example, there might be a moratorium arrangement for pensioners or vulnerable households, increased access to companies' priority service registers, and so on. There are questions about
  GC 234
  the timing of disconnection; that picks up on the point that was made about the winter. There are signs that the industry is responding to that.
  As for the Data Protection Act 1998, Ofgem is clarifying with the Information Commissioner the application of the Act with reference to advising social services, for example. We hope to have that as part of the procedure.
  The amendment proposes that rather than go to disconnection, we have compulsory fittings of prepayment meters. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to voluntary agreements to install such meters, that is how I read the amendment. There are cases in which fitting such a meter cannot be practical, whether because of the nature of the apartment or for safety reasons, or for other reasons, particularly in multiple-occupied premises. The practicality of using prepayment meters as an alternative to disconnection is difficult, even on a voluntary basis. When one moves to a proposal of compulsory installation of such meters, one is on new territory entirely. It may not be appropriate in all circumstances and may lead to more rather than fewer tragedies.
  We can perhaps clarify through the procedures that Ofgem is now discussing with the industry how many steps it takes and how many hoops must be gone through before the last resort is reached. However, at the end of the day, companies must have the right to cut off supply of energy to a completely and repetitively recalcitrant supplier—
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Recalcitrant customer!
  Lord Whitty: Recalcitrant customer—I beg your pardon.
  Lord Ezra: I have listened carefully to what has been said and I accept many of the arguments. There is a big problem in distinguishing between the "won't pays" and the "can't pays", but that has always been so in this area. I used the Bates case only because it drew many people's attention to the issue, not because it was necessarily typical. The fact that staggered me is that no fewer than 22,000 gas disconnections are made per annum—that means that 22,000 families could be deprived of gas for a month or more, with all that means for cooking, heating and so on.
  We ought to find a better way to deal with the matter than exists at the moment. If the number of disconnections can be substantially reduced as a result of taking more intermediate steps, that at least would be a more desirable outcome. I wonder whether we might have an amendment on those lines, showing that we are conscious of the problem of the 22,000 people who are deprived of gas, whether for their own reasons of unwillingness to pay or because they cannot pay, and that the issue is really being considered. In due course, the figure might be reduced very substantially as a result of more intermediate steps. I shall ponder the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.30 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 146 and 146ZA not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 146ZB:
  After Clause 155, insert the following new clause—
  "COSTS OF LICENCE MODIFICATION REFERENCES
  (1) The Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) is amended as follows.
  (2) After section 25 insert—
  "25A COSTS OF MODIFICATION REFERENCES
  (1) In making a report on a reference under section 24 above, the Competition Commission must make an order requiring the payment to the Commission of the costs incurred by it in connection with the reference.
  (2) Where the Commission concludes that none of the matters specified in the reference operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, the order under subsection (1) above must require payment to be made by the Authority.
  (3) Where the Commission concludes that any of the matters specified in the reference operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, the order under subsection (1) above must require payment to be made by the holder of the licence to which the reference relates, and, if there is more than one such licence holder—

  (a) may provide that payment is to be made by only such one or more of the licence holders as is specified in the order; and

  (b) may determine the proportion of the costs in respect of which each licence holder specified in the order is required to make payment.

  (4) In making a report on a reference under section 24 above, the Competition Commission, having regard to all relevant circumstances including the conduct of the parties, may make such order as it thinks fit for requiring a party to the reference to make a payment to any other party to the reference in respect of costs incurred by that other party in connection with the reference.
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, the parties to a reference are the Authority and any holder of a licence to which the reference relates.
  (6) A person who is required by an order under subsection (1) or (4) above to make a payment to another person must comply with the order before the end of the period of five days beginning with the day following that on which the order is made.
  (7) Sums required to be paid under subsection (6) above, but which are not paid within the period mentioned in that subsection, shall bear interest at such rate as may be determined by the Commission in the order requiring payment to be made."
  (3) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.
  (4) After section 13 insert—
  "13A COSTS OF MODIFICATION REFERENCES
  (1) In making a report on a reference under section 12 above, the Competition Commission must make an order requiring the payment to the Commission of the costs incurred by it in connection with the reference.
  (2) Where the Commission concludes that none of the matters specified in the reference operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, the order under subsection (1) above must require payment to be made by the Authority.
  (3) Where the Commission concludes that any of the matters specified in the reference operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, the order under subsection (1) above must require payment to be made by the holder of the licence to which the reference relates, and, if there is more than one such licence holder—
  GC 236

  (a) may provide that payment is to be made by only such one or more of the licence holders as is specified in the order; and

  (b) may determine the proportion of the costs in respect of which each licence holder specified in the order is required to make payment.

  (4) In making a report on a reference under section 12 above, the Competition Commission, having regard to all relevant circumstances including the conduct of the parties. may make such order as it thinks fit for requiring a party to the reference to make a payment to any other party to the reference in respect of costs incurred by that other party in connection with the reference.
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, the parties to a reference are the Authority and any holder of a licence to which the reference relates.
  (6) A person who is required by an order under subsection (1) or (4) above to make a payment to another person must comply with the order before the end of the period of five days beginning with the day following that on which the order is made.
  (7) Sums required to be paid under subsection (6) above, but which are not paid within the period mentioned in that subsection, shall bear interest at such rate as may be determined by the Commission in the order requiring payment to be made.""
  The noble Baroness said: The provisions of paragraph 13 of Schedule 22 to the Energy Bill, which deal with the treatment of costs incurred in connection with appeals to the Competition Commission under Section 144, are a useful reminder of the long outstanding need to make equally sensible legislative provision for the allocation of the costs of disputed licence modification references to the commission under the Gas and Electricity Acts.
  The current situation, in which the energy regulator Ofgem, which is both a party to and the prime mover of any such reference, has discretion over how to allocate the costs, is flawed in terms of its lack of both fairness and predictability. The clearest demonstration of that occurred when, following the "market abuse" licence modification references to the Competition Commission, Ofgem sought to impose all the costs of the inquiry on the referred companies, even though the commission had decisively rejected Ofgem's modification proposals and concluded that none of the matters specified in the reference would operate against the public interest.
  There is clearly scope for introducing greater fairness and consistency into the way that such reference costs are allocated. It is inappropriate, and without precedent outside the world of the regulated utilities, for one of the parties to a dispute that is subject to a legal process to enjoy unfettered discretion over the allocation of the costs of the process, including its own costs. The responsibility for those decisions needs to be moved from the regulator to a more objective and independent arbiter. As with all similar processes, the logical conclusion in the case of commission inquiries into licence modification references must surely be that the appropriate body to allocate the costs incurred is the appeal body itself.
  In discharging that responsibility, the commission's task would be greatly assisted by the existence of a set of transparent and objective statutory rules, analogous to those embedded in Schedule 22 to the Bill, requiring, that costs be allocated according to clear and reasonable

  GC 237
  principles which should result in a fair and efficient allocation when applied on the basis of a case-by-case assessment.
  The amendment shows how the Energy Bill could usefully amend the Gas and Electricity Acts to achieve that end. I beg to move.
  Lord Triesman: We agree with the general principle on which the amendment is based; namely, that it is inappropriate for one party in a reference made to the Competition Commission to have discretion over how costs are to be allocated. We have a number of reservations about the amendment in its current form which we shall seek to modify; none the less, that does not alter the general acceptance of the principle to which I shall proceed.
  First, while we accept that the regulator has discretion over the costs incurred by the Competition Commission, it does not have discretion over its own costs, nor those of the industry. Therefore, we believe that any change should deal only with this area over which Ofgem currently has discretion: the costs of the Competition Commission. Secondly, while it is not explicitly referred to in the amendment, the amendment appears to be based broadly on the concept of there being simply winners and losers. In licence modification references, as opposed to those of code modification, on which this amendment appears to be based, it is often the case that there are no completely clear winners and no completely clear losers. Therefore, it would appear to be inappropriate to allocate the costs on that simple assumption.
  In the context of a complex exercise, such as a licence modification reference, we are slightly concerned that the amendment may be a blunt instrument. As drafted it gives the Competition Commission no choice but to impose an obligation on the loser or losers to pay 100 per cent of its own costs. We shall need to consider carefully the implications of that.
  We do not wish to move to a system in which smaller parties could feel inhibited about raising objections to a proposed licence modification on account of the fact that they may incur significant costs. Nor would we wish to see a situation develop whereby larger parties to an appeal—more often on account of the fact that they will have to pay none of the costs—feel less inhibited in doing so.
  Therefore we can agree to the general principle of the amendment. We feel that there are some difficulties to overcome, but I have no doubt that they can be overcome in producing an amendment by Report stage. On that basis we agree to consider this amendment and ask noble Lords to withdraw it now.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I shall leave it to the noble Lord and his advisers to come up with what they consider to be a suitable amendment to deal with the problem.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 156 [Powers exercisable by statutory instrument]:
  [Amendment No. 146A not moved.]
  Clause 156 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 146B not moved]
  Clauses 157 to 159 agreed to.
  Clause 160 [General interpretation]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 147:
  Page 125, line 24, at end insert—
  ""OFGEM" means the investigating arm of GEMA;"
  The noble Lord said: In no way am I pegging my reputation on the form of this amendment. It is merely a peg on which to hang a discussion. I hope that Ministers will be able to clarify what to some people, and certainly to me until I went into the matter in more detail, is a very confusing situation indeed.
  Everyone outside the Committee refers to the regulator as "Ofgem", the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. In the Utilities Act 2000 the name was changed and became GEMA. As Ministers will have realised, throughout the debates on this Bill the amendments and new clauses that have been debated and various proposals that have been put to Members of the Grand Committee from associations, companies and other bodies have required that something should or should not be done by Ofgem. Indeed, when one is provided with a written amendment to make the point made in the representations, one first has to strike out the word "Ofgem" and put in "GEMA". Other people may pronounce it "jemma", but I call it "jeema". That is the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, which is defined in line 16 of this interpretation clause.
  Many people are very confused by that. I took advantage of meeting Sir John Mogg who has been the chairman of Ofgem for about six months—in fact he gave me lunch. A great many years ago he was one of my advisers when I was in the Department of Industry before he went to Brussels. I asked him to explain the position. I may have misunderstood him, but I was given to understand that although the Utilities Act 2000 substituted "GEMA" for the previous name of the regulator, those in the authority chose to go on using the old name, "Ofgem", simply because it is well known. Sir John Mogg did not use the phrase but I have since seen it described as a brand name.
  Of course, they could not change GEMA back into Ofgem because by then GEMA was enshrined in the statute, so that legally the regulator had to be known as GEMA even if everyone else continued to call it Ofgem. Sir John's predecessor, Mr Callum McCarthy, whom I also came to know, was chairman and chief executive. When he moved to the Financial Services Authority the opportunity was taken by Ministers to split the role, which was good management practice, so Sir John is a non-executive chairman and the chief executive's role is held by Mr Alistair Buchanan. It was

  GC 239
  suggested to me that perhaps the change could be recognised by using the term "Ofgem" to describe the investigating arm of GEMA, leaving the name "GEMA" to describe the members of the authority in their statutory role as regulators and enforcers. That proposition was put to me.
  Indeed, there has been a separation of the two roles, but it has taken a somewhat different form. In a recent press interview, Sir John drew the distinction between the role of Ofgem—the office of the regulator responsible for policy, administering that policy and making many decisions delegated to it—and the role of the authority which has more strategic functions. However, that does not seem to have been accompanied by the application of the two names separately to the two different roles as had earlier been suggested to me. So we are left with what I can describe only as a very confusing double nomenclature, Ofgem and GEMA.
  This amendment has the simple purpose of hoping that Ministers will now explain the matter so that we can all understand and perhaps, more importantly, so that everyone outside this place can understand the situation. Are people right to go on talking about Ofgem when the Act talks about GEMA? Is there value in retaining the trade name of Ofgem, even though the statutory reference always has to be to GEMA? I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: When we reach the general interpretation clause we know that we are close to the end of Committee stage, for which I am sure we shall all breathe a sigh of relief. This is an important topic. Frankly, it confuses me as well. It is useful to have this amendment to try to clarify the relationship between "jeema", "jemma" or "gemma" and Ofgem. I call it "jemma".
  As a name, "Ofgem" is not found in any legislation, despite it being the name best known to the public and the industry. Even before 2000, we had no legislative base for using the term "Ofgem". In a sense, it is the equivalent of the Secretary of State or the Minister and the department. I do not want to push the analogy too far. There are relatively few mentions of the DTI in legislation; references are made to the powers of the Secretary of State. To use an area with which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I are familiar, one rarely saw the term "MAFF" in the legislation but everyone outside this place referred to MAFF even though the powers were vested in the Minister for Agriculture. We have a similar situation here.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: There is an added complication. If a statute uses the words "the Secretary of State" it means any Secretary of State and not just the one in the department; it could be the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary or anyone.
  Lord Whitty: That is true. The point is that the legislative power rests with the indivisible Secretary of State; it does not rest with the department. Similarly, here it rests with the authority, not with the office of
  GC 240
  the authority. That is why the term "Ofgem" is not included in the Bill and why I would resist it being put into the general interpretation clause. In that sense, it is a trade name, a term used by the noble Lord, and it is probably the appropriate one; but it is not a separate legal body. Since 2000 the legal body has been GEMA. Before that the powers were vested in the director of electricity supply, on the one hand, and in the director of gas supply, on the other. Members of GEMA, once it was set up, soon decided not to drop the name Ofgem because by then it was a well established brand or trade name. They felt that any change would cause confusion and that the cost of rebranding could not be justified. Although Ofgem staff refer to themselves as Ofgem employees, they are in legal terms employed by GEMA. They work for GEMA just as civil servants work for the Minister. To define now two different roles—a differentiation to which the noble Lord referred in relation to Sir John Moggs—is not the correct differentiation because Ofgem is the office regarding every aspect of GEMA's responsibilities, not simply the investigative one. Although there has been some internal re-organisation, it would not be captured by that differentiation. To introduce it as a separate terminology here and try to define it here would not be appropriate. Confusing though it is in some respects, it is probably better to leave matters as they are and leave the legislative authority vested in GEMA.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that. I think that it rather endorsed what I said during the course of my opening speech—that Ofgem was kept as a trade name or a brand name. It is interesting that when the chief executive published on 12 February the results of the intensive and extensive review of the way Ofgem operates, the whole thing was done in the name of Ofgem. It is Ofgem writing paper and it is Ofgem all the way through. One must recognise that we shall be saddled with this difficulty. Everyone will go on talking about Ofgem, including the senior management of the body itself, and yet when we turn to Acts of Parliament we must talk about GEMA.
  The draftsman of the Bill has to deal with a new authority. He has to deal with a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as well as a Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. He has adopted the ingenious device of referring to the former as the NDA and the latter as the GEMA, so that, so far as this Bill is concerned, there is now a modus vivendi—I am sorry; one is not supposed to use Latin—a way of getting by. You can live with it. Nevertheless, it is a curious contradiction. The Minister has explained the position. I never intended to press the measure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 147ZA:
  Page 125, line 36, at end insert—
  "( ) In Article 9(4)(a) of the Renewables Obligation Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/914) and in Article 9(4)(a) of the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order (S.I. 2002/163), both of which contain a definition of "fossil fuel", the words from "except" to "biomass" shall be omitted."
  The noble Lord said: One comes to what is I hope a rather more interesting case. This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. As it stands, it is almost meaningless in the sense that the purpose of the exercise does not spring from the words of the amendment. However, rather like a clergyman with his text at the beginning of a sermon, I shall start with a headline in last weekend's Financial Times, Flap over how to curb the shopping bag curse. The article states:
  "They litter the countryside, they clutter up kitchen cupboards and they take generations to decompose in landfill sites. Discarded plastic carrier bags—of which UK consumers use 8bn a year—are increasingly viewed as an environmental nuisance".
  I do not think that anyone would much disagree with that.
  The other substantial idyll that the amendment is aimed at is this enormous proliferation of heaps of old vehicle tyres. One can see them around the country. They are sometimes put to use for hanging tarpaulins over haystacks, but mostly they stack up until someone takes them away and they are destroyed.
  Both plastic sheets and rubber tyres are a source of enormous problems for those concerned with the collection and disposal of waste. But there is now help at hand, on which interestingly the Financial Times has not picked up. It is actually now perfectly possible for them to be dealt with by what are sometimes called "advanced conversion technologies", which implies that it is a form of gasification. It is necessary to give the incentive of ROCs if that is actually to happen.
  The renewables orders are the same for England and Scotland. In fact, as the amendment makes clear, the definition clause is the same—Article 9(4)(a)—in both orders. These orders allow for the generation of renewable obligation certificates from waste by means of "advanced conversion technologies". That is, gasification by pyrolysis or anaerobic digestion, but it disallows the production of ROCs from any substance that,
  "is derived directly or indirectly from",
  coal, coal products, lignite natural gas, crude liquid petroleum or petroleum products. Therefore, that definition of renewable obligations disallows the production of ROCs from the vast majority of plastics and tyres, even if "advanced conversion technologies" are employed.
  Gasification is a technology that converts carbon-based solids into gas at very high temperatures. These gases can be used to generate electricity. Gasification is not incineration; it does not produce dioxins. It produces a minimal volume of sterile inert ash, and minimises residues that require ultimate disposal to landfill.
  It is understood that the production of electricity from the gasification of plastics and tyres has been excluded from the RO because of the "waste hierarchy". That is a concept with which I am familiar, and there is the principle that one should always try to recycle these materials before deciding on some other form of disposal. Companies that make recycling a priority, however, find that plastic is the one category of waste that they cannot recycle, apart from a very limited amount which can be re-used. Landfill is the only practical option. Tyres pose similarly a huge disposal problem.
  Approximately 66 million tonnes of commercial, industrial and municipal waste produced in England and Wales are sent to landfill each year. That simply cannot be sustainable. Indeed, it is widely recognised that it is not. The availability of new landfill capacity has been materially reduced and prices are increasing. Much of that is due to incoming European legislation.
  Municipal solid waste—sometimes known as MSW—is mostly mixed plastics and biomass. For instance, in the USA where figures are available, plastics comprise 20 to 30 per cent of MSW by volume. The renewable obligation allows ROCs to be produced, via "advanced conversion technologies" from the proportion of the MSW that is biomass. In practice, either separating or accounting for the proportion of plastics is too expensive, making landfill the only alternative. Therefore, to allow plastics to be used for the production of ROCs would tend to reduce the amount of general waste going to landfill.
  If one is dealing with materials coming direct from the factory, small-scale gasification can be used to deal with plastic waste at the factory site, or at MSW collection points. That reduces haulage, road congestion, the use of fuel and pollution. Waste heat from onsite generating plant can be used for factory processes and thus contributes to the Government's combined heat and power targets.
  Gasification technology is quick to roll out. Allowing the production of ROCs from plastics and tyres would help to address quickly the expected shortfall in meeting the Government's renewable energy targets. The impact of the ROC market would be relatively small—less than the Government's currently tabled amendments to extend the co-firing provisions—but the impact on landfill and on road haulage would be significant. What one is really doing there is recycling carbon.
  We have had much discussion in this Grand Committee about the problem of dealing with carbon and why one cannot gasify it to produce electricity. ROCs can be generated from the biomass in municipal waste, but one has to deduct all the energy produced by the plastic mixed in with it. This is actually too difficult, and therefore it does not happen very much. How is one to calculate how much is biomass and how much is plastic?
  I put this proposition to the Government as a very seriously intended way of combining the problem of reducing the amount of waste going to landfill from these two categories of product, which can be dealt with in exactly the same way as the others that do qualify, but only if these ones can now qualify for the incentive of renewable option certificates. One has to ask how the Government are going to meet their renewable targets if they do not explore every available option. I have just been reading through Ofgem's latest report on the administration of ROCs. Although it is a year out of date, there is a very long way to go if one is to meet the targets. How are the Government to meet their landfill targets if they do not use the available technology to minimise the waste volumes that are being tipped?
  I believe that this is a very sensible amendment. It would add to the Bill and to the credibility of the Government's targets both for energy and for reducing landfill. It would be greatly to the advantage of this country. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise briefly to thank the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding, for raising an interesting point. I do not agree entirely, but it is an issue worthy of debate. I shall make just two points. First, there is another option for tyres which has just come to my knowledge, although I expect that other Members of the Committee knew of it before. Rather appropriately, one can now mix tyres with bitumen in order to create road surfacing that is particularly quiet. It is especially suitable for places where noise is an issue. I gather that it is also quite light and particularly suitable for laying over peat bases such as on the Somerset moors where the roads are constantly warping. It is very hard to put a heavy surface on such bases. It was in that context that I first came across this new use for tyres. It is particularly desirable if they produce a quiet surface.
  I do not think that the gasification process has yet been sufficiently proved to the public. Nevertheless, "gasification" is probably an easier word to sell than "incineration", as no one wants to have an incinerator near them. I realise that that is not a good reason for not considering the option. However, there needs to be a whole process of proof about how clean this technology can be before it will be at all acceptable to the public.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I thought I had made it clear that gasification is quite different from incineration. It is not a form of burning, but of applying advanced heat to the plastic so that it decomposes and the various constituent parts can be trapped. The process is widely used in this country through what the order calls advanced technologies and it seems that it could be perfectly well used for this plastic. I am advised that it is entirely practical and is a way of getting rid of 8 billion shopping bags a year.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: That may well be; however, the Westbury example, where the cement plant was gasifying tyres, created a huge amount of controversy. The noble Lord may well be right that this technology has come of age but I think that several issues still worry the public. It could be gasification—it is different from incineration, but the public perception of it is very similar. I accept that the noble Lord knows much more about this than I do and while I think it is worthy of debate, I would not be able to support his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: It is a small thing, but unless I am seriously adrift, if the bulk of the tyre is rubber, surely it is biomass, because it is naturally produced as a result of sap which comes from trees. This is a somewhat convoluted argument. I would prefer to see tyres used for road surfacing because in that way, the carbon in the rubber remains locked in. Although gasification will clearly produce a great deal of energy which will be extremely useful—we could legitimately argue that the process is environmentally neutral because of the biomass aspect—I still think it would be better, if possible, to leave the carbon locked in.
  Lord Whitty: To reply to the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, regrettably, most tyres no longer come straight from the rubber trees in Malaya. Therefore, I do not think many of them would constitute biomass.
  I can see the attraction of the creative lateral thinking demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. He is trying to solve a problem in waste management by changing energy policy. The problem is that it leads to an illogicality in energy policy in a possible distortion of the targets set down in energy policy. In reality, the problem of waste plastic and waste tyres needs to be resolved by making landfill less attractive and available, and other means of disposal or recycling more attractive. The noble Baroness referred to using tyres in the roads—this breakthrough came when I was a Minister responsible for roads, and I am greatly in favour of it. I hope that the technology can develop, because that form of recycling, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, locks in the carbon better than gasification, let alone incineration of leaving items to disintegrate in the countryside.
  If we were to go down the noble Lord's road, we would be redefining renewables to include something which is clearly not renewable and is fossil-fuel based. That is the thin end of a very large wedge. It also means that if this proposal were to displace the incentive to pursue other real renewables—although as the noble Lord said that the impact would be very small, it does not matter—it would not be contributing to the delivery of our energy targets. Although I do not like to keep policy entirely within the box, this is better resolved through policy on waste management and recycling than it is by distorting, however marginally but quite crucially, the definition of the renewables obligation. Therefore, I must, with perhaps a little regret, resist the amendment.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Out of the mouths of Ministers comes the end truth. Of course, the objections to this and to a number of other

  GC 245
  amendments that we have moved relating to coal mine methane or combined heat and power have been made because, if the amendments were not resisted, they would have an impact on the attractiveness of the incentives for wind power. As I said yesterday, I find the argument distressing.
  Having written a White Paper that is all about reducing carbon emissions—which is what is damaging the atmosphere and leading to climate change—and having gone on to say that the best way in which to reduce the emissions is to go for wind and tide power and so on, the Government have related all their targets not to the reducing of carbon but to the increasing of wind power. It has become an objective instead of the means. The objective should be to reduce carbon. All the amendments that we have moved on the subject, such as the ones on combined heat and power, coal mine methane and the gasification of plastics and rubber have aimed at reducing the carbon emissions into the atmosphere. That is what the Government should be doing.
  Debates in Committee are valuable because one gradually untangles the arguments. In his reply to me on the last amendment, the Minister virtually admitted that the Government are rejecting the amendment because it would reduce the attractiveness of the incentives to wind power. I have to accept that that is the Government's policy, but I hope that it will not be the policy of any party that I support in government, because I believe it to be woefully mistaken. I entirely accept Sir David King's arguments, in his Seattle speech, about the imperative necessity of reducing carbon emissions. However, if one turns one's back on some of the really effective ways in which to reduce emissions to protect the incentives for wind power, I believe that policy has gone mad. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 160 agreed to.
  Clause 161 agreed to.
  Schedule 23 [Repeals]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 147A:
  Page 244, line 15, column 2, at beginning insert -Section 27(2), (3) and (6)."—(Lord Whitty.)
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 162 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 148:
  Page 126, line 13, at end insert—
  "( ) Section 81 will only come into effect after the establishment of an appropriate training course and the successful completion of same by a number of inspectors sufficient to enforce the regulations."
  The noble Baroness said: Having helped the Government, I hope that they might help me. I raise a very important but very simple point. Clause 81 imposes duties on electrical inspectors to cover the territorial sea around Great Britain and the renewable energy zones. Such inspectors will, I am sure, be competent to examine the electrical installations.
  GC 246
  However, the generation of electricity at sea and its transmission from the sea to land is not likely to have been covered to date in most training courses—although the Minister may tell me that they are. Apart from anything else, the fact that they will be working from a boat must make a difference, even if each turbine is designed with a platform, adjustable or fixed, to provide a firm stance.
  Is the Minister confident about the commissioning of wind turbines in the sea before there are sufficient inspectors trained to examine these installations and pronounce them both safe and legal? It may well be that there are. This is very much a probing amendment as I do not know the answer. In other words, those who are building wind turbines offshore surely cannot be allowed to go live until it is certain that there are enough inspectors to carry out the duties under the Bill. Is the Minister confident about that? How many inspectors are there, if there are any already in being? Where are they based and will they be moved around the country as and when the offshore wind turbines are built? I beg to move.
  Lord Triesman: We have reached the last amendment seven lines from the end of this mammoth Bill. This is a complex matter and I see that I have an hour and twenty minutes in which to address it. That was a sad attempt at a joke and I apologise immediately for it.
  I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that, of course, we agree about the need to have an adequate number of trained inspectors to enforce the Electricity Act regulations in this respect. However, I hope that she will agree with me that the amendment is not necessary to achieve that. The DTI has in place a team of trained electrical engineering inspectors for the purposes of enforcing regulations governing the safety, quality and supply of electricity. Although I am not in a position today to provide precise numbers, I am certainly willing to do so as soon as I can. However, I can say that the DTI regards itself as having an appropriate and adequate team.
  The fact that the energy installation will be offshore—the noble Baroness was right to say that the situation will be different in terms of working practice—is not in the department's view likely to alter the nature of the inspectors' work. These will be operational matters for the chief engineering officer. The belief is that that is a well understood process and that there should be no difficulty. Any issue of supply is more likely to surround the onshore connection arrangements rather than the offshore connection. It' an inspector was required to visit an offshore installation as part of an investigation, that would be done by arrangement with the operator concerned and would include all the necessary health and safety training. We consider that the matter is properly covered. If there is any further detail, we shall be most happy to provide it. However, I hope that the

  GC 247
  assurance that I have given will be sufficient in relation to the amendment. For the final time, I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing the amendment.
  Baroness Buford: I thank the Minister for his response. I had said that the measure was a probing amendment as there did not seem to be any detail in the Bill about the matter. I await with gratitude detailed information on numbers and how it is anticipated that the measure will work. It is with great pleasure that I withdraw the final amendment in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 149:
  Page 126, line 19, leave out "section" and insert "sections (Modification of licence conditions for offshore transmission and distribution), (Extension of transmission licences offshore) and"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 162 agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at fourteen minutes past six o'clock.

  Civil Service Pension Schemes
  Civil Service Pension Schemes
  Small Arms and Light Weapons
  Small Arms and Light Weapons
  Apache Helicopter
  Apache Helicopter
  Project SLAM
  Project SLAM
  Service Personnel: Medical Consultations
  Service Personnel: Medical Consultations
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Angela Cannings
  Angela Cannings
  Parents
  Parents
  Schools: Physical Activity
  Schools: Physical Activity
  European Year of Education through Sport
  European Year of Education through Sport
  Health Professions Council
  Health Professions Council
  NHS: Transplant and Critical Care Specialists
  NHS: Transplant and Critical Care Specialists
  Sport: Equality in Participation
  Sport: Equality in Participation
  Gangmasters
  Gangmasters
  Airports: Cleaning Equipment
  Airports: Cleaning Equipment
  Government Procurement
  Government Procurement
  Wild Birds: Imports
  Wild Birds: Imports
  Railways
  Railways
  Government IT Projects: Gateway Reviews
  Government IT Projects: Gateway Reviews
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line

  Lord Chancellor: Ecclesiastical Functions
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  I should like to make a Statement on the Government's approach to certain functions of the Lord Chancellor in the light of responses to the consultation document Constitutional Reform: reforming the office of Lord Chancellor. A summary of the responses was published on 26 January. Last week I introduced a Constitutional Reform Bill into Parliament. The Bill provides for the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, as well as for the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission and the creation of a Supreme Court, and will, where necessary, make statutory provision to give effect to our approach.

  Ecclesiastical Patronage

  Since the 14th century the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Crown has exercised patronage in relation to a number of parishes and cathedral canonries. This patronage is administered with other Crown patronage through a combined office.

  With the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor the Government propose that the Lord Chancellor's patronage should revert to the Crown. Legislation is not required to achieve this. This reversion to the Crown will ensure administrative consistency and take full advantage of existing mechanisms and expertise. Respondents to the consultation and others have made clear how much they value the role of the Crown in a mixed pattern of patronage.

  Other ecclesiastical functions

  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who has ministerial responsibilities in relation to the Church, will assume the Lord Chancellor's role as Church Commissioner. Similarly, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will take the Lord Chancellor's role in relation to certain ecclesiastical judicial or legal appointments. Where these appointments concern a serving judge in the secular courts he will first consult the Lord Chief Justice. Relevant provisions will be included in the Constitutional Reform Bill.

  Visitatorial Jurisdiction

  The Sovereign is visitor at certain charitable institutions where no other visitor is named. By convention, the Sovereign's visitatorial jurisdiction is usually delegated to the Lord Chancellor. In addition, the Lord Chancellor holds the title of visitor to a number of organisations in his own right. In these cases the Lord Chancellor's visitatorial functions will revert to the Sovereign with the abolition of his office.
  WS 52
  For the future, proposals in the Higher Education Bill will remove the jurisdiction of the visitor over student complaints, the majority of visitorship issues. For other visitorship responsibilities we propose that the Secretary of State advise the Sovereign on a case-by-case basis and where appropriate appoint a suitably qualified person, such as a serving or retired judge, to undertake the function on behalf of the Queen. This change will not require primary legislation.

  Charitable and other Institutions

  The Lord Chancellor has a specific role in respect to a number of institutions and schools where he is mentioned in their governing documents. Unless specific action is taken, that absence of the office of Lord Chancellor could cause problems for some of these institutions. Some academic institutions will be affected by the change of visitor. In consultation, some of these institutions have indicated that they wish to amend their governing instruments to reflect the abolition of that office.

  To assist such organisations I am proposing to take a power in the Constitutional Reform Bill to be able to amend charters, orders in council or other instruments as a consequence of the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor.

  Great Seal

  The Great Seal is used to signify the royal will and authenticate acts of the Sovereign or the Government acting in the name of the Monarch. As I made clear in the consultation document Reforming the office of Lord Chancellor, his responsibilities in relation to the Great Seal are to transfer to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who is (after the Prime Minister) the principal source of advice on matters relating to the Crown, and who will have a specific duty to defend and uphold the independence of the judiciary.

  Appointments to the senior judiciary are made under the Great Seal. It is an important part of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, and the new partnership with the executive, that the custody of the Great Seal can be changed only with a clear decision by Parliament through primary legislation. Provisions in the Bill make clear that custody of the Great Seal can be moved away from the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs only by primary legislation.

  Healthcare Practitioners: Statutory Regulation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr Hutton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  In the interest of public safety, we have today published two consultation papers on the statutory regulation of healthcare practitioners. The papers seek views on the extension of regulation to a wider range

  WS 53
  of healthcare staff and on proposals for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture practitioners.

  A related consultation paper on the reform of the regulation of unlicensed herbal remedies made up to meet the needs of individual patients has also been published today by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

  Copies of the three consultation papers have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pharmaceutical Services
  Lord Warner
  My honourable friend the Minister of State (Ms Rosie Winterton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
  WS 54
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the executive summary of the report of the advisory group on the reform of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992. It is also available on the department's website at:

  http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/pharmacyregulationconsultation/advisorygroup.htm.

  The Government are considering the group's advice carefully and will make further announcements as soon as possible. We will publish the report in full when we publish changes to the regulations later this year.

  I have also placed in the Library copies of the summary of responses, which was published on Monday 1 March, to the consultation on A Vision Pharmacy in the New NHS. It is available on the department's website at:

  http://www.dh.gov.uk/Consultations/ResponsesToConsultations/fs/en.